The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted Part 5

The Rev. Dr. Fairchild, in his famous _Great Supper_, says: "Calvinists do not regard the decrees of G.o.d as extending to all events in the same manner. Some things G.o.d has determined to _effect_ by his own agency, and other things he has decreed to _permit_ or _suffer_ to be."

But, if the Calvinistic doctrine be that his decrees merely "extend to all events" (a very different thing from his decreeing all events), and that while he "decrees" and "effects" some he merely "permits" or "suffers" other events, what must we understand to be the Arminian doctrine, against which they are called to contend so earnestly? Are they prepared to acknowledge that they have abandoned Calvinism and run into Arminianism? Do they mean to say that there is no difference between these systems on the point in question? Not at all. How then do they preserve the antagonism of the two creeds? What is the Arminianism against which they are arrayed? Dr. Musgrave thus attempts the solution of this question.

"Now, I submit, whether the difficulty, thus confessedly pressing against both systems, is not capable on our principles, of a much more full and satisfactory conclusion. For we not only say, as Wesley does, that 'G.o.d knew that it was best, on the whole, not to prevent the first sin of Adam,' but we add, that, knowing this, he determined not only to permit that, but all the sins that he knew would follow from it, and to limit and overrule the whole for his most excellent glory."

It seems, then, that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism respecting the Divine decrees is that Calvinism affirms that G.o.d knew it was best, on the whole, not to prevent the sins which he has not prevented, but to permit, and limit and overrule them, while Arminianism affirms that G.o.d knew it would be best, on the whole, not to prevent the _first_ sin, but determined to prevent all the sins that he foresaw would flow from it. What a strange statement! To what shifts are these men driven by their unfortunate creed! Where does Mr. Wesley, or any other Arminian writer, say this directly or indirectly? Our author very wisely declines any references at this point. Mr.

Wesley does, indeed, deny that G.o.d permitted sin, even the "first sin of Adam," in the sense of approving or tolerating it; but whoever denied that G.o.d permits, in the sense of suffering--not forcibly preventing, the sins which actually occur? He appropriates to himself, unfairly, Mr. Wesley's doctrine, and then imputes to Mr.

Wesley a tenet so perfectly foolish that it may be doubted whether any man ever advanced it, whether sane or insane, drunk or sober.

No! these are not the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism respectively. The reader will see the importance of the pains taken, in the first discourse, to identify Calvinism. I proved beyond dispute, that Calvinistic creeds, Catechisms, and other theological treatises, teach explicitly, that G.o.d has purposed, decreed, foreordained, whatsoever comes to pa.s.s; that in some way or other he brings to pa.s.s all events; that nothing will, or can, come to pa.s.s but what he has ordained; that none of his purposes can be defeated; that it cannot, with truth, be said of any event--it may or may not occur; and that all actual results, by whatever means obtained, are expressions of the design, or decree of G.o.d. Arminianism teaches on the contrary, that G.o.d has not ordained whatsoever comes to pa.s.s--that some things he has preordained; that other things he has not, but has, nevertheless, approved and commanded them, leaving it to the free agency of the creature to fulfil his requisitions; that other things, he not only has not foreordained, but, has condemned and prohibited them, and yet permits or suffers them to be, in preference to that violent interference with free agency which would be necessary to their forcible prevention.

Dr. Fairchild tells us that "this distinction between a decree to _effect_ and a decree to _permit_ has been adopted by Predestinarian divines in all ages."

Yes, in all ages Predestinarian divines have been compelled to abandon and contradict their creed in the progress, and for the purpose, of its defence. But Calvin himself formally discards and protests against this distinction. He says respecting it: "A question of greater difficulty arises from other pa.s.sages, where G.o.d is said to incline or draw according to his own pleasure, Satan himself and all the reprobate. For the carnal understanding scarcely comprehends how he, acting by their means, contracts no defilement from their criminality, and even in operations common to himself and them, is free from every fault, and yet righteously condemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence was invented the distinction between _doing_ and _permitting_; because to many persons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan and all the impious are subject to the power and government of G.o.d, so that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses their crimes for the execution of his judgments. The modesty of those who are alarmed at the appearance of absurdity, might perhaps be excusable, if they did not attempt to vindicate the Divine justice by a pretence utterly dest.i.tute of any foundation in truth.

They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will and command of G.o.d, and afterwards be punished for his blindness.

They therefore evade the difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission of G.o.d, and not by the will of G.o.d; but G.o.d himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge."

But Calvin protests in vain against resorting to this "evasion"

and "subterfuge." It is the only way in which the advocates of his doctrine can make a plausible show of argument when pressed with certain objections. Hence we find the Westminster divines employing it. They tell us in their Confession of Faith, that G.o.d was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to _permit_ the sin of our first parents. Lest, however, the faithful should fall into a serious mistake, another part a.s.sures them that the providence of G.o.d "extendeth itself to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a _bare permission_, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, &c." The nature of that "ordering and governing" is explained in the declaration that "G.o.d from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pa.s.s."

But how learned men can talk of G.o.d's permitting what he has eternally and unchangeably ordained, is a mystery to some of the unlearned. Is it necessary to tell us, gravely, that G.o.d permits to come to pa.s.s that which from all eternity he freely ordained shall come to pa.s.s? He permits men and angels to do what he has predetermined they shall do, and what they cannot avoid doing!

Wonderful!!

The apology for this gross misapplication of language, on the part of men whose learning is sometimes magnified almost into infallibility, is found in their distressing emergency. In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.

The usefulness of this term "permit" is admirably indicated by the account which a Presbyterian colporteur gives of an interview with some who objected to the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees. He says:--

"I felt myself, however, sometimes compelled to combat with the opponents of our Calvinistic creed. On one occasion entering a house, the members of which all attended the Presbyterian Church, but were not members, I sold a Confession of Faith to the gentleman; his lady inquired what the name of the book was and on being told, after turning over its pages in a hasty manner, exclaimed: 'I could never allow that book to be under my roof--it should not be read, and it never ought to have been printed.'

"What was I to do? The doctrine of our Church, so far as election is concerned, was attacked. After some little conversation on the subject, I found that she and her son charged our Confession with teaching that G.o.d pa.s.sed a decree which put the fall of Adam beyond the possibility of escape."

Here was an exigency. Let us see how he meets it. That the Confession does teach the doctrine which the lady and her son ascribed to it, is as plain as anything can be. He _decreed whatsoever comes to pa.s.s_, and _executes_ his decrees. Does he ask her what objections she has to this doctrine and offer to refute them? Does he directly and promptly deny that Calvinism teaches this doctrine? No! Such a course would be rather hazardous, considering the character of the books he was seeking to distribute, and did actually leave with them. What course, then, does he take? "I told her," says he, "if the chapter on the fall of man said so, I was as loath to believe it as she was; and if she could find it so, I would condemn the doctrine." Mark! He does not say, unconditionally and unequivocally that he condemned the doctrine, and was as loath to believe it as she was, but _if the chapter which treated on the fall of man said so_. Well, what follows: "On turning to the 6th chapter, how surprised was she to read--This their sin G.o.d was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel to _permit_.'" This word _permit_ helped him out of his difficulty. "Here was a fact," says he, "of which they had never heard before, and which gave them no little satisfaction."

He doubtless left them under the impression that the Confession of Faith does not teach that G.o.d decreed and brought to pa.s.s the sin of Adam. However, he did not leave them until they willingly purchased the _Confession of Faith, the Great Supper_, and _Fisher's Catechism_, which a.s.serts, as I have already shown, that "the very reason why anything comes to pa.s.s in time is, because G.o.d has decreed it," that "none of the decrees of G.o.d can be defeated, or fail of execution;" and that G.o.d "predetermines the creature to such or such an action, and not to another, shutting up all other ways of acting, and leaving that only open which he had determined to be done."

Another presumption in favor of Arminianism results from the readiness with which Methodist preachers are installed as pastors of Calvinistic churches, both old and new school, with the understanding, if their own statements be reliable, that they are not required to renounce or contradict the Arminian creed.

Arminian ministers are coming into great demand by Calvinists.

They are admitted into the Methodist ministry with the understanding that they are sound Arminians. They remain for years without exciting the least suspicion of their orthodoxy. When, all at once, without any prior change of ecclesiastical relations, or intimation of a change of theological views, they walk into Calvinistic pulpits.

I make no remarks at present upon the morality of this course, but deduce that Arminianism preaching, to some extent, is necessary to keep up Calvinistic congregations.

Methodists, you may well prize your creed. Your ministers can preach it without reserve. You can defend it. The water of life comes to you through no corrupting medium. You are in no danger of inhaling poisonous sediment. It will bear a.n.a.lysis. It comes to you fresh and abundant. Drink it, and dig channels wide and long for its diffusion, that others may be blest as you are.