Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-03-11

him to do certain things. God knew when he
CREASED men Just what they would do and was
nole to judge them at the beginning Of their
lives - well - at the close.
| KNorTr QUESTION.
| ''The most knotty question in the confession
OF faith," said Rev. Mr.. McIlvaine, 'is that
q forsordination to everlasting death. "
w Vsa; he vent . On to SAY s shsts
hrming the doctrine Of foreordination "a
| everlasting lie, it was difficult to find biblical
proof OF the opposite, namely, REORGANIZATION to
everlasting death. The speaker declared that
the words REORGANIZATION and predestination
ing to the best authorities. This
was questioned by some Of the member
and Rev. DR.. Fullerton said the words in the
Greek had q different meaning. Al he under
stood it predestination was . direct act
Of God, while men were forordained to death
because OF sin.
| AouxsT1oN or DEFINITIONS
Rev. DR.. Bittinger said the best authorities
made the words synonymous. Any definition
that made difference in the meaning Of the
| words was apart from the common meaning of
these words, and for that reason their use was
| Objectionable. The doctrines Of the church
ought 70 be clothed in language that could be
understood not by the learned alone.
Resuming, Mr.. McIlvaine said that the DIFF
| ference in the meaning of the words was, con-
fessedly, very slight The doctrine Of foreor-
dination to everlasting death was supported by
only a few obscure texts in the Bible. For his
own part he did not believe that this doctrine
was scriptural, and further, 1t was contradicted
by what was known of the nature OF God
| He said that there we're thousands in the
church who did not believe this doctrine and
| did not believe that the Bible taught it. Presi-
| dent Patton has said that this doctrine was not
| an essential part Of the system of Calvinism.
The speaker said that he did not believe this
| doctrine when he was ordained as q minis
ter. and when he was questioned ty
Rev. DR.. Chester as to how he could give his as
| sent to the doctrines Of the church the
speaker said that he did not believe this doc
| trine to be part of Calvinism. Judge Drake
made the point that If none were condemne
| then all must be saved.
This phase was further developed by a series
| OF questions put by Rev. DR.. Fullerton, who
! asked if God had foreknowledge and il he con-
demned men for their sins was it not the
same AZ saying that they were foreordsined to
everlasting death.
difference in his opinion between the knowl-
edge OF God and the DEGREES Of God.
NO RIGHT TO ARRAIaN GOD.
1t was argued by Judge Drake, who made an
elaborate speech, that the election Of men by
God to eternal life was q sovereign act Of
God, while his passing by of some was
also sovereign act. He said men had no
right TO arraign God for the exercise Of His
sovereign power. But it was not, as has been
represented that 1T was, an act of God by which
men were condemned to death without any re-
gard to their lives As IL was stated in another
section Of the confession God passed BY men
and then ordained them to wrath because of
their sins.
QUESTION NOT ANSWERED.
Rev. DR.. Hamilton asked whether the pass
ing By Of God OF any individual settled his
| destiny.
God has not answered that question" re-
Piled Judge Drake. 1.-The first step is to pass
by man and then the next step is to ordain
him to dishonor for his sins''
II don't believe that question was ever
answered" observed Rev. Mr. Ramsdell.
DR.. Hamlin expressed his dissatisfaction with
the answer given by Judge Drake and then the
latter proceeded to say that he hoped the men,
bers would not be led to break down the doc
trine OF the sovereignty of God.
"Amen!' ferventiy CALCULATED DR.. Hamlin.
Judge Drake, continuing, said that God gave
the opportunity to all to be saved, but those
who rejected His offer he passed by.
NOT DR.. BARrLErr's IDEA.
"Nov you mean to say" inquired DR.. Bart
lett, "that God could have saved these men if
he had wanted top
yes" replied Judge Drake.
"Now, il that is your idea Of God" said DR..
Bartlett, lit is a very bad idea"
FEARFUL OF THE RESULTS OF CHANGE.
Judge Drake maintained that God and his
purposes could not be judged by men. In con-
GLIDING his address Judge Drake said that it
would be impossible to predict what would be
, ,s result chsna upon the church Of making
other and more radical changes, ultimately
tending to the destruction of the confession
In his opinion this phase Of the matter ought
to be seriously considered. In a solemn, earn
est manner the speaker urged the presbytery
to act with care and consideration. He asked
the ministers If they had tried to explain these
statements to their people, and said that if
that was done the complaint could no longer be
made that the people did not understand some
portions Of the confession. He predicted that
AS in the time Of Jonathan Edwards q series of
doctrinal sermons would result in q revival OF
religion.
NOT PREPARED TO VOTE.
DR.. Hamlin stated that he would be unable
to be present at the session this afternoon an d
asked il the presbytery was ready to vote now
on the proposed change. The presbytery de-
cided thatit was not prepared to vote at that
time.
DIR. HAML1N's CONCLUDING SPEECH.
DR.. Hamlin then made his concluding speech
Of the debate. He said that in the hair-split-
ting definitions Of words more error in religion
had been caused than from most any other
| cause. He agreed with Albert Barnes that the
Bible presumably means what the average
reader sees in it. In reference to the question
Of the free knowledge Of God and the condem-
nation of men to death, he said that God does
have knowledge Of what a mans life is to be-,
but that does not mean that he has condemned
him from the beginning to death. He did not
believe that men were lost because God had
condemned them but because Of their Sill. The
whole question involved in the doctrine of
| Reproduction was whether q man could be saved
After IN in he