_First._ The idea of total hereditary depravity which never can be
correlated with accountability.
_Second._ The idea of those who were never converted being rewarded
according to their own deeds, when they were never upon trial; for a man
must have ability to try before he can be tried, and that ability must
extend to the accomplishment of that to which the trial relates. Wesley’s
Discipline says, The condition of man since the fall of Adam is such that
he can not, by his own natural strength, turn and prepare himself to faith
and calling upon God, without the grace of God by Christ going before to
give him good will, and working with him when he has that good will.
If it is improper to say that a man can by his own natural strength turn
and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God, it is, also, improper
to say he is naturally accountable, for where ability ceases,
accountability also terminates. But a prop is found in “the grace of God
by Christ going before to give a good will, and to work with that good
will.” So the grace of God by Christ must go before to displace a bad will
by giving “a good one.” But this fails to relieve the doctrine from
embarrassment; for if the sinner is unwilling, has a bad will, it is
claimed that the Spirit goes away and leaves him to die in his
helplessness. Does the Omnipotent Spirit go to a man to give him a good
will, and then refuse to give it because the poor man has it not already?
Do you say he resisted? Well, well; suppose he did? _What_, is that in the
way of an Omnipotent Spirit? Who can explain such nonsense?
If I had a son laboring under the conviction that the Bible is the source
of such teachings, and he was to become disgusted and fall out with it on
that account, I should be proud of his common-sense. Is the poor man
mocked in that manner? If he dies in his sins, on account of his not being
in possession of a good will, can his future reward be according to the
deeds done by himself? No! He was never on trial—he had no ability to try.
There is just as much sense in the idea that an ape is on trial. Adam, the
first, ruined him; and Adam, the second, did not help him. Can a man be
justly condemned because he was not what he never had the power to be?
_Third._ The idea that the Lord would command men to _convert themselves_,
knowing, at the same time, that they could not do it. He commands men to
convert. He “commands all men everywhere to repent.” He knows, also, that
they can do it; so Protestantism, to the contrary, is an everlasting
disgrace to our religion. The original term translated by the word convert
is in the _imperative active_ in many places. Our translators put it in
the passive in the third chapter of Acts, where it is imperative active in
the original. Why they did this no scholar can tell, unless it was to
favor their Calvinistic ideas upon conversion. The term occurs forty-seven
times in the New Testament, and it is translated thirty-eight times by the
words _turn_ and _return_.
Paul says he “showed to the people that THEY SHOULD TURN TO GOD, and do
works meet for repentance.”
This great thought harmonizes with all that is taught upon the subject of
future rewards. A man _can turn_, and he is therefore accountable. To make
man responsible, it must be shown that he is capable, or able. This is the
one great fact that lies at the foundation of future rewards and
punishment. Take this fact away and the justice of God is imperiled by the
teachings of the Bible upon the subject of the future retribution. I know
that men who are under the influence of the traditions of their fathers
and mothers turn from the truth upon this question and say hard things
against it; but I know, also, that those same men speak the same sentiment
when they talk about the future judgment.
_Fourth._ The idea that the Divine Spirit must convert the man, and that
it passes the unwilling soul without giving him ability that he may be
tried, for a man must be able to attain the desired object, otherwise
trial is mere mockery. So, according to this kind of teaching, justice is
mocked, and the sinner is sent to perdition without anything more than a
mock trial; _i.e._, without being tried. If this be not true, the theory
of helplessness growing out of Adam’s sin is utterly false, and man’s
salvation, under all dispensations, is presented to us as a matter that
was, and is, disposed of by himself, he being able, in his own natural
strength, to turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God.
Again, all men pray. It is instinctive to pray. It is an instinct that
defies reason and philosophy. If men have not “natural strength to turn
and prepare themselves to faith and calling upon God,” then they are not
_naturally_ responsible _nor_ accountable.
_Fifth._ The idea that the Spirit goes to the unwilling sinner to give him
a good will, and then, because the man is not willing already, departs
from him, leaving him in his sins to continue in his helpless, wicked
condition until, having passed a mock judgment, he is banished to outer
darkness, for if the man was never able to do otherwise on account of his
helplessness, why should he be condemned? Tell him it is for his own deeds
and you mock his good sense.
_Sixth._ The idea that Christ died for an elect few, and damns all the
balance because they don’t believe he died for them, _when he did not_.
_Seventh._ The idea that Christ died for a few, and commissioned his
disciples to preach the fact to all nations—to every creature, as “glad
tidings of great joy,” which was “to be unto all people,” when it is,
according to the doctrine that he did not die for all, positively no good
news to any soul that was passed by.
_Eighth._ The idea that all who are finally lost, will be in that sad
condition because of unbelief, when, if they had believed that Christ died
for them they would have believed a falsehood, because Calvinists say no
soul for whom Jesus died will be lost.