Debates by various

01.001 RHODES-WEST DEBATE

At Friendship Primitive Baptist Church,

El Dorado, Ark., August 9-12, 1943,

Between

Elders R. W. Rhodes and Ariel West

PROPOSITIONS DISCUSSED

1. The Scriptures teach that God, from the beginning, did absolutely predestinate all things, both good and evil, whatsoever comes to pass. Elder Rhodes affirmed.

2. The Scriptures teach that the salvation of God's people here in time, after regeneration, is conditional on them living up to Scriptural requirements; also, their suffering and afflictions are conditional on them not living as they are commanded. Elder West affirmed.

Reported by R. F. Lemur, Shreveport, La.

Elder J. L Smith was moderator for Elder Rhodes during the first and second days, and Elder W. O. Beene served on the third and fourth days.

Elder C. H. Cayce served as moderator for Elder West.

Printed by.

CAYCE PUBLISHING COMPANY Thornton, Arkansas

01.002 FOREWORD

We send this book forth, trusting that it will be of some benefit to God's humble poor. We have not made any effort to present our arguments with enticing words of man's wisdom, but to present each side as we understand it.

We both said things that would have been better unsaid, but we send this record out as near as spoken as is possible for it to be made. May the reader examine every argument made in fairness and without prejudice. May truth stand and error fall, is our prayer.

R. W. RHODES.

ARIEL WEST.

March 19, 1944.

01.031 ELDER SMITH

Brethren and Sisters, I am happy at this time to read to you the proposition which is the province of Brother Rhodes to affirm in your presence and which Brother West, on the other hand, is to deny.

We are not here to question the honesty of Brother Rhodes or Brother West and we want to accord both men due honesty. We believe that each believes he is in the right in his contention of the propositions to be read, and then I shall read to you Hedge's Rules of Logic, by which I understand each disputant has agreed to be governed throughout this discussion.

PROPOSITION 1: The Scriptures teach that God, from the beginning, did absolutely predestinate all things, both good and evil, whatsoever comes to pass.

The rules by which the speakers have agreed to be governed read thus:

The terms in which the question in debate is expressed and the precise point at issue should be so clearly defined that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them.

The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talent, knowledge, and desire for truth with himself, and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

All expressions which are unmeaning or without effect in regard to the subject in debate should be strictly avoided.

Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged.

No one has a right to accuse an adversary of indirect motives.

The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it unless he expressly avows them.

As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced on either side should be examined in fairness and candor and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavil or ridicule is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. I do not believe that the eighth rule is given in full verbatim, but it simply means this: That no new matter is to be introduced in the final negative of any question.

Thus, I believe, you have the first proposition, with Brother Rhodes in the affirmative and Brother West in the negative, to be governed by the rules as read to you. We are now ready to proceed.

01.04 ELDER RHODES' FIRST AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Elder West, and Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am glad to be here this morning for the purpose of giving a reason, Scripturally, for what I believe in my religious profession; what I believe the Scriptures teach, and I believe this proposition, as read in your hearing, dearly expresses the differences between myself and my opponent as to this doctrine.

I would like to say, before I go into the defining of my proposition, that I do not know Elder West. I never met him before. As for myself, I joined the Primitive Baptist Church in 1914, some twelve or thirteen years after the division between the factions-if that is the proper word to use-that Elder West and I belong to, respectively. I have an idea that Elder West is a much younger man than I, and, also, that he probably joined after the division; however, I would like to say that whether that is the case, or whether it is not the case, I feel that my own individual case is without having been prejudiced through the heated discussion when the division took place.

My proposition, as read, I will now define. The Scriptures teach-and by that is meant that the Scriptures state directly, or teach by implication or by suggestion-that God from the beginning-and we understand what that means-that from the beginning of all creation did absolutely-which means to decree beforehand, or ordain the act of decreeing, which means absolutely unconditional, and when the term "absolute predestination" or "absolutely did predestinate" all things both good and evil, whatsoever comes to pass, that is dear and needs no interpretation, because it says "all things," and that is exactly what we mean. That is exactly what we think the Scriptures teach. I fully realize there are many places in the Scriptures that "all things" or "all men" means what is under consideration. But in this proposition, as outlined here, I mean all things and I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I mean all things.

Now, I want to give you some of the definitions that Webster gives of the main words in this proposition.

"Predestine: To decree beforehand; to foreordain."

"Predestination: The act of decreeing or foreordaining events; especially, theology, the doctrine that God has from eternity unchangeably appointed or determined whatsoever comes to pass; particularly that He has preordained men to everlasting happiness or misery, and is a part of the unchangeable plan of the Divine Government." In other words, the unchangeable purpose of an unchangeable God. Thus Webster's direct quotation; "Predetermine, to settle or determine beforehand: to determine to settle in purpose or counsel."

"Foreordain, to ordain or appoint beforehand; to preordain; to predestinate; to predetermine."

"Appoint, to fix, to settle or to establish; to constitute, ordain, or fix, by decree or decision, as to appoint a holiday. 'When He appointed the foundation of the earth.'-Pr 8:23. To allot or assign to; to designate by authority, as to appoint a committee; to appoint a guardian; to appoint a time for the meeting; to ordain, command, ,or order. 'Thy servants are ready to do whatsoever my Lord, the king, shall appoint.' -2Sa 15:15. To appoint, to ordain or decree." "The Lord had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel." That is just about as hard a word to pronounce as you will find, so you can skip it if you want to. It is 2Sa 17:14. I believe that explains my definition of the proposition as, outlined.

I want to introduce this proposition by the use of Ac 4:27-28. I believe this Scripture most clearly and most pointedly expresses what I believe this proposition to teach: "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." The apostle doesn't only assert just an ordinary assertion. He says, "For of a truth against thy holy child, Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done:"

What did they do? Did they have anything except evil intentions? Were they trying, longingly, to fulfill that which God had determined? No. They had no idea of doing that.

They did not believe in Him and said, "Away with Him, is not meet that He should live upon the earth." So, I want to say, friends, that the environment that moved all of these wicked men at-this time wherein some of the things, "Whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel before determined to be done." And while I believe each and every one of them acted under the wicked influences and leadership of the devil, if you please, yet it was what God had before determined to be done, and not only "whatsoever that God had before determined to be done," but also what His hand, if you please, had sponsored to that end. These men could not have been where they were if it had not been for the hand of God. There is nothing that lives without a cause. You cannot lift yourself by your bootstraps. All of these men, in every breath that they breathed, was by the power of Almighty God. And yet, their leadership, I will admit, was of the devil, as it was with Judas when he betrayed the Saviour. He said, "He it is to whom I shall give a sop, and He gave it to Judas." I next want to notice, in connection with this, Ac 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." I want you to know that this Scripture emphatically declares that it was according to the determinate counsel of Almighty God. It is a plain statement of Scripture. You cannot ignore the fact of the importance of the crucifixion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He was crucified for His people. He was crucified for their salvation and for their justification. If it had not been fixed, and determined and settled thus, something might have "wabbled on the gudgeon," and the whole thing uncertain.

So I want to say, my friends, to begin with, that not only this but "all things" else were leading up to the grand and glorious crucifixion, and as wicked and heinous as it was, they meant to destroy Him; to put Him out of the way because they didn't like Him. They didn't know anything that was good concerning Him. Not only that, but after He had performed miracles, after He had healed the sick and restored sight to the blind, and all of these things, their hearts were so hardened, and they still persisted, and said that he had a devil in all of these things. I say, my friends, that He went forth conquering and to conquer, and the reason why Judas and these other people-I mean Herod and Pontius Pilate and all of those fellows did this-the direct reason was their own wills in the matter. The primary reason was because God had ordered it that way. You might say, then, doesn't He punish them for what He orders? Does He punish them for the things that He has commanded? What about Pharaoh? "Thus sayeth the Lord, Let my people go, yet I will harden his heart so that he shall not let them go." The Lord commanded him thus through Moses, saying, "Let my people go," and he refused. Why? The Lord tells you why he refused. Simply because that He said in the ninth chapter of Romans (Ro 9), "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew forth my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." For that purpose. You can't tell me that God would be disappointed at all. How could God be thwarted in any of His purposes and decrees? I say, my friends, that I am glad that He has never been disappointed. Jesus said, "Behold, I go as determined."-Mt 26:24.

I next want to call your attention to Ro 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God." "There is no power but of God." What can you do against His power? I want to ask you if you, in your puny and weak thinking faculties, had the power to give or retain a dangerous weapon to a criminal-to a bank robber that was seeking to evade the law-if you had the power to give it to him, or if you had the power to take it from him, would you give it to him? No, sir. You wouldn't do that .because you are weak; because you are puny. You wouldn't give him that gun and feel assured that you could accomplish your purpose in capturing him. But yet, brethren and sisters and friends, all power is of God. "The powers that be are ordained of God." If you believe there is any other power except the power of God and the power that is ordained of God you do not believe this Scripture which I have just read in your hearing.

Then, I say, that when all of these evil powers that were brought against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, what did Jesus say? He said to Pilate, "For this purpose I came into the, world, and to this end was I born." He said, "Knowest thou not that I have the power to release thee and power to crucify thee?" Jesus said, "Thou canst have no power at all against me except it is given thee from above."-Joh 19:10-11. I say, my friends, that in every sense of the word God holds the breath and destiny of every living thing in His hand, and if it were not for that, we would be in a miserably bad fix.

I next want to introduce Da 2:28-29: "BUT there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream and the visions of thy head upon thy bed are these: as for thee, 0 king, thy thought came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and He that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass." I say, my friends, if there were no other Scripture but this one in all of the Book-we find that was a long time before Christ that the Lord took Daniel and told him that He was going to show him what shall be done in the latter days. Was it all good and pleasant and smooth matters that He was going to show him? No, sir. It was by the rise and fall of kingdoms, by the murderous ascension of kings to the throne-blasphemy, murder, and everything which is under consideration. The Lord showed him what shall be in the latter days. What shall be, and not what may or might not be, but what shall be.

I next come to Da 2:45: "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." Do you think, according to the Scriptures, that any of these things could fail to come to pass when the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof is sure? I say that these things are certain.

Just here I want to give my opponent some questions.

1. Did God determine in the counsel of His own will in eternity to make a world, and did He not engage His wisdom to devise the plan and His power to perform it?

2. Was not the wisdom of God abundantly sufficient to devise a plan for a world that would in all its parts, in every way, and at all times and places, meet and perform the demands of His will, and was not His power equally adequate to perform it?

3. Did not God will the existence of, and determine in the counsel of His will to make a world that would turn out in every way as it has, and could He not have made it so that it would have turned out differently if such would have suited His will and purpose better?

4. If it was God's will to have a world into which sin would never come, and yet, He engaged His wisdom and power to make one into which He knew sin would come, did He not knowingly engage His wisdom and power in the making of it so that it would result in the defeat of His own will?

5. Could sin have entered the world unless God had allowed it to enter? And could, not God have prevented its entrance as easily as to allow it? Would it have been best for it not to enter? If so, did God do that which was best when He allowed it to enter?

6. Did not God create all things for Himself? If so, do not all things belong to Him? And if they do, then did He not have the right to determine the exact sphere and position that each thing should occupy in the world?

7. If God created all things for Himself, then did He not have some use for, and some purpose to be fulfilled by each thing that He created? If so, did He not make them in such a way that they would be best suited for and most certain to serve the use and purpose for which he created them? If not, why not?

8. If God has determined to deal with man according to man's conduct and yet has not determined what man's conduct shall be, but has left man free to determine his own course of conduct independent of any influence which God has determined, then does not man determine both his own course and the course of God in all of God's dealings with him?

9. If God's conduct in dealing with man depends upon man's conduct, and yet man in the performance of said conduct does not depend upon God, then is not man more independent than God?

10. When God alone existed in eternity before time began, did not all time with all the events of time of every shade, grade and character depend upon Him as to whether they should ever exist or not?

11. If time with all of its various and varied events did, back in eternity, depend upon God as to whether they should ever exist or not, then did He purposely arrange for their existence, or did He do it accidentally?

12. If any part of the events of time did not or do not depend on God for existence, then would they not have been just as certain to exist had there been no God as they are?

13. If in eternity before time, time with all the events of time did depend upon God for existence, and yet some of them do not now depend upon Him for existence, will you please tell me when, where, and how, their dependence upon Him for existence ceased?

14. Did God eternalIy foreknow all things? If so, is His foreknowledge like Himself, immutable, and if it is, can any power in heaven, earth, or hell, change His knowledge or deceive Him? If not, can any event of time be changed from the way He knew it would be? If so, how could His foreknowledge stand?

15. Did God eternally foreknow anything independent of the counsel of His own will? If so, what was it, and upon what was such foreknowledge based?

16. Did God foreknow that this world and all the creatures therein would exist before and independent of His determination to make them? If not, did His foreknowledge of their independence rest on the fact that He had determined to make them?

Time expired.

01.05 ELDER WEST'S FIRST NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, my Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I appear before you in the negative of the proposition that you have heard read and which I will, for convenience sake, read again: "The Scriptures teach that God, from the beginning, did absolutely predestinate all things, both good and evil, whatsoever comes to pass." I want to say, first, that I am happy to have this privilege and opportunity of being here in your presence, and I hope that what we say or what we may do on this occasion will be to the honor of the cause of our Master.

I appear in the negative of this proposition because I do not believe it. I believe that our brother is honest in affirming the proposition which he has affirmed. I am going to notice a few things which he has said. Brother Rhodes, in the beginning of his speech, said that in many places "all things" in the Bible means what is under consideration.

I want you to keep that in mind.

ELDER RHODES (interrupting): I said in, many places "at all times" meant what was under consideration.

ELDER WEST (resuming argument): I want you to keep that in mind. I am going to call your attention to his first affirmative argument, which will be found in the fourth chapter of Acts (Ac 4:27), beginning with the 27th verse: "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." My friends, it doesn't say that the Lord from the beginning absolutely did predestinate all things that come to pass. That is what the brother's proposition says. I am going to say that if the proposition means exactly what he says it means, or if the text means exactly what Elder Rhodes says it means, it still does not say that all things that come to pass were predestinated by the Lord. I want you to notice the 25th verse: "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together." They were gathered together to do what? To take the life of the Son of God. That is what they met for. But they didn't take it. It was the Lord that purposed that His Son would lay His life down, but the mob did not take His life. For instance, on yesterday morning the folks in the city of EI Dorado met to save souls. The Lord had purposed that souls should be saved, and the preachers met for the purpose of saving souls. But they did not do it. That mob met for the purpose of taking the life of the Son of God. That is exactly what they intended to do. That was their intention, but they didn't do it. Somebody has said, "How do you know they didn't?" Well, I will read to you a little. I call your attention to the tenth chapter of the Gospel according to John (Joh 10:15), and the 15th verse: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: And I lay down my life for the sheep." All right; you ask the question: Did they take His life? I say, emphatically, no. His life was not taken by the mob, because the Son of God told the truth. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. The mob did not even help to do that. The mob was not the instigator in it. They hung Him between two thieves. They killed the thieves, but they did not kill the Son of God, because He laid His life down. So, the wicked acts of men and devils is not embraced in your text, but the Son of God laid His life down. "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down myself." Now, this is not sarcasm, but I would rather believe the Son of God than my brother. I would actually rather believe what the Son of God said about it than what any man in the world might say about it. So, "no man taketh it from me. I lay it down of myself." 

All right, we will pass on and notice another thing. He quotes Ac 1-28: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God." Does that mean all powers? Does that mean all powers are ordained by the Lord? Or does it have reference to some particular power? I wonder if the Lord meant for a young lady to be subject to the power of a sadist or rapist? I wonder if that is what that means? If a man were to rape your daughter, sir, I want to know if she is to be responsible or subject to his power. If that is the wicked act of men and devils, and the construction you put on the text is true, then, my friend, she has absolutely no right to resist; because the commandment ff God says, to be subject to the power of that lowdown dirty, devil and beast; to be 'subject to the powers that be. If that is what that means, our young lady has no right to protect her virtue. If a low-down reprobate comes along and wants to attack some young lady, she has no right to say a thing in the world about it, because she is to be subject to the powers that be. That is enough to say about that.

Da 2:28-29: "But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days." I am not going to deny that the Lord reveals secrets. I am not going to deny that the Lord impresses people and reveals things to them that will come to pass. That is not your proposition. You are affirming that He did predestinate all things that come to pass. We are not talking about what He revealed.

We are talking about the proposition of what He predestinated.

But then we find they had the church in reference, Da 2:44. He didn't quote it, but he gave it as a citation: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." He is revealing that the church would be set up. That is what He has reference to, and it has no reference on God's earth to sin and wickedness; not a thing in the world about it.

Now, he followed with some questions. I believe every reference that he has made. I object to the defining of his proposition, because he did not say one word in the world about whatsoever comes to pass. He got to "all things," but he didn't tell you about "whatsoever comes to pass" in the proposition. Let the gentleman tell us whether it is the wicked acts of men and devils. Let the gentleman tell us that what those individuals do they have to do and cannot keep from it, because it was predestinated. That is what I want him to tell us, what he means by "whatsoever comes to pass." I am going to make some negative arguments now, since I have caught up with his citations.

His proposition cannot be true because the Book of God says that such doctrine is wearisome to the Lord. Now, Brother Rhodes doesn't mean to weary the Lord. He doesn't mean to do that, but the Bible says that his doctrine is wearisome to the Lord. Brother Rhodes, you don't want to weary the Lord, do you? I know you don't want to weary the Lord, but let us see what the Book says about it. "Ye have wearied the Lord with your words." Mal 2:17: "Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, wherein have we wearied Him? When ye say, Everyone that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delighteth in them; or where is the God of judgment?" Does He delight in evil? This says that it is wearisome to the Lord. Somebody says He does not do it; He predestinated it. Well, He is not delighted in His predestination then, is He?

He does not delight in His predestination. He has predestined something that He does not delight in. That is a funny doctrine, for the Lord to predestinate something that He does not delight in. Now, I haven't a thing in the world against this good brother; not a thing in the world. I am talking about his doctrine.

His doctrine cannot be true, because there are things that come to pass that the Lord did not command, neither did it come into His heart. Jer 7:31: "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the. son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." The Lord predestinated something that did not come into His heart, according to your doctrine!

Will you tell us that He did? It did not come into His heart, but He predestinated itl He said He did not command it. Was the devil ever commanded to do anything? What was the devil commanded to do? Did the Lord command the devil to do something? Now, I want the question answered.

His proposition cannot be true, because people do things the Lord did not command nor desire, neither did it come into His mind. Jer 19:4-5. Mind means intention, purpose, and desire. "Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents." That is one thing that He did not predestinate. "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." So, the man's proposition falls. He did not predestinate all things that come to pass. If it didn't come into the Lord's mind, which means intention, purpose, and desire-does purpose and predestinate mean one and the same thing? If it doesn't mean one and the same thing, and the Lord did not purpose it, therefore, He did not predestinate it, because all things that come to pass are not predestinated of the Lord. It didn't come into His mind.

Now, here is a question I want you to answer in connection with this argument: If it did not come into His intention, purpose, or design, tell me how He predestinated something that did not come into His intention, purpose, or design?

His proposition cannot be true for this reason: God told Adam not to eat. But, according to his doctrine, God predestinated it; therefore, God predestinated for Adam to do what God told him not to do. God told him to do one thing and purposed that he do something else. Absolutely, according to him, contrary to what God said for him to do.

I want to reason a little on cause and effect. His proposition cannot be true for the following reasons: Eve caused Adam to sin in the garden of Eden. Did the devil cause Eve to sin in the garden of Eden? Who caused the devil to cause Eve to sin? Did you say in your speech that God is the first cause of all causes, and there has to be a cause? I can find one place that he was not the cause of all causes. Let me read to you something about this. Let us see what he said. I cannot give you the citation now but I will have it after awhile if you want it. Some folks hated God without a cause. If some folks hated God without a cause, then He was not the first cause of that, was He? Did they not hate God without a cause? If they hated God without a cause, then, He was not the cause of all causes because those folks hated God without a cause. It looks to me like you could see that.

But Adam was not deceived in the transgression; it was the woman that was deceived, and God said, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." That is what the Lord told Adam. But wait a minute. After awhile the devil came on the scene and said to Eve, "Ye shall not surely die." The Lord said "thou shalt surely die," and the devil said, "thou shalt not die." I will read from De 32:4: "He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." If God works iniquity, and He works all things, and that is what that means, does God work iniquity? How does the Lord work something that He hasn't got? How do you work something you haven't got? Do you folks here this morning work something you haven't got? The Lord is without iniquity. Tell me how He works something He has not got. I want to know how in the world He works something He hasn't got. If He is without iniquity, how does He work iniquity or did the little devil do it for Him?

The citation on some people hating the Lord without a cause is Ps 35:19.

If God works all things, and all things are both good and evil, then, Elder Rhodes, will you tell us how is the Lord's work an evil work? Does the Lord do any evil work?

Does He? Does He do any evil work?

His proposition cannot be true, because God is without iniquity! De 32:4. God works iniquity, according to Rhodes; therefore, God works something He hasn't got.-Rhodes.

His proposition cannot be true, because-did James tell the truth when he said, "Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be?" Was God predestinating something that ought not to be? The Lord said by inspiration that this cursing ought not to be. Well, I wonder if it had to be, and they just had to curse. Then, the Lord predestinated what ought not to be. It just ought not to be. Did the Lord predestinate something that ought not to be? Here is something that ought not to be. He either did or did not predestinate it. Did He predestinate all things whatsoever come to pass? Then, this ought to have been, because the Lord fixed it, and they couldn't keep from cursing. They just had to do it. And yet God said it ought not to be. God predestinated something that ought not to be. God doing something before the world began that ought not to be.

Somebody said, "Aren't you pretty positive?" Well, I am positive of that. I came down here to be nice to this gentleman, but not to his doctrine. I want you to understand that. I am not after him personally. But here is his dilemma. I will quote a syllogism to you. God said by inspiration things ought not to be, but God predestinated cursing, because He predestinated whatsoever comes to pass.-Rhodes. Therefore, God predestinated something that ought not to be.-Rhodes.

His proposition cannot be true, because God said by inspiration (1Co 10:5), "But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness." If He had known everything, and God fixed it, and it had to come to pass-it had to be-then they had to do it, and God was not well pleased with it.-Rhodes. So, God was not well pleased with His predestination. They did some thing that did not please the Lord, and the Lord fixed it so that they had to do something displeasing to Him. So, the Lord could not possibly be pleased with His predestination, because He was displeased with what some of those fellows were doing, according to Rhodes. You, as intelligent individuals, can see that. He predestinated something that ought not to be.

But here is the doctrine: "But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness." God predestinated what did not please Him according to Rhodes. Therefore, it pleased God to predestinate something that did not please Him, according to Rhodes. That is his dilemma, and I want to see him get out of it. I want to see him get out of the dilemma that he has placed himself in. His proposition cannot be true because Jesus said; Mt 22:46: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, which 'is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" Does the devil do the will of God? Will the brother tell us if the devil does the will of God? Does the devil do the will of God? He who does the will of the Father is the brother of Jesus. That is what He says: So, if according to the brother, the devil does the will of God, therefore the devil and Christ are brothers, and there is no way in the world that you can escape it.

Time expired.

01.06 ELDER RHODES' SECOND AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Ladies, and Gentlemen:

I appreciate very much the opportunity of replying to my opponent's first speech. I want to say, first, while it is on my mind, that he says they did not kill the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I wonder if any of you can see the evasion in that. I guess that the Lord thought in the beginning, when He chose His people before He laid the foundation of the world that He would stump His toe and fall down and break His neck; do you think God intended to offer Him up in that way? I want to read to you and see whether or not that is an evasion. I want to read to you now the third chapter of Acts (Ac 3:18), the 18th verse: "But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled." Read also the 15th verse: "And killed (k-i-l-l-e-d) the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead;

whereof we are witnesses." Now, ditto. I would rather believe Jesus Christ-I would rather believe God's inspiration than to believe my brother. Why, these were good people who were perpetrating the death and crucifixion of Christ. They were good people. The Lord was going to lay Him down. He was going to lay down His life, and they were good people wanting to fulfill God's word. Is that the construction you place on it? I want to say, beloved friends, that I believe that every hand that performed against the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had every wicked intent, and yet it was the will of God. I say, was it the will of God, that Jesus Christ die on Calvary's cross at the expense of wicked hands and evil men at the very beckoning of the devil? Was that God's will? And did they kill Him? I just want you to answer that.

Did God bruise His own Son? Isa 53:10: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand." And yet, their wickedness was not of God, but it was of them. They were acting freely. They were acting as they believed in their hearts how to be viciously against the Lord to destroy Him, just as much so as if God had not intended that they do that, and it proved that where Jesus said when talking to Pilate, "To this end was I born and for this purpose came I into the world." He came into the world for that specific purpose, to make a sacrifice for sin; and I want to say, my beloved friends, that Jesus indicated that when He said, "Thou canst have no power at all against me, except it was given thee from above." Did they have any power against Him? He said, "Why have you come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves?" Jesus said, on that very occasion, "Could I not now pray my Father in heaven, and He would presently give me more than twelve legions of angels; but then, how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, which also they must be fulfilled." -Mt 26:53-54. I want to say, my brethren and friends, that if they must be fulfilled, must they be fulfilled without the slaying by wicked hands? The text of Scripture which I introduce is enough: "Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." What does slain mean? Does it mean to kill?

I want to finish giving him my questions, so that he can answer them. I will take that up next. I want him to answer them and I want him to get around that evasion also. I want him to get around that.

My friends, you are all intelligent people. You can see when a man is trying to evade a thing, and while it is fresh on my mind, lest he think the same thing about me, -I want to ask him if he does not believe that God-he will not have the term predestination. The reason why he won't have it is because designing leaders have prejudiced his mind against the Lord's Word. I believe that is the truth. I gave him the definitions, and I have a hundred more definitions here, words that mean identically the same thing as predestination when it comes to God, purpose, to appoint; and, in fact, Webster gives all of these definitions, but I want to say, right here, before I go any further, that I would rather have these questions answered. I believe he gave me one and I will answer it first: "Does the devil work anything?" I will answer that question, Brother West, by asking you one. By what power does the devil exist? Does he exist accidentally? He is under heaven, isn't he? "For thou hast created all things in heaven and in earth," "in the seas and in all deep places." "All things were made by Him and for Him, and without Him there was nothing made that was made." I can prove by the Bible that the Lord made him. I want you to take this reference (addressing Moderator): "The serpent is the most subtile beast of the field which the Lord hath made." "By His Spirit He hath garnished the heavens. His hand hath formed the crooked serpent."-Job 26:13. Did not the devil deceive our Mother Eve in the garden? Was he in there accidentally? When you get through answering these questions you will be able to see. "Does the devil work anything?" Let us see. It says that "He shall go out upon the breadth of the earth, to deceive the whole world."-Re 20:7-8. Who said that? God said that. Do you think that he is going to fail to do it? Is it according to God's will for him to deceive the whole world? In the ninth chapter of Romans (Ro 9:22), the 22nd verse, it says, "What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." "Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Now, that is what my opponent is trying to do. He is trying to evade. I have no right to call God in question as to why He did it. I am not trying to justify God in everything He does. I am trying to prove that He has a purpose in it or that everything is according to His purpose, or everything is according to His will, according to His foreknowledge, according to His predestination, or according to His appointment, or whatever words you want to use. Now, that is enough along this line.

Question No. 17: If God's foreknowledge of the existence of all the creatures of time was based on his determination to make said creatures, then did not His knowledge of their acts rest on the same determination, since they could never exist unless He made them, and they could not act unless they existed?

18. Does not the nature of the acts of each creature depend upon and flow out from the nature of the creature, and did not the nature of each creature depend upon the way they were made, and did not the way they were made depend upon the way that God in His counsel determined to make them? If so, did not the nature of the acts of all creatures depend upon God's determinate counsel?

19. Are not all things that are done under heaven a sore travail given of God to the sons of men to the intent that they be exercised therewith? (Ec 12:14.)

I think that is enough for one dose. I wonder if my brother objects to the common English term "absolute?" What does it mean? It means, according to Webster, without restriction or limitation, as "God reigns absolute." That is the word that my brother seems to be so prejudiced against, and I do not mean that reflectively. So, I have brought him the meaning and the definition, and as I said in my definition of the proposition, I mean all things. There cannot be things unless they do come to pass, can there? I mean all things: and I want to say, beloved friends, that when I say that, I mean that. I do not mean anything short of that.

Now, I want to notice some of his arguments. I want to know, first, if he justifies them in killing the Prince of life. He said they did not kill Him, and yet, the Scriptures say that they killed the Prince of life. He says they did not kill Him, but since I have proved they did kill Him, I want to ask him if they were justified in killing the Lord of glory. "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." But were their wicked acts, an intention in their hearts, were not pleasing to the Lord. Their iniquities, their sins, which always prompt men to evil, the Lord was not well pleased with their sins and iniquities; but the end that was to be accomplished was the salvation of His people, and it was through the crucifixion of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Was He dead? He said, "Awake, 0 sword, against my Shepherd. I will smite the Shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered." What did He mean? David explains what He meant: "The wicked are thy sword, and the workers of iniquity, who are thy right hand." Give him that reference. The men of the world, which is thy hand." That is a quotation. Ps 17:13-14.

I want to say, beloved friends, that if my brother will just admit me one point; one word-you have no objection to the foreknowledge of God, do you, Brother West? I believe that he will admit, and I hope so, at least, the foreknowledge of all things. I wonder if he will? Did God know before Pharaoh acted that his heart would be hardened? Did God intend to harden Pharaoh's heart? He said, "Go and speak unto Pharaoh, the king of Egypt; thus sayeth the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go; yet I will harden his heart so that he shall not let them go."-Ex 4:21; 5:1; 7:1. If God had no purpose in hardening the heart of Pharaoh, tell me then, brethren and sisters, would He have said that He was going to harden his heart, and then harden it, actually? He said that He was going to harden his heart, and He said in other Scriptures, which I will introduce later, that He did harden it. In answer to my opponent, I say it never came into the mind of the Lord to command them to do this wickedness, my brethren. He did not command them to do it, and it did not come into His mind to command them to do it; but insofar as their doing this thing is concerned, the Lord was not ignorant of what they were going to do. It didn't come into the mind of the Lord to command this wickedness. The Lord was not ignorant of what they were going to do. Then, you would say He did not foreknow it, did He? I will ask you the question: Did ,the "Lord foreknow that they were going to do this thing? Will you please make a note of that and answer it? I do not want to write it down. If not, don't you reckon that He was awfully surprised when He saw it taking place? That is the way you and I are when we see things happening. We are often greatly surprised, but I want to say, beloved friends, that God is perfect in all of His attributes. "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient time the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all of my pleasure. Isa 46:10. He said that God did not delight in my doctrine. It isn't my doctrine nor his doctrine, if it is the truth. But if it is God's doctrine, I want to say, my friends, that He delights in it. He said that He did not predestinate what He delighted in. I have already answered that position in the wickedness of those wicked men, and how their wickedness was punishable. Jesus said, concerning that, "Nevertheless, I say unto you, He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."-Joh 19:11. A sin, just the same, and yet it is said that "it pleased the Lord to bruise Him." It pleased the Lord to do what? "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." And yet, my brother, I say that God in His infinite foreknowledge-if you don't want the term predestination-if you are afraid of it, or if you think that is too hard or too emphatic, I will come along with your foreknowledge; I will come along with your purpose, or, if you please, I will say, Did God purpose the death of His Son and the wicked hands that crucified Him?

Jer 7:31. It didn't come into His mind. The same argument holds true as to that. It did not come into God's mind to command them to do this wickedness. And yet, my brethren, I say that if they did this wickedness and it was a great surprise to God, He was not one bit ahead of us. That is often the case with us.

He did not tell Adam not to eat. He explained that "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," Was God surprised that Adam did eat? Can you find any other use for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If you do find it, I want to see that chapter, book, and verse. If He created all things and created them for a purpose and did not use the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to fulfill His purpose, then He must have made it accidentally and not on purpose.

Where did the devil come from? He says, according to my doctrine, the devil was a brother of Jesus Christ. "Anyone who does the will of my Father." If that is the case and you put that kind of construction on it, you will find, my brethren, that all things are according to God's will. Did He teach His disciples to pray wrongly? He said: "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven." Did He teach them to pray for something that would not be done? If so, you had better get someone else to invent us a prayer book. I say that the vessels of wrath-that I have already quoted from Romans where it says, "What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." When the question is asked, "For who hath resisted His will?" the writer is acknowledging that all of these vessels of wrath, that everything pertaining to it, is according to the will of God, and not resisting His will. They may be resisting His commandments as revealed in the Scriptures, and through the prophets, but not resisting His final and eternal and perfect will.

Pharaoh did not let them go after he told him he would let them go. He didn't do that because God hardened his heart. Now, I will resume my argument. I would like to have those questions answered in my brother's next speech, if it is convenient for him to do so.

ELDER WEST: Hold his time, please. You did not ask all of your questions in one speech.

ELDER RHODES: I thought those would be sufficient for one time.

ELDER WEST: You did not ask all of your questions in one speech. Why do you want them all answered in my next speech?

ELDER RHODES: If that is too much, it will be all right.

Ec 1:13 is the argument that I made awhile ago: "And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven; this sore travail hath God given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith." Will the sons of men be exercised with them? Then they are the gift of God according to His word, purpose, foreknown, predestinated, appointment.

Da 3:17-21: "If it be so, our God, whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and He will deliver us out of thine hand, 0 king. But if not, be it known unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seventh times more than it was wont to be heated. And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace." I say, my beloved friends, that here is an example of what the Lord purposed to His own glory. I wonder if my brother cannot say that these things were intended, and that if they had not been cast into the fiery furnace, God would not have been glorified in their deliverance; and ye, they meant it just as wicked and full of iniquity as any man every did anything.

Basest of men over kingdom. Da 4:17: "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men; and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." This was done in order to prove that god sets up the very basest of men over kingdoms. Does He do it accidentally or on purpose? David said: "By me kings reign, and the princes are judges of the earth."-Pr 8:15-16.

So, I say, my friends, that I believe God's Word is true, and I believe that His mind, His wisdom, is perfect. I do not believe there is anything that can escape the eternal purpose of God. I do not believe it ever has or will.

Time expired.

01.07 ELDER WEST'S SECOND NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, my Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am in the negative of the proposition that you have heard under discussion and will reply to the things that my brother has said.

I asked him the question, "Does the devil work anything or do anything?" He said that he would answer that question by asking a question, "Whose power upheld the devil, or where did he get his power?" Now, that does not answer my question. That is not even similar to answering my question. He asks another question. Suppose that when I go to answer his questions in the discussion I simply say, "Well, I will answer that by asking you a question." That does not have a thing in the world to do with the one that I have asked. That is just an easy way to answer a question.

ELDER RHODES: Pardon me, but I did answer it just following that. I said the devil worked in those evil men's hearts to bring this to pass. 

ELDER WEST: Thank you, Brother Rhodes. Now, he wants me to get out of the evading angle. He says that I am evading. But if God absolutely did predestinate all things that come to pass, I have to evade it. I cannot keep from it. Why fall out with me about evading you? God fixed it that way, according to you. I cannot help but evade you. Don't complain of me for evading you. Why not get onto God about His predestination? He fixed it that way, so I had to evade you. He gets honor and glory out of me evading you, according to your doctrine. I just can't help it.

Now, he calls your attention to Ac 3:15, and in making an argument in answer to the argument I made, he said that "crucified," "slain" and "to kill," did not always mean to take the life of. I still say they did not take the life of the Son of God. He said, "I lay it down." Do I believe that they killed Him? I believe that they took Him and nailed Him to the cross. I believe that in so doing they killed Him in the way God teaches. They crucified Him the way God teaches. They slew Him the way the Book teaches, but they did not take His life for the simple reason that He said, "I lay it down. No man taketh it from me." That is why I know they did not take His life. That is what Jesus said.

He quoted Isa 53:10 and said: "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him." When those wicked men nailed Him to the cross, did they bruise Him? The Scriptures say it pleased God to bruise Him. Then in the next breath he tells us that it wasn't the Lord that did it but those men who did it. Did the Lord do it, or did those men do it? He said it wasn't them. It was their will. It was according to their will. Now, I want to know if the Lord did it or if those men did it? Or, did He do what He did through men, and was it the Lord doing it? They did that in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, according to what our brother said. I am going to say that it was the will of God that His Son would give His life. It was the will of God that through prophecy he spoke of those things that were coming to pass. But let me ask you the question, is prophecy causative? Does prophecy cause anything, or was It revealed to holy men of old that they were right by inspiration? I can prophesy that the train will run through EI Dorado tomorrow, and according to the schedule and according to my little foreknowledge that the train will run through tomorrow. But that does not make me predestinate it.

The brother has asked if I believe in foreknowledge. Yes. And, brother, I still believe in the doctrine of predestination, too. I believe in the doctrine of predestination. I believe that everything that God predestinated will come to pass. I believe that everything He predestinated is unalterably fixed. But I deny that God predestinated everything.

Now, my brother read the text wrong in regard to the serpent. He said the serpent was the most subtile beast of the field that the Lord had made. I think that the text says that he "was more subtile than any beast of the field that the Lord had made." I think that is according to the text. We will pass on and leave that just a little.

He said, "The men of the world is thy hand." If that means what he says it means, that all men have to do what they do and cannot keep from it, then, does the Lord use that same plan in the eternal salvation of sinners? Or, had you better go and join the Campbellites? Are you the Lord's hand in the eternal salvation of sinners? Talk about Arminianism! Why, he said that Adam had to do what he did do that heaven might be populated; therefore, the man had to act ugly in order for anyone to get to heaven. I would rather believe that faith and repentance and baptism would get a home in heaven than such doctrine as that. I am not talking about the man, my friends. I am talking about his doctrine. I would rather believe that folks had to act pretty in order to get to heaven than to believe that Adam had to act ugly in order to get to heaven.

He said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I don't deny that. Why I don't deny that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. Do you know how He hardened his heart.? He sent the plagues on him. The Lord sent the plagues on him, and then he said, "I will let them go;" and the Lord removed the plagues, and he was still the same old Pharaoh-the same old devil. That is the way the Lord hardened his heart, by removing the plagues.

He said that West said some things were not in the mind of God, and then he said it wasn't in the mind sufficient to command it. I agree with that, but I will go just a little further. The word "mind" means intent, purpose, and design. That is the definition of the word "mind." So that was the thing that came to pass. It wasn't the intent, purpose, and design of God, and if that came to pass, and it wasn't the purpose and intent and design of God, He didn't predestinate it, and He didn't predestinate all things that come to pass, so his proposition falls. If it didn't come into His purpose-I asked him if purpose and predestination are the same thing. I am going to ask him this question: Are predestination and foreknowledge synonymous? If they are, give the definition of the word "predestinate" in the original canon, and also give the definition of "foreknowledge" in the original canon and make them synonymous. See if they are the same. Look at the meaning of the word "foreknow" and then look at the word "predestinate" and see if they are the same. Foreknowledge and predestinate are not the same word. It has no reference in the world to being the same word for he said, "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate." There would be no use in the world to say "He also did predestinate" if they were synonymous and meant one and the same thing. "He also did predestinate it." Why not just say He foreknew all things, if that is what it means? Why did the apostle qualify it? He didn't know what he was doing, did he?

All right, I am going to notice Isa 47:10. Let me quote that to you and you watch it closely. In the ninth verse he said: "I am God and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me." Then verse 10, "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done." "Declaring the end from the beginning." That doesn't say from the beginning He absolutely predestinated whatsoever comes to pass. The passage says, "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." If that text means all things that come to pass, and it is the Lord that is doing all His pleasure, then when that reporter took your $200 for taking down your debate and stuck the money in his pocket and then killed himself, was that the Lord doing it? Or did the man kill himself? Was the Lord doing that? The text says, "I will do all my pleasure." There is a lot of difference in declaring the end from the beginning and declaring everything from the beginning to the end. Can't you see the difference in that? Over here, we have the beginning; over here, we have the end. The text says that He declared the end from the beginning. There is a lot of difference in saying He declared the end from the beginning and that everything that happened from the beginning to the end. The two expressions do not even favor. "I will do all my pleasure: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: Yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." I repeat, again, that everything that the Lord purposed, Brother Rhodes, He will bring to pass. But I am not going to charge that everything that comes to pass in the world that God is responsible for that.

I don't know whether you have a car here this morning or not, but I wonder if someone were to come out here and steal your car if that would be an act of iniquity? Or was it the Lord that did it? Would you prosecute the Lord for stealing your car? That is what your argument means. I wonder if he would prosecute the Lord. I wonder if you would prosecute the man or the Lord. If the Lord does it, what is the use of prosecuting the poor fellow? Why not prosecute the Lord, if that is what "all things" means. But you say, in defining your proposition, that the word "all" means some things under consideration. Will you please give us a few citations were "all things" means just what is under consideration? He says that sometimes in the Bible "all things" just meant what was under consideration. Will you give us some instances, or does that mean "all things that come to pass?"

 

ELDER RHODES: All things that come to pass is included in that, but irrespective of some of them.

 

 

ELDER WEST: Some do not have under consideration all things?

 

ELDER RHODES: Some do.

 

 

ELDER WEST: Some do not mean to say all things?

 

ELDER RHODES: That's right.

 

 

ELDER WEST: Then, there are some "all things" that is in the Bible that do not mean all things. Now, will you please tell us how you find out that over here "all things" meant sin and wickedness and part of them do not? Now, let nobody get mad; stay in a good humor. We are in a good humor. If anyone gets mad, let it be us. As long as we stay in a good humor, Brother Rhodes and I, just keep your faces up and smile. I am after his doctrine. Tell us just how you segregate it, and whereby you determine those "all things" that mean different from some other "all things" and all those things under consideration. Just tell us how you do that.

He said the Lord did not delight in his doctrine or mine. We are not debating the church question. He said he had no doctrine. Well, I wasn't going to accuse him that badly-just being nothing. The Son of God said, "I appoint unto you a kingdom." If He appointed unto you a kingdom and it was His kingdom, and the gospel belongs to the church then the kingdom has the doctrine. If it is appointed unto you, it must be yours. Did the Lord appoint unto you a kingdom that had no doctrine? That is the dilemma he is in. I think it belongs to them as His people.

Now, he said the Lord did not tell those folks not to eat of that fruit. If I understood him, he said that. I think He did. Now, listen to Him: "And the Lord God commanded"-this is Ge 2:16-17: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but"-he doesn't end the sentence there, but "of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." What does that mean? Did the Lord mean to tell him he could not eat of it or was not going to? Or does the language mean that the Lord was telling them not to eat of it? "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If it means they could not and would not, then they did the thing that God told them they could not and would not do. But it doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that at all.

Now, we will pass on. I will notice some other things which are worth mentioning. He went ahead and talked about the fiery furnace and about God overruling the designs of those men. I am not going to tell you folks this morning that God does not overrule the work of the devil.

I am not going to tell you this morning that God doesn't destroy the work of the devil. I am going to say that He wil finally destroy it all. But here is the point, my friends, There is no place in all of God's Book that says these men were predestinated to be put in there. It is easy to find where God overruled men, but your proposition says that God absolutely predestinated all things that come to. pass. Now, will you find where God predestinated for those men to get in there? That is all that I am going to say with reference to that, except this Scripture, Ec 1:13: "And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven." Now, how am I going to know that some "all things" means just certain things under consideration and that some other "all things" do not mean that? How in the world am I going to know that this is not one of the places? Will you please tell me? "This sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith." They are exercised with the prophecy of God. That does not mean that God predestinated and fixed it.

All right, I will begin my negative argument. I want him to get onto that Scripture again, "Subject to the powers that be." I would like to have some more of that, but now we will pass on to our negative argument.

My twelfth reason that his proposition cannot be true is because God has denounced such doctrine as lying words. Listen to Jer 8:8-9,10: "Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not." "Will ye steal." Brother Rhodes, can a man keep from stealing, or is it absolutely predestinated that he has to steal? "Murder" is the next word in the verse. Brother Rhodes, does he have to commit murder? Does he have to commit adultery? You folks need not be surprised at anything that happens around here at this debate because God predestinated everything, according to Brother Rhodes. You needn't be surprised at a thing in the world that might happen here. If you are surprised, just remember that God predestinated it-according to Rhodes. If God predestinated that someone here has to do something which isn't very becoming, well, He just predestinated it, because He has fixed everything and you just have to do it. You can't keep from it.

Now, someone has said, "You are mean. You are so saucy." Well, the Lord predestinated that, so don't get mad with me. Or, did the Lord predestinate that you should get mad with me? "Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal and walk after other gods whom ye know not."

Do you walk after gods? Just keep it up; you cannot keep from it. It is predestinated, and you just have to do it. "And come and stand before me in this house-"

That is what caused the division here in this country. They came and stood before you in the house of God, and they said that lying and cheating and committing adultery were predestinated by the Lord and you have to do it. "And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?" The Lord said those were lying words. I did not say it. "Behold, ye trust in lying words." Now, you folks quit that. I don't think that God predestinated it, and that you had to do it. I think that you can keep from trusting in those lying words. Or, do you think you are at liberty to do all the devilment that you can do, and cannot keep from it? Is abominations devilment? The Scripture says that if you stand in the house of God, that is called by His name, and say that you are delivered to do all of these abominations, that is lying words. This is what the Scripture says. Now, Ariel did not say that. Don't you get mad at Ariel unless it is predestinated for you to get mad. If it is, you will have to get mad. You cannot keep from it. You just have to do it.

Did you come up here today because you had to come? Did you have to come or could you have stayed at home? Did the Lord move you up here like a checker? Did He just move you around like that? Does the Lord just move you folks, or do you come because you want to come? Did you have to buy any gasoline to get here? Here is the fallacy of such a position. It is lying words to say that we are delivered to do all of these abominations. Rhodes' doctrine is that they were predestinated to be delivered to do all these abominations. Therefore, Brother Rhodes' doctrine is lying words.

His proposition cannot be true, because God said that we should not say "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Brother Rhodes said in his affirmative argument that man had to sin in order for salvation to abound. That is in this record. Sin is a transgression of the law. If sin is a transgression of the law, and it was the Lord that predestinated man to sin, he had to sin, transgress the law, that heaven might be populated. But Ro 6:1 says: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." God forbid that we say we continue in sin that grace may abound. Sin did not have to exist in order for grace to abound. I am going to ask you a question: Was Adam placed in the garden? Did he have eternal life when placed in the garden? Was he fit for heaven, or would it have taken something else to fit him for heaven? I want you to notice that in particular. Here is the dilemma he places himself in. Grace does not abound through sin. That is Scripture. We sin for grace to abound; that is his contention; therefore, sin is a necessity for grace to abound, according to his contention: And there had to be sin before there could be any grace. Did there have to be some sin before there could be any grace, or was grace treasured in Him, Christ, before the world began?

His proposition cannot be true, because the Lord commanded man not to eat of the tree. I am going to read that from Genesis (Ge 3:8-13), the eighth to the thirteenth verses of chapter three. "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." Time expired.

 

01.08 ELDER RHODES' THIRD AFFIRMATIVE

Ladies and Gentlemen, Brethren Moderators:

I am here to again continue my affirmative argument and reply to some of the things that my opponent said. He said that I was complaining at some of the things he was saying. He said that he couldn't help it. I want to ask him if he were doing that contrary to his will? Is he doing that contrary to his will? He said a while ago, that he could have been somewhere else besides here. I suppose then, that he is here contrary to his will. Is that a fact? I want to say to my worthy opponent that if he did not have to come here today, and if I didn't have to come here today-and we are both here-I want to ask you how you could be anywhere else. I say that it is foolish and silly. He said that I was complaining about it, but that there was no use because he couldn't help it. He keeps charging consequences on the doctrine of my belief in the predestination of all things contrary to the rules.

ELDER WEST: The proposition says, "whatsoever comes to pass." How could that be charging consequences when the proposition says, "Whatsoever comes to pass?"

ELDER RHODES: Wait a moment. I was not through. He even brought in unpleasant things in this debate, and even brought in the lowest criminals one could think of, as if I believed that. I say that if that is not charging consequences, I hope that God will be my helper to quit this debate. I do not any more believe that predestination is causative in these things than he does, and I have argued that all the way through. Just as he said, he didn't have to come here. The Lord moved him to come here. He asked me if the Lord moved me to come here. I want to say, my friends, that the Bible says, "The preparation of the heart in man, together with the answer of the tongue, is alone of the Lord." Solomon said, "He beset me before and behind. He is in all of my downsittings." You are sitting down, aren't you? Why are you not standing up? "He is in all of my downsittings and in all of mine uprisings. He beset me before and behind." I want to say, my friends, the reason why my opponent is here today is because God fixed it that he would be here and I hope that he is not here contrary to his will.

I have never said that anyone has been moved by the Spirit of God to perform wickedness, and he well knows that, and I want to say just here that I believe that if he had come down to brass tacks in his argument, he would believe the same thing. I say that God's predestination is not the moving or leading cause that causes them to do these things, just as I say that by His powerful Spirit He will not reach down and get him by the hair of the head and bring him here today; but the secondary cause is that he challenged me for this debate about six months ago, and felt it was his duty to be here. God could have prevented it if it had been His will to do so. If it had been according to His purpose, he would have prevented it. There is one man who was to have been here but is not here. He purposed to come. He wired for a reservation in EI Dorado and wanted to come. I don't know what happened, but he is not here. I want to say, my beloved friends, that he knows, as well as I do, that I do not believe that God's predestination is causative in this or in any other sense.

We spoke of Adam's sin. I want to ask you, Elder West, how there could have been a redeemed sinner, redeemed home to glory to magnify God's blessed and holy name if Adam had not sinned? Did God give the law to Adam in order that he keep sin out of the world? If he gave it to him in order to keep sin out of the world, it reminds me of the idiot who made a slip-gap in his fence to keep hogs out of his field of corn. I want to say, beloved friends, that I can take the Bible and prove to you that sin could not have entered into the world if Adam could have kept the law. It could not have entered the world, and you know that as well as I, and it says, "Moreover, the law entered that the offense might abound."-Ro 5:20.

Now, I want to notice a few things that he said. He asked whose will was done, the will of the Lord or the will of the wicked in the crucifixion of Christ. I want to say, my friends, that I believe that the Lord's will was supreme in it, and yet they delighted to kill him. They delighted to kill him. They wanted to kill him. Why did they want to kill Him? To fulfill the Scriptures? No, sir. They did not know they were fulfilling the Scriptures, and yet they were. "And after all the people of the world, and the wicked being in God's hands"-that is a plain statement of the Scripture.

He said that he would rather be a Campbellite. Well, I suspect, just to tell the truth, since he introduced it, he is more kin to them. You know, blood is thicker than water. I am satisfied that is the truth. On this proposition he is exactly like them; just exactly like they are. I have had the very same clauses thrown at me in a Campbellite debate to try to decoy me and detour me from the subject, by charging consequences. "If God did so and so, this, that and the other, how any other thing would make God this, or make God that." That is not the proposition at all. The proposition is as to whether or not God purposed, predestinated, or appointed all things. That is what the proposition is. He said he would rather be a Campbellite than act ugly. That is why he has acted ugly, by charging me with these consequences.

He asked me if God's foreknowledge and predestination were the same. I want to ask him if God's foreknowledge or if His predestination ever stopped short of each other? In other words, does He foreknow more than He predestinated? Or does He foreknow less than He predestinated, and if predestination is causative, the same thing would apply to your foreknowledge. The same thing would apply to appointment and the same thing would apply to purpose. .

Now, he said there was one thing that he wanted me to notice and that was about Adam's eating. I think I have noticed that sufficiently.

He read from Ge 2:16-17. I want to read that again, and I still state that my statement was correct: "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest. thereof thou shalt surely die." "Ye shall not eat of this tree and be free. Thou mayest freely eat." I want to emphasize the word "freely." He could not eat of it and be free, He told him to begin with. That was the only tree that he could not eat of and be free. Now scramble with that.

Now, back to the argument I made that he gave the sons of men all of these things to be exercised therewith. How could they be exercised therewith if they did not do them? The Lord gave them something to be exercised therewith, and that was "all things that is done under the sun." How could they be exercised with it if they didn't do it? Jer 7:9-10. "Steal and lie," and so on. I want to say, beloved friends, that I could show him some place in the New Testament based on an argument that I have already made-what the Lord said to Peter. He said, "Before the cock crows thrice, thou shalt deny thrice."- Joh 18:27. If Peter could have kept from lying, he would have made a liar of the Lord. Don't you think so? I would rather Peter would have lied a little and cursed and swore a little than for the Lord to have been in that fix.

Now, about these people swearing falsely and coming and standing in His house and saying they were delivered to do these things. That is the very thing that I am telling you about today. As far as that is concerned, their own wicked motives and impulses moved them to do this, and the Lord was not pleased with their motives and with their inclination to do these things. That is what is under consideration. But as far as the Apostle Peter lying, and even swearing and cursing, swearing that he never knew the Lord, I want to tell you that I would rather Peter would have lied than for the Lord to, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you rather he would have lied than for the Lord?

I want to tell you something else about that little argument right here. I have said that God predestinated or purposed all things whatsoever come to pass, if it be small things or great things. It, was a pretty small thing for the rooster to crow; don't you think? And yet; brethren and sisters, I want to say that the old rooster couldn't have kept from crowing by all of the owls and eagles that could have been thrown around him. Why? Because God had decreed and purposed that he should crow at that time. He predestinated that he should crow and I believe he crowed just like all other roosters do. I believe he just wanted to crow because it was his nature and his disposition to crow. He wanted to crow just like you want to complain; just like you want to charge consequences. He said the reason he did it is because he was delivered to do it. That is right, but he is not doing it against his will. How could sin have entered the world if Adam had kept the law? He asked me if Adam was a natural man. Sure, he was a natural man; just a natural man is all he was. Now, he charges these things and the Apostle Paul says, over in Romans (Ro 3:8), the third chapter and eighth verse: "And not rather (as we be slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." He is charging me with believing that we ought to do wrong in order that good would come out of it. Sir, I want to tell you that Solomon told the truth when he said it was the whole duty of man to fear God and keep His commandments. It doesn't lessen your duty in the matter, regardless of how things work out, and it says, whoever charges consequences like this, "Whose damnation is just." I hope it is not applicable to my brother. I hope it is not applicable to my opponent, but that is exactly what he is doing, and it is the same thing in toto.

Now, I believe I am ready to notice some more of my affirmative arguments. He spoke as if God were the author of sin, according to my doctrine. Heb 5:9. If Jesus became the author of eternal salvation by the things that He did, did not Adam become the author of sin by the things he did?

ELDER WEST: Will you quote your text, Brother Rhodes?

ELDER RHODES (continuing): "For it became Him, of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

MODERATOR CAYCE (interrupting): I believe you quoted that a little wrong. Did you say Heb 5:9?

ELDER RHODES: "Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered; and being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him." Is that correct?

So, I want to say, beloved friends, here is the essence of all the opposition that he offers me, and should we not, my brethren, try to come just as close together as we can? Should we not want to do so? I do. The only thing that stands between me and my opponent on this subject is the prejudice which I believe is in his heart against the word "predestination." "Foreknowledge". He says God predestinated some things and others He did not. But I want to tell you, brethren, the text that I quoted him over there in Proverbs has to do with all things that are done under the sun. "And He gave it unto the sons of men for them to be exercised thereby." How can they be exercised if they do not do that? Did God predestinate the salvation of His people? He said yes. Then, Jesus suffered and became the author of eternal salvation through predestination? No. But through the suffering that God ordained He should do, and so, my brethren and sisters, "That as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."-Ro 5:21.

Now, my beloved friends, I want to say that I believe my opponent is perfectly honest. I am still happy to tell you that I believe that, but he has been so steeped in these things, and so duped by them, because of that prejudice, he is not willing to come out and acknowledge what the Scriptures teach on this particular subject. I don't mean that he is not willing, as far as he thinks, and as far as I feel he can do these things, but I mean that he has been so prejudiced and so blinded that he simply cannot. I hope the Lord will open his ears and his heart.

Now, I want to resume my argument. Da 7:21: "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." He told him that a certain wicked king or beast or power would make war with his saints in the future, if you please. By what was it made certain? Will it take place or not take place? I believe it is taking place today. I believe the very things that Daniel was given to see has, is, and will take place. I believe some of them are taking place today. I believe they will continue to take place. There is no doubt in my mind that Hitler doesn't know that he is fulfilling the purpose of God. In the eleventh chapter of Daniel (Da 11), in speaking of him-128 times it tells us in that chapter of things that shall be and shall not be, and so on, relative to the future; and I want to tell you, brethren and sisters and friends, that the word "shall" could be applied 128 times in one chapter in all classes of things that are to take place to the end of time. Isn't that some predestination? Isn't it some purpose? Isn't it some decree? It says, "For that which is determined shall be done." "Shall be done." Do you think there is any way of escape from the things that are determined? No, sir. The rise and fall of kingdoms and empires were under consideration. Da 7:17: "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall rise out of the earth." These four kings which have not arisen yet. How do the kingdoms arise? They often arise by murder, war and destruction. I want to tell you how they are arising. Tell me by what power is it made certain that they shall arise? I want to say, beloved friends, I would rather and when I say that, I hope that I say it with love from the very bottom of my heart-I would rather believe in a sovereign, eternal, and glorious God that has all power in heaven and earth, in the seas, and all deep places, and able to overrule and make all of these things work to His praise and glory than to believe in one that a lot of things take place that He would rather not.

Is foreknowledge causative? The fact that God foreknew all things does that cause all things to come to pass without secondary causes? I just ask you that question.

I want to quote to you now from Romans, (Ro 8:28-29) the eighth chapter, verses 28 and 29: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." The Apostle Paul says, "For we know that all things work together for the good to them that love God." How do all things work together for good? I will quote you one more Scripture. It says, "He who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will"; "all things work together for good." That is one of the places where it means "all things." It means everything. It means all things. It says "all things," and where I quoted from, it says how He "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." That means all things, and I want to tell you, my brethren, that when you get through with these "all things," it means all things. You will not have time to notice the things that do not mean all things. Although it is often spoken, we find how it is said that all the world went after John in the wilderness to be baptized. But Herod with all Jerusalem was troubled at him, and killed him.-Mt 14:10.

ELDER WEST: Will you give me the citation of the Scripture that "all things went out to John to be baptized?"

ELDER RHODES: I could be mistaken, but I think that is right. But if not, I stand corrected. Mt 3:5.

I want to say, beloved friends, that if "all things" always meant all things, then Herod was a convert of John the Baptist when he cut his head off. We don't find where he was a convert at all, but these "all things work together for the good of God's people," does mean all things, and I want to say that when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, when he partook in the garden of Eden of the forbidden fruit, it was the very gateway that caused and determined, brethren and sisters, to bring our Redeemer, how He was born as the result of the fact of the curse that God placed upon Eve and said in Ge 3:16 that in sorrow thou shalt bear children. So, the Saviour was born, and I want to say that I believe that very thing, and not only that, my friends, but I believe the London Confession of Faith, in my case here, where it says how Adam was included; how it extended to the first fall of man. Now it was recommended as being the most useful document in history since the days of the apostles and was recommended to all Primitive Baptists everywhere who believed it just as I am advocating. You are not here contrary to your will. You are here according to your will.

ELDER WEST: You refer to the London Confession. I wish you would read what it says.

ELDER RHODES: I will not have time to do that. I will give it to you in my next speech.

ELDER WEST: We will extend the time for you to read it and not count that time against you.

ELDER RHODES: "God hath decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin, nor hath fellowship with any therein, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature." Do you believe that, Elder West? It is recommended to all Primitive Baptists everywhere in America.

Time expired.

01.09 ELDER WEST'S THIRD NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I appear before you again in the negative of the proposition which you heard this morning.

The brother accused me in his speech of charging consequences in the definition of his proposition when he said that embraced "all things that come to pass," in defining his proposition, and then in making his argument, he took the wicked acts of designing men who took the Son of God and nailed Him upon the cross, a base and diabolical crime, and used that to illustrate that God caused those men to do what they did do, or the Son of God couldn't have made atonement without it. And yet, he said what I said was charging consequences.

ElDER RHODES: I don't think you are quoting me right.

ELDER WEST (addressing reporter): Note what he says in the record.

ELDER RHODES: I didn't say that He caused them to do that in the sense that you are making allusion that I did. I said that God predestinated or purposed them to do that in their wicked intention, but that was not the cause of it. Their wicked intention was the moving cause. They wouldn't have been there if it hadn't been for Him.

ELDER WEST: God is the cause of all causes, according to you, every cause, yet He did not cause it. I wonder how that is. He caused everything and yet He was not the cause of it. Aren't you befuddled? If you will do your debating for yourself, and look up your own references for yourself, and make your own arguments instead of depending upon these boys here to funnel you, you will do better.

ELDER RHODES: Thank you.

ELDER WEST: You're welcome. I just wanted to help you that much. He said that I was complaining about him complaining. He was complaining this morning about me evading, as the record will show, and I say, according to your doctrine, God predestinated everything that comes to pass, and that I had to evade and couldn't help it, according to your argument. I didn't say that if I were evading I couldn't have kept from it. I would not evade it, because you never did look at the Scripture that I quoted, and when you said it was an evasion, whereas the Son of God said, "I lay down my life and no man taketh it from me," it is a lot easier to accuse a man of charging consequences and evading than it is to answer the argument, sir.

He said that I brought unpleasant things into this discussion, and the only unpleasant thing that has been brought in, and I am sure it is unpleasant-I am sure it is unpleasant to him-I haven't a doubt in the world but that it is unpleasant for him-but if God absolutely predestinated all things that come to pass, it had to be that way, because God predestinated it. These men had to commit the wicked act that they did, according to your doctrine. Tell me how they could keep from it.

He says that predestination is not causative. Well, that is the first time I ever knew that. I thought that what God did, He did because He predestinated it, and brought it to pass because He predestinated it and foreordained it.

Everything that God does, God causes. He didn't cause the wicked acts of devils, and therefore, is not the first cause of all causes. Everything that God decreed, He absolutely caused. Everything that He predestinated, the Lord caused. But he said this morning that there were some times when the word "all" is used it did not apply to everything. Will you please tell us where that is. I asked you for an example.

ELDER RHODES: I gave you one.

ELDER WEST: Now then, we come to the point where he said in his speech that if Adam had not transgressed at all, that grace could not abound from the standpoint of salvation of the Lord's people. If I understand the gentleman correctly, that is what he said. I call your attention to it in a diagram I drew on the board. Over on this side we have Elder Rhodes' doctrine. On this side we have the Bible doctrine. On this side we have God and here God is in evidence. He made Adam and He made Eve. I wonder if in making them, that is charging consequences. I suppose that He made Adam and Eve; the Book says that He made them; But according to Elder Rhodes, the devil was doing the will of God when he came around over here and. caused Eve to transgress, or told her what he did tell her, that he enticed and deceived her in the transgression. On this side we have the woman giving the fruit to her husband. Here is the first cause of all causes, according to you. I wonder if the devil could keep from it? I wonder if he had to? Will you tell us whether he could have kept from it or not have kept from it? So, Adam transgressed because he had to, according to his doctrine and what he said. I still repeat, over and over, regardless of the personal reflection as to who I was kin to or who I am not kin to, that I would rather be a Campbellite than to believe such doctrine.

Now, here is God on this side of the line and there must be a discrimination, a line of demarcation drawn between this era and this Bible truth. "God is holy and just and without iniquity" (De 32:4). So, God says in Ge 2:17: "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." He read that over to you. I don't know what he read it for, but it went into the record and will show what I said about that this morning. I asked him the question, Was God actually admonishing him and warning about that thing, or did the Lord cause him to do it?

So, we come on further. Ro 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world." And Ro 5:19, "We find the woman was deceived. We find in 1 Timothy 1Ti 2:14, the second chapter, fourteenth verse, how she was deceived. The devil said to her in the third chapter of Genesis (Ge 3), "Thou shalt not surely die." All right, what was the devil? The devil, as you will find in Joh 8:44, was a liar. He was a murderer and the father of lies. So, for that reason the woman believed the old devil, and she absolutely went contrary to the law of God and transgressed His law, and it was the man that brought death. There was not one thing on earth said about predestinating it. And, listen, I wonder if everything that God purposed will come to pass. He said that he didn't say that God was the cause of the shedding of blood and rape and stealing and all those things. I didn't say that he did. He said that whatever comes to pass, it doesn't make any difference what in the world it is, and then he turned right around and said Hitler doesn't know that he is fulfilling the purpose of God. They raped those European countries over there and shed innocent blood. Mothers have been killed, daughters have been raped, and folks have been burned at the stake in Germany under the lash of the whip by the rule of Hitler and what he designed, and yet he said Hitler doesn't know that he is doing the will of God. Then, I have been charging consequences. All the devil is doing is fulfilling the will and purpose of God, according to Rhodes. Then, when West gets up and says unpleasant things, he says that I am charging consequences.

He asks, "Does God know more than He predestinated?" He thought that was loaded. Yes. And then, he came to the point where the cock was crowing. That is a deep doctrine. We heard the rooster crow. Isn't that deep? That is going down into the deep mystery. God predestinated that that old rooster had to crow. He couldn't keep from crowing. Is that charging consequences? Why, he even predestinated what the little old rooster did. That is what he said. That was an awful little thing he said. Isn't the bank robber a little bigger than the rooster crowing? Why is it my brother is so willing to say that God predestinated for the rooster to crow, but did not predestinate for anybody to rob the bank? Is that unpleasant?

ELDER RHODES: I didn't say that.

ELDER WEST: Didn't you say that God predestinated the rooster to crow?

ELDER RHODES: I didn't say the last part.

ELDER WEST: You didn't say that God predestinated to rob bank?

ELDER RHODES: I said, "all things," but He didn't move them.

ELDER WEST: He didn't move them? He is predestinated, and is subject to all powers that be, and you have not got any power except the power that God gives you, and you work with that power in devilment, and moved by the power that is the will of God, and yet did not cause it. Well, we will let that rooster crow again and see what we can get out of him.

He said that I said that they were delivered to do all those abominations. I said according to his doctrine they were delivered to do all those abominations. Let me ask you, could they keep from doing it? Did the Lord deliver them to do all those abominations? Do men in wickedness do the will of God? Is the will of God causative? He said that I have been so prejudiced that I wouldn't acknowledge the truth. Why not? Because God predestinated everything that comes to pass? I couldn't acknowledge the truth if I wanted to, could I, because, according to your doctrine, God predestinated that I could not. If God predestinates all things, I have to do just what I am doing. Why, good gracious alive, if he were preaching the truth, I couldn't acknowledge it unless the Lord predestinated it.

He asked me the question, "Is the foreknowledge of God causative?" No. Absolutely not. He quoted Ro 8:28: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called, according to His purpose." Is that stealing and murdering? Is that what all of those things are, "To Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will?" Is that stealing and murdering? I wonder if it is, or I wonder if that is charging consequences. What are all of the things in that text? "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." He said that when I get through noticing all these things in that text I will have no use for these other "all things." That is what he said. Now, what "all things" are not in that text? Will you tell us? You say that when I get through noticing these "all things", Ro 8:28, I will have no time to notice those things not in there. Will you tell me what wasn't in there, according to your doctrine?

All right, I am going to read a little. He said something about the London Confession; on page 35, Chapter 3, beginning with the first section: "God hath decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass." They do not stop there, "Yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin, nor hath fellowship with any therein." Let me ask you here if the devil, when he enticed Eve, was doing the will of God? Did the Lord have fellowship in the wicked acts of those individuals that destroyed the Son of God? If He did not have fellowship, then He didn't have fellowship for His predestination, did He? Did God predestinate something and have no fellowship with His own predestination? According to Brother Rhodes, God predestinated everything but had no fellowship with what He predestinated. He predestinated the old rooster to crow, but yet has no fellowship for His predestination. "God hath decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass; yet, so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away." What does the word "contingency" mean? It means that cause which is based one upon another. Now, let us see. You made the argument that God is the first cause of all causes, and then cling to your London Confession of Faith. That is all that I am going to say about that.

I am going to give you a definition, not only in English but the original as to what the word "predestinate" means. The word "predestinate" means, as defined by Webster, as an adjective, thus: "From Latin praedestinatus, perfect participle of praedestinare to predestine; prae before, plus destinare to determine. Predestinated; predestined; foreordained; fated; Theological, foreordained by God's decree or eternal purpose." As a transitive verb he defines it thus:

"To predetermine or foreordain; to predestine; Theo!.: to appoint or ordain beforehand by divine purpose or decree; to pre-elect." The word in English is translated from the Greek word prohorizo, which means to limit in advance, predetermine; determine before; ordain; predestinate. The word is from pro in front of, prior to; above, ago, before, or ever; and horizo, to mark out or bound, to appoint, decree, specify, declare, determine, limit, ordain.

The question was asked by me this morning, in connection with the fact that his proposition cannot be true because people do things that the Lord did not command, expect, neither did it come into His mind. Jer 19:4-5. I asked him this question: As mind means intention, purpose, and design, if God could have predestinated something that was not in his purpose, intention, and design? Could God predestinate something that was not in His intention, purpose, or design? That is what they did, something that was not in the purpose and mind of the Lord; therefore, all things in his proposition falls. All things were not predestinated by the Lord.

The proposition cannot be true, because the Lord commanded man not to eat of the tree-Ge 3:8-9,10-11,12-13. I started on that argument this morning and my time was called. "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And He said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" Did He command them not to do it? The record says that you said the Lord did not tell them not to do it, and then to prove your contention you made an argument on the word "freely," and here the Lord says He commanded them not to do it. It doesn't sound like they were very free in doing that to please God, does it, to you? I guess Adam knew what God meant. My friend Rhodes doesn't know what He meant by that language, but God knew. And the man said: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? and the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Now, that is the Bible version. I want to give you Rhodes' version on that: "Hast thou eaten of the tree as I have commanded and purposed thou shouldest eat?" He purposed all things, so she had to eat. And Adam answered and said to Him: "Yea, Lord, this woman thou gavest "me has done as thou hast purposed." She just couldn't have kept from it. If she just couldn't have kept from it, I wonder what caused it. Did the Lord cause it? If she couldn't have kept from it, what caused it? "And the Lord said unto the woman, Woman thou hast glorified me." Is the wicked action of men and devils glorifying to God? In fact, do not some of your brethren say that God is just as much glorified in the wicked acts of men and devils as righteousness? Isn't that what they said?

ELDER RHODES: I am not responsible for what they said.

ELDER WEST: I don't believe I would be, either, but I wouldn't stay with them. God is just as much glorified in cursing, they say. "Woman, thou hast glorified me, as I purposed and predestinated both good and evil." If He predestinated both good and evil, she had to glorify Him. She couldn't help it, or His predestination would have fallen down. "And she answered and said to the Lord, Yes, I have listened to the serpent, as thou hast appointed, and fulfilled thy predestination." Is that charging consequences? How is it charging consequences, when you say He predestinated everything? (The speaker was interrupted by a voice in the audience.)

ELDER WEST: If you want to do this man's debating, that is all right with me. That will be all right.

"Yea, Lord, I have listened to the serpent, as thou hast appointed, to fulfill thy predestination." She must have been fulfilling His predestination if He predestinated everything. I wonder if that is charging consequences. I would find something ahead of that, too, if I believed that. God predestinated everything. It had to come to pass. Did it have to come to pass? Does what He predestinated have to come to pass?

ELDER RHODES: It does.

ELDER WEST: Does it have to come to pass? That is what I am asking him. Now, does it? Does everything have to come to pass?

ELDER RHODES: It cannot fail.

ELDER WEST: So, it has to come to pass. Now then because God predestinated it. Secondary causes-but not because God predestinated it. Is the secondary cause the cause of God's predestination? Is that right? If the secondary cause is the cause of God's predestination, He caused secondary causes, and therefore, he caused it.

ELDER RHODES: That's right.

ELDER WEST: I knew that was his contention. I wasn't charging consequences at all. So, God caused it. He just came down and absolutely acknowledged that God predestinated all these wicked acts of men and devils and they had to do it. That is his logic. God made man good, but He didn't want man good, so He predestinated that he be evil minded. Did God predestinate that he be evil minded? I wonder if God predestinated his being evil minded. Did He? Did God predestinate that he be evil minded?

Time expired.

01.10 ELDER RHODES' FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Dearly Beloved Brethren, Sisters and Friends:

I am here to continue my affirmative argument. He hasn't given me anything to notice, except a little sarcasm, so I won't have any trouble going on with my regular argument at this time.

He says that I am befuddled. He says I am befuddled. I feel that he does have the greatest sympathy for me in my befuddlement.

Ladies and gentlemen, did you know that I offered him this morning a long list of questions. I didn't give him half of them, and I have been insisting on his answering them, and he hasn't answered one of them yet. I was befuddled enough to give him some questions that he cannot answer. I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, that if I stay befuddled like I am now, I am going to give him some more questions he cannot answer. I am going to give him plenty that he cannot answer. I am going to do that right now.

"Is not God's foreknowledge just as immutable as His predestination? 1f so, would it not be just as impossible to I change one event from the way He foreknew it would be as I it would be to change one event from the way He predestinated that it should be?" I want to ask you the same question you asked me:

"If God foreknew all things, is it possible for one thing that He foreknew to fail to come to pass?" Now, I say that we are before an intelligent people, and if God foreknew a thing, if it didn't come to pass, he was mistaken about it; God just mistook the thing, didn't He? Could there be such a thing? Could there be such a thing as a certain foreknowledge of an uncertain event? If not, and all things were certainly foreknown of God from eternity, then were not all things certain from eternity, and if so, by whom or what were they made certain? Did God eternally think that all things would come to pass as they do? If so, would He not be deceived if they should fail to come to pass as He thought they would? If not, why not? I want to say, beloved friends, that I am glad, if I know my heart, that I have never stood in the face of intelligent congregation and in the presence of Almighty. God and denied His blessed word. In Isa 16:14 it says: "The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand." Has anything ever taken place that God never thought of? I want to say, beloved friends, if my brother doesn't believe what I am advocating on this subject, you do not believe God on oath. You should get a notary out here and get a bill against Him and put Him in jail. Does anything, except God, exist without a cause to produce it? And is not every cause adequate to the effect which it produces? And is not God the first cause of all causes? And if He is the first cause of all causes, then did He cause them accidentally or on purpose? You will have to admit, Elder West, that none of us would be here if God had not created us. You will have to admit that those robbers and rapists which you spoke of this morning would not have been here if God hadn't created them, would they? We find that the Psalmist David says-I believe it is in Proverbs-"The Lord has created all things for Himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." "He created all things for Himself," yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." If they didn't serve in the day of evil, tell me whether or not the purpose of God fails. They are going to serve His purpose. You need not be uneasy about that.

Do you believe there ever was, or ever will be, one single action of any being, creature, or thing, in heaven, earth, or hell, in time or eternity, that was eternally sovereignly, freely, independently, and immutably predestinated, decreed or purposed of God? If so, please tell us what it was.

If God had rather that sin had not entered the world, then is it not also a fact that He had rather not had any dealings with man as a sinner, seeing that such dealings come in connection with that which He rather had never existed? If God had rather sin had not entered the world, then is it not also a fact that He had rather to never have spoken one word to or concerning man as a sinner, Himself by His prophets, His Son, His apostles, or His ministers, seeing that all such words have been spoken to and concerning man as being in a state or condition which God had rather he had never been in?

Has not God always thought of man as the creature who would sin, or had sinned, or had been redeemed from sin? If so, and He had rather sin had never existed, then is it not a fact that He had rather never to have had a single thought which he has had concerning man?

You know, it gets pretty deep. You were speaking of the rooster crowing awhile ago. I did not mention that to express the deepness of the rooster's intention to crow, but the smallness of the circumstance which the wisdom of God had embraced. That is what I was talking about. .

If God had rather sin had never existed, hence had rather never redeemed man from sin, and carry him to heaven as a redeemed sinner, then, is it not a fact, that He had rather there would be no shouts of praises in heaven by redeemed sinners, praising Him for their redemption, seeing they will be praising Him for something He had rather have not done? If God had rather sin had not entered the world, then is it not a fact that He had rather not punish any man for sin, either in time or in eternity, seeing that such punishment is inflicted because of something which He would rather had never existed?

If the foregoing questions be true concerning God's attitude towards sin and its entrance into the world, then has He ever had one thought, spoken one word, or performed one act, in heaven, earth, or hell, in time or eternity, that has been as He originally would rather it should be, seeing they have been shaped according to and in connection with the thing which He rather had not been?

If this last question, No. 31, presents the truth relative to the original attitude of God as to how He rather it would have been, and yet none of them have ever been as He would have preferred to have them, then how far was the fool from the truth when he said in his heart, "There is no God?" I am going to be befuddled and give you some more in the morning. I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, that he cannot answer these questions Scripturally and logically without acknowledging my proposition. But I am going him one better than that. Elder West-pardon me, ladies and gentlemen-do you believe the article that you read in the London Confession of Faith? Will you just nod your head if you believe that? I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, that he read it but never did tell us whether he believed it or not. I wonder what he read it for. He never did explain the thing that was contained in it. I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, that if he believes that article, I am ready to shake his hand and say that I endorse very word in that London Confession of Faith relative to this subject that we are discussing. There will be no need of any further discussion or charging consequences, either, for that matter. I say, ladies and gentlemen, there are people living today, and there are some here present today, who were present when that was adopted at the Fulton convention and recommended to all Primitive Baptists in all of the United States.

I asked him the question, Did God cause the wicked? "He has created all things for Himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Could the devil keep from it? He said the reason, Scripturally, why the devil deceived Eve, he was a liar from the beginning and abode not in the truth. It was right down his alley to deceive Eve, and if God had not made her so that the devil could have made his inroad, then, he couldn't have done it. I believe it would have been possible for God to have made a woman who never could have been deceived, but the fact that He made one the devil did deceive proves the fact that He made one that he could deceive.

Now, he made his little argument on the blackboard up here, and he put a little note here showing his color. He is kin to the one that he is talking about. He made his little diagram and with all of these Scriptural questions outstanding before him, tending directly to the point of this discussion, and with him, after I introduced it and everything, read the clause of the London Confession of Faith, and he will not even tell me whether he believes that or not.

Did God have any idea what Adam would do? Then, I guess God was like the little boy about a circumstance which I have in mind right now. I guess when Adam partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the Lord disturbed all of his settled counsel in heaven and said, "Oh, my, what am I going to do? Adam went and did something that I didn't know he would do; something that I have no purpose in. I just have to take hold now and do the best I can." My brethren do not believe that. My brother believes that God knew that Adam would and he also believes that the devil was the moving cause of Eve committing her sin. He believes that. You know that he does. He has already advocated that, so he cannot charge anything on me. That is exactly what I believe about it, but I don't believe that predestination is causative. I believe also that the devil was made for the very purpose that he served. I believe he still is God's devil. '''Whatsoever is under the whole heaven are mine; both the deceived and the deceiver are His." And He says over there in the fourth chapter of Revelation (Re 4)-I have the citation here somewhere in my notes.

ELDER WEST: You can give it to me later if you prefer.

ELDER RHODES: Thank you. I will do that.

He spoke about a bank robber awhile ago. Was it legal to rob a bank? Do they rob a bank because it is legal, or because they want the money? Is it wrong for people to rob the bank? Most assuredly it is wrong, and it is contrary to every phase of law. And yet, my friends, they rob banks because they want the money out of them just as Judas Iscariot wanted the money for betraying the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet, that very thing was prophesied thousands of years before that where it says, "And this was done that it might be fulfilled, and they, counted the price of Him, that they, the children of Israel, did value, it was found thirty pieces of silver." Now, I want to say, my beloved friends, the actual price of the betrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ-there is no doubt in my mind but what Judas Iscariot would have loved to have had thirty-five pieces of silver, at least. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have taken a hundred pieces if he could have gotten it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the chief priest would have loved to have contracted with him for twenty pieces of silver. But the fact, beloved friends, stands immutable, that it was thirty pieces of silver, and I say the reason why it was thirty pieces of silver was because that it was the wisdom and purpose of God, for some reason, that it should be thirty pieces of silver. The Scriptures could not have been fulfilled if it had not been that way.

The London Confession of Faith. I have already noticed that.

It was not in God's purpose to authorize Adam to sin. It was not in God's purpose to liberate him by commandment, but I want to say when that word "freely"-he played upon the Greek and the Hebrew, and there is not a Hebrew scholar in the building, even including himself. I know that. Was the reason he did that in order to evade? I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, the fact remains that God has said, "Thou shalt not eat of it and be free." That is what He says, and he knows that as well as I do. If you don't believe that, read the Book.

MODERATOR CAYCE: I don't believe it says that.

ELDER RHODES: I should have said it means that God had not authorized him to do it.

MODERATOR CAYCE: That is not what it says.

ELDER RHODES: That is in a lower quotation, Elder Cayce. He said, how, if he commanded him to do something and he had not predestinated it, how could the man keep from doing it? I believe that was his question. That is the way I have it in my notes: I wonder if I have it correctly. Brother West, will you tell me if I have that correctly?

ELDER WEST: Hold his time.

ELDER RHODES: My notes show that you said, did God predestinate anything that He commanded in opposition.

ELDER WEST: No, sir.

ELDER RHODES: I will read what I have here: He commanded Pharaoh to let them go, yet, He predestinated that he should not let them go. That answers the direct argument, whatever your question was.

MODERATOR CAYCE: The question was, Did God predestinate they do something which He commanded them not to do?

ELDER RHODES: I will let the Scriptures answer that. In Pharaoh's case He said, "Go to Pharaoh and say, Thus sayeth the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go; yet I will harden his heart so that he shall not let them go. Doesn't that come to the point? That is exactly what you asked for and you have it.

We will go along now with our affirmative argument. Da 11:36-37: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." "There shall be a time of trouble." In the future? What brings trouble? Sin, corruption, disobedience, and degradation. "There shall be a time of trouble." Do you think that He will be pleased about it, or do you think that one single bit of all that trouble the Lord said "shall be" will fail? Do you think so? I say emphatically not. "Such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time: And at that time thy people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." My friends, pardon me, that was Da 12:1-2, instead of the reference I gave. Pardon me, it was my fault.

I say, my friends, that all of this trouble must come or the Scriptures will be broken, and Jesus said, also, "the Scriptures cannot be broken." They must be fulfilled. I say, if there is one single ounce of this trouble-and this included Hitler-and God knows, my friends, if I had that scamp in my hands, with as little grip as I have, I could squeeze his neck in two. Yes, I could do that. But I want to tell you, brethren and sisters, he has brought the greatest trouble the world has ever known. Is the world not in the greatest trouble today it has ever been in? And yet, my friends, the righteous, and holy, and sinless, the Almighty, and powerful God decreed and spoke by his prophet that there shall be a time of trouble such as was not since man was upon the earth. I tell you-my brethren, would you have any confidence in Almighty God if He said that a thing shall be and it failed to come to pass? I say that I wouldn't have any confidence in Him. No, sir, not even if God said, "He shall save His people from their sins," and then not do it. There wouldn't be much comfort in His words for you. But He says, "I will," concerning everything-concerning all things that come to pass, just exactly like God purposed it and as He predestinated it. I am not afraid of the word "predestination." I am here to do my dead level best and carry my point with me on foreknowledge, and he will not stay with me on that.

Quoting Ex 7:1-6: "And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you." The Lord says, "I will harden his heart." He said, "I will harden his heart so that he shall not let them go." I want to ask you, my worthy opponent, and all of you brethren and sisters and kind spectators, if God commanded Pharaoh to let His people go, and yet turned right around and said, "I have hardened his heart so that he shall not let them go," tell me, brethren and sisters, because we cannot understand the mystery of God's will as to why He should do a thing like that, is it any of our business to undertake to deny it?

I am reminded of the little boy that I heard of once who got into a dispute with an aged man on the street and the aged man said, "That is not so." The little boy said, "It is so." The man said, "It is not so." The little boy said again, "It is so." The man said, "Young man, why do you say it is so?" The little boy replied, "Because papa said so." I want to tell you, my brethren and sisters, that God has said He hardened Pharaoh's heart, and so it is so.

Ex 10:1-2: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord." The Lord did that for His honor and glory and majesty, that His name might be magnified. Did He have a right to do it? We are not here to discuss consequences, what the consequences would be if God did these things. We are here to discuss as to whether He did them or not. You haven't denied whether he did them or not.

Ex 3:19-20: "And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand. And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go." The Lord appointed a time when He was going to multiply all of these things, and He did it.

Ro 11:33-36: "0 the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." I say that according to the Scriptures, all things are of Him and through Him, and I would rather have the Scripture than the testimony of all men. That has under consideration all things, and it so states. Could God's wisdom be perfect and not embrace all things? Why, then, He might not know much more than you do. "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." If I were to close the Book and pack my grip, I say, brethren, the debate is over. Right here on this particular passage of Scripture he would squirm and twist for the rest of his days and never come out from underneath it. It is "of Him, and to Him, and through Him are all things." I want him to tell us just what things are under consideration in this text. I say, my friends, that I believe that he said just exactly what he was talking about, and "all things are of Him," in some sense of the word, "and for Him," in some sense of the word, and "to Him," in some sense of the word. So, my brethren and sisters, I want to say that this argument stands boldly forth, and in all of the wisdom of this earth there has never been one who can deny it.

Time expired.

01.11 ELDER WEST'S FOURTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent and. Kind Friends:

I am again in the negative of the proposition. The first thing I want to call your attention to is that my brother makes complaint about me not answering several pages of typed questions that he read and which he had ready before this debate began, and I don't know how long he studied over them, or whether he even copied them from somebody else. I don't know where he got them, but I know that he wrote them before this debate began. He didn't take the time while I was speaking to make up his questions, but he framed all of his questions before this debate began, and he wants me to answer them immediately, and says, "Oh, he can't answer them is the reason that he doesn't." Now, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If you had four weeks or six months to write them, I ought to have just a little time to look at them, don't you think?

I don't know whether I will answer them or not. I haven't even looked at them yet.

He wants to know if there is anything that is impossible with God or not. Yes, there is one thing that is impossible with God and that is to lie. That is impossible. It is not possible that God can lie.

Isa 14:24, "As I have thought, so shall it come to pass." I believe that citation. I believe it with all my heart and soul. "As I have thought, so shall it come to pass." There is nothing about that that says that God predestinated all things that come to pass, both good and evil. Not a thing in the world. You haven't found it today, and when this debate is ended and you read your record of what you have said, you will find that you have not said a thing in the world that favors your proposition; not a thing in the world. You haven't quoted one passage that says that God predestinated everything that comes to pass. He has not quoted a Scripture with predestination in it-not one.

He said if I don't believe the doctrine I would not believe God on it. Well, why complain about it? According to your doctrine, I couldn't believe Him on it. According to your doctrine, God predestinated that I couldn't believe Him on it. If He predestinates everything that comes to pass, I couldn't believe it. I suppose that God predestinated that I couldn't believe it, and then predestinated that Brother Rhodes would tell me that I ought to believe it when it is predestinated I couldn't believe it.

"He has created all things for Himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." I believe that. God created everything that was created and without Him nothing was made that was made. That doesn't say a thing in the world about God predestinating whatsoever comes to pass. Not a thing in the world. It is as silent as the grave on the proposition that He predestinates what comes to pass. I believe that Scripture and I believe what it says.

Then he comes and makes an argument in his question, "could anything happen that God did not want to come to pass?" Over and over and over. When I answer his question tomorrow and you read that record-if you read it-you will find out that is true. Could something come to pass that God didn't want to come to pass? Rape, lying, stealing and murder come to pass. Does God want it to come to pass? Does God want that? I want to know if He wants that. Can you find a place in God's Book where he says it, or are you speculating just a little? He said that the devil was a liar, just like Brother West says he was. Brother West, he said, hit the nail right on the head. Then, God created the devil and he had to be a liar. God predestinated that and fixed it, I suppose. Could he have kept from lying, if God predestinated that he be a liar and the father of liars, and a murderer? Did God predestinate that he be a murderer and predestinate him to be like he was? He was a murderer. Did God predestinate the murders of the devil?

I asked him the question, was it legal to rob a bank, so he says. I didn't ask him that question. I didn't say that. I didn't ask him if it was legal or illegal. I asked him if God predestinated that he rob a bank. The word "legal" was not in the question.

ELDER RHODES (interrupting): I think you misunderstood me. I asked you if it was legal to rob a bank.

ELDER WEST: You asked me the question?

ELDER RHODES: That is right.

ELDER WEST: You were not accusing me of asking the question? No, it is not legal to rob a bank. It is illegal to rob a bank, according to the Bible doctrine, "Thou shalt not steal." But if God predestinated that he should steal and he has to, the predestination of God would be legal because you couldn't keep from it. It would be legal in the sight of God because he fixed it and it couldn't be any other way. He said, awhile ago, "Could something come to pass that God did not want?" I guess He wanted that thing. God wanted him to rob a bank. Did He say, "You are not going into that bank? I am not going to let you?" Did He say, "You are not going in there; but go in and steal all you want to?" Did He say, "You cannot take any more out of there, or any less, than I have predestinated?" You just have to get out of there exactly what He predestinated that you would get out of the bank.

I have asked him time after time if prophecy is causative. Did prophecy cause Judas to betray the Son of God for thirty pieces of silver, or was the prophecy because he would do it? Or was it just fulfilling the predestination of God? Was that God's will? Tell us if God was willing and wanted that to happen. Did God predestinate that he just take thirty pieces of silver?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: That, and no less?

ELDER RHODES: That's right.

ELDER WEST: He had to take just what he did?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: And they had to take Him and nail Him to the cross, just like they did do?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: And commit the act of murder that they did, and then say that it was caused by the Lord's predestination, and that is charging consequences?

ELDER RHODES: Pardon me, Elder West. I don't mind you doing this whenever you wish, but I said that the secondary causes, and tried to emphasize that, the wickedness in their own hearts and love for thirty pieces of silver, was what moved them to do that. Predestination is no more causative than you say foreknowledge is, and I don't believe it. Every time you charge that, you charge something that I don't believe.

ELDER WEST: I asked you the question awhile ago, if what Gad predestinated was fixed?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: Did God fix it?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: Well, then, if He fixed it, how in the world is it charging consequences for me to say that he fixed it?

ELDER RHODES: We are not here to say how He did it, but whether He did it or not.

ELDER WEST: You said He did it. I said that you said He did it, and you say "you are charging consequences." Let me ask you this question: Did He fix all things to come to pass, Elder Rhodes?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: Does it have to come to pass?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: Because He fixed it?

ELDER RHODES: No.

ELDER WEST: He fixed something and it doesn't have to be because He fixed it?

ELDER RHODES: All other causes came in with that.

ELDER WEST: God fixed it that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. Is that what you say?

ELDER RHODES: That is not the moving cause in the hearts of the wicked men.

ELDER WEST: Well, I am asking you if He fixed it.

ELDER RHODES: Yes, I will say He fixed it.

ELDER WEST: Can't you debate with me in your own time? Do you want same of my time to make your speech?

When I asked to hold the time, I was trying to get you straight.

ELDER RHODES: I do not believe that Gad in His infinite love and leadership of His spirit leads men to wickedness, and that is what you are charging.

ELDER WEST: You do not believe that He fixed all things that came to pass?

ELDER RHODES: I believe He fixed all things-He fixed it, but-

ELDER WEST: He fixed it, but He was not the cause of what He fixed. He fixed same thing, but He was not the cause of what He fixed. I never heard of a man fixing something and not being the cause of what he fixed. Will you tell us for the record how in the world God fixed something and was not the cause of what He fixed? I am honest, because I want to know how that can be. I want you to tell me exactly how He fixed something and was not the cause of what He fixed. I will rest a little and let that soak in. God fixed something, and yet was not the cause of what He fixed. Shame! Shame! Shame!

He said that I played upon the Greek and Hebrew, and that there was not a Greek or Hebrew scholar in the house. How do you know that? Will you please tell me wherein the definition I gave in Hebrew or Greek was right or wrong? You have to know something about it yourself before you can determine whether a man doesn't know anything in the world about it, don't you? Are you a scholar? If you are not a scholar, how do you know whether I am one or not?

ELDER RHODES: Well, I have information, which I think I can produce, that you are not.

ELDER WEST: Is the definition correct or not? I was giving the definition. I was making an argument on the definition. I asked him the question, Did God command something and predestinate something that could not come to pass? He said, yes, that God commanded Pharaoh-will you give me that citation where He commanded Pharaoh to do something? Didn't Moses talk to Pharaoh? Did God deal directly in speaking to Pharaoh? I would like to have the citation on that.

He said that these troubles have to come to pass and must come to pass. I suppose he used that in predestination, but if I say that he used the words "they must come to pass," but if I used the troubles and begin to enumerate them, I am charging consequences.

He said, "I just want to squeeze old Hitler. I wish I had him in my hands. I would just love to squeeze him." Why do you want to squeeze a man who is fulfilling the predestination of God? He cannot help it. He is fulfilling God's purpose. Why squeeze the poor old thing? He is just a tool in the hand of God, according to what you say. I wouldn't want to do a thing in the world to him. He is doing no more than God intended for him to do, nor any less than God wanted him to do. That's what you said. That is not charging consequences, is it? He cannot do any more or any less, and yet you want to squeeze him. I reckon that God predestinated that old Hitler do what he has done, and then Rhodes wants to squeeze him. Brother Rhodes is displeased with the predestination of God. God predestinated that Hitler do it, because He predestinated all things, and He also predestinated Brother Rhodes to be displeased about it. Does he have to do it because God predestinated it? Does God fix it? Why then-he said that God fixed it. God fixed poor old Hitler to do everything that he has done, and he just has to do it, because God fixed it. Yet the Lord predestinated that Brother Rhodes wants to squeeze him. He just wants to squeeze the life out of the poor old thing for doing the will of God.

"And being used as the hand of God and all things working together for the good of them that love God." Tell us what is in that text when you get up again. Is it all things that come to pass? God predestinated it and fixed it, but yet it is charging consequences-when He fixed it for me to say that; God fixed it and it had to be that way. Yes, I think that you are befuddled. If you are not befuddled, I never saw a case of befuddlement in my life.

Ex 7:1-2, and Ex 10:1-2, where he makes reference to what God told Moses and Aaron to say to Pharaoh. There is nothing in the world in that Scripture that says that God from the beginning predestinated all things, both good and evil, whatsoever comes to pass.

There is not a thing in the world about that which you read that had predestination in it.

Then, he calls our attention to Ro 11:33-36: "0 the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Are His ways past finding out, Elder Rhodes? Are God's ways past finding out? If God's ways are past finding out, how did you find out that He predestinated everything in the world that comes to pass? "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen." There is not a thing in the world in that verse that implies, directly or indirectly, or states in any way, shape, form or fashion, that God predestinated whatsoever should come to pass, both good and evil. That is all that I am going to say about that.

I have asked the question, time and time again, Did God purpose and predestinate something that was not in His intention, purpose, and design? I would like for you to answer that question.

ELDER RHODES: What is your question?

ELDER WEST: Did God predestinate something that He did not intend, purpose, and design?

ELDER RHODES: That is a contradiction of terms.

ELDER WEST: I am asking you if He did predestinate something that He did not intend, purpose, and design.

ELDER RHODES: Will you state the question again?

ELDER WEST: Did God predestinate something that He did not intend, purpose, or design?

ELDER RHODES: No, sir.

ELDER WEST: He did not?

ELDER RHODES: That is a contradiction of terms.

ELDER WEST: Then, your proposition contradicts itself. That is the truth of the matter. His proposition contradicts itself, I think. There are some things that come to pass not in His mind; therefore, some things come to pass not in His intention, purpose, or design, and therefore, He did not predestinate it. According to you, it is a contradiction. Therefore, God did not predestinate what ever comes to pass, all things; therefore, his proposition is not the truth. I know that is a contradiction of terms; that is why I asked you.

Is God the first cause of all causes? Ps 25:19-some folks hated God without a cause. Well, if they hated God without a cause, and the first cause of all causes is God, didn't they hate God because God caused it, if He was the first cause of all causes. If there is a first cause of all causes, and God is the first cause of all causes, how in the world could they hate God without a cause? Didn't that come to pass? Did God predestinate that to come to pass?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: Is that the cause of it?

ELDER RHODES: He was the cause of all things.

ELDER WEST: He was the cause of them hating Him. Is that the truth? Is that the secondary cause or the first cause?

ELDER RHODES: The first cause.

ELDER WEST: In other words, they hated Him because He was the first cause, but hated Him without a cause. Who are you going to believe, him or God's word? He said that God is the cause of everything. He said He was the first cause. That is what the record will show. He said that God is the first cause, and they hated Him without a cause. That is what God's book says (Ps 35:19). He says God is the first cause of it; they hated Him for a cause, and God is the first cause. You can believe him, or you can believe the Lord. Do you believe that some folks hated God without a cause? If they hated Him without a cause, He was not the cause of it. You are a little bit befuddled, but that is all right. We are having a good time. I will continue, now with my negative argument.

God made man good. That is what the Scriptures say, but He didn't have a good man, according to you. If he had wanted a good man, he would have stayed good. He didn't want a good man, because everything comes to pass that God wants. That is what he says in his question. God told Adam to obey Him, but God didn't want Adam to obey Him. God said, "Now, you obey me, Adam. I have commanded you not to eat of the fruit." God told Adam to do right, but God wanted him to do wrong, because nothing can happen except what God wants. If He had not wanted it that way, it couldn't have happened. That is what you said in your argument. That is not charging consequences, is it? God told the man not to eat lest he die. That is the Scripture-but God wanted him to eat and die, according to you. Did God want him to die or not? God told Adam to dress the garden. That is what the Scriptures say. But He wanted him to sin so He could drive him out. That is your doctrine. If it were not your doctrine, why ask the question, could something happen that God did not want to happen? I will give you a nickel in the morning if he doesn't say that I am charging consequences while that is exactly what he says.

His proposition cannot be true, because the wickedness of man grieved God at His heart. Ge 6:5-6: "And God saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart." God predestinated that he do what he did, according to Elder Rhodes. God fixed it, and what He fixed grieved Him in His heart. Consequently, God was grieved at His predestination. Something grieves God in His heart that He predestinated. Would you predestinate something that grieved you in your heart? Aren't you a little more intelligent than that? If you are more intelligent than that, would you charge God that way, predestinating something that would grieve Him? Would you fix something that would grieve you?'

MODERATOR SMITH: He didn't say the predestination did. It was the wickedness.

ELDER WEST: Did he say that God fixed everything that comes to pass?

ELDER RHODES: The wickedness of the man proceeded from himself but not from God.

ELDER WEST: But God fixed it, so God would have to do that.

ELDER RHODES: God fixed it so that he in his depraved condition would want to do that.

ELDER WEST: God fixed it?

ELDER RHODES: That is right and in predestinating all events that come to pass, He predestinated everything. He had to do it, because God fixed it. Because of having to do it was the circumstance of His will and His design and the wickedness in his heart.

ELDER WEST: God fixing the cause, caused him to do it?

ELDER RHODES: Certainly, it couldn't have come to pass contrary to what he wanted to do.

ELDER WEST: That is what I am accusing you of, what you are speaking into the record. When you read it, you will see that. You said that God predestinated, and then He fixed it, according to your doctrine, and I said that He was grieved at the wickedness of man. I said, according to your doctrine, God fixed the wickedness of the man, and therefore, He was grieved at His predestination, His fixing it. I can't see where there is any tangle in that. The reason you folks are interrupting me is because you are hurting. If it were not hurting them, they would not interrupt me. You brethren over here are not interrupting Brother Rhodes, and if you do; I will quit.

ELDER RHODES: We will not interrupt you any more.

ELDER WEST: If you want to interrupt me, rise to your feet and ask the moderators to call time. That is the proper order.

God predestinated their wickedness and everything that came to pass, according to him. I don't reckon I am misrepresenting that. According to his doctrine.

His proposition cannot he true, because the earth was filled with violence. "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth: The antecedent of the pronoun I is God. It was man that corrupted the way of God upon the earth. It was man who did that. It wasn't according to God's fixing. It was not according to God's predestination. But it was according to the work of the devil. I am going to tell you in the closing of this discussion this afternoon that God and the devil are not partners.

Time expired.

MODERATOR CAYCE: I think I will have the approval of my brother moderator in saying that when we consider the matter soberly for half a minute, and the speakers, also, will agree with me, that there has been too much interrupting when a man is speaking. That is all out of order. It doesn't matter with me which man does it, it is out of order, and should not be indulged in.

It is permissible, if a man gives a citation and you fail to hear what he says, to interrupt long enough to ask for that citation. But to interrupt a man while he is speaking and continuously to do so, as has been the case this afternoon, is all out of order, and with the approval of my brother moderator, we will rule that out. I believe the speakers, when they think of it for a moment, will also agree that this should not be indulged in. If a speaker is speaking and you do not understand him, you may ask him to repeat what he said, but it is even better then to wait until your time to speak and then ask him if you correctly understood it. That is parliamentary and good order. And I am going to ask that the speakers observe that. If Brother West breaks in, I am going to frankly tell you now that I will call him to order. I want to rule impartially. This is a matter which has to do with God's Book, and what He has left on record for us and should not be dealt with like that. It is bad enough for people to interrupt in political disputes and try to confuse one another. That is all that I want to say. We should think of this and observe it.

Time Expired.

01.12 ELDER RHODES' FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE

Gentlemen Moderators, Brethren and Sisters:

I am before you again this morning to resume my affirmative argument. I believe I will first notice concerning the things said on yesterday afternoon: Some things that He fixed and not the cause of what He fixed. I would like to ask Elder West a short brief question on that: Would there have been anything here if there had been no God? That is the sense in which I believe that God is the first cause of all causes.

Next, I will call to your attention one argument that I have already made which he referred to yesterday, briefly, concerning the king of Assyria. The tenth chapter, beginning with the fifth verse in Isaiah (Isa 10:5): "0 Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few. For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings? Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus? As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria; wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed His whole work."

I want to pause briefly with the reading: "When the Lord hath performed His work." What work? When He performed the work of the correction of the children of Israel through the wickedness of their king: "upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man." I now want to read the fifteenth verse of the same chapter: "Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood." Thus, reads to the fourteenth verse and skipping to the fifteenth verse after beginning with verse 5. Now, beloved friends, I want to say that this old king thought that he was the only one that had anything to do with it. He was doing it according to his own will. He was doing it because he wanted to rob their treasures and wanted to tread them down as the mire of the streets. But I want to say, beloved friends, that back of all that, Almighty God has declared, ''I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge," and He said, "shall the axe boast against him that heweth therewith?" God is the one hewing with this axe. God is the one, and every stroke against the wickedness of this king of Assyria was a stroke of justice of Almighty God in correcting His people. And yet, at the same time, it was wickedness in the heart of the king of Assyria. That is the point I want to get before you.

Now, yesterday my opponent brought up something about the fact that they hated Him without a cause. He said they hated Him without a cause. I want to give him another example of something that was done without a cause, and I want him to charge the same thing relative to that. We find, beloved friends, that Satan moved the Lord to destroy Job without cause. I will give you the citation later. I will withhold that argument until I find the Scripture. I had it here somewhere but I have misplaced it in my notes.

How about God repenting, grieving in His heart? He made a big play on that. I wonder if that is his conception of the sovereign, the eternal and glorious God. That is like the little boy who started out to do something big. He started out to do something great and wonderful, but he stumped his toe and fell down and knocked his playhouse from underneath him. He sat down and he pulled his hair and acknowledged what a failure he had always been. "I don't have the power that I thought I had." That is what it means, in essence, if that is his application. I want to say, beloved friends, that Almighty God has all power in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places. If He wants to make a world be different, He would have had the power to make it that way; my opponent, if he wanted to make a chicken coop and had the power to make it and the material to make it from and knew how to make it, and had everything necessary for the completion of that coop, what would he be if he didn't make it like he wanted to? I want to say that I believe, and will continue to affirm, that He made the Antedeluvian world just exactly like He wanted it. And all the bounds and habitation of the people of the Antedeluvian world were set in that chapter there, "For yet man's days upon the earth shall be an hundred and twenty years." How many of that generation do you think lived 120 years? Now, I want to say, briefly, in connection with this proposition that he just mentioned, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Son of God, He being verily God and verily man, that He was the one that grieved and repented, and the only one that had a heart; predestinating the time when the Lord should come, when Jesus should die on Calvary's cross. In another place, he says, "I am God and not man that I should repent." And so, brethren and sisters, I want to say that if he thinks that God made the same kind of failure as he does and as I do, and as everyone else does, we might just as well turn around and make us one of wood or stone.

The Scripture I was searching for a while ago was Job 2:3. He said that Satan moved Him to destroy Job without a cause. Did God ever do anything without a cause? I think it is readily understood by all intelligent people that it was because He had previously stated in His conversation to Satan. He said, "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in all the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil?" And so Satan moved him without any cause of iniquity in Job to destroy him. So, there is his argument.

Now, I want to make an argument on Heb 2:10; Ro 11:36, and Col 1:17.

ELDER WEST: Will you please quote them separately?

ELDER RHODES: Heb 2:10. I want you to get the force of this argument: "For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." That is the reading from Hebrews. Next, I will cite Ro 11:36. I think I can quote it but I will read it: "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Now Col 1:17: "And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." The question with me, interpreting this argument, my worthy opponent, is this: How can all things be by Him, and for Him, and of Him, and to Him, and before Him, and by Him all things consist, and yet God not predestinate any of it? All things are of Him, and to Him, and by Him and before Him. All things. It means all things.

Now, yesterday he said that I had not used the Scriptures that had predestination in it. Everyone that I have used had predestination in it. I understand the sense in which he meant that.

Eph 1:4-12: "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: "having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus"-from where and to where? "Unto the adoption of children" from sin and wickedness and degradation. "'Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to. the good pleasure of His will." Do you reckon predestination comes anywhere within 100 miles of where these children were? How could He predestinate to adopt them from sin and wickedness and into God's heavenly family if he did not predestinate the condition which they were in, and that condition was made manifest through the eating of the forbidden fruit, that we have already discussed? I say, emphatically, beloved friends, that the word predestination here-that he cannot escape it by any reasonable consequences, that He came in direct contact, and is co-extensive with that period of adoption. He cannot escape it. "To the praise of the glory of His grace, where in He has made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sin, according to the riches of His grace; wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in himself; that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in Him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will:" Who worketh? Not only is it predestinated, my friends, but God's sovereign manipulation, and through His wisdom and in His power, He works all things after the counsel of His will-after the counsel of His own will.

ELDER WEST: Hold his time. If, when I go into the negative of this proposition which he is affirming, and I say that he has said that God works everything, will that be charging consequences?

ELDER RHODES: In our belief, it would be, Elder West.

ELDER WEST: You have said that?

ELDER RHODES: I certainly said that, and mean it.

ELDER WEST: Is that charging consequences?

MODERATOR SMITH: That is not regardless of predestination or foreknowledge. You are now violating the rules which we agreed upon to be governed by.

ELDER WEST: I am rising to a point of order and not interrupting or heckling. You are holding his time. I am not heckling him at all. I am asking the question. I am asking the moderator, sir, the question if when I get up there and state that he has said that God works everything, if that is charging consequences? Am I violating the rules?

MODERATOR SMITH: You are, unless you make the explanation made in the third chapter of the London Confession, "Nor is violence offered to the will of the creature."

ELDER RHODES: Ro 11:7-10: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a srumblingblock, and a recompense unto them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." Here we find that he is referring what was referred to in Ps 1, and repeated again in Romans, that God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear. 1Pe 2:8: "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." Here, my brethren, the Scripture says that their disobedience was appointed, and yet, my friends, I believe that the devil was the one that prompts every spirit of disobedience. That is the plain, simple Word of God. I will let him give me a reason as to why that is not so.

Mt 27:34-36: "They gave Him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink. And they crucified Him and parted His garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This took place, my friends, long after the prophet wrote it, and they did these things that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. I say, that if they had failed to have done this, and yet they did it with every evil intention, as if God had no word of prophecy behind it-they did it freely, because they were wicked. They wanted to torture Him. They wanted to slay Him, and yet, the Scripture had gone before and said that it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. I have already presented that argument. It pleased the Lord. "Thou canst have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above" I have already made that argument.

Now, I want to say, right here, that my opponent reminds me of a little schoolboy once who deserved my sympathy, and he had it. He had a poor mind, if my opponent will allow me to be that liberal in my statement. This little boy and I were going to school together to my older sister who was a teacher. He has been trying and trying to hold my speech just to the pure, unadulterated word "predestination," He doesn't want me to use any definition from the dictionary. I have already given him more of that word in this speech than he needs. But he wants to hold me down to that word. I read the definition. They have been given in this debate. So, I think my opponent falls out with Webster when he says that it is the unchangeable purpose of an unchangeable God, as I recited it to him yesterday. "Why," he says, "now, Webster, just predestination; just predestination; just predestination. It just means predestination." My sister was teaching the primary arithmetic or mathematics grade, and there were several very bright and snappy children, and then, she came to this little fellow and she said, "How much are 2 and 1?" Instead of solving the problem and giving the answer, he said, "2 and I." My opponent reminds me of that little boy in the definition of the proposition here.

Now, I want to give him some more of that "all things." "All things under heaven; everything that is done under heaven," I wonder if that means all things. Ec 1:12,15: "And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven," We are not considering anything else, are we, Elder West? "This sore travail hath God given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith," I have already given him that argument, and I want to say, my friends, that it means all things done under heaven. "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun: and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered." So, you see, it has reference to all things done under heaven. How can they be exercised thereby if they do not do them? Do you believe you can do them and fail to be exercised thereby?

Ec 1:9-10. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done, and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us." How was it in old times before us? It was in the foreknowledge, the counsel, or purpose, or predestination of Almighty God, That is how it was, my friends, and my opponent cannot get around it.

Ec 3:1-17: "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to breakdown, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to laugh, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboreth?" I say, my friends, there is a time for every purpose under heaven and not only a time, but a season for that purpose, and when the time comes, for war, no matter what the peace discussions have been, no matter what treaties have been signed, when the time comes for war, it is a time for war.

Time expired.

01.13 ELDER WEST'S FIFTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, my Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am here before you again in the negative of the proposition that you have heard read. I do not believe that God predestinated all things that come to pass. I do not believe that God predestinated sin and wickedness; therefore, I am here to deny his proposition. Before I refer to anything that he has said, I am going to read his questions to you:

No.1. "Did God determine in the counsel of His own will in eternity to make a world, and Did he not, engage His wisdom to devise a plan and His power to perform it?" Answer: Yes, Q. "Was not th wisdom of God abundantly sufficient to devise a plan for a world that would in all its parts, in every way and at all times and places meet and perform the demands of His will, and was not His power equally adequate to perform it?" Answer: Yes.

Q. "Did not God will the existence of, and determine in the counsel of His will to make a world that would turn out in every way as it has, and could He not have made it so that it would have turned out differently if such would have suited His will and purpose better?" Answer: His making the world has nothing to do with sin, whatever.

Q. "If it was God's will to have a world into which sin would never come, and yet, He engaged His wisdom and power to make one into which He knew sin would come, did He not knowingly engage His wisdom and power in the making of it so that it would result in the defeat of His own will?" Answer: Did God will sin?

Q. "Could sin have entered the world unless God had allowed it to enter? And could not God have prevented its entrance as easily as to allow it? And would it have been best for it not to enter? If so, did God do that which was best when He allowed it to enter?" Answer: Sin is not the act of God. He is talking about sin entering into the world and what God allowed and what He didn't allow. It doesn't have a thing in the world to do with his proposition, as to whether God predestinated it or did not predestinate it.

Q. "Did not God create all things for Himself? If so, do not all things belong to Him? And if they do, then did He not have the right to determine the exact sphere and position that each thing should occupy in the world?" Answer: Did He determine it? We are not talking about rights. And yet, He determined it and He did not cause it, according to his own logic and reasoning. Do you know a thing in the world about language? What does the word "determine" mean, sir? I wonder if God doesn't cause what He determines. Will you tell me how God determined something and did not do it?

MODERATOR SMITH (interrupting): Pardon me, but I insist honestly and fairly he is charging consequences on the same hypothetic reasoning as I would if I asked him if he caused the thing he foreknew, how could he foreknow and not cause it? It is the same basis.

ELDER WEST: I am making my argument on the definition of the word "determine." You read the definition of the word "determine."

MODERATOR SMITH: Will you answer the question asked you on foreknowledge?

ELDER WEST: This is a question on "determine."

MODERATOR SMITH: It is the same basis of reasoning.

ELDER RHODES: Let him go ahead.

MODERATOR SMITH: You did not question my consequences awhile ago.

ELDER WEST: We are doing that now on what the word "determine" means. Read the definition of the word and see if I am charging consequences. This is your word. I am not responsible if Brother Sikes or somebody wrote that in there for you.

MODERATOR SMITH: Elder Cayce wrote some of yours, didn't he?

ELDER WEST: Elder Cayce didn't write any of mine.

ELDER RHODES: I would like to speak a word. I would like to say this, and I re-state again that I believe that he thinks from the words used, that it is his conviction, and that he has a right to charge consequences, but it isn't charging consequences. I believe God is the first cause of all causes in the sense that I explained to him, like the London Confession of Faith.

ELDER WEST: We are talking about these questions and not the London Confession of Faith.

ELDER RHODES: All right, let him go.

MODERATOR CAYCE: I am going to rule that Elder West in his answer to that question is not charging consequences. He is talking about what the question itself has in it, the very wording of the question.

MODERATOR SMITH: May I make just this rejoinder? I asked the question at the beginning, was that minister or elder that you are debating with, if he stated simply relative to foreknowledge, would he be charging consequences? He would say, why, sure, I cannot answer Elder West because Elder West believes his doctrine that God foreknew all things; therefore, I just had to do like I did do because God foreknew it. It is the same basis of reasoning he says has to be like Elder Rhodes says because God predestinated it. Isn't that synonymous and a parallel case? If not, I am somewhat duped. You can call me befuddled.

ELDER RHODES: I think Brother Smith is right. I agree with him, but rather than have any further disturbance, I would rather let him go ahead. God knows who is right and who is wrong. May God direct our conscience.

MODERATOR SMITH: Did not God create all things for Himself? Did not all things belong to Him? If they do, then, did He not then have the right to determine?

ELDER WEST: Is that charging consequences? I am not responsible for the words that he put in his question. I didn't frame the question for him. That is what he says. Didn't God have the right to determine the exact sphere and position that each thing should occupy in the world? I am going to ask you, then, the question, Did God determine everything that happens in the world?

Q. "If God created all things for Himself, then did He not have some use for, and some purpose to be fulfilled by each thing that He created? If so, did He not make them in such a way that they would be best suited for and most certain to serve the use and purpose for which He created them? If not, why not?" Answer: God had a purpose in all His creation.

Q. "If God has determined to deal with man according to man's conduct and yet has not determined what man's conduct shall be, but has left man free to determine his own course of conduct independent of any influence which God has determined, then does not man determine both his own course and the course of God in all of God's dealings with him?" Answer: I said that he said God determined what man's conduct should be, and then he got up here and said that West got up and said God determined that West said that Rhodes said God determined what his conduct should be, and then they say "he is charging consequences."

MODERATOR SMITH: Ladies and gentlemen, I beg your pardon, but I don't think we said anything to him. We said that you charged him with believing that predestination itself was not causative; that it was charging consequences because he disavowed it. Isn't that correct?

ELDER WEST: Did God determine his conduct? Does He determine an individual's conduct?

ELDER RHODES: That doesn't bring it to pass.

ELDER WEST: All right, then, He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will. Is He bringing that to pass?

ELDER RHODES: He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.

ELDER WEST: Are you rising to a point of order, or have you forgotten the agreement of yesterday?

MODERATOR SMITH: We have all violated it, haven't we?

MODERATOR CAYCE: Your seats are too hot, is what is the matter with you. If you are too hot, move over here.

MODERATOR SMITH: What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

MODERATOR CAYCE: I am just stating what the trouble with you is.

ELDER RHODES: Let him go, and let's not bother him any more. Go right ahead.

ELDER WEST: The question says, Did God determine the man's conduct? If a man were to take some man's daughter out here and actually violate her being a virgin, did God determine his conduct, sir? I know that it hurts.

MODERATOR SMITH: Just a second. Hold his time. On the same hypothesis of reasoning, I am going to insist on him going to use foreknowledge. That is not the exact proposition under discussion, it is true, but I am telling you that it is a parallel case. I want to know if a man ravaged a man's daughter, did God foreknow it, and if so, could he have escaped doing it?

ELDER WEST: Do you want to debate this proposition?

MODERATOR SMITH: I insist on the same proposition of reasoning. It will be charging consequences if you do that as you are.

ELDER WEST: Is that what he says? Why is it he stated "determined man's conduct?"

MODERATOR SMITH: Determining a man's conduct and predestination being the cause of that conduct, what you charge is a different thing.

ELDER WEST: I didn't say a word about it being the cause. I am asking if it could be. I have asked him, how could He determine the thing and yet not be the cause? I wonder if it is ugly conduct for him to act ugly? I wonder if the Lord determined that he should act ugly. If he determined his ugly conduct, will he have to do what the Lord determined?

MODERATOR SMITH: I am going to keep on until I am forced by law or some other way. On the same hypothesis of reasoning, if the Lord foreknew he was of the conduct, did he have to perform his ugly conduct?

ELDER WEST: We are not talking about the word "cause" but the word. "determine."

MODERATOR SMITH: We are talking of "foreknown" also. It is a parallel case. If foreknown, it couldn't keep from coming.

MODERATOR CAYCE: I will have to call you to order.

MODERATOR SMITH: I stand corrected, but I still insist that he is out of order.

MODERATOR CAYCE: These brethren are not debating the question of foreknowledge, and you cannot bring that into it as a parallel case, regardless of what the consequences might be in that.

ELDER RHODES: Let him go ahead.

MODERATOR SMITH: One more thing and I am through. When I stated that this morning, neither of you questioned it.

ELDER WEST: I was not calling for that in a question. That is not what we were talking of then. All I want is for you to state plainly was just what Elder West said that was charging consequences. That was all I asked for. Let it all go in the record.

MODERATOR SMITH: We are willing to let it go in the record and trust the whole consequence to God.

ELDER WEST: I wonder how many more times I have to go over this question

Q. "If God's conduct in dealing with man depends upon man's conduct, and yet man in the performance of said conduct does not depend upon God, then is not man more independent than God?" Answer: Man does not depend upon God for his conduct and I will challenge you to say that he does.

Q. "When God alone existed in eternity before time began, did not all time with all the events of time of every shape, grade and character, depend upon Him as to whether they should ever exist or not?" Answer: That is exactly what I said he said. All events-all of them, regardless of what shade, grade and character, depend upon Him as to whether they should ever exist or not. Yes, all events were fixed by God, according to him. It had to come to pass because it was fixed. It doesn't matter what you folks do, according to his doctrine, you couldn't help it. He put these words in here, or somebody did for him, and I am not responsible for it.

Q. "If time with all of its various and varied events did, back in eternity, depend upon God as to whether they should ever exist or not, then did He purposely arrange for their existence, or did He do it accidentally?" Answer: I wonder if you should arrange something if it would come to pass. He uses the word "arrange." Did He arrange it on purpose or by accident? I wonder if the Lord arranged something, whether He would cause what He arranged. Now, I wonder if they will tell me that is charging consequences.

Q. "If any part of the events of time did not or do not depend on God for existence, then would they not have been just as certain to exist had there been no God as they are?"

Q. "If, in eternity before time, time with all the events of time, did depend upon God for existence, and yet some of them do not now depend upon Him for existence, will you please tell me when, where, and how their dependence upon Him for existence ceased?" Answer: The events that happen in time are not dependent upon God for existence. All right, we will pass on.

Q. "Did God eternally foreknow all things? If so, is His foreknowledge, like Himself, immutable, and if it is, can any power in heaven, earth, or hell, change His knowledge or deceive Him? If not, can any event of time be changed from the way He knew it would be? If so, how could this foreknowledge stand?" Answer: God did foreknow all things.

Q. "Did God eternally foreknow anything independent of the counsel of His own will? If so, what was it, and upon what was such foreknowledge based?" Answer: Yes, He foreknew some things independent of His will. He knew Adam would sin, and it was independent of the will of God that sin entered into the world, because sin came by man and not by the will of God. So, we pass on to the next question.

Q. "Did God foreknow that this world and all the creatures therein would exist before and independent of His determination to make them? If not, did not His foreknowledge of their existence rest on the fact that He had determined to make them?" Answer: Yes, to the first part, and no, to the last part.

Q. "If God's foreknowledge of the existence of all the creatures of time was based on His determination to make the creatures, then did not His foreknowledge of their acts rest in the same determination, since they could never exist unless He had made them and they could not act unless they existed?" Answer: They had to exist to act, but God does not cause them to act in sin. If they had to exist to act, would that make their actions directly dependent upon the Lord? Or would I be charging consequences, if I were to say their actions, according to your doctrine, rested and depended exclusively on God?

Q. "Does not the nature of the acts of each creature depend upon and flow out from the nature of the creature, and did not the nature of each creature depend upon the way they were made, and did not the way they were depend upon the way that God in His counsel, seeing that such feelings come in connection with that which He rather had never existed?" Answer: What does that have to do with your proposition? The next question:

Q. "If God had rather sin had not entered the world, then is it not also a fact that He had rather to never have spoken one word to or concerning man as a sinner, Himself, by His prophets, His Son, His apostles, or His ministers, seeing that all such words have been spoken to and concerning man as being in a state or condition which God had rather he had never been in?" Answer: What does that have to do with your proposition? Your proposition says that God predestinated all things that come to pass, both good and evil. All right, we will go to the next question.

Q, "Has not God' always thought of man as a creature that would sin, had sinned, or had been redeemed from sin? If so, and He had rather sin had never existed, then is it not a fact that He had rather never to have had a single thought which He has had concerning man?" Answer: I don't know what God thinks and I am sure He was not thinking of him existing as a sinner before he sinned. I am sure of that fact. We will pass on to the next question.

Q. "If God had rather sin had never existed, hence, had rather never redeemed the man from sin, and carry him to heaven as a redeemed sinner, then is it not a fact that He had rather there would be no shouts of praises in heaven by redeemed sinners, praising Him for their redemption, seeing they will be praising Him for something He would rather have not done?" Answer: What does "rather" have to do with your proposition?

Q. "If God had rather sin had not entered the world, then is it not a fact that He had rather not punish any man for sin, either in time or in eternity, seeing that such punishment is inflicted because of something which He would rather had never existed?" Answer: In your question you make an argument on the word "rather." The next question:

Q. "If the foregoing question be true concerning God's attitude toward sin and its entrance into the world, then has He ever had one thought, spoken one word, or performed one act, in heaven, earth, or hell, in time, or eternity, that has been as He originally would rather it should be, seeing they have been shaped according to and in connection with a thing which He rather had not been?" Answer: Therefore, regardless of what happens, the basest of crimes that ever existed, it was the pleasure and will of God. That is exactly what you are affirming. That is what you say, that it was the pleasure of God. It could not come to pass unless it pleased God. He said "Yes" I believe it." But God says He has no fellowship for sin or wickedness and is not pleased with it. Does sin please the Lord? If sin doesn't please the Lord, according to his doctrine, how in the world is it in existence? Do you believe the London Confession of Faith? If so, you should come over and join our folks-if they will have you.

Now, then, he gave me his questions in two speeches.

I will answer the rest of his questions in my next speech, if I think of it, and if I don't think of it, I will do it after lunch.

All right, I have some questions to ask you. Do you do everything you do because you cannot help it? Do you contend in your questions to me that God is the cause of all events? Did you say that no events come to pass without a cause? Is God the cause of events? If God is not the cause of events, who is the cause? Did God determine all events? Is determination causative?

All right, he said God is the cause of all causes, but he objects to me saying that God is the cause of something, but He is the cause of all causes.

All right; on this side of the board we have God. Over here on this side we have the devil. I am not much of an artist but that is the way some folks are supposed to see the devil. All right, we will argue a little on second causes. God is not the cause, but there are second causes and first causes. Is the second cause a cause? If it is not a cause why all the second causes? When I have been saying that you were talking about causes here, your moderator got hot and jumped up and said it was not the cause at all. Charging consequences. I didn't say whether it was the first or second cause, did I? Did I say anything about what kind of cause it was? If you fellows will admit there is such a thing as a second cause? Is this second cause a cause or something else? I have been using the word "cause" and laid a little trap and somebody walks right into it. All right, here is the first cause, according to your position. De 32:4: "God is without iniquity." So, if God is without iniquity, He cannot be the cause in the first sense, the primary sense, or the second cause. If there is no such thing as cause, why have you been talking about second causes in this record? If He is the cause of the second cause or the first cause of the first cause, because the second cause is the indirect cause. So. He wouldn't cause this man to sin directly, but He had a nasty little devil do it for Him as a second cause. Is that right? Is there such a thing as second cause? You have been objecting to the word "cause" all the time. What is the meaning of first causes and second causes? They started a wrangle over "cause." I did not.

All right, we wilI proceed with some negative arguments. His proposition cannot be true, because God has given His people certain commandments and forbid them to do evil by His commanded laws. Ex 20:1-17: "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery." I wonder if the Lord told those folks that they should not commit adultery, and then as a second cause, caused them to commit adultery? Was that a second cause or a first cause? I will give them their own medicine. They object to the word cause. "Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

Now, I am going to give you the Rhodes version, according to his questions: Thou shalt have other gods before me, for I predestinated it, and if you have other gods before me, not the direct cause, but the second cause. Thou shalt make graven images, for I have predestinated it, according to second causes. I am not the first cause of it, but I am the second cause of it. You shall take my name in vain, for I have decreed and predestinated it from all eternity. His proposition should have said "from all eternity." I will hold you guiltless, because my name is glorified by your cursing. Poor old Peter glorified God by cursing, and the cock crowing glorified the Lord. Break the sabbath day and keep it evil, for I have predestinated it. You cannot help it, because I am the second cause. Spit on thy father and thy mother and dishonor them, because you cannot help it. I am the second cause. I will get good out of it, and your days will be long on account of your evil deeds. Kill, because ye cannot keep from killing. I predestinated it. According to his doctrine, you cannot kill any more folks than the Lord predestinated and determined for you to kill, and cannot kill any less folks than the Lord predestinated and intended for you to kill because He is the second cause. Commit adultery, because I have decreed it. Yes, He is the second cause of all events, so don't feel a bit bad if you commit adultery. If you get out here, according to his doctrine, and absolutely go down with violence of this city, it is according to the predestination of God, according to his doctrine. Steal all you can and glorify my name, according to his doctrine. Somebody said that is charging consequences. That is not charging consequences, according to his doctrine. Can they steal any more or less than the Lord wanted them to? Can they? Can they steal more or less than the Lord wanted them to? If He decreed all events as events coming to pass as a secondary cause, then, by the secondary cause they cannot steal any more than He wants them to or any less than He wants them to. Can they? If you can, your argument falls. Bear false witness against thy neighbor. You cannot keep from it to save your life. If all events were fixed and determined and caused by second causes. Absolutely, they couldn't bear any more false witness than the Lord wanted them to, or lie any less than the Lord wanted them to lie.

Time expired.

01.14 ELDER RHODES' SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

The first thing I want to notice about my opponent's speech, he introduced this kind of argument: He goes outside of the Bible to make ladies blush. But I want to give him a little bit of taste of what is in the Bible. I wonder why he ignored that. I want to read to you some Scripture found in Isa 13:13: "Therefore I will shake the heavens and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger. And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee everyone into his own land. Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their house shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces, and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. "Now, I want to say here, my friends, here is his case that he has been hunting on the outside which is on the inside. God said that He will stir him up to do it. My brethren, I am not here to tell you today as to just why God does it, but I am here to tell you that He does it. Are you going to say that Isaiah didn't know what he was talking about? I say that there is not a single case that he can bring up on the outside but what I can show him a dozen on the inside. They shall dash them to pieces. They shall ravish their wives. They shall not spare their children, and all those kind of things. God will stir them up to do that. Do you think it will come to pass? Not only that, but Hosea ix. 11, 12 and 13: "As for Ephriam, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also unto them when I

depart from them: Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer." God has pronounced this on Ephriam and said he shall bring forth his children unto the murderer. If you would rather charge the consequences than to take the Scripture and grapple with that and prove that God did not do these things, that the Scriptures positively declared as they do, then, it is all right. That is why I asked my moderator to let you alone.

Hosea xiii. 14, 15 and 16: "1 will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: 0 death, I will be thy plagues; 0 grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the Lord shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all his pleasant vessels. Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and the women with child shall be ripped up." Unfortunately, you have not been able to find a case on the outside just like that. Tell us whether or not that God meant it when He said that it shall come to pass, and He spoke before it did come to pass. In these Scriptures that I have given are 33 nations under consideration, and I want to say, brethren and sisters, that when it comes to this discussion, it is not my business to undertake to make my brother accept all of my terms. It is my business to show him that God said these very things that he bas been making a play on here that God had nothing to do with them; that God did not know anything about it. God is plumb ignorant and when He found it out He sat down by the side of the road and mourned because he couldn't help it. Is that your conception of God?

Now, I say that his question concerning-but first, 1 will answer relative to those that he answered. He answered them with a wink and with a nod. To about two in the first four he said yes, and to some he said no; and that was a great explanation to all of those questions. I want to tell you this: He evaded those questions for nearly a day and a half. He evaded those questions. I am not going to evade one moment. I am going to answer them.

Do you do everything you do because you cannot help it?" I say that if a man's ways are of the Lord, and the Scriptures positively declare that they are, I say right here that if it were not for my mortal sustenance I would not ever do anything else in this world; but any time that you or I, my brethren, ever sin or bear false witness, or ever do anything wrong, we are doing it because of the fact of sin and wickedness in us. It is not according to any commandment in the Scriptures, as far as our duty to do it. Solomon said, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. It is the whole duty of man to fear God and keep his commandments." I will refer to his little diagram on the board here. You know, he was kindly limited in learning from some of his kinfolk, but he is a bright pupil, as I told you about. I would like to ask him who the devil belonged to. Job 12:12,16: "Both the deceived and the deceiver are mine." That is the word of God. The devil belongs to God and He either put him there or allowed him to come into the garden of Eden because He had a purpose for him being there, or else he got there accidentally. If you take the position that he got in there accidentally, and you have steered clear of it-you haven't said a word about that old chap that would commit you as to where you thought he came from. No, sir. If he is an eternal devil, if he were here before God, and if he does not consist of God, then, some of the Scriptures I gave you this morning are not the truth, which you failed to notice. .

I say, my friends, that if God had designed not to let Eve be deceived, I believe He could have controlled him perfectly well. I believe it was in His plan that the devil was made in such manner that he wanted to deceive. He always does. That is why he is slipping up behind your ear every day and telling you something that sounds flowery to you and sounds the same way to me.

Did you say that no event comes to pass without a cause? You know that nothing happens without a cause. There can be nothing that comes to pass without a cause. Let me give him the cause I have contended for all the way through in this sin and wickedness. The cause is in the heart of the wicked. The cause is in the heart of the deceived and the deceiver. .

Is God the cause of events? Well, certainly he wouldn't say there had ever been an event if it had not been for God. Would you? If God is not the cause of events, who is the cause? That is your question to answer. I have told you repeatedly that in that sense God is the first cause of all causes. There wouldn't have been a cause here if it had not been for Him, and you cannot deny it, either.

Did God determine all events? He said so. Look at the Scriptures I gave you in that last speech awhile ago. Is determination causative? Not necessarily, within itself. You might determine how to go to town if you were a paralytic and someone didn't carry you, but you couldn't go, could you? No, sir.

Beginning at the tenth verse of the third chapter of Ecclesiastes (Ec 3:10): "I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. He hath made everything beautiful in his time: also He hath set the world in their hearts, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." "He hath made everything beautiful in this time"-everything. That includes your little picture of the garden and the devil, and God and the rapist, and everything, whenever it comes to pass, the purpose that God designed that we all work around to. "He made it beautiful in his time." I didn't say that. God said so. "I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it: and God does it, that men should fear before Him." "Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever." Job 23:13: "But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth." I say, my friends, that I believe my opponent sees this thing in a different light from what he is letting on right here. I believe he knows that I am not ignoring the fact that sinfulness and wickedness is not authorized, according to the commandments of God written in these Scriptures. And yet, they crucified Jesus. They cast lots for His garments and ordered His raiment parted, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. That is what it says.

Now, this is Ec 3:15: "That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past." "That which hath been is now." With God there is no time measurement. The same is present with Him and ever present. That is why, my, friends, this doctrine that my brother doesn't understand-and I sympathize with him-this doctrine of predestination is so vividly plain to me that there is nothing new or old with Him. I have already read that to you. "That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."

Ec 8:6-14: "Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him. Far he knoweth not that which shall be: for who can tell him when it shall be?" That doesn't say it shall not be, because he doesn't know it, does it? But it implies it shall be. "For he knoweth not that which shall be: far who can tell him when it shall be?" Now, Ec 8:14: "There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto when it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity." I want to read verses II, 12, and 13: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before Him: But it shall not be well with the wicked; neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he feareth not before God."

I say that here instead of God authorizing, and instead of God encouraging people to sin, as he would have you believe that I believe, He has written every law, He has written every commandment.

I now want to notice a little bit of what he said concerning events. He said He did not think of man as a sinner until after he had sinned. He doesn't know a thing in the world about it. Be was awfully surprised, just like you and me when we don't know anything until it comes to pass. He didn't think of him as a sinner. Poor, ignorant God! Poor, ignorant, insignificant, puny, degraded beingl So surprised when man sinned, when it said in Revelation, and I have already given him that Scripture, that He stood as a Iamb as it had been slain from the foundation of the world. He cannot get out of that dilemma. I don't care if he brings up a hundred rape cases. He cannot do it, no sir. And I want to say, my friends, that I apologize for any such language being introduced from this book, but since he brought it up, I want him to answer and tell me whether or not God bears him out in this reference which I gave him from Jeremiah. I want him to answer me whether he did or not.

Ec 9:1,3: "For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them. All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to, him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun ,that there is one event unto all; yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead." "There is an evil in all things that are done under the sun." We are not debating on anything that is not done under the sun. "That there is one event unto all; yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart, while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

So, I say that I believe my worthy opponent has something to think of. He said he wanted to know who did the ugly things-who determined the ugly things. I have repeatedly told him-and it makes me think of the saying of the Saviour, "If I tell you the truth, you will believe me not, because I have told you already." I have told you that God has determined all things, and I meant all things when I said that. Yes, sir; He has determined it, but I tell you now, His determination is not the moving and procuring cause in the heart of sinners that causes them to do these things.

So, I say, my friends, I still press the question that I don't believe God is the author of sin. I declare a non-fellowship right in this association for that doctrine, and told a man that if that was what he came for, that he had better go where he was wanted. I say, my friends, that I believe in a practice of right doing, if I know my heart. I believe it is right for a man to do right, not because there is a hell, or because there is a God, but because it is his duty to do right. Yes, sir, and I want to say, my friends, that I believe my record will, at least, be an average, if that is not saying too much. I don't claim to be anything but a sinner, saved by grace, if saved at all, and that is by the matchless grace of God; and that all that keeps a man from going into sin, just as deep as the other fellow does, is the restraining grace of God. That is all that keeps him from it. Now, I want to know something about his second cause. He said he believed in the London Confession of Faith. He said he believed the London Confession of Faith. Willyou give me your hand, my brother, that you believe in the London Confession of Faith? I want to say, beloved friends, that he knows that thing is loaded. He knows it is loaded. I give him credit for being intelligent. He knows it is loaded, and it is loaded for bear, too, but I believe he said he endorsed that, and if he does, I want to know why on earth he objects to second causes. It is clearly established in the reading that he read here yesterday. It is just as clearly established as A. B. C. on a box car.

Now, I want to notice some more of my affirmative argument. Jas 5:1-8 (predestination, or purpose, or foreordination of the misery of rich men): "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days." Now, why go and punish these rich men? He has told about it in the future. It is because they have not gotten their money right. They love money. ''The love of money is the root of all evil."

Re 1:19: "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter." Not which might or might not be, or dependent upon conditions, or uncertainty, or haphazards, or a little god sitting on the steps somewhere with his face hidden and he didn't know whether it would ever come to pass or not. He was to write the things that shall be hereafter. I say, my friends, that these things covered evil things and wicked things, as well as righteous and pure and holy things.

Time expired.

01.15 ELDER WEST'S SIXTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I want to read to you from the first chapter of Ephesians (Eph 1:4) and will begin to read from the fourth verse: "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children." The brother says that predestination is not causative. I wonder if the Lord causes that adoption.

ELDER RHODES: (interrupting): Secondary, yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: I thought He adopted them by the first works. Does He use a preacher in it? Does He adopt them secondly? Or is that the work of the Lord, or is it dependent upon a creature for some secondary work in that adoption? Why, that is the CampbelIite doctrine, that He adopts them secondarily; that the Lord has given a secondary cause by which they can obey His word, and you say He adopted them through a secondary cause. Do you see the dilemma he is in? If he says that the predestination of God is causative in adopting them, he knows that I will ask him why it is not causative, and then, there he contradicts it. He can see it. That is why he has tried to stay out of it and walked into the other hole on the other side of it. Predestination, my brother, is causative, and everything that God predestinates He causes it to come to pass. There is nothing that He ever predestinated that He didn't cause to come to pass. He predestinated the adoption of His children and caused that adoption to come to pass. You had better go to the Arminians and join them, because they believe He doesn't cause it at all.

All right, we will go a little further. I was never in better humor in my life; never had so much fun since Christmas. His proposition says that God absolutely predestinated whatsoever comes to pass, and this Scripture says that He predestinated us unto the adoption of children. There is not one word said about whatsoever comes to pass. Yes, that is loaded. That is full of predestination. It is full of predestination, but the Bible kind, and not your kind. "To the praise of the glory of His grace wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved." I wonder if that is making us accepted through secondary causes. God didn't make us accepted by first causes. He has made us accepted. "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace; wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will"-everything that is in Christ. He works according to the counsel of His own will all things in Christ, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ. It is not the wicked acts of any devil. Was the Lord doing the wicked acts of men and devils when He said, "He worketh all things according to His own will?" There is no secondary cause about it. He was doing the devil's work for him, according to his doctrine. It is a terrible mess for a man to get himself in and for folks to have to read, isn't it? But I am not responsible for the place he has put himself in.

He said that God is not the author of sin. That is what he said. All right, I am not going to say that he said God is the author of sin, but I am going to ask you this question: How in the world could God work all things and not be the author of all things that He works. Can God work something that He is not the author of? If He works all things, and God is not the author of all sin and wickedness, and yet, He works it, how could He work it unless He was the author of it, being as He is the first cause of all causes? Can't you see that? Wait a minute; somebody said, "No, that is not the truth." Let me read you the answer, his answer to my question: "Do you do everything you do because you cannot help it?" He says "a man's ways are of the Lord." That was his answer to my question, "his ways are of the Lord." The record will show that is what you said. I am not misrepresenting you. You said his ways are of the Lord. If his ways are of the Lord, then, I judge he does what he does because he cannot help it, if his ways are the ways of the Lord. That means, I suppose, they come from the Lord, doesn't it, if they are of the Lord? And if they are of the Lord, then he is not the author of what comes of the Lord.

Is sin and wickedness His ways? If sin and wickedness-if he has ways of sin and wickedness, and they are of the Lord, then, there are things of the Lord, according to Rhodes, that He is not the author of.

I never hated anything on God's earth like I hate that God dishonoring doctrine-that fallacious charging that the ways of men are of the Lord. Man had to do what he did do. I got him out on that absolute limb. He squirmed and twisted and tried to tell about it, and his moderator got so hot he had to get up time after time, and he didn't want me to mention some things that the ladies would blush at, which were spoken of in the Bible. If the Bible teaches it, why should the ladies blush? You ought to be willing to declare the whole counsel of God, if that is the counsel of God, if it does make the ladies blush. Are you seeking to please men? If you are seeking to please men, you are not the servant of God. If it is the counsel of God in the Book that God did all of these things and, through a secondary cause, causes them to come to pass, he is talking about God's work and it should not make the ladies blush. That is the best way in the world he had of getting his hide taken off. He said that for sympathy through the ladies blushing, when it came out of his absolutism and say, "Yea, Lord, you are responsible for the whole thing. You cannot do any more or less than I fixed for you to do.

In your answer to my questions, did you contend that God is the cause of all evil? "Yes, second causes."

Q. "Did you say that no events come to pass without a cause?" "Why, certainly."

''Is God the cause of events?" "Yes." I wonder if you ever looked up the word "event" in a dictionary. An event is something that happens, and time after time they jumped up and said it was charging consequences when I said that God was the cause, and now, in a direct answer to the question, he said God is the cause of all events-God is the cause of events. "If God is not the cause of events, who is the cause?" That is your question. That is what he says. That is the way he answers it.

"Did God determine all events?" "God said so." "Is determination causative?" "Not necessarily." God determined something but did not cause it; and yet, He causes events? That is a contradiction in this record.

All right, in Isa 10:1: "He corrupted Israel through the wickedness of the king." Was that the Lord doing that? Does that prove that God predestinated all things that come to pass, both good and evil?

He did find two texts with "predestination" in them. They did not say a thing in the world about sin and wickedness. If that is sin and wickedness, then the Lord worked sin and wickedness, but is not the author of what He works. He said He made the kind of world just like He wanted when He made the antediluvian world. Will you tell me what the words "antediluvian world" means, what kind of world it is, and define "antediluvian world." Yes, He made it exactly like He wanted it, just exactly like He wanted it.

Heb 2:10: "For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." There is nothing in the world said in that text about predestinating all things which come to pass, both good and evil; not a thing in the world.

Col 1:17: "And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist," and nothing was made that was made except that God made it. But, is he talking about sin? Let us see if it is, according to his own statement. He said that God is not the author of sin, but if all things is sin, then, it came by Him, because all things, he said, come by Him. Then, He must be the author of what comes by Him, isn't He? If sin comes by Him, isn't He the author of what comes by Him? Look at the fallacy of that position. He is certainly the author of what comes by Him. If that is sin and wickedness, it comes by Him. I thought it was by man that sin entered into the world, or do you have to run it off somewhere on a secondary cause?

He quotes text after text and the answers are in the record, and yet, he reads them over and over. He said that the brother has evaded these questions for a day and a half. Why, the half is not yet up, is it? We started yesterday morning and I didn't get all of them until your last speech.

Why, the day is not up yet. He said I evaded them for a day and a half. Did the Lord predestinate that you should forget the time? He couldn't help saying what he did. God predestinated it.

He says there is a time for everything under heaven. Everything that happens under heaven happens in time. But there is not one word in all of the Scripture that says that everything that happens in time was predestinated by the Lord.

In his proposition, whatsoever comes to pass, was predestinated by the Lord. That is the Scripture that I want you to find.

He says that whatsoever God doeth, it is done forever. Is that sin? Is that what Baptists believe? I believe, my brother, what God does is done forever, but is it sin? If it is sin, then the Lord did something that He was not the author of, because he said God is not the author of sin.

Will you tell us, Brother Rhodes, how God does something that He is not the author of? Will you just tell me how He does it?

And he says there were hearts of some men set to do evil. Why, certainly, there were hearts of some men set to do evil, but find a Scripture that says that God predestinated from all eternity, from the beginning, their hearts were set to do evil. That is what you have to find. That is what your proposition says.

He said, "As a lamb had been slain from the foundation of the world." That does not even favor Scripture.

All right, I am going to begin on my negative argument. I say his proposition is not true-but let us notice the Rhodes version again: Covet thy neighbor's house and love his wife so that I will be glorified in my predestination, and ye cannot help it. If a man comes into your house and loves your wife, don't you get mad at him. Don't you get mad at all. Don't you folks get your shotguns. He couldn't help it. God has determined all events. If it happens, God is the determiner of it and through Him all things exist. He says that is sin and wickedness; so it is of Him and through Him that this man comes to your house and loves your wife.

The proposition cannot be true, because God despised the feast days of old. Amos v. 21: "I hate, I despite your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies." If his proposition is true, God despised what He predestinated. If his proposition is true, the Lord despised what He determined to come to pass. If those feast days were events and He causes events-you said it, but if you knew the definition of the word "event" you would not have said it-events are those things that come to pass. That is a definition of it, and therefore, the Lord did not do that, but according to his doctrine, the Lord caused them. He caused these old feast days, and He was not well pleased with what He caused, according to Rhodes.

His proposition cannot be true, because everything the Lord predestinated is His pleasure. He said, "I will do all my pleasure." Sin and wickedness is not His pleasure. He said, in Isa 46:10: "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it."

If you don't care, I will preach for a few minutes and quit fooling with this mess. That is what it is. It is a mess. Any man that contends for such dishonoring doctrine is a mess. I will tell you what God purposed and what God will bring to pass. He purposed the salvation of His people. He purposed the salvation of His people, and it would have taken the grace of God, my brother, in the salvation of individuals if sin had never entered into the world, for the simple reason that man was a natural individual. He was not a spiritual individual, but a natural individual and it would have taken the grace of God to prepare him and fit him for heaven to glorify Him if he had never sinned.

Therefore, your proposition falls. Does sin make grace abound? God forbid. Grace never did abound through sin. It doesn't come that way. That is God's eternal truth. That is the purpose of God-the predestination of God and I am going to tell you what God predestinated He causes to come to pass. He doesn't say that it does because it will get him in a dilemma, but what God predestinates, He causes to come to pass; and. He will cause the last one to be saved in glory whom He did foreknow. If you will not quote it, I will. "He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son." That is God's truth; the last one of them will be conformed to the image of Jesus. That is predestination, brother. That number is so ordered and so sure that it cannot be increased or diminished. Not secondary cause, but the first cause of God to save His people and house them in heaven and immortal glory. That is the doctrine of predestination as taught in the Bible. That is comforting to God's people, and it will bind God's people closer together.

The reason there was a division in the association, sir, is because you bucks-pardon the expression if you will-advocated absolute predestination of all things that come to pass. There is no such thing in the Bible.

He has labored here for a day and a half. Yes, a day and a half of his time is already gone, and I won't misrepresent it when I say that for almost a day and a half he has labored to prove to you that God absolutely predestinated all things. He has not proved that God predestinated all things, and the reason he hasn't is because he cannot, because there is nothing in God's Book that will favor it.

If the Lord predestinated what David did-I am going to read something from Second Samuel xi. 26, 27. You can have this reference, if you will, sir. "And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. Was He pleased about His predestiriation? If He predestined it, He certainly would have been pleased with it; but the thing that David did displeased the Lord; so the Lord did not predestinate it, because it didn't please the Lord.

He said, "I will do my pleasure." Pleasure means things that please. Don't you know the definition of the word? The word "pleasure" means things that please the Lord. When it pleases the Lord, it is His pleasure. He said, "I will do all my pleasure." David was not pleasing to the Lord, and the Lord said, "Therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah to be thy wife." It didn't please the Lord.

His proposition cannot be true, because Paul said he had not kept anything back that was profitable. Paul did not preach absolute predestination of all things. If it had been profitable, Paul would have preached it. He said, "I have not kept anything back that is profitable." Is absolute predestination profitable? If it is, well, Paul did not preach it. He didn't say a thing in the world about God absolutely predestinating all things. So, Paul did not tell the truth about it when you nodded your head? Poor old Paul, inspired by inspiration, didn't tell the truth by inspiration. "I have not kept back anything that was profitable." Paul did not preach absolute predestination of all things. Therefore, it was not profitable. He didn't keep back a thing in the world that was profitable. "But I have showed you and taught you publicly from house to house." Paul spent all that time over there with those brethren, writing by the inspiration of God and preaching by the inspiration of God, and not a record of anything was made about absolutely predestinating all things from the beginning, whatsoever comes to pass. Brother Rhodes, why didn't Paul believe in predestination of all things whatsoever comes to pass? If he didn't keep anything back that was profitable, why didn't he tell them that? Why, it is even so profitable today that you fellows divide your churches over it. It looks like if it were profitable enough for you fellows to divide churches over it, it would have been profitable enough for Paul to have said something about it.

His proposition is not true, because Paul said, "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." The absolute predestination of all things, both good and bad, is not in all of the counsel of God, because he did not declare it; therefore, it is not of God but of man. God did not declare it. He said, "I declare unto you all the counsel," so, absolute predestination of all things was not declared by the Lord, by Paul, and therefore, it was not in the counsel of God. Fellows like Rhodes and Beebe and Sikes declare it.

His proposition cannot be true, because Paul said he was set for the defense of the gospel. Absolute predestination of all things, if it had been true, it looks like it would have been in the gospel. If it had been true, it looks like Paul would have defended it. Therefore, it is not the gospel, so, if it is not the gospel of the Lord, therefore, the Lord did not fix it. .

I am a very poor man and I have to scratch to get it, but I will give you $25 in your next speech if you will find the language that God predestinated whatsoever comes to pass. I will give you $25 to find it.

MODERATOR CAYCE: Find it where?

ELDER WEST: In the Bible.

Time expired.

01.16 ELDER RHODES' SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am here before you again to continue my affirmative argument. As some of you possibly do not know, this is the last speech I will have to introduce new matter.

MODERATOR CAYCE: No, you can introduce new matter in your last speech.

ELDER RHODES: I want to refer now to Jude 25: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." "Ordain" is one of the definitions to the word "predestination," and as I said to you concerning this little boy, my opponent persistently said, "Nothing but predestination; it just means predestination." But "who were before of old ordained to this ungodly condemnation." I say, beloved friends, that passage of Scripture, by itself; would prove the proposition. The word "ordained" is used as one of the definitions of "predestination." I wonder if he will say that God predestinated ungodly men to condemnation. I say, my friends, that it seems to me that you should be able, and I believe you are fully able, to comprehend his particular scheme to keep me from using any of the words except predestination itself. I say, brethren, if nothing happens tomorrow, you will be in a worse predicament than I have been in if your contentions are the truth. You know, he said what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so, let us wait until tomorrow and see.

I have another written question that I want to give Elder West: How do you get out of sin and into Christ if God, as you said, works only such all things as are in Christ? Were you in Christ except through purpose? Were you in Christ prior to your being regenerated and born of God? If you were not in Christ prior to regeneration, and if again, as you stated, God works only such things as are in Christ, please tell us what power or being brought you from out of Christ into Christ, indeed, if you are in Christ?

I next want to present an argument from Isa 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." In what sense does He do that? He said He does them. Now, it is up to you to explain to me in what sense, for fear I might say predestination, I will let you say in what sense He does all things. In what sense does He make peace and in what sense does He create evil? In what sense does He form the light and create darkness? For fear he might be left at the gate as to what to say, I want to say, beloved friends, that I believe it means exactly what it says. The Lord is a first cause of all causes. I have already quoted that to him. "He made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Now, he asked me what the secondary cause of the salvation of God's people was. The death of Christ. The predestination of God embraced the salvation of His people, but if predestination saved them, why did Christ die? Why was regeneration necessary? Why was the saving grace of God necessary? Didn't that come second? He says that predestination is causative. If so, Jesus died in vain. I asked him this morning how did He predestinate them out of sin unless His predestination embraced them in sin? Could you take a pig out of the pen that wasn't in the pen? Now, I say, my beloved friends, that he knows that the predestination of God embraced a man in the pigpen, or in sin, when He predestinated to adopt him out of that pen into the heavenly family. That was just a smooth evasion. That is just an evasion of the truth. That is all there is to it.

Now, he said he never hated anything as bad in his life as he hated this doctrine. I believe he told the truth. I believe he was telling the truth. Jesus said, "Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." I hope the Lord will make you love the doctrine of God our Saviour before you leave this stage of action. It should be an evidence to us that we have the doctrine of God our Saviour if it is hated. He said "Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." And I am not surprised at him hating it. A lot of people have hated it, and have been hating it all of these days, and will continue to hate it, unless the Lord sheds His love abroad in the hearts of these men and make them love it.

He said things just happen; things just happen without a cause. Did you ever hear of anything happening without a cause? Did you ever see anything take place where there was not something behind it to cause it? Just happened! That is fatalism.

He misquoted me in his last speech. I did not say that God works the wickedness. I said that God worked all things after the counsel of His own will, but the wickedness of men proceeds from their own depraved and deceived condition through the agency of the devil. And yet, here he has this picture with the ring clear around God, and the devil over here (indicating illustration on blackboard); it is a pretty good picture. He never told me he didn't belong to God, and the Bible says he does belong to Him. He said that if a man should come into your house and love your wife he just couldn't help it. Let one come into my house and try it and we will see whether I can help it or not. You know the argument I have already made on that subject.

It says in Romans (Ro 3(, the third chapter: "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? Whose damnation is just." Your damnation is just, according to the Scriptures. He said that we say, "Let us do evil that good may come." Prove that your damnation is not just by the Scriptures.

Could grace abound where there was no sin? He said that God never thought of a man as, a sinner until after he sinned, yet grace abounds. What is grace? It is an unmerited favor; nobody can have it but a sinner. He said it didn't please the Lord about what happened concerning David's wickedness. That sinfulness of David's heart did not please the Lord, that is true, but the accomplishment in the end that works together for good, that all things work together for good; the purpose in the end pleased Him very much. David acknowledged that he had sinned. I don't say that David did not sin. He did sin. And yet, my friends, that very act of David's-you know who that woman was. She was one of the direct ancestors of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Now, this is Mt 2:14-23: "When he arose, he took the young child and His mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son." What sent him into Egypt? The wickedness of Herod, and yet God had said, a thousand years before, "Out of Egypt have I called my Son." I guess the Lord was surprised when He found His Son down in Egypt. This is the same chapter and the seventeenth verse: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life." I say that every move that was made concerning the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while here on earth after He was born is recorded in this book that it was done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled: Here was murder. Murder of little babies; just as cold-blooded murder as was ever perpetrated by the hands of men. And yet, it was done that these Scriptures might be fulfilled, "Which also Jesus said they must."

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, He shall be called a Nazarene." It was written thousands of years before that He should be called a Nazarene. And the Lord, by His angel, told him to come into the land of Israel again, but he was a human being, and when he found out that the king's son reigned in his stead, he was afraid. Here is some more of the outcroppings of that predestination. Why didn't he go into the land of Israel like the Lord had said by the commandment through the angel? Why didn't he go on? Because he shall be called a Nazarene. That is why he didn't do it.

Mt 4:12-16: "Now, when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, He departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying." He came there, not because it was more convenient; not because He loved that part of the country, but because He was being persecuted as a secondary cause, and because behind that, the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

Mt 8:16-17: "When the even was come, they brought unto Him many that were possessed with devils: and He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." And that was done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. I want to ask you the direct question right here, my brother: Do you believe the Scriptures had to be fulfilled? I will just let you knit on your own sock. Do you think that they can be broken?

Mt 12:14,21: "Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him. But when Jesus knew it, He withdrew Himself from thence: and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all; and charged them that they should not make Him known: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." I say, right here, that this is an argument-does it not sound exactly like the others? He will accept this one. He will shake my hand on this one. I want to ask you if it doesn't read exactly like the others? That it was done that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. What does the word "that" mean? He is the scholar. I am not a scholar. What does that word mean? It tends to purpose, to fulfill the purpose that was under consideration. So, tell us if you will not accept this argument.

Mt 13:13,15. The reason I mention that-can't you see his prejudice? He has such a little god that he is afraid he would get him in a tight place. He is afraid he will get him somewhere that he cannot get him out. I say my brother, it may be possible that yours is so small that you have to be careful with him for fear he will get his feet wet, or something of that kind, but I say, it may possibly be that he is one of those strange gods mentioned over there in the thirty-second chapter of Deuteronomy (De 32), and there were no strange gods with Jacob. He is a strange god. He foreknows all things. He can purpose all things. No, pardon me, he will accept the word "purpose" but he doesn't want me to use "predestination." But he can foreknow all things, and he can determine all things and not be the cause of any of it, and yet, my friends, he is able to do what he pleases without a decree or determination or anything of that kind. There is not a woman in this house that is a good cook who can bake a biscuit fit to feed a worn out hound dog without using predestination all the way through. If you think you can, try it. Do you think that God can govern and control and complete a world without predestination? Mt 13:13,15: "Therefore speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and ,hear with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them." He will not accept this one with me. He cannot accept this one with me. This was done that they might ,not see. If it was said that it was done that they might see, he would say, "Yes, that is predestination. I will accept that." I am presuming a little, but from what he has argued, I think that's right.

Mt 13:34-35: "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and without a parable spake He not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." I have already read that.

Mt 17:22-23: "And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill, Him, and the third day He shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry." Oh, no, he says they didn't kill Him. He has already said that. They did not kill Him. But here is where He said, "And they shall kill Him," and I showed him the Scripture where they killed the Prince of life. He said the reason they didn't kill Him was because he was afraid of that terrible word "predestination." He is so afraid of it that he is scared of his shadow. Like a blind mule around a clay root, he is as shy as he can possibly be. A crawfish hole looks like it might be a shell crater; and I say, brethren, no wonder; his god is so small and so insignificant that if he were to get one foot in the hole, he would never get out.

Mt 28:20: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." The word of the Lord shall not pass away until they are fulfilled and accomplished, let it be predestination or no predestination. I can leave the term off, and, frankly, if it is worth anything to your comfort, I will seldom ever use the word "predestination" in preaching. Why? Because there has been so much Cain raised about it by such people as my opponent, until I would rather, as Solomon said, seek acceptable words if possible. I do my dead level best, I go around my elbows to get to my thumb, to make it acceptable to them, just so I can stay within the truth and do it. But when I cannot stay within the truth and do it, you need not be uneasy.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have something here that bears directly on this subject under discussion from begining to finish, and every verse of it is filled with questions.

If Jehovah is infinite in all His ways,

Giving life to man and numbering his days,

Who dares to impeach Him, if, in His wise plan,

He gave shape and direction to the ways of man?

If he, in His wisdom, did all things create;

Should He turn loose the helm and leave things to fate?

Did He not have the right in His sinless decree

To mark out the way, both for you and for me?

If He did decree just what we should do,
I cannot arraign Him--say, brother, can you?
Before whom will you try Him as judge of your court?
Who will act as your clerk and make your report?

If all things are in the decree of His will,
And all things are working the same to fulfill,
Who but a vile sinner too wicked to bow,
Would call Him in question, or say what doest thou?

If He decreed the death of His Son,
The sinless, the righteous, the most holy One,
And this did not make Him the author of sin,
To make Him the author, where would you begin?

Will you begin with Judas, whose act was foretold,
And, as was determined, his Master he sold?
Did not the dear Saviour say, woe to that man,
I go as determined in God's holy plan?

If Pharaoh you think would, no doubt,
Prove that God's purpose was not carried out,
Did not God command him, by Moses, you know,
Saying, "thus sayeth Jehovah, Let my people go?"

"Yet, I will harden," yes, harden, "his heart,
That he shalI refuse, and not let them depart,
Till I bring my just plagues on all of your foes,
And thus get me honor on him and all his host?"

Yet sinners most wicked will oft Him arraign,
Against His just counsel they often complain,
And say, if He decreed all things unto the end,
Then He is unjust and the author of sin.

The heathen may rage and imagine vain things,
The lowest, the highest, yea, even their kings,
And shout till the world hear the sound of their din,
The author, the author, the author, of sin.

His saints will still praise Him, and shout as they go,
Jehovah, most holy, doth all things foreknow;
His counsel did settle just how they should be;
So, shout on, ye heathen, you don't disturb me.

We learn from an angel that time shall soon end,
And saints shall be welcomed by Jesus their friend;
This all is established by His holy decree,
For thus it is written, and thus it shall be.

If all things are certain, then how came them so?
If things were not certain: how could God foreknow?
Were all things to which foreknowledge relate
Made certain by the old heathen goddess of fate?

We surely all know, at a thought or a glance,
That things are not left to haphazard or chance;
Will one please tell me, that I may once see,
How things can be certain yet uncertain be?

Now, while you are thinking, I'll come to a halt,
If you don't see the point it isn't my fault;
But, brother, please tell me how this thing can be,
All things were made certain without a decree?

Mt 21:1-5: "And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." All that was done, and they cried Hosanna to the Lord, and spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strewed them in the way. All that was done that it might be fulfilled. You know, some of them tried to keep that from going on. They tried to stop them.

Time expired.

01.17 ELDER WEST'S SEVENTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

Elder Rhodes, do you endorse the poetry that you just read?

ELDER RHODES: I most certainly do.

ELDER WEST: Elder Rhodes says that he most certainly endorses the poetry that he has read. This morning, and it has gone into the record, Elder Rhodes said that he did not believe that God was the author of sin, and I am going to read the fifth verse of your poetry to you:

If He decreed the death of His Son,

The sinless, the righteous, the most holy One,

And this did not make Him the author of sin,

To make Him the author, where would you begin?

That is all I want to go into the record. It is signed by J. C. Sikes. Had I been you, I would have given the daddy of it. Do you really want that verse to go into the record?

ELDER RHODES: I want it all to go into the record.

ELDER WEST: That is fine. Now, then, he talks about me being in a tight. I wonder why he is so worried about tomorrow. We will wait until tomorrow comes and see what a tight Ariel will get into. I don't blame you. I would want the folks to think of tomorrow, too. I wouldn't want them to think of today if I were you. And I don't believe that I would want them to read about today.

All right, Re 1:19), beginning with the fifteenth verse: "Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." Now there is not one word there about God predestinating it. I am not going to stop. I am going to read the next verse to you: "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it." "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them." Rhodes said the Lord stirred them up to do it. I wonder where he found that out. The Book doesn't say that. How did you find out that the Lord stirred them up to do that? Then again, let us see. He said that the Lord will raise up His children even to murder. Let us see if the Lord did. Is there any difference in Ephriam and the Lord?

ELDER RHODES: You misquoted me. I did not say that.

ELDER WEST: It is in the record.

ELDER RHODES: If it is in the record, let him read it.

ELDER WEST: He said the Lord will even raise up His children to murder. Is that what you said?

ELDER RHODES: That is what I said.

ELDER WEST: All right, Ephriam shall bring his children to murder. It didn't say that the Lord should do it, but that Ephriam would do it.

ELDER RHODES: Will you read this verse here?

ELDER WEST: I have already read that. You can read it yourself. I am following you. "For the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: All their princes are revolters." That is all that I am going to say about that. There is a little difference between Ephriam and God, isn't there? You just haven't studied your lesson. That is the trouble with you. You haven't read your Bible. That is all that is the matter with you. .

All right; give me the London Confession of Faith, please (addressing Elder Cayce). Chapter IV, page 39. He has made a terrible to-do about the London Confession of Faith. Let me read to you from paragraph 2: "After God had made all other creatures, He created (Ge 1:27) man, male, and female, with (Ge 2:7) reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God, for which they were created, being (Ec 7:29; Ge 1:26) made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God (Ro 2:14-15) written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was (Ge 3:6) subject to change." If everything was unconditionally predestinated, then, He wouldn't have had to have given them the power to fulfill it, because, according to your doctrine, they just had to fulfill what was predestinated for them, to fulfill, and no more and no less.

All right, we will come back to Chapter III and what we talked about on yesterday. We made an argument on the word "contingency," and contingency means that which is dependent upon another, and so, God predestinated some things upon conditions. That is what the word "contingency" means. You can laugh if you want to, but that is what the word "contingency" means. Laugh and show your ignorance.

He said that I said that predestination was causative. I deny the term. I said that God caused what He predestinated, over and over, but he said that West says some things just happen. The record does not say that West said that. And West did not say it. But that didn't hurt him. He told it all over this country that Elder Cayce had signed written propositions with him to debate and then backed out after he signed them. He went crowing all over this country. He said that, he wrote that, and said he had as a matter of record-there is his letter there on the desk-that Elder Cayce signed propositions with him and then backed out. I asked you time and time-again to produce them. And he said Elder Newman did the same thing. It doesn't hurt you to say that West said it just happened. When did Elder Cayce ever sign a proposition with you? He said I misquoted him. If I did, God absolutely predestinated all thing to come to pass. I cannot help it to save my life. I just can't do it.

Hand me that red book, please. (Elder Cayce hands the book to him.) He wants me to answer the Scripture in Isa 45:7. All right; I am going to read this into the record: It is not my work, but it will be found on page 107, and I want that to go into the record also: "Isa 45:7, is also introduced to establish the universal predestination of God. It reads thus: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." If darkness and evil in the text signify sin and wickedness, and the text proves that God purposed sin and wickedness, then the inevitable conclusion is, "I the Lord do all these things." The Lord fully explains the real meaning of the text in subduing nations by Cyrus; also in frustrating the tokens of liars, and making diviners mad, and turning wise men backward, and also in making their knowledge foolish. The title of this book, is "The Baptists in All Ages," by Newman.

He said that the sin in David's heart did not please the Lord. Was there something in David's heart that didn't please the Lord? Then, how could it have been there, seeing that nothing exists only that which pleases the Lord? How did it get in there if it didn't please the Lord to let it in? But, it was not pleasing to the Lord. Then, he quoted Scripture after Scripture about the fulfillment of prophecy. Why, I believe all that, every bit of it. But that did not make God predestinate all things that come to pass, because the Scriptures were fulfilled.

I offered him $25 for a text. Do you care if I make you that offer again?

ELDER RHODES: Will you state that again, please?

ELDER WEST: You mean about the $25.

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: I want you to find the text in the Bible that says that God predestinated all things, whatsoever comes to pass, Both good and evil. I will give you $25 for that text. I will give you $25 for the text that says He predestinated all things. I will give you $25 for the text that says that He predestinated evil. I am getting generous. The brethren told me they would lend me the money, and that is why I am so safe. Let us see if he can do it. If he doesn't do it, he should quit and go home, shouldn't he?

He said that the word of the Lord shall endure forever. I believe that. There is not a bit of difference in the world between us on that. I believe the word of the Lord will endure forever. But what I don't believe is that He absolutely predestinated, from the beginning, whatsoever comes to pass, both good and evil. His proposition says that the Scriptures teach it, but he took up five minutes of his time and had the thing all cut and dried so they could funnel him with it and bring it right to the end of the five minutes, what the poetry teaches. He is affirming things by poetry instead of the Bible; proving it by J. C. Sikes.

Now, don't get mad at me if I have a little fun. God predestinated it, you know. Let's see what he said about can't helping it. He said if some man came into his home and tried-you would see whether he could help it or not. Well, if God predestinated it, then you couldn't help it.

ELDER RHODES: I would find out if He predestinated it or not. (Laughter in the audience.)

ELDER WEST: Let's not have any demonstration out in the audience. I know it's funny, and

it is sad; it is ridiculous. God predestinated something, and then Brother Rhodes showing that He didn't predestinate it. All right, we will pass on. I will notice some more negative argument.

His proposition cannot be true, because the absolute predestination of all things, both good and evil, are not taught in God's Book. 2Ti 3:16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Don't you imagine that if it was profitable that they would be thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and they had to believe in the absolute predestination of all things to be thoroughly furnished, you wouldn't have so much trouble getting that $75 that I have offered you. You wouldn't have any trouble at all, would you? But the absolute predestination of all things is not given by the inspiration of God, and it is not a thorough furnisher unto every good work. Therefore, your proposition is not the truth. You have said nothing in the world about the revealed will and the secret will of God. I want you to talk about that a little bit. So far, you haven't. Your brethren have spoken a lot about it and written a lot about it.

You asked me if I believed the London Confession of Faith. Yes, I believe it. Do you believe what Brother Sikes believes? I know you do, because you tried to prove your proposition by his poetry. Elder Sikes says in the Old Faith Contender that there was a revealed will and a secret will of God. If you want me to read it to you, I will read it. I will surely do it, as surely as there is a God in heaven. "Reveal" means to make known. I should be able to read what his brethren say if he can read poetry. "Reveal" means to make known. You Absoluters say the predestination of God in all things, both good and evil, is His secret will. Will you tell us how you found out about it, then? How did you find out one of God's secrets? When did He tell you one of His secrets? if it is a secret. He said something about the revealed will of God in his argument, but never said anything in the world about that secret will. You brethren say there is a secret will. You deny that your brethren say that? If I am charging him wrongly, why, then, I want to know it. If it is God's revealed will that you should keep His commandments, how do you know that it is God's secret will for you not to keep His commandments? "Secret things belong to God."-De 29:29.

God did not predestinate whatsoever comes to pass, because such doctrine denies that God suffered sin, and such doctrine makes God the cause of sin. He has hallooed and hallooed about charging consequences. If that wasn't the consequences of his doctrine, why would he halloo? That is the point. That is the consequence of his doctrine. I am not going to charge false consequences. But here is the truth of the proposition, as far as any man will ever be able to go, according to God's Word and not speculate. The trouble with you fellows, you are wise above that which is written. You want to find out more than God has ever revealed. That is the trouble with you. It is the revealed word of God that He suffered and allowed sin to enter into the world. God suffered that. Somebody said, "How do you know that He suffered it?" I didn't say predestinated it, but suffered it. There is a difference in predestinating something and suffering something. Yes, sir, we can shake hands and have a peace meeting if they will just come on the ground that God suffered sin to enter into the world, and not predestinated and fixed it and created and purposed it. All right; Ac 14:16: "Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." He suffered it. He didn't predestinate it. Do you know the difference between suffer and predestination? I wonder if you do.

His proposition cannot be true, because God is a God of judgment. De 32:4. Would He command His children to do something they could not do, for His predestination was that they sin or be disobedient to His command, and then chastise them for not doing His commandment? As God is not that kind of God, He did not predestinate whatsoever comes to pass, both good and evil. Would you tell one of your children to do something and make them do it, and then whip them for doing it? I wonder if you would. I wonder if he has no more sense of justice than that.

He keeps asking me, and keeps asking me, where the devil came from. He said that he was going to tell us. He has but one more speech to tell us in. I could tell you something you don't want to hear, but I will refrain from it.

His proposition cannot be true, because God is not the author of confusion and sin. Confusion comes to pass and He is not the author of it. God did not predestinate it. First Corinthians xiv. 33: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." God is not the author of confusion, and did not predestinate confusion. God predestinated the salvation of His people. He predestinated that. I am putting this in the argument now, the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, so that I can talk about it in my concluding speech. The resurrection of His people. He predestinated their goal. He predestinated that they live in heaven. But let me ask you this before I close my remarks at this time: If God had not predestinated those folks unto the adoption of children, in the eighth chapter of Romans (Ro 8), how in the world could they have ever been glorified? Don't you forget that. He said God predestinated things; he did not cause them. Let him answer the question how those individuals could have ever been glorified. Would they have been glorified if He had not predestinated them? I will drop that and pass on.

His proposition cannot be true, because the text that he uses proves his proposition would make God a sinner, according to his application, and he said that God is not the author of sin. That is what he said. Pr 16:4, "The Lord hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." If that is sin and wickedness, then God made it and it didn't come by man at all; therefore, your proposition is not true. God is not the author of sin, according to Rhodes. But God made evil; therefore, God made sin, according to Rhodes. God is not the author the dilemma the gentleman is in again.

"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?" I have to quote some of his own text for him and help him out a little. That is Amos iii. 6: "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" Is that sin and wickedness? Then, the Lord does the sin and wickedness, but He is not the author of it, according to his doctrine. He does it and is not the author of it.

His proposition cannot be true, because the Lord God says that no man is tempted of God. "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man." I do not have the citation here.

We are going to look at this picture for a moment. He has made a long argument on causes, yet He does not tempt any man. He said that He does not tempt any man directly. But if I understand his contention, He takes an indirect route and God just uses the devil to do what the Lord doesn't want to do Himself. Isn't that your contention? He just used the devil. Rhodes said He made the devil. Did He make a good devil?

Voice in the audience: "Yes."

You say He made a good devil. Therefore, He made a good devil. But he was a liar from the beginning, and yet a good devil, according to you.

Time expired.

01.18 ELDER RHODES' EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Brethren and Sisters:

The first thing I want to notice is what he had to say about the devil. I will say that God did make a good devil for the purpose He made him, just as He made everything else for what He made them; He made a good man, for what He made him; He made a good world, for what He made a world. You wouldn't want God to make a failure in making a devil, would you? I have already introduced an argument and produced Scriptures to show that God did make the devil, and I have been trying to get my brother to tell us where he came from. He will not do that. He is awfully glad that we have one, he thinks, but he doesn't want to acknowledge where he came from. I would be more afraid of him if I didn't know where he came from than I am like it is. I am not very much afraid of him as it is, because I believe the one who made him is able to handle him just like He pleases. I believe He does do that. So, enough along that line, about the Lord making a good devil.

I have already quoted him the Scripture in Psalms where He declared that His Spirit garnished the heavens. He said He also formed the crooked serpent. Not only that, but I can take the Scriptures and prove that God made the devil and created the devil, and that he belongs to God. I can do that, and if he calls my hand on that, I will do so. Do you think that I cannot?

He said, would you tell your children to do something and then whip them because they did it? I want to ask him if that is not exactly what He did to Pharaoh. I have never been guilty of a thing like that, and I hope that I have better respect for my brother than to even charge he would do a thing like that, but I am not going to tell him that God did not do that very thing for Pharaoh. "Thus saith the Lord God, Let my people go, yet, I will harden his heart so that he shall not let them go." And He brings His plagues on Pharaoh and all his hosts. There is a case. Take it and wallow with it.

He said that I had not said anything about the revealed will and the secret will. To Pharaoh the revealed will of God was, "Let my people go." But the will of God demonstrated in Moses' presence was, "I will harden his heart so that he shall not let them go." Two birds with one stone.

I will give you one text-I believe I have already given that. It is Col 1:16: "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Was the devil made? Was he created? Was he formed? He is a thing, isn't he? He is a pretty big thing sometimes. He is an awful big thing for a god like yours. He would be entirely too big for that. But I want to ask him where the devil is. Where is the devil? Is he under heaven? Is he a thing present, or is he a thing to come? God made all things, the devil included. The Lord formed him and made him and it says, "both the deceived and the deceiver are mine." I have already quoted you that.

He said that we wanted to find out more than we should; that was why we were driving on predestination. Well, the little schoolboy I made the example of this morning ought to have wanted to find out more, but he didn't. So, every time my sister would ask him how much 2 and I were, he would say, "2 and 1," every time. Every time I say anything about the definition of the word "predestination," it is just "predestination" with him. It is predestination. Predestination.

Now, he charged something in his other speech which I want to notice here. He said that the reason that the churches were divided in this country was because "you bucks" preached so and so. While I was not a member, I happen to know that the record will show that the resolutions established by your kind is exactly what divided them. We do not declare non-fellowship for a man in our midst who does not understand predestination. We do not make him an offender for a word. One of the best little Baptists in this country, who left awhile ago, attending this debate, never has been able to see how God could absolutely predestinate everything. He tells us that. Do we exclude him? No. We do not make an offender of one for a word. Is that your record? Is that the record of your people? Right here in this association I have spent my life where there were twelve churches. They bore with one another on their views relative to this subject until the resolution or bars of non-fellowship were set up. Those bars are set up there yet, and they will be there when Gabriel blows his trumpet, as far as our taking them down is concerned. We didn't put them up. Your crowd did that. You may not know that, but that is the truth, and it is so, according to the record right here in this country, and I will tell you what the outcome is. Every church that went out with them at that time is dead, except two, out of the whole number. We have eight.

He is going to give me $25 to find where the Bible says anything about absolute predestination of all things, and absolute means unconditional, and every time I quote the word "purpose," or say anything about foreknowledge or foreordination, or any of those terms that are co-extensive with the word "predestination," he flies the track and says something or other about tomorrow. I didn't intend to say anything more about that, but as he has seen fit to think I am in such a tight place-why, I am-I am sweating. I am sweating blood. But I have poured this Scriptural argument to you, Scripture after Scripture, and instead of replying to them, my brother, you get up and make fun, with sarcasm, and charge consequences, just like any Arminian does when you debate with him. It is just exactly like they do. I have debated with several of them, and that is what you are, according to Webster. You are an Arminian. He said that I could make this $25. Well, if I were as big a gump as you are, if I turned right around and offered it to you, we would be even on your next proposition. There is not one word in all of the Scripture, so then, if the kettle is black, the pot is in just as bad shape.

J. C. Sikes. I want to say something about Brother Sikes, since he has been charged here. I wonder why. The division has been about 40 years in this association-

ELDER WEST (interrupting): I arise to a point of order so that this will go into the record. Elder Sikes has been introduced as proof in a long paragraph, and while I do not mean any disrespect to Brother Sikes at all, I think as Elder Sikes' work, as signed by him, and introduced in the affirmative, as affirmative argument, I will certainly have the right, and will not be taking advantage, to reply to what Elder Sikes said, which was read into the record by the affirmative.

ELDER RHODES: I was not questioning his right. That is perfectly all right. I intend that his name go at the bottom of the poetry which I read, and I want to tell you now, ladies and gentlemen, I am not ashamed of Elder Sikes or the position that he has held, lo, these many years. Since his debate with Thompson, why haven't they bounced onto him? I respect Elder Sikes. I love Elder Sikes for the truth's sake, and I am not ashamed of that truth, and I want to say, my friends, that I have just as much right to charge my brother who is sitting by the stalwart leader, if you will pardon me, Elder Cayce, of your faction today, taking notes from him, and everything of the kind. You know that we all know that, and I don't care. I don't blame you a bit in the world. That is all right.

Now, relative to the circumstances that he brought in and the play that he made about the letters that Elder Cayce and I had signed a proposition to debate. Elder Cayce, did we not do that?

ELDER CAYCE: No, sir.

ELDER RHODES: We did not?

MODERATOR CAYCE: I will hold your time for a moment. Here are ten one-dollar bills (exhibiting currency), and I didn't have to borrow it. I will give them to you if you will produce the proposition with my name signed to it.

ELDER RHODES: I want to say, my friends, that I said the propositions were signed with his name to it-with our names to it. I want to say that everybody in this congregation, including Elder Cayce, knows that my home and files were burned up. They know that. The brethren all over this land and country, and some brethren right here on the side of Elder Cayce know that I told Elder Cayce in their store and we agreed to debate, and I want to say on my word of honor, my friends, and I hope God strikes me dead if it is not the truth, to prove that I did not back out. I have correspondence here in my file to show you that Elder West was under the wrong impression; that I would still debate with Elder Cayce on these propositions, and he dug out the proposition out of the file and sent them to me, and we are debating the same proposition that Elder Cayce and I were to debate. Now, my house and my files and my books and papers are all in ashes, and I am just as honest-and I believe Elder Cayce is honest in this, but he is honestly mistaken. I believe Elder West is honest in it, but he is honestly mistaken. I want to say here and now that I feel that they have taken the advantage; whether they have done it intentionally or not, I don't know.

MODERATOR CAYCE: Hold his time another minute. In the first place, my name should not have been brought into this as to us debating. But the gentleman claims his correspondence was burned. Fortunately, it was not burned at my shop and I have your original letters and carbon copies of every letter that I wrote to you, and I will bring them here tomorrow, and if you will produce the proposition signed by us for that debate, I will give you this $10. We never signed the proposition.

ELDER RHODES: I say, in conclusion, again that I believe Elder Cayce is honest in stating that he did not sign them. I believe Elder West is honest, but I still say that it was known among the brethren all over this land and country-

MODERATOR CAYCE: Because you told it.

ELDER RHODES: I would not have told it had we not been in correspondence preparatory to debate.

MODERATOR CAYCE: But we never signed the propositions. .

ELDER RHODES: I told Elder West in my correspondence which I kept and did keep a carbon copy of and a return receipt on that, but I did not tell him that I had it in my possession and that my files were not burned, or anything of the kind. I felt like we would find it somewhere.

Lu 22:31,37: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto Him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death." I believe I have already made this argument. Pardon me.

Lu 18:31-33: "Then He took unto Him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For He shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: and they shall scourge Him, and put Him to death: and the third day He shall rise again." This is beforehand. He said He would go up to Jerusalem in order that these things which were written of Him would be accomplished, saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." That is Lu 24:7. I want to say, my friends, that these "must be's" are not "may be's," not at all. I want to say, right here, that if my opponent will show me where these things must be done and failed to come to pass, then I will believe that he has some sincerity in his proposition. He has not told me one single one of these things that must be done that failed to come to pass, or whether they will come to pass or not.

Ac 3:17-18. Now, brethren, he charged me with being ignorant in his last speech. I will frankly say that very question has bothered me at times, but I don't think it bothers my brother. But what is it? Solomon said, "There is more hope for a fool than a man wise in his own conceit." So, beloved friends, I want to say that I believe he is wise in his own conceit. He can tell us how that all things can be certain, and yet, nothing can cause them. I think he is kind of wise-worldly wise. I think he is. And do you know the one reason why I am doing this? I hate to do it, but this is my last speech. Solomon says "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be likened unto him." I have gone on these two days and tried to keep from doing that, but then he turns and says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." That is why I am calling this to his attention. I want to say, beloved friends, that he thinks the word "predestination" just because his leaders have inflamed him against it-that it ought not to be in the Bible at all. And it is not in there many times. "But in the mouth of two or three witnesses, let every word be established." If it were not there but one time it would be enough for me, my brother. And every word that is a definition to it would not be offensive to me.

This is Lu 24:44: "And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me." These are the things that must come to pass. My friends, I want to say that they are just as sure to come, on the day appointed, the judgment or pouring out of the wrath and indignation, in the eternal destruction and judgment of God, will be accomplished; and inasmuch as he said he was preaching some, I think I have plenty of time in this speech, also, and I just want to say to you brethren and sisters and friends that the God of hosts who purposed all things, and who would be afraid to even have his name mentioned relative to them, I, like my brother, would be trying to protect my God. How would you know that your salvation was sure? Do you think that Jesus, the blessed Son of God, would have been crucified if there had not been a devil or wicked men? How would He ever have suffered? Do you suppose He would have stumped His toe and fallen down and broke His neck? Do you think He would? All of these things must be, too, and I say, my friends, if all of these things that are written must come to pass, and do come to pass, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, then your salvation through the dying Saviour on the bloody cross makes it sure and certain. I say to you, whether you believe in the word, or the term, "predestination" or not, If you ever felt our God's saving grace in your heart and soul to the extent that you have been made to rejoice by our crucified and risen Saviour, I say, brethren and sisters, you are just as sure to sing God's eternal and glorious praise in that never-ending and glorious eternity as you ever saw and felt His presence. And I say that the love of God is so sweet in my soul that He has loved His people with an everlasting love, how He made a covenant, and how it is ordered in all things. Yes, I say, my friends, who wants to worship a god that things are not certain with? Who wants to trust in a god that doesn't know where the devil came from, that has no use for him? Who wants to worship a god that he doesn't know whether the devil is older than he or not? I say, glory and praise be to God's precious name. I am glad that God made the devil. I am glad that He has all power in heaven and on earth, and that He controls the devil. Yes, sir, after awhile-in Revelation we find that the Lord is going to send an angel down and bind him with a strong chain and cast him in a bottomless pit. I say to you that if you don't know where he came from, and who made him, and by whose power he exists, how would God know that He would be able to do this? I rejoice in the fact that God is able and has all power in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all deep places, and where He declares He will bind him. If He doesn't know where he came from, or anything about him, I say what does He say after He gets him down? He is going to loose him again. Why, you know, if that scamp were here contrary to my will and purpose, and if I were in God's place and got him down one time, it would be all right with him. I would keep him down. Yes, sir; but I say, beloved friends, that just as sure as there is a God on His throne, He declares that He is going to loose him.

He has predestinated to bind him. He has purposed to loose him, and He is able to do it. I say that He will do it, and dear child of God, let me say to you here today that just as sure as your name is written in the Lamb's book of life, just that sure you will sing the eternally blessed praise of God in that glorious sweet beyond, where there is no more sin, no more sorrow, no more pain or death. So, as a child of God, let me say to you that I rejoice in the fact that God made all things and controls all things and uses all things. If there are some things He didn't control, they might stand directly in opposition to you. But He controls them. He works all things after the counsel of His will. He crucified and offered His blessed Son on Calvary's cross by the hand of wicked men, who are His sword. So, now, my friends, let me say in conclusion, whether you believe upon this proposition as I do, I hope that my name is written in the Lamb's book of life, and if it be God's will, I hope that yours is, too, and if it is, my brethren and my sisters, indeed, you have been born of the Spirit of God; and I say to you that I believe in a God who is able to land you up there, in spite of all the devils in hell, and in spite of all the demons on this earth. I believe that He will land you there; and so, let me say in conclusion here that I am glad that I have been brought to lift my testimony this day. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, because it is the power of God unto salvation.

I think I have time for one more Scripture. Matthew 7 (Mt 7:22)., I believe it is verse 22, where He says: "And they shall knock and say, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Is that Old Baptist? No, indeed, my brethren, it is not. He said, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity." They were workers, all right, but they were workers of iniquity. And so, my friends, they are going to a place prepared for them.

Time expired.

01.19 ELDER WEST'S EIGHTH NEGATIVE

ELDER WEST: I would like to ask Brother Rhodes when his home burned.

ELDER RHODES: My house burned in February, 1941.

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am before you to make the last speech that I will make in the negative of this proposition which we have been debating.

It might not have been proper for me to have brought in the matter of the propositions being signed by Elders Cayce and Rhodes, but it was brought in and a reply has been made to it. I am going to answer that reply.

I have been called conceited. I have been called a dub, and I have been called a fool, and l am in a perfectly good humor now.

I charged him with being ignorant as to what the word "contingency" meant. Of course, he wouldn't say what I charged his ignorance on. He just wouldn't do that. It would have hurt a little, you know. I made an argument on the word "contingency," but it is easier to answer by calling me conceited.

I am sorry about his house burning down. It is unfortunate. Many things come our way which are unfortunate. I have had my part of distress and trouble, and I am not going to capitalize on that. It has been said that the house burned in February, 1941. He says now that he cannot prove, or bring any proof, because his house did burn. I am going to read his letter written to me on December 6, 1942. Is this your handwriting, Brother?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: I suppose that page is in your handwriting?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: And I suppose that is your signature to the letter?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, sir.

ELDER WEST: All right; he said:

"Elder Ariel West: I am quite sure you will be surprised to hear from me. I believe, according to a letter written by you to Elder W. W. Taylor, of Tinsman, Arkansas, dated 11-20-42, that you have been grossly misinformed, and again, according to another letter written by the same party on 10-27-42, that you are in possession of grossly wrong information. Now, I only want to write to inform you concerning the reason for my not debating with Elder Claud Cayce and Elder Joe Newman. The facts are, they accepted and agreed on the propositions, and they both alike broke correspondence with me, and I took the record file of this matter, and also registered my, mail and kept a return receipt, so that I am in a position to show proof of these facts." You said, on December 6, 1942, "that I am in a position to show proof of these facts." I have not misquoted the letter. You said you were in position to show proof.

ELDER RHODES: Will you allow me-

ELDER WEST: I am not accusing him of being wrong in his heart at all. I think he was honest in what he said. I just think he forgot.

ELDER RHODES: Will you hold your time a minute? l don't want to say anything impudent, but I want to say this, that I had been to Washington, D. C., at the time, and I had some suitcases in my car which I carried with me to Washington, and had a bunch of personal files of such things as this in my car, and I thought that my papers which I had from him were still in my cases which I had. When I found they were not, I had to get off the bat on that particular case. I did have some papers in there which I thought had burned, and I came across them, and I thought that was in there, too, but I couldn't find them. I am perfectly honest about it.

ELDER WEST: I am going to refer to what the gentleman last said. He said West said, would the Lord command one of His children to do something and then whip him for doing that, and he said he would give me credit for having more sense than to do one of my children that way. Here is what I said: I said, would the Lord command His children to do something and then keep them from doing it, and then turn around and whip them for not doing it? Well, he said He did in the case of Pharaoh. I was talking about the child of God. Was Pharaoh God's child? Then I asked for the place where He ever talked to Pharaoh. I said that I wanted it, but I never did get it.

Then, he said that I said they want to know more. I didn't say that. I said the trouble with those fellows was that they wanted to know more than was written in God's Book. That is what I said. I don't blame any man for wanting to know more. It wouldn't hurt me to know a little more-and it wouldn't hurt you to know a little more, either.

He said, "West is an Arminian." He said I do it up like all Arminians. Do you know the definition of an Arminian? Isn't an Arminian one who believes that they will enter heaven and immortal glory by keeping the commandments of God? But I don't believe that, and you don't believe it. I don't believe that any man ever went to heaven by keeping the commandments of God. If that is an Arminian, then I am not one. An Arminian is one that believes that folks go to heaven conditionally upon what they do. That is what an Arminian believes. You talk about Arminianism; let's have a look at it. Here is the great head, and here is the God of all, but He couldn't save one individual in heaven unless a dirty devil came to him and caused him to transgress the law. Call that Arminianism. You are talking about Arminianism. Smile a little bit at me, please. I imagine that is breaking the rules, but I was called a gump. Surely I can tell him to smile; and you know the Lord predestinated I would be conceited and I just can't help it. And if I am a gump, according to your doctrine, the Lord predestinated that. Don't you take pity on me for being a gump. I couldn't have been anything else.

Then he says that he hopes my name is written in the Lamb's book of life. He hopes I am his brother. That is what he says. I wonder if you believe I am your brother. I wonder if he believes I am his brother. If he does, the Saviour said, "Thou shalt not call thy brother a fool, for he shall be in danger of hellfire." Did you ever read that?

He was preaching, and had a little tune to it. I am sorry that he had to sing that solo by himself. It would have sounded pretty good if you had been singing the truth and if you had sung it like that and preached the truth while singing it, I would have cried a little. But I am not going to cry to a tune that hasn't the truth in it. While he was singing so sweetly, he said, "I am glad the Lord made the devil." "I am glad the Lord made the devil." It just tickled him to death. And yet you are glad he made old Hitler. If you are glad that He made Hitler, why did you want to get him in your hands yesterday and squeeze the life out of him? He said he was glad the Lord made the devil, but if he had that old boy here, he would fix him. Well, what would you fix him for, if you were glad that the Lord made him? Why in the world would you want to fix him? I wonder what he wants to do to him. The Lord made him, he said, and he said he was a good devil. He wanted to fix a good devil. The very idea! The fallacy of such a thing, wanting to fix a good devil, and then wanting to destroy the good devil that the Lord made. Glad that the Lord made the devil the way He did make him, but at the same time wanting to kill the old devil. I would like to get that fixed up. I would like to see the reasonableness in the fact that the Lord made a good devil, and now Rhodes wants to kill him and chew the old boy up.

All right, all whose names were not found in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire. That doesn't have a thing in the world to do with his proposition; not a thing in the world. That does not say that God predestinated whatsoever comes to pass. Re 20:15 doesn't even favor it.

I am going to review my negative argument on this proposition, and then that will be the close of the debate on this proposition.

On yesterday I said that his proposition cannot be true, because the Book of God says such doctrine is wearisome to the Lord. That was in Malachi ii. 17. I asked him if he wanted to weary the Lord-if the Lord delighted in these evil things? The Lord said that was wearisome to the Lord. I repeat again, without bringing in new matter, Rhodes, do you want to weary the Lord? If you say He has pleasure in evil, and that is wearisome to the Lord, do you want to weary Him? Does He have pleasure in evil and in sin? You said there was nothing in the world only what the Lord wanted. If sin is in the world then He must have wanted sin, and, therefore, it must be His pleasure to have sin. And He said that is wearisome to the Lord. So, my brother wants to weary the Lord, I suppose. I asked you time and time again, and you said it was contradictory, that in the mind, which is intent, purpose and design of God, if He predestinated things that didn't come into His intent, purpose, and design. Those individuals are found in .Jer 19:1,5. Doing things that did not come into the intention, purpose, and design of God.

I said his proposition cannot be true, because God told Adam not to eat. Rhodes said that God predestinated for him to eat; therefore, God predestinated for Adam to do what God told him he should not do. He has never answered that argument. The reason he didn't answer that argument was because he couldn't. He hasn't laid down an argument in this discussion-not one argument has he made; not one argument has he introduced or debated. I don't believe that he can make an argument. I absolutely don't believe that he can. All right, we will pass on and look at some more things that were brought to bear here.

Did Paul tell the truth when he said, I Corinthians x. 5: "With many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness." All right, there were some folks God was not well pleased with. Then, God predestinated what didn't please Him, according to your doctrine; therefore, it pleased God to predestinate something that did not please Him, according to the doctrine of Elder Rhodes.

Now, I am going back to the crucifixion of the Saviour. I will talk about that for just a minute. He introduced yesterday in his argument from the fourth chapter of Acts (Ac 4:27), the 27th verse, and I am going to bring out my argument again on that, because the crucifixion of Jesus has been repeatedly referred to in this discussion. Let us see what it says: "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." He determined that the Son of God would give His life, and so, the mob had to take His life. He made reference to that this morning. He said that West said they didn't kill Him. West qualified what he said, because I said that I meant that they did not take His life. I quoted to you from the tenth chapter of the book of the gospel according to John, where He said, "No man taketh it from me." What was He talking about? He was talking about His life. You were as silent as the grave on that. You never referred to what the Saviour said. He said, "No man taketh it from me. I lay it down of myself; and if I lay it down, I will take it up again." This is not new matter. This has been introduced before. The Son of God said, "No man taketh it from me, and if I lay it down, I will take it up again." Elder Rhodes, just as sure as the Son of God laid His life down, He took it up again. But I am going to turn it around. Just as sure as those wicked men took His life, like you said they did, they will have to give it back to Him. They did not take His life, and if they did not take His life, neither did they give it back to Him. So, now, I will use this illustration: But the Lord has purposed that sinners should be saved, and the Lord has purposed that sinners will be saved, and on next Sunday morning in this city there will be individuals who are Arminians-I am not an Arminian, and you get that and understand it, sir-but there will be folks who are Arminians and they will meet to do what God determined to be done. Why? Because they will meet to save sinners, and God has determined that sinners should be saved; they will meet to do it; but they will not do it, because it is the Lord who saves sinners, and they will not be instrumental in it. Those men were not instrumental in the Son of God laying His life down. I am going to show you why. I stated yesterday and it is in the record-here are two thieves, one on this side, and one on that side. That is in the record. And the Son of God was hung between the thieves, and when they came to kill the Son of God, the Son of God was already dead. He was already dead. He had laid His life down. They killed the thieves, but they did not kill the Son of God. They did not take His natural life. They did not take His natural life, because He had laid his life down; and, therefore, there was not a bone of His body broken, for the simple reason that He had laid His life down. I will admit they killed Him from the standpoint of taking and smiting across His body. I will admit that they took Him and crucified and slew Him. But I am not going to admit, nor am I going to make the Son of God a liar, when I tell you that no one took His life. I don't believe it. I never have believed it, and I never expect to believe it, sir. I do not expect to believe anything that smells like it, or looks like it, nor favors it, sir. Jesus said, "No man taketh it from me." Rhodes says that men did take it. Who are you going to believe, Rhodes or Jesus? He doesn't quite look like Jesus to me. I am going to believe Jesus and what He said about it.

All right, I made another argument: "Him being delivered by the foreknowledge and determinate counsel of God." I said that Jesus was delivered by the foreknowledge and determinate counsel of God, and in conjunction, "Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Jesus was not delivered to the mob by the determinate counsel of God, but was delivered into the world by the determinate counsel of God. Then, it was God's purpose that His Son would come into the world. It was His purpose that His Son would make advent into the world. He predestinated His Son coming into the world, and caused His Son to come into the world. And He came on purpose. It has been used time and again: "It pleased Him to bruise His Son." It has been used time and time again. It did please God to bruise Him, and there, my friends, as He hung on Calvary's cross, His Son was bruised, but not in the sense of wicked acts from any devils. All right, we will pass on.

We will look at some more of the argument that we have made. I said that his proposition was not true, for the simple reason that the Scripture says in Mt 12:50: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Therefore, I said, according to his dilemma, the devil and Jesus were brothers. Were they brothers? Did the devil do the will of God? Is God the Father of Jesus? If God is the Father of Jesus, and the devil was doing the will of the Father of Jesus, "whosoever doeth my Father's will is my brother, and my sister, and my mother." Was the devil the brother of Jesus? Was he doing the will of God? That is the dilemma that he is in. He said that I got that from some of my kinfolk. He wanted to know where that fellow came from. He is worried about that. Well, folks generally worry about their ancestors. This (indicating picture on the board) is a pretty good portrait of your ancestor. I am a pretty good artist. I am not interested in where he came from. I don't care. All things that were made were made by the Lord. Was the devil made? Did you ever see him? Is he invisible? Do you think that you are looking at him now? Well, God predestinated it, so you have to look! I am doing the will of God here. That is fine. If I am the devil, I had to be here because the devil does the will of God. And if you get mad, you will have to get mad at me, because the Lord predestinated it. I am doing the will of God and I cannot help it. Do you think I can help it? Wouldn't you absolutely like to cowhide me, anyway? I expect they would. Wouldn't you like to wring my neck? The Lord predestinated that you couldn't kill me anyway, so I have to act like I am, so don't blame me with it, according to your doctrine.

His proposition cannot be true, because God has pronounced such doctrine as "lying words."

Time expired.

01.20 STATEMENT BY ELDER RHODES

This is to certify, in the examination of correspondence between Elder Cayce and myself relative to him and I signing propositions for debate, I find I must have been mistaken about the matter, and I am sorry I made such a statement, and beg to apologize for same.

Signed, R. W. RHODES.

01.21 STATEMENT BY ELDER WEST

In one of my answers to Elder Rhodes' questions, I left the impression that I did not believe that God knew sinners would sin before they sinned. This was unintentional. And I meant to say that they were not sinners until they sinned. I believe, and have always believed, that God's foreknowledge embraced all things.

ARIEL WEST

02.00 SECOND PROPOSITION

MODERATOR CAYCE: The discussion of religious subjects and matters should be conducted in a way that is becoming to the house of God and becoming to what we profess to be. We should approach these things-these matters-with that reverence and respect that is due to our God and to His blessed Word from us as His professed followers, and His professed children, placing our dependence upon Him and imploring His blessings to rest upon us.

In other words, we should have prayer, that the Lord will lead and direct us by His Spirit, that we might have the Christian courage and fortitude to follow His direction and His teachings. So, if you will bow your heads, we will ask Elder Fowler to lead us in prayer.

Prayer by Elder W. W. Fowler.

MODERATOR CAYCE: It might not be amiss to read the rules again which these speakers have agreed to be governed by. At least some of these rules have been broken several times. I believe I will just say this much more about both speakers. I do not desire to justify one any more than the other when both are guilty. What has happened so far, the record will show the fact that some of these rules have been broken by each.

As the rules appear in the first part of this work it is not necessary to take up space in this book to insert them again.

The proposition for discussion today and tomorrow which Elder West is to affirm reads this way:

The Scriptures teach that the salvation of God's people here in time after regeneration is conditional on them living up to Scriptural requirements; also, their suffering and afflictions are conditional on them not living as they are commanded. Elder West affirms and Elder R. W. Rhodes denies.

MODERATOR W. O. BEENE: (acting in the place and stead of J. L. Smith): Brethren, Sisters and Friends: I have just come in to this debate and only wish to speak a few words. We have met here for the purpose of discussing a Bible question, a religious issue. The rules of debating have been read by Elder Cayce which set forth the manner in which each one should conduct himself.

Now, I wish to state that this debate is between Elder West and Elder Rhodes, and let us not have any interference whatever from the outside. Now yesterday there was a little unpleasantness entered into this, and I trust that we will be able to avoid such trouble this morning and have no more of that. The only thing to be discussed is the differences between the two on the subject in hand and I trust each of the brethren will be enabled to conduct himself strictly toward the subject in hand and that there will be no reflections cast by either one.

My home is in Texas. I didn't come here to curse or prize fight. I could have done that much nearer home, and I would like to have everything go off pleasantly and like to leave here with every man, woman and child in this house as my friend, and I desire, as far as my ability is concerned, to extend to all, each and everyone of you, the courtesy which is due ladies and gentlemen. I am not a party to this debate, but am only trying to act as moderator to the best of my ability. I will be out of the debate and it will be between Elder Rhodes and Elder West and I trust that each will be governed by the rules as set forth. I thank you for your attention, and that is all that I have to say.

02.01 ELDER WEST'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, my Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am before you this morning in the affirmative of the proposition that you have heard read. One of the rules of honorable controversy is that the proposition must be clearly defined, and I am going to undertake to do that.

The proposition is made up of a compound sentence. We have the conjunction and in it. I am going to discuss the first part of this proposition in my first speech and the last part of the proposition in my concluding speeches. But I will give you the definition of it all.

The Scriptures teach that the salvation of God's people here in time after regeneration is conditional on them living up to Scriptural requirements; also, their sufferings and afflictions are conditional on them not living as they are commanded. By the term "Scriptures," I mean the Old and New Testaments.

By the word "teach," I mean to impart knowledge, to instruct, inform, to give instruction.

By the word "salvation," in the proposition, I mean much of their joy, peace, and happiness in the service of God.

By "God's people," I mean those who are His by covenant.

By "here in time," I mean that measure of duration in which they exist as individuals that have been born again here in this world.

By "after regeneration," I mean after being born of the Spirit; born again, born from above.

By "is conditional," I mean those things which have served the dependence of one categorical proposition on another.

By "on them living," I mean by the way the child of God conforms his or her life.

By "also their sufferings and afflictions are conditional on them not living as they are commanded," I mean the sufferings and chastisement the Lord promised those who did not keep His statutes in Ps 89:30-32, "If His children forsake my laws and walk not in my judgments, if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgressions with the rod and their iniquity with stripes." You heard the assertion made on yesterday afternoon that I am an Arminian. An Arminian is one who believes that his home in heaven depends upon what he does in the world, and I deny that. We have heard a lot in this discussion about charging consequences, and if there were ever any consequences charged, that charge was this. I deny the charge. The children of God, after regeneration, are the individuals that are in my proposition, and so, away with your hobby horse that we are Arminians.

Today is going to be the day. The tough spot is coming. He said on yesterday that "he was sweating blood now, but wait until tomorrow." Well, tomorrow is here and I wonder if he will say, "Let us wait until tomorrow and we will get him." My first argument in support of my proposition is that the child of God, one that has been born of the Spirit, is commanded to seek. "Seek" is a transitive verb, and means to go in search of, to look for, to resort to, to inquire for, to make search or inquire; to try, or endeavor. Col 3:1: "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of ,God." To be regenerated is to be raised with Christ. It is the Lord that does that and "if" is the condition. Elder Rhodes, Arminianism says, "If you will seek those things which are above, you will be risen with Christ." Primitive Baptists say-not Absoluters, but Primitive Baptists-"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."

My second argument in support of the proposition is this: That without faith, it is impossible to please God. Therefore, those that have been regenerated have faith and they are rewarded in seeking the Lord. Now, you are not paying a bit of attention in the world to this argument which I have made. I am going to make it over. My second argument is that without faith it is impossible to please God; therefore, those that have been regenerated have faith, and they are rewarded in seeking the Lord. Heb 11:6: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Do you believe that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him? If you don't believe it, you can't come to Him in the sense of that text. Elder Rhodes says that He doesn't reward anybody that seeks Him for seeking. Elder Rhodes, do you believe that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him? In Mt 7:7-8, "Ask, and it shall be given you." Who is it that asks? It is the child of God that asks. It is the child of God that has been regenerated, born of the Spirit of God, that is commanded to ask. The sinner cannot ask. If he cannot ask in the sense of this text, then, it is the child of God that is commanded to ask by the Saviour. "Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find." I wonder if folks are active or passive in knocking. I wonder if folks are active or passive in seeking. I am going to tell you, before we go further, that they are active in knocking and they are active in seeking. It is the child of God that has life that is active. It is the child of God that asks. It is the child of God who seeks; it is the child of God that knocks. "And everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Do you believe that? He is denying it. All right. "Ask" is a transitive verb, and means to seek to obtain by words. That is what the word "ask" means. "Therefore" denotes a condition for the child of God to be performed by him. "Knock" is also a verb, and denotes action on the part of the child of God. It is given to you because you asked. It is opened to you because you knocked; and you found because you sought. Found what? Joy, peace, happiness, and enjoying the joys of your salvation while you live here in this world.

My third argument is that the Lord has promised the salvation put forth in my proposition for keeping the gospel in memory. "Keep" is a verb, transitive, and denotes action on the part of the child of God, and is in the active voice, meaning to guard, preserve, and maintain. First Corinthians, xv. I and 2: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and. wherein ye stand." What? The gospel, "by which ye are saved." "By which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." Is that salvation eternal salvation? Let him tell you whether it is eternal salvation. I dare you to tell us whether it is eternal salvation or conditional time salvation. If he tells you it is eternal salvation, then, eternal salvation comes by the gospel. If he tells you it is conditional or time salvation, he will have to quit the Absoluters; they will not have him. Now, you can go either way. You answer that. Be sure and make a note of it. What was Paul talking about? What kind of salvation was he talking about? The text says they were saved by the gospel. Are you a Campbellite? If there is but one salvation taught in the Bible and he is denying that there is such a thing as a salvation to the child of God in time for keeping the commandments of God, then, let him tell us what kind of salvation that is. Believers are born of God. 1Jo 5:1. They were the only folks that could keep it in memory. The believers need not keep it in memory to get a home in heaven, because they were children of God; because it took a believer to keep it in mind. Therefore, a believer is a child of God. 1Jo 5:1. Why? Because "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Arminianism would say he had to believe that Jesus is the Christ and he will be born of God. That is Arminianism. You don't know what Arminianism is. You wouldn't know what it was if you were to meet it in the road with a blind halter on it.

MODERATOR CAYCE: Cut that out.

ELDER WEST: I beg your pardon.

Believers are born of God, but believers are the only ones that keep spiritual things in memory. Therefore, it is the child of God that has time salvation for keeping God's gospel in memory. Does eternal salvation come through the gospel, Elder Rhodes? Is there any salvation in keeping the gospel in memory, Elder Rhodes? What do you preach the gospel for? Will you tell us what you preach the gospel for? Is it for the joy, peace, comfort and happiness for the children of God? Or, do you preach the gospel, Elder Rhodes? In what way does the gospel benefit the child of God, Elder Rhodes?

My fourth argument is that the Lord has promised peace, joy and happiness to His children who call upon His name. Ro 10:1-15: "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Is that dealing with sinners or children of God? Who was Paul praying for the salvation of? He was praying for the gospel salvation. That is what he was talking about. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shall be saved." Is that eternal salvation? Is that eternal salvation, or is that conditional time salvation, depending upon the condition in this text? "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." He has already been raised with Christ. He has already been regenerated and born from above. "For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Does the man have to call upon the name of the Lord to be eternally saved? Or does he call upon the name of the Lord because he is saved? We have been talking about cause and effect. If he calls on the name of the Lord because he is saved, then this is not eternal salvation, and eternal salvation is not the salvation in this text, because that individual that does that shall be saved. "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Now, there is some gospel salvation for you. I am going to ask you again, Elder Rhodes, how are they saved? What does that mean, anyway? If it doesn't mean what I say it means, will you tell us what it does mean? And if it doesn't mean what I say it means, I will join you if you will let me.

The Lord gives to His people a reward, for keeping His commandments. The reward is something given as a return for something good, or recompense. Mt 6:1-7: "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Now, I am going to find a good reward. "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, Himself shall reward thee openly." He is going to reward them. He is going to reward them openly. He sees in secret; all things are naked unto Him. And that Father that sees in secret is going to reward His child in keeping His commandments in this world. He will reward them openly. That is a plain statement of God's Word. That is God's eternal truth, and it will stand when this world is on fire. It is to the child of God because dead, alien, sinners do not pray. It is a child of God who prays. It is the child of God who is commanded to pray. It is the child of God that does pray, and the child of God is the only individual in the world that can pray. I say to you this morning that just as sure as you have ever lifted a sincere prayer to God in heaven, He has rewarded you in your soul with peace and joy and happiness, and answered your prayer. "And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou,"-talking about the child of God now. Don't be like those folks. That is the commandment, not to be like them. "But then, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Elder Rhodes, tell us why those folks were rewarded. Tell us upon what condition they were rewarded. I will give you some more Scriptures on reward in the same chapter, beginning with the 16th verse, talking about the folks that fast. "Moreover, when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." Will you please tell me why they were rewarded? Upon what condition they were rewarded when they anointed their heads? Was anointing their heads a condition? Was washing their faces a condition? Or was it not a condition? Isn't your face being clean conditioned upon your washing your face? Or does your face get clean without any condition? Nu 18:31: "And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households; for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of the congregation." Eating is a reward for your service. Here is somebody being rewarded for service; they got a reward for service in the tabernacle. I wonder if you tell folks when you preach to them that they are rewarded for their service in the tabernacle? Or do you tell them that they have got all the blessings that they will ever get, and there is no blessing in the world for obedience. Lu 6:35: "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest; for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Col 3:22-25: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ." Now, turning around and telling you what the consequences are if you do wrong: "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." Those are not Arminian texts. They belong to Old Baptists. Why, the Lord, when He said those things, didn't even have Arminianism in mind to support it. Pr 11:18: "The wicked worketh a deceitful work: but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward." The only individual who can sow righteousness is the child of God, who is born again of the Spirit, or from above. That is the only individual who can do it. Ec 4:9: "Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour." Is their labor a condition for that reward? I am telling you, frankly, that their labor is a condition for their reward in the text. Let the gentleman say it is not, by any rule of grammar, and I will surrender the proposition and go home.

Time expired.

02.02 ELDER RHODES' FIRST NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am here to answer the speech which Elder West has just made in the affirmative of the proposition. I want to say, to begin with, that inasmuch as he has commented somewhat on his definitions, the outline of the proposition, I want to make some comment relative to the contents of his proposition. I want to open my affirmative argument-I mean my negative argument-against which you have just heard by quoting Ac 4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other." Well, these conditions that he is talking about is some others. "For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Now, all of these things that he has been quoting to you-I believe every word of it, and certainly, there is reward in keeping the commandments of God; but how do you keep them? How do you keep them? I will admit it is the children of God. The last chapter in the Book says, "Blessed are they that do His commandments." They are blessed to do them. There is not any degree of activity on their part and over their initiative, but they are blessed to do what? It is a blessing to do them. They have to be blessed or they cannot do them. So, I want you to keep that in mind.

Now, the word "salvation," if I make no mistake, occurs in the Bible approximately 150 times, but nowhere does either "time" or "conditional" occur in connection with it. Now, I want to say, beloved friends, that I want to feed him out of his own spoon a little bit, but I hope to do It in a nice way that pertains to this proposition. He is affirming a proposition that expresses a difference between us on mainly one word that does not occur in the Bible one time. And so, I am going to be by his "conditional" just like he was by "predestination." It just means "conditional." It just means "conditional." It means "conditional."

I am just as backward a pupil as you were. It just means "conditional." But I want to say, let him call it whatever he may, but it takes a special blessing of God for him to preach the gospel, as well as for me to hear it, and he knows that. I don't believe he will deny that. The blessings of God must attend, and that is what we believe. That is what we crave, and that is what does our souls good. To go out seemingly on the limb of near blasphemy and say that we are able to keep them because of a certain activity that is delivered over to us after regeneration, we don't believe it. We don't believe the Bible teaches it, and I am going to say, right here, that the so-called "conditional" time salvation was what divided the churches all over this land and country, and not the doctrine of absolute predestination of all things. The people who believe in conditional time salvation, because we could not, and because we did not see as they saw, they saw fit to run in and put up bars here and there against us because we couldn't and we didn't want to be guilty of doing that, so they just split up against absolute predestination. The word "conditional" does not occur in the Bible. I want you to remember that.

Salvation and mercies are synonymous: Ps 119:41: "Let thy mercies come also unto me, 0 Lord, even thy salvation, according to thy word." The word "save" occurs in the Bible 187 times. The word "saved" occurs in the Bible 38 times.

MODERATOR, CAYCE (interrupting): You made a mistake in your reading.

ELDER RHODES: I will read it over. The word "save" in the first instance, and the word "saved" in the last instance. "Savest," three times; and "saveth," five times; and I want to say, beloved friends, in connection with all of these words it is nowhere mentioned such a word as "conditional." It is just another case of just "predestination." It just means "conditional." I would like to know where he is going to get his proof. He said I didn't get any proof relative to the other proposition because I didn't find it worded in so many words. Now, on the same basis I intend to lay this foundation and answer his argument, and I want to know where he is going to get his proof.

I ask the question here, first, have you been circumcised? Do you keep the law of Moses? Do you keep the Sabbath Day? Have we not been freed from that yoke, and yet that is a Scriptural requirement, it is not? I am glad that the Lord Jesus Christ raised from us that yoke, because Peter said, "Why tempt ye God to place a yoke upon the disciples that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" They could not keep them, and yet, I say, my brother, it does not mean what you have set forth. I ask you this question because it is for information: I ask you, do you mean that within your initiative at all times you can do just like you are commanded to do in this thing that you call "conditional time salvation?" Can you always live as you want to live? Can you always do the things which are required of you? If so, why not go on to perfection and join the Holy Rollers and be done with it? If I could live just like I wanted to, brethren, I would never sin. I would never transgress the law or commandments. I would live in the holy presence of Almighty God without any offense or any conscience of sin if I could do that. But what does the Apostle Paul say concerning this? He said-I believe first I will quote the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the fifteenth chapter of St. John (Joh 15): "Without me ye can do nothing." "Without me, ye can do nothing." Can you perform conditions without Him? And if you do perform conditions, if you do them with Him, isn't He your salvation? I don't want any other salvation except the salvation of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That is all I want, and I say, my beloved friends, that if we can do nothing without Him, then how in the name of sense are we active in regeneration or after regeneration to do these things?

Now, he quotes Ps 89:32. This argument I have already made, and it will answer everything that he has made or can make; it will answer every argument that he can make, everyone of them. He cannot possibly get an argument between the lids of the Scripture from the first of Genesis to the last of Revelation, in this argument he is trying to make.

Yes, I believe there is a reward in keeping the commandments. You are not as well informed on what I believe as you thought you were. You didn't think I believed it. I do believe it, if I am not deceived, and God knows if I don't believe it I hope He will enable me to believe it. Yes, sir, there is a reward in preaching the gospel. Not in dollars and cents, because if I am a preacher at all I would be a millionaire if it were in dollars and cents; but there is a reward on the inside that we feel and that we realize; but can you, my brother, preach the gospel without the Lord? Jesus is our Saviour from first to last. He cannot preach the gospel, and neither can you hear it, my brethren, without the Lord enabled you to. You simply cannot do it. "Without me, ye can do nothing." How much would it take to do something? "Ye can do nothing." I want to emphasize that: "Without me, ye can do nothing," and the Apostle Paul says, "We can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth us." That does not mean that we can make 40 worlds like this one and set them up in a better state than this, but it means that we can do all things that is God's blessed will and pleasure through the leadership of His Holy Spirit. That is what he is talking about.

He said that I was sweating blood. Well, I have on the same clothes that I wore yesterday. I don't see any stain on them, and I don't feel any.

He said, "If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things above." That is right. But without Him, "ye can do nothing." If "without Him ye can do nothing," when He is not with you and enables you thus to do, can you do it? The Apostle Paul tells us something about this when he says that "to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not." Are you better than the Apostle Paul? Can you find out how to do the good things without Him? That is what I am talking about. Are you beyond the Apostle Paul? I say, my friends, that the apostle said one thing that I want to remind him of right here. He said, "Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other doctrine unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Did the Apostle Paul preach that you could do this thing? Did he preach that he could do them? He said, "I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me." And yet, he said "to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not." I suppose this performance that you are talking of is good. If it were evil, the Apostle Paul might have said that he could find how to do it, but he said it was good, and he said in another place, "When I would do good, evil is present with me, and the evil that I would not, that I do, and the good that I would, I do not." "Oh wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Was he your brother? Why would the Apostle Paul be the "wretched man I am" if we were active in these things? Why would he say, "When I would do good, evil is present with me, 0 wretched man that I am?" I can adopt that language, brethren and sisters, in my very soul, every day of my life. Yes, I would like to be found always walking in every commandment and adhering to every comforting phase of the gospel of God our Saviour. But I say, my friends, I have already showed that it takes the blessing of heaven and immortal glory to preach the gospel. It takes the same blessing for you to hear the gospel. I want to just appeal to your experience a little bit. Can you always preach just as good at one time as you can at another? I will venture to say there is not a minister in this house but what would answer me that they cannot always do it. What is the reason why? I say, individually speaking, I have gotten up at times when I couldn't think of a line for a text or a subject that would be worth a thing in the world; and one time I was in a strange place and wanted to preach a big sermon. You know, that is the ambition of all preachers. They all want to preach a good sermon. When I saw that I couldn't do that, I said, "Brethren, I guess I will have to just tell you my experience," and I reached for that; but it was gone. I couldn't even do that. "Without me, ye can do nothing." This is the language of the Saviour. I say that it will stare you in the face in this doctrine when you stand before the judgment bar: "Without me, ye can do nothing." I say, brethren and sisters, it means exactly what it says. Yes, in everyone of these reward texts that he spoke of, I say in keeping them there is a great reward; and when it comes to washing your face, that is something, too, isn't it? Isn't it something? "Without me, ye can do nothing." There are many men who have washed their faces, and possibly never will after today. There are many men who will be struck paralytically every day. I say that it is in Him that we live, and move, and walk, and have our being; and if you didn't have your being and couldn't live and move and walk, would you wash your face?

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. He doesn't believe that any stronger than I do. I don't believe in injecting the words "conditional time salvation" in the Bible is by faith of Jesus Christ. "Therefore, whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." That is what I believe it is.

Keeping the gospel in memory. I have already answered that.

Saved by the gospel. Yes, God's people are saved by the gospel. That is exactly what I hope the Lord will bless me to do here in this discussion. That is exactly what I hope the Lord will bless me to do in this discussion, and I hope that He will bless you to receive the instruction.

What do I preach the gospel for? I preach the gospel for the benefit, the comfort, the instruction, and the consolation of God's people, in order that they might hear, understand, believe, and walk in the way that the Lord has set forth in His kingdom. That is what I preach for. I say that he quoted the wrong text-Ro 10:1-15. He got on the wrong foot. That is about the heart's desire and prayer to God that Israel shall be saved, and he said they go about to establish their own righteousness and have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. I say, my brother, that in your advocacy of "conditional time salvation," it is not in all of the Bible. Whose is it? It is yours. That is righteousness that belongs to you and you "have not submitted yourself unto the righteousness of God, which is by faith." If they were active in this, why did Paul pray that they might receive him? That answers his question.

Shall confess. "If thou shalt confess the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Yes, sir, the believing and confessing is only an evidence of the fact that they are the children of God and born of the Spirit, and they will be saved from the gaping tomb and from every instrument or weapon that might be formed against them. "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that rises up against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn." "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." He makes it a condition to call upon the name of the Lord. And yet, the Scripture right following it says, "How can they call upon him in whom they have not believed?" Did you ever find a place in your life, my brother, when the belief and understanding of the Scriptures, that you come to a place where you cannot see as clear as you did-is there ever a moment of seeming unbelief in your heart and in your mind? To you, does it ever seem that way? I am dishing it out of my honest heart. It is so with me. You know, John the Baptist got into that kind of fix one time. What did he say? When the Lord was baptized the one who sent him to preach said, "On whomsoever thou shalt see the Holy Ghost descending in bodily shape like a dove." He witnessed that, and said this: "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." What did he say when he was cast into prison? He sent his disciples and said, "Art thou He that should come or do we look for another?" Of course, I have to be shown them again and again. If I were active like you tell me I ought to be, and that I could be, and as you claim you are-if I were active, my brethren, I want to say that I would be looking in that glass of faith clearly as the sun shines from day to day and from time to time. But, we cannot. The flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh. I have that experience. Ga 5:17 says, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that ye would." Is he talking to the children of God? Is that talking in time? Is it talking to them concerning time when he said that you cannot do the things that you would do? Why do you place a yoke upon your people to do the things that the Apostle Paul says that you cannot do?

He says that I would say there is no blessing in obedience. I have already corrected him on that: "He that doeth wrong shall suffer for the wrong." Do you ever do wrong? If you are active, my brother, why do you do wrong? If you can do these things that he is talking about, why do you ever do wrong? You ought to be as perfect and sanctified as the Holy Roller-and he was a nice gentleman, too, that I debated with in Florida. You should just go on and be perfect. Yes, sir, and if you were, you would never die.

Reward for their labor. Yes, that is right.

Now, I have a few arguments. I have answered everything he said. I have a few negative arguments which I want to get to.

Ga 5:1-18: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ made us free," not wherewith performing conditions will make us free, but wherewith Christ has made us free. That is what we stand for, and that is what we believe in. "And be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Can you not see the yoke? It is a rough one, brethren and sisters. It is a rough one, because the yoke of Jesus-in the last verses of Mt 10, I believe it is-either x. or xi.-Jesus said: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Not that you shall find a job; not that you are going to find something to do in order to rest. Do we work to rest? Is not performing conditions work? I say it is. Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden." This message is to you if you are laboring under the yoke that he has placed upon you. "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." He didn't say, "I will offer it to you." He didn't say, "I will leave it conditionally for you to have if you do this, that, or the other." But he said, "I will give you rest." He never offered any rest at all. No, sir; but it is a different rest. And now, He says in the next clause of it, about the yoke, you will find it different to that. Let us see. "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Why? Because the Lord gives it to you. That is why. I want to tell you now, that He gives you the yoke, and it is an easy yoke. How easy is it? It frees you from your work and from any performance that you are supposed to be active in as human beings after regeneration. I want to say, if God enabled you to walk in His footsteps in gospel obedience, it is a blessing, and "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the city," and so on. I want to tell you, my friends, that they are blessed that walk in these things. You cannot get around it to save your life. Show us the word "conditional" or "time salvation," if you please. I want to say, in reply, that I am going to hold him to the one word. Don't you dare open a dictionary at all, because predestination just means predestination. Conditional just means conditional, and it is not in the Bible one time.

Time expired.

02.03 ELDER WEST'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren and Sisters, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am again in the affirmative of the proposition that you heard read this morning. The gentleman said that he had noticed everything that I had said, but most everything that he noticed was something I did not say. I gave him 38 passages of Scripture. He did not pretend to notice any of them. That is the way he noticed everything I said. I will examine what he said before I attempt to make any further affirmative argument.

Ac 4:12: "He is the only name given among men or under heaven whereby we must be saved." I didn't say that we could be saved without Christ in any sense. He left that impression, but West did not say it. He said, yes, there is a reward in the keeping of the commandments of God. Well, if there is, what are you on the negative side of this proposition for?

ELDER RHODES: "Blessed is the man that keepeth His commandments."

ELDER WEST: He is already hurting again. He is talking back from his seat. He is just twisting and squirming already. It looks like those fellows could keep quiet. "Blessed is the man that keepeth His commandments." That is what I said. The man was blessed with eternal life who kept His commandments, so you had no use in the world for that.

Then he makes a big play on the words "absolute" and "conditional," and he said that West said that predestination just meant predestination. Did West say that, or did Rhodes say that West said that?

He asked me if I had ever been circumcised. Yes, in heart-I hope. I hope that I am a Jew. I hope that I have been circumcised in heart, and if you want to know a lot of other personal things about me, if you will keep cool and whisper them in my ear, then I might tell you something else.

Do you keep the law of Moses? And then, "Without me, ye can do nothing." He can't do a thing in the world that is embraced in that without the Saviour; not a thing. But that is not washing your face. If it is, did a sinner have to have Christ to wash his face? Does the sinner have to have Christ to wash his face? He said washing your face is something; and therefore, they have to have Christ to wash their faces. Did the sinners have to be risen with Christ to wash their faces? I wonder if sin and wickedness are something? Do they have to have the Son of God to do sin and wickedness? I wonder if that is one of the some things in the text. Then, if a man burns and robs and steals, he has to have Christ to do it. Is that right? If he robs a bank, is that something, or is it nothing? According to your contention, he has to have Christ to rob a bank. "Without me, ye can do nothing." He makes that mean everything.

He said, "How in the world are we active?" Are you active? Are you active in kissing your wife? Or does the Lord kiss your wife for you? Can you kiss your wife without Christ, or do you have to have Christ to kiss your wife? I know it sounds ridiculous, but he introduced it.

He asked me if I could preach the gospel without the Lord. No. When did I say that we could preach the gospel without the Lord? My proposition says, after regeneration, and folks that have been regenerated and born of the Spirit of God are in possession of the Lord.

I am going to quote you a little text, Ro 8:1: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." So, they cannot do a thing in the world in that sense in the spirit without Christ. We can do all the things in the text through Christ, our strength. I wonder if that is sin and wickedness. I wonder if it is.

All right, he said if any man preached any other gospel, quoting the text, "Let him be accursed." That is right. "Can you always preach at one time as good as another?" No. I don't know whether I ever did preach or not. I just don't know. I wish I did know. I just can't do it, but I am going to say this: The reason I can't do it is because I have not applied myself as I should. I am going to prove it to you. In this text Paul told his son Timothy, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Then Paul said to that same boy: "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." But Rhodes says that God's people are saved by the gospel. Yes, I believe that. He said that is what he hoped to do to me-save me. Will that be in time? It will? Then you believe in time salvation, don't you? Yes. He nodded his head, yes. Then, he has no reason in the world to deny the proposition. "Yes, I believe in time salvation," he said. If you believe in time salvation, where did you find that word "time" in the Bible connected with salvation? "Yes, I believe in time salvation," he said. Do you believe in it, or are you going to stick your head the other way?

He said that those individuals who confess are born of God. Why, that is what I said. That is the argument I made. I believe that. What did he use that for?

He asked me if I ever do wrong. Yes, I do wrong many times. I do wrong many times. I have done some wrong things that I could have helped doing. I used to steal sugar and mamma got a shillalah and taught me that I could help it. I found out I could help it.

I am in a tight. Don't you think I am in a tight, Brother Rhodes? He nodded his head to "time salvation." That is the kind of tight I am in.

All right, I will continue my argument on reward. Mt 10:41: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward." Is "receive" a condition or is it not a condition? Tell us whether it is a condition or not. Just come clean and tell us. Don't stall and twist and squirm. Or maybe the Lord predestinated that he couldn't answer these arguments any other way than he does. God predestinated and fixed everything, so he cannot answer these arguments by supposing the other way because he cannot help it. Well, he could have if he had worked a little before this debate started. He could have helped being in the shape to where he has to ignore them altogether. "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." First Corinthians iii. 8 to 14: "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." Will folks receive anything according to their labor? Would the gentleman who is taking this record receive anything without his labor? What does a child of God receive by his labor? Eternal life? No. But he receives joy and peace and happiness. And Brother Rhodes said he preaches the gospel to individuals that there might be an inward joy, peace, and happiness. That is exactly what I am talking about. "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon." If he wasn't active, will you tell me how in the world he could take heed? Tell me what is the use of commanding to take heed if he couldn't take heed. Why command him to take heed if he couldn't take heed? I am in earnest about the thing. My friends, this is not for argument's sake. If we have not got the truth and don't preach the truth, I want to know it. I want to be converted. Here is what the Book says about it: "Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death." That doesn't mean a home in heaven, either. That has no reference to a home in heaven, but I would like to be converted from error to the truth if I have not got the truth, and I cannot do it unless you examine the texts and show me where I am wrong, and show these people where they are wrong. You are not getting anywhere by getting up here and saying, "It is not so." "But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now, if man build upon this foundation," It says if the man builds. Are you active in building? Are you active when you build a house? Or, are you passive in building a house? "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stone, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the dlay shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." He is going to get something for his work. Isn't it a fact that this man that you quoted your poetry from yesterday has said there is no reward in work? Doesn't he say that in his editorials? That there is no reward in and for obedience? He has never said that? All right, we will see whether he said it or not. "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." Now, then, we come to Re 22:12,14,17: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Is that eternal salvation, or is that some more time salvation which you have agreed is in existence? He has already nodded his head that there is such a thing as time salvation, and he might just as well quit and go home. "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Is that the city of immortal glory? Let us see if he says it is the city of immortal glory. If he does, he has gone into the rankest kind of Arminianism. If he says it is not, his contention falls in denying this proposition. "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come." Are you active in coming, or are you passive in coming? Is coming in the active or passive voice? "And let him that is athirst come." Who is that? That is the child of God after regeneration who is thirsty. That is the child of God after regeneration. Do you know how I found that out? Joh 5:24: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." So, that individual who hears His word and believes on Him has everlasting life. "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.'" Let him do it freely. Is he active in taking of it freely, or is he passive?

My sixth argument is that the child of God is blessed in his deeds. Jas 1:22-27: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." That is what he is doing to the folks. You can't do a thing on earth, he says; not a thing in the world. "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." According to the language of James, brother, you are deceiving yourself, deceiving the folks by telling them they cannot be a doer. You have been telling the folks this morning we cannot be a doer. Well, if you have Christ, you can be a doer. If you have been born of the Spirit of God, you could be a doer. If you couldn't have been a doer, the Lord wouldn't have said, by inspiration, "be a doer." "For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto man beholding his natural face in a glass." Just sitting down and looking at himself in a mirror all the time; thinking about evil all the time. You are not commanded to look at yourself in a glass, but unto Jesus who is the author of our faith; not to be sitting and looking at yourself. We have no righteousness within ourselves. I will grant you that. I believe that we have no righteousness within ourselves, but our righteousness is Christ. We cannot do righteous acts without Christ, but with Christ we can do righteous acts. Don't you see the point? "For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way; and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." He forgets the kind of fellow he was and is liable to get out on the street and begin acting ugly. If I do that, I might mention some ugly things that happened on the street that was ugly, but I am not going to do that. "But who so looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Who? The child of God. That individual who has been regenerated and born again. That is the individual who is a doer of the word. That is the individual who works in the spiritual realm, in the work of righteousness; that is the individual that is blessed in his deed. Deeds are things you do. Don't tell me there is no blessing in it.

My seventh argument is that the Scriptures teach that what we sow we shall also reap, and we shall reap in due season if we faint not. Ga 6:7-8. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption." Is a man active in sowing? You are a farmer. Do you ever sow seed? Do you sow the seed or does the Lord do the sowing for you? When you sow oats, do you reap oats, or do you reap corn from sowing oats? "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." The individual must have the Spirit before he can sow to it. That individual that sows to it is going to reap everlasting life. Not a home in heaven, but he is going to reap exactly what he sows; and that is here in this world, because God is not mocked. He is not going to reap what he sows in heaven, is he? If he is going to reap what he sows in heaven, then heaven depends upon what we sow here in this world. I don't believe that. But your joy, your peace, and your happiness as a child of God here in this world does depend upon the way you live and keep the commandments of God. "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."

My next affirmative argument is, God's people are promised to receive from the Lord if they keep His commandments. First Joh 3:18-23. "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." Who are His little children? Those who have been born of the Spirit of God. Those after regeneration. Let us see what he is going to get for keeping that commandment. "And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God."

(Someone hands Elder Rhodes a paper.)

You all can go ahead and funnel him. He needs it. "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight." I want you to get that Scripture. I want you to get it. "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments." Now, get the word "because," Because we do something. "Because we keep His commandments." We get something because we keep His commandments. Who said we don't get anything because we keep His commandments? John said we do get something because we keep His commandments. Rhodes said we don't get a thing in the world for keeping His commandments. Who are you going to believe, the Lord or Rhodes? Yes, sir, we get something because we keep His commandments and do those things. I am not through with this quotation: "And do those things which are pleasing in His sight." I wonder if we are getting something because we do something that is displeasing in His sight. You said we got eternal life because Adam acted ugly. I advocate getting something because they are pretty, and I am advocating the child of God to get something just because he acts pretty. Yesterday Rhodes said we never could have got to heaven unless we acted ugly in Adam.

Time expired.

02.04 ELDER RHODES' SECOND NEGATIVE

Bre'thren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am here again to reply to the speech which you have just listened to.

First, I want to say that he tried to make quite a bit of capital about me nodding my head about salvation and time. We are in time. We are in time; but it happened not to be conditional time salvation. Why, certainly, we get salvation in time, if that is what he is talking about. But, it is the same salvation that we have through eternity also; the same one. It is Christ and Him crucified. It is Christ in you, the hope of glory. It is Him that worketh in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. I want to make an argument on that passage of Scripture, Php 2:12-13. I want you to notice this argument particularly. While I do not want to presume too much; my brother makes some mistakes in his presuming, and I guess I would, too. But I presume that this text is just about as much counted on as anything for his statement of conditional time salvation as any in the Book. The Apostle Paul said: "Beloved, as ye have always obeyed." He admitted to me he did not always do it, but there are people who always obey. "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." "Not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence." They were more obedient, in this sense of the word, in his absence than in his presence. Well, somebody said you mean more obedient to the preacher when he is with them. Now, I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the obedience to the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed." And I believe the people that are born of the Spirit of God. John said, and he has already quoted that Scripture, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Now, my brother, I want to say just here that if you are born of God, to the very extent that you are born of God, you never have committed a sin. You have always been obedient. In that sense of the word now, understand; I don't say you have always been obedient to all of the written laws and commandments in the Scriptures. I don't say that you have always been obedient as far as actual manifestation of uprightness and talking is concerned. But I do say in the Spirit of Almighty God you have always been obedient in that sense. There is no room for conditional time salvation, but salvation in time. It comes to us in time. All we ever have comes to us in time. It is given to us in time, and will last through all time, and through all eternity; and that salvation is the Lord Jesus Christ. Old Simeon tells us about that in the New Testament, Matthew and Luke. Old Simeon tells us: "Now, lettest thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation"- Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the salvation of His people from first to last. But I want to finish my argument on this pet text. The reason I call it a pet text, it may not be with him, but it has been with some whom I have been in contact with. "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Does he want you to work out your own salvation? Why does he want you to work out your own salvation? Because it is not any good. The salvation of the Lord is the only thing that counts. And if you allow me to say to you, by digression, that to substantiate this theory not only do I have other Scripture, but I want to say the oldest translation of the Bible in the United States of America that I know anything about says, "Make an end of your salvation, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."

ELDER WEST: What is that citation?

ELDER RHODES: Php 2:12-13.

So, I want to say, beloved friends, work out the salvation he is giving to you, this conditional time salvation. Work it clear out of the way, because it is not worth anything, anyway: "For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His pleasure." I would rather have that salvation that God worked in you than to have that performing so-called condition that you are active and that you have at your will and disposal. I lacked to have made a convert of him in the first speech. I just lacked a little. I believe that I could sing one of his CampbelIite songs, "Almost Persuaded," and he might offer himself, because he said we have no righteousness except of Christ. That is exactly what I say, my brother, and if you will stand on that proposition, we can shake hands and close this debate.

All of our righteousness, Jeremiah said, "is as filthy as filthy rags." Now, this is one of our righteousnesses that he is talking about. He said-the Apostle Paul said, "Work out your own salvation." It is that which you rely upon, but work it out with fear and trembling. And I want to say, my friends, that when God's people are in the hands of God, God works in them, both the will and to do of His own good pleasure, this salvation that they have always depended on, which is the work of their own hands. They work it out, if you please. It is not any good, so let her go. Let her slide down the creek. She is not worth a thing in the world.

The Lord is our righteousness, and we can do none of these things. My brother has already said that, except God delivers us to do it. If you will stay with that, we will shake hands, and I will sing the little song, "Oh Why Not Tonight?" thinking maybe you would like a new variety.

I want to say, ladies and gentlemen, and brethren and sisters, that I believe with all my heart that Christ is all of our salvation, and we can do nothing without Him. That is what the Book says. He is not disputing my word when he says we can. He is disputing the word of Jesus. What did He say? "He that is ashamed of me and my word in this sinful and adulterous generation, of him will I also be ashamed when I come into my Father's kingdom." Are you ashamed of the word of Jesus, which says that we can do nothing without Him? I will wait a little until we sing the song.

Work out your own salvation. Get it out of the way. It is your own. It is of you. But the Lord said unto the children of Israel, through Moses, at the Red Sea, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." Suppose my brother had been a preacher over there at that time. That was in time, wasn't it? That was in time. Suppose my brother had been the preacher. He would have said, "Jump in and swim across, because in so doing there will be a great reward." That is what he would have said. If he had been the preacher on that occasion he would have been jumping in to get across as quick as he could, because he is active. You are active; therefore, being active, you would get across as quick as you could. But instead of that, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord;" and he has to admit this is time salvation. He has to admit that because it was in time.

Jonah learned a lesson, too, and if you will go to school in that college like Jonah did and get your sheepskin in that like you have some of this stuff on the board, you will talk differently to what you are talking now.

He said some of the time salvation is by performing conditions. So, Jonah was mistaken when he said that all salvation is of the Lord. Jonah was mistaken, no matter if he did go to that whale college. He was mistaken about the time salvation by performing conditions on your own activity. How active was Jonah? How did he learn that salvation was of the Lord? Was he active? That fish was active. The Lord was active, and by the Lord inspiring Jonah to pray, Jonah was active also. But if the Lord had not enabled him to pray, he would have been digested so quickly that he would have never thought of it, if he had had a prayerbook.

He said that he gave me 38 passages and I only noticed nine of them. I cannot notice every argument that he has put up in one statement. And, if he agrees with me, then we can close this debate and go home: "Without me, ye can do nothing." Keep that in mind. You cannot. "He holds in His hand the breath of every living thing."

Now, about the face washing. I want to say this: I don't care if it was any criminal, he has never washed his face without the Lord furnishing him the strength to do it. And let me give you one Scripture to prove that. In the seventeenth chapter of John (Joh 17:2), the second verse, he says: "As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him." If he had not power over these criminals that I spoke of, and that he has been so inclined to keep before the congregation here, if He had not had power over dirty criminals or other fellows, why then, they might have washed their face and their own activity like my brother advocates. And yet, there can be no activity unless the Lord enables you to act. "Blessed are they who do his commandments." That is enough for it. They are blessed. They are blessed when they do that. They are blessed in doing that, and blessed before they do that, and blessed after they do them.

Sure, and certainly, I believe there is a blessing in keeping the commandments; and, on the other hand, without the Lord, they couldn't do it. They couldn't do it. "Without me, ye can do nothing."

He said that he hoped he had been circumcised in heart. I hope so, too. I hope so, too. That is all that I say for myself. I just hope so. I don't claim it, but I do hope so. But I do want to say this: Those that are circumcised in heart say, "We are the circumcision that worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh;" no flesh involved in the performance of conditions. Can you perform them on this so-called activity that you are talking about? Where does that activity come from? I say that I believe, with all of the powers of my mind, that God's children are just as helpless to believe and repent. and understand the gospel of God our Saviour, or in a state of regeneration as anybody else is; and I believe, on the other hand, that after regeneration they are just as dependent upon God to lead and guide and direct them and uphold them and lead them into these things as they ever were. There is no difference under the sun. Oh, no doubt, he will try to make capital of that. There are those who say there is no difference in a man regenerated and one who is not. As far as human activity is concerned, there is not. Of his own initiative, and that is what you mean by that activity. If you say that activity is of the Lord, I will shake hands with you. But when you go to tacking the name "conditional" on it, I take the wedge out of the handle and let it slide down the creek, because it is of that salvation which is of you, and that salvation that God works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure; both the will and to do is of God.

He said when he robs a bank, does he have to have Christ? I don't know why there is so much robbery and killing and stealing on his mind. I cannot understand that. I cannot understand it to save my life, beloved friends, why there is so much rape and everything on his mind. I cannot understand that. My mind is not on that. But I want to say, if he is interested in bank robberies and these other classes, if Almighty God wanted to dispose of the bank robber, his life is in His hands. The pulsation of his heart comes from the power of God. He couldn't breathe another minute if it were not for God.

"No condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." That is the same people I mentioned in Php 2:12.

They do walk after the Spirit as led by the Spirit. "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the children of God." You don't walk after it unless it leads you, because it is impossible for you to do it. You cannot take one step in that direction. You just think you can with that human activity that you are talking about. I want to say, my friends, this little activity that he has hatched up here, that is some work and some Arminianism, too. If he attributed it all to the Lord, he would not have to use the word "activity."

The salvation of God's people is through Christ to lead them into a godly walk here in this life. He is their Shepherd. What does "shepherd" mean? It means that he is appointed over a flock that is not capable, in any sense of the word, in looking after themselves. "Ye can do nothing." I have already quoted that.

I wish I did know whether he has ever preached or not. I wish that I knew that I had ever preached the gospel, but if I possessed some of the activity he spoke of, I would commence this evening and use that activity until I wore the handle out of it, or I would find out whether I had ever preached or not. So, if you have that activity; why don't you use it? Why do you let it rust? It looks like if you have been preaching this long you ought to have used that activity enough to know whether you could or not.

"Save thyself and them that hear thee." That is not contrary to what I am preaching and arguing. But he cannot do it unless the Lord enables him to do it, and cannot save anybody unless the Lord decrees it so. Let's have Jesus all the way, day and night, evening and morning. He is our Saviour today. He is our Saviour tonight. He is our everlasting Saviour. Yes, sir! And, to take away Jesus and substitute our activity in regeneration, so-called, in my mind is a substitute that is spoken of in Daniel (Da 11:41) about the eleventh chapter and I believe the 41st verse, where he says, "They shall take away the daily sacrifice." I want to say, my brother, if Jesus is not your Saviour today, and is not your Saviour tomorrow, and if He is not your Saviour tonight, why, if you have to look to this activity-remember, "Without him, ye can do nothing."

I am glad I am not dependent upon my own activity. I am glad I am not dependent on that. Time salvation. Yes, I say we receive it in time. I am not afraid, my brother, a bit in the world, of what I believe; not a bit in the world, and if you will gather up all of your belief into something that is in accordance with my feelings, I will nod my head, no matter how much fun you make of it. I am not afraid to stand for what I believe. .

Now, stealing sugar. You know, stealing seems to be on his mind. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." I want to say this: I am not accusing him, but I am accusing the leaders in his faction. They stole the Primitive Baptist name and ran away with the Methodist doctrine. That is exactly what they have done. And it seems to me, my friends, as very evident that he has stealing on his mind. He began when he was young.

Now, I want to say, ladies and gentlemen-I quoted you on yesterday-I would a heap rather this debate be strictly Scriptural than cheap and degraded. But if nothing will do him, I will answer a fool according to his folly. Stealing sugar! He said his mother taught him not to steal sugar. I want to ask him if he had any activity within himself to quit. Did he have any activity if he was dependent upon his mother? I don't think that activity has much work on stealing sugar.

Mt 10:41-42. Talking about some more of those rewards. I have already answered that. Surely, in keeping them there is great reward. I don't care what editorial you might refer to. I don't care, and I want to quote Elder Sikes quite a lot. If Elder Sikes ever made a quotation like that, that there was no reward in keeping His commandments, I never saw it; and if I did, I would be man enough to walk up to him and say, Elder Sikes, I believe you are wrong. I have to live up to no creeds or documents they signed up. No, sir. But I want to say, my friends, in keeping them there is great reward. Yes, sir. But where does the reward come from? The Lord blesses them to keep them and blesses them with reward also.

He said they received reward for their labor. Yes, I believe that, but their labor was dependent upon the Lord and it all came from the Lord just the same. Let Him be supreme; let Him be uppermost; let Him be honored; let Him be glorified; let Him be the only name given under heaven or among men whereby we must be saved. That is all that I contend for, brethren and sisters. That is all that I want to contend for.

He said, "Take heed," over there in that passage of Scripture. I failed to get his citation on that, but I will reply to it just the same. Taking heed is of the Lord. I think that is where it says, "Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them." I have already answered that.

ELDER WEST: Give the rest of it.

ELDER RHODES: "Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine, and continue in them; for in so doing thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." Does he think I am afraid of that? I am not afraid of these crawfish holes around the room like he is. No, sir. But I want to say, my brother, that keeping them is of the Lord, and taking heed, too. Yes, sir. And in saving thyself and in saving others. That is of the Lord, too. It is all of the Lord.

"According as thy works shall be." Re 20. "Let him, whosoever will." He says, is that conditional? Let us see whether it is a condition or not: "Let him, whosoever will, come and take of the water of life freely." That would cut him out-"freely"-because of his activity would be chargeable. It would have an account to charge against his own activity. It wouldn't be freely. Then, let us see. Is everybody willing? Who is willing? Them that he worked, both to will and do of his good pleasure. That is the willing character. "Whosoever will," in Re 20., the very same character that He works in both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. .

Now, I want to say, good brethren and sisters and friends, that my opponent cannot bring an argument, I don't care how smart he is, and how much he may know about Greek or Latin or anything else, he cannot bring an argument that will prove anything else except Jesus and His righteousness is our salvation. That is all that he can bring; and that is what I believe, and I will accept it, even from him, if he preaches it. I will do that.

Now, in conclusion, I want to advance another argument. I have advanced several of record, but this is another. Ga 6:12 to end of chapter: "As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." He glories a little in his activity and in his "conditions," also in that which he can perform, and that which he is active in. God forbid that any man glory save in the cross of Christ. Don't substitute a bunch of this filthy rags for me, my brethren. Don't substitute a bunch of this to work or perform conditions; and it is God that works in you. I would rather have God's work than man's. I would rather see the evidence of God's tool, which is fear and trembling.

Time expired.

02.05 ELDER WEST'S THIRD AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am here again to affirm the proposition that you heard read this morning. Elder Rhodes admitted in the last speech he made that we are saved in time, and it was a time salvation, he said, because we were saved in time and that salvation reached into eternity.

In the speech just before that he said he came here for the purpose of saving me, and I suppose that the salvation that he is going to save me with, according to his reasoning, is the one that will carry me into eternity. Now, talk about Arminianism going to seed, that statement is it. I don't know whether he intended to say that or not, but I suppose that he said what he intended to say. He said, "I will save them by the gospel, and they are saved by the gospel. Yes, I believe they are saved by the gospel, and that salvation reaches into eternity." Do you still believe that? I didn't know you were my saviour. I thought Jesus Christ was the Saviour of sinners. I didn't know that the gospel was the saviour of sinners in eternity. I didn't know that folks were saved by the gospel to live with the Lord Jesus Christ in eternity.

I have introduced, up to this point, 62 passages. He has referred to nine of them. I demand that he start at the beginning and do exactly what I did. I noticed your arguments and quoted your Scriptures, or turned to them and read them, as the record will show, and examined them, while you get up here and say, "There is just one thing I am going to say and that kills everything he said." That is the easy way to answer an argument, isn't it? That is easy. But, he is doing the best he can.

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." He says he wants you to work it out because it is no good. Work out a salvation that is not any good. Did you ever hear of a salvation that was not any good? You did? You say there is no such thing as the thing I am contending for. Well, how in the world can you do something when there is no such thing to be worked. There is no such thing as West is contending for, he says. It is no part of the Bible. Then, how in the world could they work out what West's contentions were because, if it is wrong, if there is no such thing? You are a good reasoner, aren't you?

He made reference to the Campbellite song which I will not make any reference to. He made reference about the prayerbook, about having a prayerbook. Did you ever see one of their prayerbooks? And that, over and over and over again, "Without me, you can do nothing." I wonder what he hopes to accomplish by that kind of argument?

When it comes to spiritual things-when it comes to obedience to God's Word, there is not an individual that can do anything without the Lord Jesus Christ in that spiritual realm. But I am going to say that men and devils do wickedness without Jesus. Jesus was not with them in their devilment and wickedness. Therefore, he is not with dead, alien sinners in their devilment and wickedness; and if you don't believe that, I don't care. I don't care if you did say it. The very idea, the Lord Jesus Christ has to be with a man to do devilment!

Then, he quotes Ro 8:17: "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." I believe that every individual that is led by the Spirit of God is a son of God, a child of God. But, let me turn that around, "Without me, ye can do nothing." If that is the wicked acts of men and devils that you referred to this morning, sir, then they are led by the Spirit of God to do that, or are they all the sons of God? Is the devil a son of God? "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." If all men are led to do all things by the Spirit of God, are all men children of God?

Do you believe there will be any children of God in hell? He is even going into Universalism by his statement. I don't accuse him of believing it, but that is what his statement infers. That is his reasoning. All right; we will let it go at that.

I am going to quote you a text again, and I want you to notice this, and I hope that no one will send him a note while I am quoting this, because I want him to get it. It is the third chapter of First John (1Jo 3:22) and the 22nd verse: "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment."

My ninth argument is, we are commanded to abide in Him and not be ashamed before Him. First Joh 2:25: "And now, little children, abide in Him;" that is something the little children of God can do. The little children that have been raised from the state of sin to a state of life in the Lord Jesus Christ, that individual who has been born of the Spirit of God, that individual is commanded to abide in Him. The individual has to be in Jesus before he can abide in the precept and example and the law of Jesus. And if he is not in Jesus, he cannot abide, from the standpoint of this text. "And now, little children, abide in Him." It didn't say for sinners to abide in Him. It said, "little children, abide in Him; that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming." How are you not going to be ashamed? By abiding in Him from a practical standpoint as a regenerated child of God in the world. Where did they abide? "Abide" is a verb, intransitive, and means, "as to reside, or continue or stand firm." That is something that a child of God does. I like to see an Old Baptist stand firm. Stand firm. I like to see a man absolutely not fear men and stand for his conviction and advocate what he thinks is right. I admire that kind of man, and so do you. But when you see an individual standing firm, that is something that individual does, by the help of the Lord and through the grace of the Lord.

My next affirmative argument is that we are commanded to be diligent that we may be without spot and blameless. 2Pe 3:13-18: "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." Who is it that looks for a new heaven and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? The child of God after regeneration. The sinner doesn't look for it, but it is the child of God who looks for it today. You long for it, and you hope for it, and it is your hope, because you are a child of God. What made you a child of God? Your obedience? No. He has commanded you to obey Him to show forth praise to Him that has called you from nature's darkness to the light, life, and liberty of the blessed Son of God. "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing you know these things before, beware lest ye also;"-that is something for the child of God to do. "Beware, let ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." If the man's proposition was the truth, absolutely, they wouldn't have to do a thing in the world at all. But he said for you to do something unless you fall from your own steadfastness. It didn't say fall into hell; go down there where the devil will be and with the sons of darkness, but he absolutely told these folks to continue in that, lest they fall from their steadfastness. "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen." That is for the child of God. That is what the child of God is supposed to do.

All right, we come to the next affirmative argument. The child of God, after regeneration, is commanded to add to your faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, charity, and if he does these things he will never fall. I am going to give him some of his own medicine. On yesterday, if you will remember, he said I was like the little boy when they asked him what 1 and 1 made. It was just "one and one," He accused me of not being able to add. If one and one are put together, does it make two? The little boy wouldn't put them together and make two. I wonder if the little boy would be doing something if he said it was two? Would he have added them? Now, listen here. This says, "add." Who is to do the adding? The child of God. Add to what? Add to your: faith. The child of God has faith. The child of God, after regeneration, has faith and is commanded to add something to it. It looks like smart folks could see that, doesn't it? All right, 2Pe 1:4-10: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence"-who? The child of God-"add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity." Do you believe that you can add that to your faith? If he adds it, I wonder if he will be active while doing it. Let him tell us whether he can add that to his faith or not. "For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful." If he brings forth good fruit, is he active? Doesn't a tree have to be made good first, and then the fruit will be good? But how can the tree bear good fruit unless the tree is first made good? That is Old Baptist doctrine. "That ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind." Now, if he says he cannot add them, he is blind. "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure." Is that eternity? Is that eternal election? Let us see. We will see what we will see. "For if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." There is some more "do." My brother doesn't want to hear anything about doing, but there is some more "do" for him.

My proposition is true, because the child of God, in obeying the truth purifies the soul in the sense of my proposition. 1Pe 1:22-23: "Seeing ye have purified your souls." Can you purify your soul, Elder Rhodes? These folks purified their souls from a practical standpoint. Somebody says, "How do you know they did?" "Seeing ye have purified your souls." That is how I know they purified their souls, because "Seeing ye have done it." How? In obeying the truth. When you preach, do you tell the folks they can purify their souls by obeying the truth, or do you tell them they cannot do anything, just like a checker, and has to be, moved around? "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."

My next affirmative argument is that we are commanded to lay aside all malice. Are you active in laying, malice aside? Are you active in laying something aside? I laid aside my coat. Was I active or inactive in laying aside my coat? Elder Rhodes, can you sit down? Can you get up? Will you show us when you get up here to answer me whether you can sit down or whether you can get up? I can sit down. Do you believe it? Do you want to see me do it? (Seating himself). And I can get up. (Rising). Can you sit down and get up, Elder Rhodes, or can you do anything? Do you think that is the Lord sitting down? We are commanded to lay aside all malice. Lay it aside. "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." That was 1Pe 2:1-3. I am giving you all of these from Peter, so that you can look them up fast and notice them this evening, please. I am going to give you 80 of them. There is no use for you to take them down, though, unless you are going to refer to them. There is no use in the world in him asking me over what I say, because he will not say a thing in the world about it. "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and all hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." Yes, lay that aside because ye have been born again. "Desire the since milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." The next verse: "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."

A child of God is commanded to be holy in conversation as an obedient child. 1Pe 2:13-15: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober." If you were to gird up yourself, would you be doing something? When. I got up this morning, I put on my pants. That will not make the ladies blush, because I have them on, and it wasn't the Lord who put them on. I put them on, myself. "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." That doesn't say to be sanctified in the flesh that you refer to so much. "Be ye holy in your conversation." That means to control your conversation, and you don't have to curse every time you feel like it. Will you tell us whether you have to curse or not? Or do you have to curse every time you feel like it? It is the duty of the child of God to be holy in conversation. That is the command of God. And if I were to stand on this ground out here and you were to walk up and my mouth was filled with unholy conversation, my conversation is not that which is becoming to a Christian and my mouth and my conversation is foul and ungodly. Are you going to say that Ariel West couldn't help it because God predestinated it, and without Christ he couldn't do anything, so it was through Christ that he did it? There is a salvation to that weak and poor trembling child of God that obeys the Lord and keeps his conversation holy. That means clean. A child of God can do that. Any man in the world who says he cannot keep his conversation holy has been cursing. You can mark that down and take that for what it is worth. He has either done something mean or is fixing to.

My fifteenth argument in support of my proposition is that we are commanded to confess our faults; to pray for each other that we might be healed. Do you believe in prayer? Do you ever say, "Lord bless me?" Why in the world ask the Lord to do it if He is not going to hear you and answer your prayer? That is some more of your "contingency" in your London Confession of Faith. Does the Lord bless people in prayer? We are commanded to pray for each other that we might be healed. We are commanded to convert the child of God in error and save a soul. Brother Rhodes, is that salvation in heaven? To convert a child of God from error and save a soul? How is it? He is already a child of God, a brother in error. If he is a brother, he is a child of God. Then, you can convert that brother in error and you will save a soul. Tell us whether that is time or eternity. If it is eternity, then you are your brother's saviour in eternity and for eternity. And I don't believe it. Let him answer that. I will give you the Scriptural reference. That is Jas 5:16-20. Now, you tell us just how you save a soul, will you? You said that the salvation they worked out with fear and trembling was to get it out of the way. Now, tell us if saving this soul here is wrong. We have been seeing who got in a tight today, haven't we?

Now, then, I am going to read a passage, but before I do, I want to ask you, Elder Rhodes, what kind of salvation does the text teach? Give this your particular attention: "Confess your faults, one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." When you pray, does it avail anything? Or doesn't it avail anything? It will never be answered. You need not worry about that. "Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit." I wonder if he was praying for rain? Did you ever pray for rain, Elder Rhodes?

Time expired.

02.06 ELDER RHODES' THIRD NEGATIVE

Gentlemen Moderators, Brethren and Sisters, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am here before you again to reply to my opponent. While it is fresh on my mind I want to give him a Scripture that ought to settle his breakfast about him sitting down: Ps 139:2: "Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising." He knew he was going to do that. If He had not furnished physical strength, it would have been easier to sit down than to get up. Do you think that you could have got up? "In all of my downsittings and in all of mine uprisings."

I want to do my best-I think I can-and as hard as I can to answer him. He accused me of not answering any of his arguments and said that I answered all of them at one time. I have said that, and that is a fact.

I want to offer an argument here in the negative before I start: Ps 127:1. That is, I want to offer this as new argument: "Except the Lord build the house;-"he said something about building that I did not get to reply to. I have forgotten what it was. "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." So, I say, my beloved friends, that you cannot do anything unless the Lord enables you to do it. He couldn't even have said that. He might have fallen down if his breath had been taken away from him. A lot of us die that way. We can fall down. We often do that. "Not even a sparrow shall fall without him." "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." He asked if I saved him, if that salvation reached on through eternity. That is referring to the saving that is in the gospel. The Lord enables me to speak his own everlasting gospel, and He enables my brother to hear and take heed to it. That is a manifestation of that salvation that saves us, both for time and eternity. That is what it is, just a manifestation of it.

Do they hear the gospel in time? You asked me that question. Yes, that is right, they hear it in time. They hear it in time and they believe it in time. They walk in the light of it in time. But they do not hear it conditionally. That is what his proposition says. They do not walk in it conditionally. They do not obey it conditionally. Their obedience in every precept and example is that the leadership of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. The easy way. That is a fact. I have an easy way of answering your argument. It is the easiest way I ever saw. Easy? I reckon it is easy because I can just say to you that if it is hearing, if it is believing, if it is obeying, if it is repenting, or if it is walking in the gospel ordinances, or all of these things, it is of the Lord. "Conditional time salvation." That is the hard way. Conditional time salvation is about the hardest doctrine I ever thought of. It places the yokes on the necks of human beings that Christ is the end of the law to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

He said something about a prayerbook. Well, if I believed in activity-in this activeness that you speak of, why I might not only have a prayerbook, but I might have me a graphophone with a prayer on it, and I could sleep and let it pray for me, if I believed in that activity.

He said that I had gone into Universalism. I can tell you one thing, if you come before the church and relate the experience with all of this activity that you mention, we would not take you into the church. We would find out whether you believed in your activity or not, and mighty quick.

He had a good deal to say about me because I said we keep the commandments. Do you know the cause as to why we keep them? I quoted it in my first speech against his first speech: "Blessed are they that do His commandments." You are blessed and that is the reason why you do them.

1Jo 3:22: "And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things 'that are pleasing in His sight:" That is something, isn't it? "Without me, ye can do nothing."

I could sit here as you did a while ago and pat my foot and use that text and ask you to show us conditional time salvation in the Bible, and I could wheedle away my time and take a nap once in a while. You cannot find it in all of the Bible. "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment." You cannot do anything without Him. He said you couldn't, and if you will just come to me and join hands with me and say the Lord enables you to do these things and leads you to do them, then I will shake your hand.

"Abide in me." Abide is something, isn't it? The Apostle Peter tells us how we abide. He says, "Blessed, be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God." You are kept by His power.

I say, beloved friends, is there anything else for them to do except to abide, when the Lord is keeping them? That is about all they can do, if the Lord is keeping them. If they got loose from the Lord, it would be a terrible thing, wouldn't it? It would be a terrible thing. And I say that they abide, not through this conditional activity that he is speaking of, but they abide through the keeping of the grace of God. Let us honor and praise and glorify His righteous and holy name in all of the leadership in the way that we should walk here in this life. Let us not depart and turn aside to this human activity that is brought up to place again the yoke upon your neck that was taken off through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. And he tells us not to be entangled again with that yoke upon us. Now, I want to say that this yoke of bondage is not walking in these things, but this yoke of bondage is this activity that he speaks of. That is the yoke of bondage. I am not talking about walking in these things. Could you beware without Jesus? "Beware." Could you beware without Him? That would be doing something, wouldn't it?

Now, there is no need of me going over his argument, because if he will just say that Jesus enables him to do it, I will be right Johnny-on-the-spot and take his hand in mine. But what he says as to this activity and according to conditions that we can perform within and of ourselves, I am just not there.

"Fall from steadfastness." Well, their falling from steadfastness-I believe that some of the children of God do that, and it pleased the Lord some way, or else the text In Ro 8:28 is not the truth. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." Maybe it is good for us, my brother, sometimes to fall and see how weak we are, especially when we get to thinking too much about our so-called activity. It is good for us to fall once in a while.

Now, he wants to know if I can add. I am willing to add all of the graces and all of the leadership and all of the virtues and all of the good things that God, in His infinite wisdom, life and tender mercy, presents to us in our experience. I want to add it together and see what the sum total of them are, that I may be gloriously satisfied and more confident in knowing these things. Yes, sir. But, we do not add them conditionally. The Lord had to enable us to add or we couldn't add them. We would be like the little boy that I spoke of when the teacher said, "two and one." It will just be "two and one." The Lord enables us to add our faith to our virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to temperance, patience; and brotherly kindness, and all of those things, for he said, " If ye do these things, ye shall never fall." I say so, too. "Ye are neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." I want to say, if the Lord enables us to add them, we are adding them, and we will get the right answer.

He spoke about a tree. He lacked to have got on the wrong foot. As if a tree were active. Did you ever see a tree that was active-that had a mind, and going to do this, that, and the other, and left to its activity? Did you ever see it? I would like to have a sprout from such a tree. He said if you lack these things, you are blind. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." I said, have you ever seen a tree that was full of this activity that he was talking about that can bear a tree full of peaches if it wants to, or can leave them off? But if the sunshine and rain and the season and the insects are all favorable to it, under the husbandry of Almighty God; they have to be favorable because He says in the parable of the sower, "They brought forth some 30, some 60, and some an hundredfold." I say, my friends, that God's children will bring forth this fruit, because Jesus said, "I have chosen you and ordained you that you should go forth and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain."

"Make your calling and election sure." He asked me if that was in time. Why certainly, the things he is admonishing them to do here-make it sure to whom? To God? No, sir. To yourself and if the Lord enables you to make your calling and election sure-of the sunlight of heaven and immortal glory-and leads you to do so, I will tell you right now, you will feel pretty sure of it at different times.

Moves them about as on a checkerboard. Moves the children about like on a checkerboard. I want to say, my brethren, if you are moved in spirit, who moves you? If you are not in the spirit, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." And faith is the fruit of the Spirit. You had better be careful. You had better be careful that you are not one of these checkers that I am talking about. If the Lord moves you by His Spirit, you are moved, are you not? Are you not moved? If he leaves you alone, can you move in Spirit? If you could, you could do something. Jesus said, "Without me, ye can do nothing." "In all of my uprisings and downsittings." He went over and sat down, and he said something about putting his pants on. We are not discussing putting on pants. Why, certainly, he knows we did not aim for him to come here without them. I want to say this: There are many men who start to put their pants on who would like to put them on but never get them on. You might get in that shape sometime, but I hope you don't. You might, but if you do, I hope you don't have to come to a debate.

He said that you didn't have to curse every time that you wanted to. Well, maybe not; maybe not. I hope you don't. He kind of talks like he might have had a little experience, and I might agree with him. I might have said you didn't have to curse every time you wanted to. The Apostle Peter, there was one time when he cursed and swore, and that gives me a little bit of hope. If I have cursed a little bit, the apostle did some of it, also. Although I am not given to profanity, though, very much, and that is not worrying me very much. He said that a church member could keep his conversation holy. He can if the Lord orders his conversation and leads him. He can do that. He can keep his conversation holy.

He asked me if I believed in prayer. If I were active like you are, after regeneration, it wouldn't be a bit of trouble in the world. It would be like a double-horned graphophone. But sometimes we get down and it is an awful task, and then again it flows like water from a fountain. Why is that? It is because the Spirit maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered, and not this conditional activity.

Jas 5:16-17: "Convert a sinner and save a soul from death." Yes, I believe that. I believe that is very often the case, and that is what I am trying to do to you now. That is what I am trying to do. And he wants to know if that is eternal salvation. That is just another manifestation of the salvation of Jesus Christ. That is what it is. I cannot preach without it, and you cannot hear without it. What other salvation can you attribute it to?

Now, I have answered everything, regardless of how many Scriptures he may notice or may not notice. I have answered his questions or every argument that he made. The reason why I have is because he is not making any argument. He is not making any.

Mt 9:29: "Then touched He their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you." That is what they asked the Lord to do-to open their eyes.

I have made this short, because I didn't want to take up too much time reading it. If my brother's doctrine were correct, instead of the Lord telling him that, He ought to have told us, "You want your eyes opened and you believe in me; you are a child of God; you are born of God; why don't you just get out and perform a few of these conditions that you are active in? What do you come to me for? Just perform a few of these conditions and your eyes will "come open." Lu 23:39-43: "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, if thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds." He is acknowledging that he is receiving due reward for his deeds. Wasn't that in time? What did he say? "But this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Here was a man who was receiving a reward for his deeds, and evil deeds, at that; and yet, my brother, the Lord said unto him, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Is that on the performance of conditions? If so, what was the condition? Stealing, robbing; out on the streets, as you have been making mention of so much? I want to say, my brother, here is an example of both the righteous deeds and those that are not righteous. Yes, sir. Here is an example of them both. The thief acknowledged that all that he had done, but he said, "Lord, when thou comest into thy kingdom, remember me." I want to say, my friends, that is true. Jesus Christ, the blessed Lord of heaven and immortal glory worked in this man who was hung on the tree beside Christ was given faith to see and believe in Him. "Lord, when thou comest into thy kingdom, remember me." Did the joy of knowledge come because of his activity or Christ's?

Mt 8:2: "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." He came to Jesus. There is no other name under heaven or among men. That is the argument I made to start with. He was a child of God or he wouldn't have wanted to come to Jesus. No, sir. "And he worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." I want to say, my brother, if your doctrine was true and he was active in these things, why, there is nothing, it seems to me, to have kept him from performing conditions and being clean.

You say in this same proposition that our afflictions and our sufferings here in this world are also conditional. I want to say, brethren and sisters, if that is the truth, if all of your suffering and all of your misery and all of your pain here in this life after regeneration is due to your disobedience altogether-oh, my friends, I want to say to you, take your conditionalism unto yourselves. I don't believe that you could ever relax enough to get a nap. Your suffering would be continuous.

Mt 8:5-8: "And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto Him a centurion, beseeching Him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof." If he had performed these conditions, don't you think that he would have felt worthy? Did he have any of that activity about him? If he had been active in that great plan, if he were so active in regeneration, do you reckon he would have felt unworthy? I say that he would have felt worthy. But he answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." Now, my friends, I want to say just here that I believe that if conditionalism was the truth that all of these things would have been different.

But in order that I might get one more argument before him, I want to call his attention to the fact that God's people once more are helpless instead of being active. I want to ask him if Jesus meant it when He said, "Without me, ye can do nothing?" Where is that activity in that statement? Where is the activity in that statement? He was talking to people after regeneration. Show me some of your conditional time salvation in all of these things. Now, I don't mean just time salvation, but I mean conditional time salvation-that handle that you put on it that divided the people all over this country. Yes, show me some of that conditional time salvation in the Scriptures. You said the Scriptures teach it, but it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible; it is not mentioned anywhere.

Then, brethren, in conclusion of my argument here, let me say this: May God forbid that we take out after coined phrases of men and a system of idols and follow them into perdition. May God forbid that we do that. May God forbid that we turn aside after any man. Old Elder Sikes, who was mentioned here yesterday-I think a lot of Brother Sikes. I have respect for the majority of his views on the doctrine, but if Elder Sikes, 86 years old, and a man widely known and well loved in the whole country, if he were to come out here and begin to advocate something that is not in accordance with the Scriptures, then I would say, "Elder Sikes, you are wrong. We don't need you in this part of the country."

Eph 1:3-5:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." Not just a part of them, but with all of them-"spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." I want to say that not one of them comes by either our activity or through conditions, but it comes through the blessing of Almighty God. Let us honor, praise, and glorify His name. He is our daily Saviour.

Time expired.

02.07 ELDER WEST'S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I will endeavor to notice a few things that the gentleman has said. He has mentioned the Scriptures that I have referred to only 14 times. Not one single argument has been examined by him in fairness and in candor. And the record will so show. I have given him 88 citations and made 15 arguments. He still harps on this: That which says that you can do something in the spiritual realm without the Lord. I didn't say that, and you know I didn't say it, sir. I said, time and time after time, that the individual must have Christ and must be in possession of Him or he couldn't do anything in practical obedience as the child of God in this world without Christ. He gets up here and says that I said you can do it without Christ. I believe that you actually know that you are willfully misrepresenting me. I know what the rules say, but I know what I say, too. You couldn't say it that many times, over and over, and misrepresent me that many times without knowing that you are doing it. I never said, and I have never contended, that an individual could obey the Lord without Him. You know that I have not said it. And so, shame and disgrace if this thing is ever published, when folks begin to read what you have charged me with, saying that which I never said, nor anything even favoring it. No individual in the world can obey Jesus without Him. No individual can follow the Lord without Him.

He said, "Yes, West can sit down," referring to it with all of the sarcasm that he could muster, as if it were a sit-down strike. But could he do it without the life the Lord gave him? But it was West that was doing it. He was doing it with the life that the Lord gave him. It is the child of God that follows Jesus in practical obedience with the life and grace that God has given him. I will try to drive that in if I can.

How can an individual, he says, beware without Jesus? I didn't say an individual could beware without Jesus, but I did say that the child of God that had Jesus could beware.

He said I had better be careful that I am not one of the checkers. Well, if the Lord predestinated it, how can I help it? What is the use for me to be careful? I wonder what he was exhorting me to be careful for. Do you good folks see any good sense in exhorting me to be careful, when everything in the world is fixed? What is the use of me being careful? I couldn't be careful.

He says that he is not given to profanity-very much. How much profanity are you given to, Elder Rhodes? "I am not given to profanity very much." I wonder how much. Not any, or not very much?

"When I get stirred up just right, I might use a little." You might, according to that statement. If you were come to our folks, saying that you were in the habit of cursing, they would not take you in, sir. He doesn't curse very much. He is not given to profanity-very much. I am following you. That is what you said. I have a perfect right to examine what you say. And he doesn't curse very much. Do you curse a little? You are not given to cursing very much. Do you curse any? Do you use any profanity? No wonder he advocates it. He cannot help it. No wonder he advocated that through Christ you do everything. I don't curse at all. It has been years and years and years, and I am not a righteous man. I don't claim to be good, but I am so good that I don't curse.

We have been talking about Elder Sikes. Let me tell you something. If Elder Cayce was to say, "Elder West, I am not given to profanity very much," then at the next conference day I would rise and I would say, "We are pastors of this church, but I absolutely am not going to fellowship Cayce because he told me he wasn't given to profanity very much." That means that he was given to profanity a little bit, and I wouldn't live in the church with Cayce cursing. I don't care how much I love him, I wouldn't. Talk about ungodliness, is cursing ungodliness? Is profanity ungodliness? I told you a fellow who would say such things had either done something mean or was fixing to, and now, you have got it. There is not a thing unpleasant about that. I am following him. I am telling you what he said.

He came and noticed the thief on the cross. You make these slips, but I get them. I am not sitting here with my ears shut. We come to the thief on the cross. One said, "If thou be Christ, save both thyself and us." What kind of salvation was he wanting? He was wanting to get off of that cross. That was all that he was interested in. He didn't want to die up there. But there was a man with something more noble in his heart. It is true that he was a thief. It is true that he was a malefactor. But the grace of God had come into his heart, not over the righteousness that he did, but what did he say? He said, "Master, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." He was not interested in getting off the cross. He was interested in that eternal home above. That is talking about eternal salvation, sir. "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise." It was too late for him to work out his salvation with fear and trembling in this world. He could not enjoy the peace and happiness in the world as offered him in the gospel. But the great God of mine in the power of Omnipotence, and to whom all things belong, made him cry out and acknowledge the blessed God, even as he hung on the cross. But he didn't do it in order to become a child of God, but because he was a child of God. He missed peace, joy and happiness in his life here in this world. You might ask me when he was regenerated. I don't know. It doesn't make any difference about that. It is true, the grace and mercy of God-and that was what made the difference in those two thieves-the grace of God. That is why one could cry to Him from the standpoint of hope in yonder world, and the other fellow couldn't look any further than just getting down off the cross. That is the doctrine of Old Baptists. That is the doctrine of Primitive Baptists.

I want you to notice this just a minute: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." You said that I had not made any arguments. Let me give you this argument again. My proposition is true because a child of God, in obeying the truth, purifies his soul in the sense of my proposition. Is that argument? "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren." "Let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall hide a multitude of sins." That is something a child of God does. Without the Lord? No, but with the Lord, and with the strength of the Lord, and with the help of the Lord. He does it with the help of tile Lord. If you were to go to town, and went there with my help, you would still be going there. We are not going to heaven by the help of the Lord, but we are going to be carried to heaven. He is going to take us. We obey the truth here in this world by the help of the Lord. We are not going to heaven but we are going to be carried there; not with the help of the Lord but by the Lord. Do you see the difference? He is going to carry us there. When you awake in the likeness of Jesus and you are wafted to that eternal ever-abiding city, you are not going by the help of the Lord. He is going to take you there. You will be caught up. Not caught up out of the grave and raised from the grave by the help of the Lord, but He is going to raise you by his omnipotent power. He is going to do that. That is what the sovereign, greatness, omnipotence, and omnipresence of God will do.

Elder Rhodes, if you can convert a brother, according to the text, do you save his soul from hell? Is that your proposition? Give us your answer to that, please, candidly and fairly. Just don't say, "West hasn't made an argument." Get down to business on this thing.

My sixteenth argument is that we are commanded to abstain from fleshly lust, that men, seeing your good works, gloriify him. Glorify who? Glorify God. Brother, if there is one ounce of goodness about me, and sometimes I think if there is any it is mighty little, but if there is one ounce of goodness in me and about me in my depraved nature, that goodness comes from the Lord. And it is a goodness and faith that does come from the Lord that enables an individual, as a child of God, to walk in accord with the blessed precepts and examples of the good Book here in this world.

You do not think that you are going to make a Campbellite out of me by getting me to say faith, repentance and baptism are conditions in order to get a home in heaven. I will agree with you that everyone of those things that they do is a manifestation of eternal life, but they act because they have the life, not in order to get it. Do you believe folks act because they have life? Elder Rhodes, do you believe that folks act in order to get life, or because they have got it?

ELDER RHODES: Because they have got it.

They act because they have got it. He says they act because they have got it; so he believes in activity just like I do. He didn't see that trap that I sprung on him. He said that he believes that they act because they have got it. That is exactly what I believe. You believe in activity now, don't you? How could they act without activity? Elder Rbodes said they act because they have got it, so you good folks feel with him who have been so mad at me, and wanted to kill me here, you see now he is advocating there is activity because they have got it. They act because they have got it.

I am having a good time. I am sure you are, too. Look like you are happy, anyhow.

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims." "I beseech you." Well, if they couldn't do it, why is he beseeching them? Will you tell me why Peter was beseeching them? Will you please tell us why he was beseeching and exhorting if they couldn't do a thing? Why was he wasting his efforts by beseeching them? Let him tell us that. Oh, no, he will not tell you. He will say, "I can answer it with just one word. That is all I have to do; just speak one word and what West says sinks into insignificance." But you notice when he gets up here. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." Now, Brother Rhodes, I am going to ask you a question. Yes, I have a little piece of chalk here. You see it in my hand. I am going to deal with your checkers for a moment. I will draw a checkerboard here. I never played a game of checkers in my life, but I will draw it the way I think it should be. I am not a very good artist, if I did get my sheepskin in it. But, we will suppose this (indicating) is a checker, and I move the checker over here (indicating on board). Did I move the checker by the life that I have, or is God moving the checker? Is West moving the checker by the life that he has, or is it God? I move the checker because I have natural life, if you want to bring it down to playing checkers. There isn't an angel that moves in righteousness, or an individual, that does the moving but with the power that God has given him in spiritual life. "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

There is no praise that can go up to God without a pure fountain. There is no righteous work that can be exhibited and no man can preach the gospel but by the Spirit of God; but it is the man that preaches the gospel by the Spirit of God. An individual hears the preaching of the gospel and sees God's work; yet there is no glory of the flesh, but glory to God in heaven that gave the poor wretch that spiritual life and activity, whereby he could act because he is born again.

But I cannot make an argument. Have you decided that I can make an argument? You kind of believe the way I am preaching, don't you? I kind of believe you believe it. I believe your brethren believe it, too. They might not like some of my expressions, but I actually believe they believe some of the things that I am saying.

Mt 5:16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." "Let your light so shine." It is God that gives the light. It is you, the child of God, who lets your light shine. Now, don't get up here and say that West said he could let his light shine without the Lord. Don't you say that, because West didn't say that. West is not going to say it. He may be a fool, but not that big a fool. The individual that has the light, has life. The individual is commanded to let his light shine. Why? Mt 5:16: "That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." It is the man who does the good work. It is the man who does it. But he does it with the life that God has given him. And without that life he could not do it; but it is the man who does it. He is active, then, isn't he?

If folks had not striven over vain words and got down into devilment and foolishness and jealousy, the division would never have occurred. It was things that were not in the Bible that caused the division. If you say that it was conditional, I will turn around and say it was absolute, because you have admitted neither one of them were in there. If you say the division occurred because of the words "conditional salvation," because it was not mentioned in that term in the Bible, I can give you a dose of your own medicine, and say the term "absolute predestination" was Just as much responsible for it, on your own hypothesis of reasoning, because, according to your argument, you said this morning neither of them were in there. This is his own medicine I am giving him.

My next argument is that we are commanded to commit ourselves to God as His children and to resist the devil. We have gotten back to that old "boy" again, haven't we? And he will flee from thee. Jas 4:7-8. "Submit yourselves therefore to God." Now, don't get up here and say that I said they could submit themselves to God without God, because I didn't say that. Don't you make that kind of play. You answer my argument. "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil." Do you believe that God's children can resist the devil? Or do you believe that God uses that nasty little devil to do all that He wants him to do, and no more than that? Do you believe that something can resist the devil? I wonder if you do. If the Lord enables him to, he can. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." It is the man that resists him, with the power of God, and by the power of God, and through the grace of God, isn't it? "Draw nigh to God." Who is it that can draw nigh to God? From the standpoint of this text it is the child of God. Do you believe that the child of God can draw nigh to God? Do you? "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you." Do you believe that? "Cleanse your hands, ye sinners." Now, don't you get up here and ask me can he cleanse his hands without the Lord. No, he cleanses his hands with the help of the Lord, and through the help of the Lord, and by the grace of God that he goes in obedience and in accord with the command of God, and enjoys the peace and joys of his salvation while we live here in the world. I am going into a little of Brother Rhodes doctrine. But before I give you the Rhodes' doctrine, I will give you the Bible doctrine: "And purify your hearts, ye double minded." Now, they do that with the help of the Lord, through the grace of God. They cannot save themselves in heaven, Brother Rhodes, by the help of the Lord. They can't do that, because you don't have a thing in the world to do with your salvation in heaven, or your eternal salvation, or the salvation that God wrought in the heart and works in the soul of the individual. You don't have a thing in the world to do with it. He doesn't need the help of the Lord for that salvation, because the Lord does it. He quickens the individual into life, and the individual has nothing in the world to do with it; but the child of God, after regeneration, is born of the Spirit, and then through the power of the Lord he can do something in the house of God. But he cannot do it until he is born again.

Time expired.

02.08 ELDER RHODES' FOURTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Brethren and Sisters:

I feel greatly encouraged-greatly encouraged. My brother is not affirming conditional time salvation any more, if you will notice; no sir. He has left it off. He has left it off. That is a real good policy, because he has not got anything to sustain it, and he knows it. That is why he is doing that. You can all see that. You don't have to have me to tell you that. You can see it for yourself. A third of what he said, I could sit there and nod my head to every bit of it. Did he prove conditional time salvation? He mentioned it one time, because he thought it wouldn't be good policy not to mention it at all, because it was his proposition-but one time only he mentioned it-just one time. Yet, I will admit that if the brother had left out the extreme expression-conditional-but he didn't do it. He didn't leave it off-we would be a whole lot closer together. We are closer together than he wants you to think we are now in his own belief and in his own mind. Let me show you where he came to it. Everything good that we do comes from the Lord. I can shake hands with on that and say, Amen; and if it would be necessary and wouldn't be hypocrisy, I could say, Glory! Hallelujah! But he didn't tell us where conditional time salvation came from. I could tell him where it came from. He didn't tell us that. He hasn't mentioned in his last speech but one time, after telling us that everything good comes from God.

Now, I want to say that I appreciate the frankness and faithfulness in my brother for the manner in which he came across, like an obedient little boy. I am glad to see him do it. If you will come to my church and preach that way, my brethren will receive you. Yes, they will receive you, but you better leave your conditional pet baby doll, time salvation at home before you come, because we don't believe that. The Bible doesn't teach it, and he hasn't found one word in the Bible where it is mentioned. I don't know why he ever undertook to maintain such a proposition.

He said it was just a manifestation of eternal life. That is correct. That is right. It is just a manifestation of eternal life, because every act of obedience that men are led into in this world comes from the promptings of that salvation. That salvation is Christ Jesus. No wonder I am having such an easy time.

He asked me if God's children didn't act. Yes, they act. They act, all right, but they act upon the moving of the power and leadership of God's Holy Spirit, and not from conditional time activity. I am not afraid to nod my head at anything which is the truth. I want to say, brethren and sisters, that if my brother would just do away with his pet theory, conditional time salvation-if you take the "conditional" out of it, I could endorse him; just that one word, and that one word is not in all of this Book. But yet, it makes a vast lot of difference.

What does "conditional" mean? It means that you are active to the extent that you can do it or let it alone.

When it came time for him to sit down, he sat down; and when it was time for God's children to walk in the steps of obedience, the Lord leads them to it. The goodness and mercy of God causes them to do it. He said the Lord causes all good works. I think we are getting along fine. If we could go on here for ten days, I believe there would be a lot of different things moving around down here.

He has brought a counter charge against me. Well, "predestination" was in the Book all right. It was in there several times. I showed it to him. I believe, though, that was "foreordained."

"Resist the devil and he will flee from you." The Lord enables you to resist him, you can resist him, and it is good to resist the devil.

He said that all good comes from God, so we are not far apart on that.

"Draw night to God, and He will draw nigh unto you." I don't deny that. That is all in the Scripture, but it doesn't say that you can conditionally draw nigh. But our strength to draw nigh is of the Lord, and He leads us to do so. No, I believe that, too. I am not misrepresenting him. I am only trying to get the "conditional" out of you, so that we can have a good handshake and I can eat your bread, and you can eat mine. Let's get this "conditional" out of him. It's not in the Bible, and show me, my brother, where we differ one bit on this subject except that "conditionalism."

Now, he wanted me to notice this: "Seeing ye have purified your soul." He wanted me to answer, if a man converted a sinner from the error of his way, if I save a soul from hell. No, I have not even claimed to. No. I have not even claimed to have saved a soul from hell. But I think that salvation which is manifested in time and in eternity is the salvation of the Lord Jesus. He just imagines everything means salvation, and is conditional time salvation. He is looking for it. Well, you can keep on looking, but you will never, in this world, find it. You will not find it. That is the salvation that the Lord, by inspiration, says, work out. Work her out and let her slide down the creek, and he has just about done it. He has just about quit mentioning it.

Now, I want to continue with some of my argument. Ro 4:4-8: "Now, to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Now, I want to say, brethren, that if you have to perform conditions, conditionally, that is some works. Let him define "conditional" and see whether it is work or not. If you have to perform conditions, it is some works. Whose faith is it that is counted for righteousness? It is him that worketh not. He has been accusing us of being moved around like a checker on a checkerboard. He has been accusing us. Whose faith is it that is counted for righteousness? Is it him that worketh? No, bless your soul, him that worketh not. That is not in this activity, conditionally performed. That is not what he has under consideration.

Heb 4:9-10: "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His." What is it that remains to the people of God, He believes he is of the people of God, and he believes his brethren are people of God, and I believe some of them are and they may all be, as far as I know. I hope they are. What is it that remains to you? Rest, if you please, and not work. Rest. Do you rest and perform conditions all at the same rime? I mean, if it depends upon your activity. I am not saying that you can. You denied it emphatically-that you don't believe you can.

All goodness comes from God. You know, I have to do something to stay in this argument, when you have admitted everything except one word. I don't have very much to play on. I haven't much to play on; just as sure as you live, I haven't. He has admitted all except one word. So, I am just arguing with him; so you take it that way, and don't take it that I am saying you are doing these things, because I believe you are honest in what you say. I believe you are.

"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." And if you are to perform conditions, I want to tell you that it wouldn't be altogether rest. If it depended upon, or devolved upon, you from your human initiative and your activity, that he is talking about. But yet, the Lord leads you into these steps of obedience, my brother, and it certainly is a joy. It certainly is a peace; it certainly is a satisfaction. So, if you will just get the "conditional" part out of it, I am ready to shake hands. That is all that we lack. We have just been going a little over a half day on this proposition, and he cannot find it in all of the Book. He cannot find it with all of his help. He cannot find it, because it is not there.

"For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His." He mighty near accuses us of entering into that rest. He doesn't lack much. I hope we are guilty. He said the Lord has to move us around like a checker on a checkerboard. We just mighty nearly ceased in our work. We have ceased, my brother, from any confidence in anything that we can perform. "We are the circumcision that worships God in Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh."

There is no use-half of my argument is not worth a thing in the world, except to remind him of where he used to be before he came over to my proposition. That is a fact. That proves that we are getting together.

Here is one: "For by grace are ye saved." That is in time, isn't it? "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." He said he thought it used to say "conditional time salvation." "By grace through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God;" no more of works; no more performing condition; no more of this living as the law requires, as is found in the proposition, and of our own initiative; it is not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God. I will endorse you and shake hands with you every day on that; but when you dress up your little pet baby doll, "conditional, time salvation," I will kick it out of the door every time I get an opportunity to.

Eph 2:4-6: "But God, who is rich in mercy for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved.)" That applies to the present, doesn't it? I want to tell you, I don't believe anybody who has the grace of God in his heart has any objection to a doctrine like this, but I want to say, my friends, that it is all by grace. It is every bit by grace, both for time and eternity. It is the same salvation from first to last. It is Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life; the only name given under heaven or among men whereby we must be saved; and I say, that I believe my brother believes it just as strongly as I do. I believe he believes just exactly what I do, and all that I want to do is to keep persuading him to give up his "conditional time;" and if he will just leave the word "conditional" off, that is the only objection that I have, and we are getting pretty close together.

Ro 8:28. I have already made that argument; "All things work together for good to them that love God and to them who are the called according to His purpose." I do not want him to accuse me of advising them to fall short. I admonish them with every gospel precept to walk forward, but I want to say that we are full of our shortcomings and even the apostles were.

That brings my friend to a little cursing. You know, he cannot hardly get up here without mentioning something about things like that. He had a right to follow me in that, because it was in reply to something that he had already said which I mentioned. I am going to be honest with you, my brother-I want to be honest with you. I don't care if I am turned out of the church for being honest with you. Yes, I am going to tell you the truth. Twice since I have been a member of the church I have had to make acknowledgement to the brethren for that. Yes, sir. And you could, on any other subject but this, make me mad enough that I might have to make them a third time; and you acknowledged that you were just about as bad as I was because you said you didn't have to curse every time you wanted to. I guess you cursed sometimes when you didn't want to. That is what he implied. I hate that you even left this for me to come back to; but, as I told you yesterday, I tried everything to keep from it, and keep this on as high a plane as I could. "Lest you be wise in your own conceit," I decided to reply to it.

Ac 14:22: "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." He wanted to cut the proposition in two, and said nothing about trouble and affliction, but I am going to work on that a little. "Confirming the souls of the disciples and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." He says they can miss the tribulation through what? This pretty little painted cart, "conditional time salvation." Through this little cart we can miss these tribulations and afflictions? If you do, you will miss the kingdom of heaven. You know the Scriptures teach that just as well as I do, sir. How are we going to miss it? Through activity? Through this conditional time salvation that we can perform? Is that the way we are going to miss it? That is what you say. That is what his proposition says, whether he says it or not. Now, I want to say, my brethren, that the Scriptures teach that the children of God are chosen in the furnace of affliction. Did you ever see anyone get out of a furnace? I used to fire a sawmill boiler. It had a handle fixed steady and you had to raise it to open it. If I had seen one little piece of dry wood kicking that door open and coming back on me, I expect that I would have torn the woods up. Yes, I expect I would. The Lord has chosen His people in a furnace of affliction, and I would like to see them get out of it. They couldn't, unless they had this little pretty cart of "activity."

Ac 5:21: "And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name." And he said our sufferings and affliction are conditional. And they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer. I want to say, my friends, that I believe the sufferings of God's people in this world are the sufferings that Christ meant for them to bear. You are going to do it, too. You need not be one bit uneasy about that. They will do all of that suffering.

Ac 9:16: "For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Who is this? This is the Apostle Paul. "For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." According to his doctrine, if he will just get in his little cart and go rolling down the street, pedaling like a boy riding a bicycle, he will go right on and there will be no suffering at all. He will just jump over them all. Pardon me for that, but that is illustrative. That gets it to the point.

Php 1:29: "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake." Suffering, my friends, to a Christian, is a gift, according to this Scripture, and you cannot get around it. He thinks that suffering is just a failure to get on his little cart. That is what he thinks. I don't want to misrepresent him, but I do want to bring it to the point.

2Ti 1:11-12: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle; and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things; nevertheless, I am not ashamed: for I know in whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." His suffering is not because he is not active. Remember your proposition. "Our sufferings and afflictions are conditional on us not living as we should." The Apostle Paul here seems to reverse your cart. He puts the steering wheel in the back end, so to speak. He says that you are suffering because of these things, my brethren and sisters; "For the which cause I also suffer these things." "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle." He is suffering these things because he was appointed a preacher and an apostle. So, my brethren, I want to say to you that if you will look at Paul, who is the pattern, and he is the pattern to all them that believe to life everlasting. Is your garment cut by such a pattern? That is the way the Apostle Paul suffered.

You know, some women cannot half sew. I used to make a remark like that, but they have to learn to sew. Some men can not half plow. But, some women cannot half sew, but if you will give them 15 yards of cloth to make an ordinary dress, and they use all of it but a yard and a half, the thing will be too big entirely. And I want to say in this "conditional time salvation" that it fits just about that well. It fits just about as good as that dress. It is entirely too big for the child of God to get out and boast of. Yes, that is what it is. It is boasting. I don't say that my brother means to wilfully boast, but if he has one ounce of activity outside of the Lord, and implies that it is left to his will and his disposal it is boasting. I want to say that if you take that "conditional" out of it, I'll hush. If you'll take it out, I will hush and get on the sufferings, and suffering is a gift, and the Apostle Paul has said he was given as a pattern to those that after should believe. You are a believer, aren't you?

2Ti 2:12: "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him, He also witl deny us." I am not even afraid of that class of Scripture. That is the truth. "If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him: if we deny Him, He also will deny us." No, sir, I am not afraid of that passage of Scripture: That is the truth, but if we get into your little "conditional" cart and go pedaling down the road and miss all the suffering, we will not reign with Him. That is what his theory says, and you know it, sir, as well as I do. Brethren and sisters, let me say to you, Don't let him get you into that little cart. Stay on your feet and the Lord lead you into obedience. Don't go there by anybody else's bicycle. I want to say, my friends, it is the truth and you know it. The Scriptures teach it, and I am not ashamed of it.

2Ti 3:11-12: "Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Now, you heard the proposition read: Our sufferings and afflictions are conditioned upon us not living as we ought to. And here it is, "And all that will live godly." Not he that will live ungodly. If his proposition were true, he would have to say we that live ungodly shall suffer, but "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Do you think that you can escape it? No, sir, I know of no way at all, unless it be through his little cart, and I don't want to try that.

2Ti 4:5: "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." Do the work of an evangelist, even endure afflictions. A young minister writing how to endure afflictions. According to his proposition, in order for Timothy to endure affliction, first I have to fail to comply with these conditions and this activity. He will first have to do that before he can suffer afflictions, according to your theory.

Ps 119:71: "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes." "It is good for me that I have been afflicted." How are you going to get afflictions? According to his proposition, you are going to have to fail to comply with conditions. It was good for David that the Lord afflicted him. It is good for God's people? Why, most assuredly.

So, now, we will go to Isa 52:4:

"For thus saith the Lord God, my people went down afore time into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause."

Time expired.

02.09 ELDER WEST'S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, my Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I come again in the affirmative of the proposition which you have heard read. Before I take up any further affirmative argument, I am going to notice a few things that were said by our brother.

If you will remember, on yesterday afternoon, he said that one of the oldest translations of the Bible said that when you work out your own salvation, that meant you get it clear out of the way. I call your attention briefly to the second chapter of Philippians (Php 2:12-13), the 12th and 13th verses: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but how much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." I will give you the word and the definition of the word. It is pronounced kat-er-gad-zom-ahee. "To work fully; i. e., accomplish; by implication, to finish, fashion; cause; do (deed), perform, work (out)." This definition is from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. "Work out" is the word. I have here Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon, which is a standard work, and it gives the definition of the Greek word as, "to work out; to effect, produce, bring out as a result; to work, practise, realise in practice." That same word is found and so rendered in Ro 4:15; 5:3; 7:13; 2Co 4:17; 7:10; Php 2:12; 1Pe 4:3; Jas 1:3; Ro 1:27; 2:9. This is a standard work. The definition is given in English. I have drawn a ring around the definition, and I know that you can read that, Brother Rhodes.

He says that he does not save a soul from Hell. Then, if you save a soul, what do you save a soul from? Or, is there more than one salvation taught in the Bible? Now, you tell us that.

He has quoted to you Eph 2:8; and I can quote that. I think I can read it from memory: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." That is talking about our home in heaven. That is talking about heaven and immortal glory and eternal life, because the apostle, when he starts writing the chapter, says, "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." The salvation is eternal life. That is the salvation under consideration, not what I am talking about in my proposition. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." It is the individual that is doing something in Christ Jesus. It did not say that our walking was ordained. It says the way we should walk is ordained. The way we should walk is ordained of the Lord. The Lord doesn't do our walking for us. It is you who does the walking. The Lord ordains the way that we ought to walk as a child and should walk.

He quotes Ro 8:28, "All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." Is that sin and wickedness? Is that what you have reference to? If it is all things in Christ, I would be willing to shake hands with you, but if it is sin and wickedness, working together for good to them that love God, I don't believe it. The Scripture does not speak it, and pray, deliver me from it.

And so, I have noticed about what he said about the little cart that I ride in. I am going to talk a little bit about that little cart. My friend has repeatedly objected to the word "conditional." If you will remember on yesterday when I defined my proposition, I said that the word "conditional" in the proposition as defined by me meant one categorical proposition that rested upon another. Now, Brother Rhodes, I hope you know what a categorical proposition is. I hope you know that much about language. Conditional is one categorical proposition that rests upon another. Now, then, we are going to come and reason for just a few moments on individuals being under a physical law. I believe that every individual in the world that acts under the physical law acts with the life that God gave him. But I still think they are morally responsible. I think a dog is morally responsible, for the simple reason, sir, that if he were to come to my house and my dog were to bite you, I would give him a whipping for it. I think the dog would be responsible for biting you, and not the Lord who would be responsible. I would not charge the dog biting you up to the Lord and say that it was the Lord that bit you; it would be my black police dog who would bite you, and not the Lord. But he was biting you with the life, all right, that the Lord had given him. It is the same life.

Dead, alien, sinners can pay their debts. They don't even know Jesus Christ in the free pardon of their sins. They can go down here and borrow a hundred dollars from the bank and then go and pay it. They do not have to be regenerated and born of the Spirit of God to pay their debts. They are under a moral law, and able to do it. They are obliged to do it, and if he doesn't do it, you can just say, Well, we will just charge it to God, and that he couldn't.

All right; then, we come to the spiritual law. The Lord has given His children spiritual laws, and those individuals are under the spiritual laws from the standpoint that they are responsible for their conduct here in this world. Are you going to take this responsibility away from them? I believe you and I think a little more of one another now than we started out thinking. I believe that every intelligent man and intelligent woman here, on both sides of this thing, think a little more of each other than they did when we started. If you are not intelligent, you are just as mad at me as you can be and want to kill me.

All right; my brother has had much to say in regard to suffering and affliction. I think that dead, alien, sinners that have not been born of the Spirit of God, have peace and joy and happiness in the things of this world-that is not conditional upon them living up to the requirements of God's Word. That is because they have joy in that realm of darkness in which they are. I am not going to tell you that all suffering and affliction, and neither does my proposition say, depends upon individuals not keeping the spiritual law of God. But if you want to go there-I ask you this question: Would there have been any suffering or affliction of any kind in the world if it had not been for sin? And when he answers it, he will be in a dilemma. He will revert right back to moral law, when he goes back there and brings in all of these things. We are talking now about that spiritual realm. We are talking about, in the definition, those things that the Lord chastises His people for their wrongs. I defined that proposition yesterday morning and you didn't find a bit of fault in the world with it. Now, the time for you to begin to kick on the wording of that proposition was when I defined it, in your very next speech. You should have said, "Well, I am not satisfied with the definition of that proposition." I defined the proposition and what I meant, and he didn't object to one syllable of my definition.

Now then, this is tedious, but there has been something said about what caused the division in our ranks, and I will read this into the record: "In 1921 the Association met at Chapel Hill"-we are talking about the South Arkansas Association-"and there a division occurred. The Absolute faction said, in their minutes, "The disorderly crowd was handed back their letters, and they went out from us that it might be made manifest they were not of us." They passed a resolution as follows (that is, the folks that we know or call Absoluters), "Whereas, some of the churches and parts of churches formerly belonging to this, the original South Arkansas Primitive Baptist Association, have departed from the doctrine and faith of our fathers and have come to us with letters and articles of non-fellowship to the doctrine of predestination.'' I am going to read this from the record: "The statement that our churches declared non-fellowship to (for, or against) the doctrine of predestination, is a statement which the instigators knew to be absolutely false. What our churches protested against and objected to was, and is, the doctrine that God predestinated the sin and wickedness which men commit here in the world."

ELDER RHODES (interrupting): Just a minute. Hold his time. My statement did not include the South Arkansas, because I don't know anything about the division up there, but I do know about it down here.

ELDER WEST: That is where I belong.

MODERATOR CAYCE: That is where we are holding this debate.

ELDER WEST: We are holding this debate in the South Arkansas Association.

ELDER RHODES: All right, go ahead. That is all right.

ELDER WEST: "In the minute of 1922 they copy an article from the Signs of the Times, published in that paper of February 1, 1922, so they say, and written by Elder V. R. Harris. In copying and approving that article they adopt it and make it their own. Note these statements in that article: "It must have been in strict harmony with God's will and purpose for wicked men to take, crucify and slay His Son. He was delivered into sinful hands and was wickedly crucified and slain. It took all that to make God's promise of eternal life." I don't believe that the promise of eternal life was in any way based upon the sin and wickedness of men and devils in this world.

All right; "conditional" is one proposition that is categorical upon another. "Submit yourselves therefore to God." That is Jas 4:7-8. That is a categorical proposition. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." One rests upon the other. "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh unto you," which is a categorical proposition, that is conditional, one resting upon the other. We are commanded, as the children of God, to come boldly to a throne of grace that we might obtain mercy. Heb 4:14-16: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." This is a categorical proposition that rests one upon another. Paul said, "Let us come boldly to a throne of grace that we may obtain mercy." Do you believe you can do that?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: You are not going to have much negative reply if you keep nodding your head in the affirmative to me. I was going to say, if he shook his head the other way, that he said we do not obtain mercy by coming, but I cannot say it now. I had that written down to say, but he didn't say it. He said we obtain something by coming. So, I am not going to charge that to him.

All right; again, the Saviour said, in Matthew, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Who is it that is laboring? It is that individual who has life. Who is it that is heavy laden? It is the individual that realizes he is a poor sinner in the sight of God. Jesus has promised, if that individual be born of the Spirit, and will come to Him, He will give him rest. He is talking about practical things. Brother Rhodes, do you believe they can come, or do you believe they cannot come? Now, don't get up here and say that West said they could come without the Lord. I didn't say that. I still say that we are under spiritual law; that we have to have spiritual life and we have to have God in our life and have the spiritual life to do the coming with, but it is the child of God that renders obedience to the commandment of God in doing the thing that God has told him to do. There is nothing hard about that doctrine, is there? Not a bit in the world.

We are commanded to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let them slip, for we shall not escape punishment if we do not take heed. Heb 2:1-3.

I want to say something right here for the record before the eternal God of heaven. It doesn't make any difference, but I feel complimented that during this debate many of you folks have been saying that the work that Ariel West is doing here was Elder Cayce's work. I don't suspect that Elder Cayce feels complimented by that, but I do feel complimented, and I am going to tell you this: Elder Cayce didn't have one thing in the world to do with the framing of these arguments in any way, shape, form or fashion; and he didn't even know they were framed until they were already framed, and there he sits, and if that is not the truth, they can prefer charges against me for lying in our home church, for the simple reason that I think you would be like I was on yesterday about cursing. That is all that I am going to say about that.

Here is an argument: "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation." How can they escape if they neglect so great salvation? Will they? Brother, will you tell us any means of escape for that individual who neglects so great salvation? Is that eternal salvation?

My proposition is true because it is good and profitable to maintain good works by those who have been born of the Spirit. Do you believe it is good and profitable to maintain good works, if you have been born of the Spirit? Do you believe it is profitable?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: Well, if you believe it is profitable, I don't see how in the world you are going to deny it. That is what Old Baptists contend for; that it is profitable. No, not profitable in dollars and cents. I grant you that, as you said on yesterday. We are not talking about that kind of profit. "Not by works, of righteousness which we have done." (What is not by works of righteousness?) "But according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." That is what the Lord does. He borns and regenerates us. "That being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." That does not come through work at all. That is our home in heaven. But this is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly; that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works." They have already been born of the Spirit of God. Do you believe they can be careful to maintain good works? "These things are good and profitable unto men." That they might be careful to maintain good works is a categorical proposition. That they might get the profit is another one, and depends upon that.

My next argument is that if a child of God departs from iniquity and purges himself, he is a vessel of honor. 2Ti 2:19,21: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His. And let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." Brother Rhodes, do you believe a man can depart from iniquity? Do you? Do you believe that a man can depart from iniquity?

ELDER RHODES: Through Christ.

ELDER WEST: I believe that; yes, sir. You don't believe that Christ does it for him, do you? Or do you believe he does it through Christ?

ELDER RHODES: Through Christ.

ELDER WEST: It is not Christ departing from iniquity for him, is it?

ELDER RHODES: No, sir.

ELDER WEST: "No, sir." That is right. It is not Christ that departs for him, but it is the man that departs from iniquity through Christ. We are both agreed on that. It is the child of God that does it. There is no use for him to get up here and tell us that you cannot depart because West has already said he departed through Christ, and he has agreed with me. It is the man that departs through the blessed Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and departs because he has grace in his heart and what the Lord has done for him. That is the doctrine of the Old Baptists and the doctrine of the Bible, sir. "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these." Do you believe that a man can purge himself, Brother Rhodes? Do you believe that he can purge himself through Christ? Do you believe that he can purge himself through Christ?

ELDER RHODES: That's right.

ELDER WEST: "That's right." Therefore, if a man can purge himself through Christ, it is not Christ purging him in that sense, is it? You need not quit nodding to me. He shook his head to me in the affirmative that it is the man that purges himself through Christ, and I believe that, with all my heart and soul. The man first has to have Christ before he can purge himself in this world.

Time expired.

02.10 ELDER RHODES' FIFTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Brethren and Sisters:

I appreciate the kindness and favor of Almighty God toward us. We have had the privilege to appear and speak for ourselves, as the Apostle Paul related on one occasion.

Now, Elder West was having me nod my head. I will nod my head to anything under the sun the Bible says. But the Bible nowhere says "conditional time salvation." That is his proposition.

All of these things that have been spoken is nothing under the sun except the graces, qualifications and requirements of the gospel. That is all it is. But let him prove that they are done conditionally. His little red cart, if you please. If he wants me to paint it some other color, I will, but I am still going to kick it out of the door, no matter what color it is, because it is not the truth.

I want to introduce one argument before I notice anything further. Although if I didn't say anything else, if I said nothing more, only what I have said, his whole argument falls flat and in my favor on his failure to produce evidence to support his argument. He cannot produce it, and I know he cannot. I know that he is in a tight. I don't care how many of these good Scriptures he reads, or how much he insists that there are blessings in them, and I don't care how much he insists that it is us who do them-that is all right-but just keep us out of that little red cart. I don't like the looks of the thing. I want to say, beloved friends, that his little red cart is not running so smoothly as it was. Both wheels were taken off yesterday, but he got one back on this morning; he just got one back on. It doesn't run very smoothly with only one wheel. Now, pardon me for this, but I mean by that, that it says over here, and I want to notice that, that our home in heaven is not by works. Now, that is one wheel on that little cart. He wants the other to appear to be our work. If he will just add what I added in my nodding, if it were Christ that works in you both the will and to do of His good pleasure, why then, we will just go right ahead, but I am not going to get into his cart.

I want to make this argument in advance: Ga 3:3: "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Now, you must remember that that little cart is dependent upon the flesh. Your home in heaven is dependent on God, but you have to pedal the little pedals on this little cart. This home in heaven depends upon God. I will admit that. It is not by works. He didn't say this other was by works, but he left it, you know, where you can guess pretty well.

I want to also make an argument on the first chapter of Job (Job 1:8-9, the eighth and ninth verses. Here is Job with great sufferings and affliction, such as was never seen upon the earth in any other Bible character, and the Lord said that Satan moved Him to destroy Job without cause. Well, I suspect if Job had had a little red cart, he would have liked awfully well to have taken a trip in it if he could have escaped all that suffering. Don't you think he would? I believe that if all of the sufferings of Job were piled up at my door and my brother were to come by in his little red cart and give me that speech, and I had any idea I could get out of it, I believe I would load on. I believe I would. But here, my friends, it says that Satan moved God without cause. "And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for naught?"

Satan said, You have hedged him in where I cannot get to him. You have done a lot for him. If you will take that away, he will curse you to your face. That is what the Scripture said. "And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thine hand." Now, without cause. Oh, my brother, if he will allow me to use some of the tactics that he has been using, I could just say to Job, "Now, Job, there is no use in the world in all of this. You just haven't complied with the condition. You haven't complied with the condition, and that is why you are getting into all of this trouble. You have not complied with conditions." Satan moved God without cause to destroy Job, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil. Show me where Job's sufferings and afflictions were conditional. Not only that-he wasn't satisfied with that. He came back again after Job maintained his integrity; after he lost all of his cattle and sheep and his servants and camels, and the strong winds of the wilderness destroyed all of his children. He came back a second time and the Lord said, "Hast thou considered my servant Job, how there is none like him in all the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil? And Satan answered the Lord, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse Thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life."

And here, my brother has often accused me that the doctrine I teach makes the devil the brother of Jesus Christ. I want to ask you, my friends, if the Scripture here doesn't, at least, indicate the fact that the devil was given the power by the Lord to do that? Wasn't it God's will? Now, on the same basis that he proves the devil is the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ, I just want to show him how silly that sort of argument is. On the same basis that he has proved that, I can prove that Balaam's ass was a sister to him. Now, on that same basis I want to show that Jesus had a pretty little sister in the family, because Balaam's ass did the will of God and prevented him by speaking with a man's voice. The Lord enabled her to speak, and she did the will of God in that respect. Now, take that and grind on it.

I don't have to be in a hurry. I have already answered everything that he said. There is not one thing in the world that I haven't answered.

I want to make this argument on Ge 45:5. This is why Job did a little suffering, too, you know. I mean Joseph. "Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life." Joseph suffered some things, too and he suffered for what? Because the Lord had given him dreams of truth. He had given him dreams of things that were to come to pass, and they did come to pass, although Reuben tried to keep them from coming to pass by delivering him back to his father, and the other brethren wanted to kill him, and yet, God sent him down there into Egypt. He suffered the false accusations of Potiphar's wife. He suffered in jail, and finally he landed in Egypt through suffering. He didn't have any cart, either.

Heb 12:8. I don't know why he was so careful not to read that. It says: "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons," You are just as sure to get that chastisement as you are a son of God. You are just as sure to suffer in affliction and sorrows and distresses as God is on His throne. The only way that I can think of that there will be any possible chance for you not to get these chastisements is for you just to fail to be a son and to be one of those other kind; and I know my brother doesn't want to be the other kind, and I hope I am not, but I want to say, I believe we get chastisement. I believe his little cart turns over in the ditch lots of times where it belongs. I believe it turns over and gets muddy all over and gets mud all over his face and he has to cry unto the Lord. He has to fall on his face and say, "God be merciful to me, a sinner," That is what we all have to do. That is what I have to do. He reads his definition on "work out," and it is still "work out," just like the little boy's two and one. Work it out. Finish it up and get it out of the way. That is what it means. Finish it. The Lord doesn't have any need for it; not one bit under the sun. And that is true also of that activity that he mentioned.

One salvation. He wants me to prove that. Let me prove it by the best group of witnesses that I know of. There is just one salvation: Re 7:9-11: "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb," It did not involve the little red cart, either. It doesn't say so. "And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders, and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God, for ever and ever. Amen." Here is where, my brethren and sisters, that all the redeemed hosts of God had endorsed the doctrine as we teach and believe it, that there is but one salvation and that is the salvation through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I would rather have that endorsement than to wear a long forked-tail coat and be in the Vatican. I would rather teach a doctrine that all the redeemed hosts of God had endorsed. He will be surprised if I tell you this, I suppose, but remember, John was being shown things that must be done hereafter. My brother, if you are a child of God, he saw you in that. He saw you, too, robed in this righteousness and standing before God proclaiming that salvation is of the Lord. That is what it means. He saw you, and that was something in the future; and, brethren, I want to say not only did the redeemed host of God endorse it, but all of the angels. Only one salvation. One, and only one, is all that you can find. Of course, there is a plurality of manifestation of that salvation, and I believe he agreed with me on that yesterday. I think my notes showed that he agreed with me on that. It is the salvation of Jesus Christ that is manifested from time to time.

He is our Saviour today. He is our Saviour today and tonight; tomorrow, and forever. As far as that is concerned, we don't need any little cart that sometimes loses a wheel, and we are not going to have any little cart, either, my brethren, as long as the God of heaven will lead us and give us to see and understand His blessed words; and I want to say, brethren, he has not proved one single iota of conditional time salvation and what that proposition states.

"We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God before ordained." Yes, there is no red cart about that. Now, pardon me, but that is just my way of expressing it. We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; not just part of the way, and then we would have to get into that little red cart and cross the branch and go onto it. But unto good works. What does "unto" mean? Could I go unto town if I stopped on this side of the, pond? "Unto good works," and the good works were before ordained. He tried to put some stress on the word "should," that it was just our duty to walk in them, and that it was dependent upon the little red cart as to whether we did. I want to say, my brother, that it is both your duty, and it is also included in the covenant of grace and embraced in the foreodination of God. "Unto good works." Now, let me see if I cannot prove that. He said something or other about a man's steps. The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord. If He had created them in Christ Jesus unto these good works that were before ordained that they shall walk in them, and then order their steps, where will there be any failure? He didn't say that the red cart of a good man is ordered of the Lord, but the steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord.

He quoted that text where it says, "For we know that all things work together for good to them that love God; to them who are called according to His purpose." He said it meant all things in Christ. That is what he said. He is correcting the Apostle Paul. He is correcting inspiration on it. He is correcting all the scholars that ever were before him, because it says, "For we know that all things work together for good." Not separate and apart, but together. I can prove this argument. I have already made the argument on Joseph going into Egypt. You know that it worked together for the good of all Israel. Why, certainly so, because God had sent him, and yet it was wickedness that carried him down there. Yes, sir, you have to admit that it was lying, and wanting to kill, and selling their brother for money, and Potiphar's wife lying on him. You know, my brother, God sent him down there, and sent him down there through much suffering and through much affliction. You cannot escape it to save your soul. I want to say, my friend, if Joseph had had a little red cart, I suspect he would have liked pretty well to have set himself in it when he was in that fix.

He said something about categorical. I will admit, my brother, there are a lot of things categorical with us. Yes, sir. Our walking in the steps of gospel order and belief and graces and qualifications is categorical upon the grace of God, and you admitted it in your speech.

He wanted to know if I thought that people were responsible for sin.

ELDER WEST: What did you call that word?

ELDER RHODES: He wanted to know if we were responsible for sin. I will be glad to answer you if you will ask it again. Sometimes when a fellow has new teeth he says things that he doesn't aim to. He asked me if people were responsible for their wickedness. Have I advocated one word in this whole debate that did not maintain that? Why, most assuredly they are responsible. Yes, sir, they are responsible, morally, and in every other way, as far as that is concerned; but I want to say, my brother, that sin and wrong doings and wicked thoughts and intents of the heart of God's people were laid upon Jesus Christ, and He made sacrifice for them, and all of their suffering in this life is for their correction and for their instruction. Yes, sir, let them come through tribulation, living up to what they know to be right. I want to say that it is appointed of the Lord.

There is an argument, for fear that I forget it; we find over here that we are appointed unto affliction. And so, my friends, I want to say that his proposition falls to the ground just like his little red cart did yesterday, and I want to say, my friends, Jesus is my Saviour today, tomorrow, and every day. Like Patrick Henry, if you will pardon me referring to him, when he made that noble speech when he set the colonies on fire, "Give me liberty or give me death." Give me Jesus, my friends, and take all of your red carts out of the way. It is Jesus first, Jesus last, and Jesus all the time. He is our daily Saviour.

Now, my friends, I want to say that my brother here can just keep his conditional time salvation.

Now, I want to introduce some new argument. Isa 63:9: "In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them: in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old." He was their salvation, all of it. Is that all things under consideration? Is that just considering some part of their salvation? He is in all their salvation. I want to say that this text would destroy and upset that little cart so badly that it would never need greasing. I want to say that his proposition falls to the ground, because there is no Scripture to sustain it, and I believe that I am looking into the faces of an intelligent people who are following along with me. I believe you know that if he could possibly produce one Scripture that would show conditional time salvation that he would get it in a hurry. He certainly hasn't done it so far and he will not do it if he stayed here for six weeks. It is not in the Bible.

Isa 52:4: "For thus saith the Lord God, My people went down afore time into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause." They went down and suffered affliction without cause, and he says failing to perform conditions is the cause. Do you think so?

Zephaniah iii. 12: "I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord." My friends, it is impossible. You know what "conditional" means; and he does, too. He knows it too well by now. All God's people are afflicted, regardless of conditionalism.

Mt 24:9: "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." Not for not performing conditions, but for my name's sake. I want to say, my friends, that in my correspondence with him about this debate, he accused me of having my proposition loaded. If it is not against the rules-do you object to this, Brother West?

ELDER WEST: It is not the proposition that we are debating. We did not sign them, did we?

ELDER RHODES: No, sir.

MODERATOR BEENE: I would leave that off, Brother Rhodes.

ELDER RHODES: But I have a right to talk about this one: I want to say, my friends, that this one that we are discussing now was also loaded, but it was loaded with the difference between us. It is loaded with Bible truth from Genesis to Revelation, and you cannot get around it to save your soul.

Time expired.

02.11 ELDER WEST'S SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am again before you in the affirmative of the proposition that has been read. Before I proceed with any affirmative arguments, I will notice what the gentleman has said.

Up until this time I have given him 19 arguments. I have quoted 103 passages in support of my arguments, and he has pretended to notice 15 passages by direct statement. That is an easy time that he has had. That is the reason that he can take his time, because he doesn't intend to answer them. He doesn't intend to notice them. And the rules of honorable controversy is that the Scriptural proof that is introduced must be examined in fairness and in candor. But the way that he answers, he is having an easy time.

Now, then, he makes an accusation upon me, and I am going to state that I don't believe that you believe that I said what you said that I said, and that is your home in heaven is of the Lord, all right, but it is dependent upon you to pedal the cart. I did not say anything, sir, that favored that. I said on yesterday that we wouldn't go to heaven by the help of the Lord. You know I said that. I said that we would be carried there by the Lord. I said that as individuals in this world we do it with the help of the Lord in practical obedience. But I didn't say that our home in heaven depended on practical obedience in the world, and pedaling a cart.

ELDER RHODES: I didn't say that.

ELDER WEST: Here is your direct quotation. He says that "your home in heaven is dependent upon God, but you have to pedal the cart," It is in the record. That is what you said I said.

ELDER RHODES: Brethren Moderators, will you hold his time. I think I can explain that, Brother West. What I said is this: The home in heaven was dependent upon the Lord, but I had reference to this that you call conditional time salvation here. I just wanted to explain and not interrupt you.

ELDER WEST: Why connect the two together? I am not talking about a home in heaven. I am talking about here and I have been talking this entire time about that we are children of God who have eternal salvation and who are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Our home in heaven is in no way in the world dependent upon pedaling a cart. If he would answer the Scriptures instead of worrying so much about a red cart, he would get along much better.

That red cart is but to fill up time. You got clear back on your affirmative argument, back over there on Joseph. I am going to say this to you, and I will brag a little bit. I can beat you arguing your own proposition. I know your own doctrine better than you do. Did he destroy Job without a cause? Would Job have ever suffered affliction in the world if the commandment of God, in some sense, had not been violated? Let him answer that question. Was he an individual of Adam's race? Was he Adam multiplied, or was Job something besides Adam's race? Are you an evolutionist? Do you believe some of those boys sprang from a monkey? Do you think that Job was Adam multiplied? Do you? Don't you know that the Book says that by one man's disobedience sin entered into the world; therefore, sin has passed upon all men.

Then he quotes to us that if we be without chastisement, "ye are bastards and not sons." That is the truth. That is what we are talking about. The children of God in my proposition, after regeneration, and them receiving chastisement. That is deep for you to argue such stuff as that.

He says that individuals are responsible for all they do. That is his statement. Are they responsible for all they do?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: Then, God is not responsible for them. If men are responsible for all that they do, then God is not responsible, is He? You are getting worse and worse. You are going backwards into Arminianism now. You had to save by grace through the devil for awhile. Now, you are making them responsible for all they do. I don't know how you are going to get these things straightened out. It's bad enough for folks to hear, much less to read.

Then, listen to his statement. He says-I think I'll say something about that, too. I still can cry a little for him if he would preach the truth, but when you start singing that tune-I like the tune pretty well, but he forgot what he was saying when he started on the tune. He said all this suffering was for their correction and instruction. If they had not been disobeying the commandments of God, why would they have needed correcting? Would you correct your child if it were doing everything which you told it to do? That is the dilemma that you are in. You turn right around and advocated the very thing that my proposition is saying. He said it in direct words, and then denied it. Do you believe what you said here that I said you said? Do you believe that their sufferings were for their correction and instruction?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: Then, would they have needed correction if they had been keeping His commandments? What is the use of denying it, then? There is no use to deny a thing and then turn around and say it is there? I thought we were going to get into a tight yesterday. I don't know what he is going to do when I do get over there on suffering and affliction. I haven't gotten there yet. He is supposed to be following me, but you are running clear out on those, and you start back on your affirmative argument, back over there on Joseph. If you are running out of soap, if you would take these Scriptures and examine them as we went along, you would get way along ahead of me. I am in a good humor.

My proposition is true, because it is good and profitable to maintain good works. I said that. I said that it was good for an individual to purge himself. "Therefore, he becometh a vessel of honor." "If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor." "Sanctified." Now, that doesn't mean what you were talking about yesterday. I don't believe in that sanctification, and neither do you. I hope you don't. "And meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work." How do they do that? He purges himself from these. What is that? That is, from these ugly things that belong to iniquity. That's what the text is talking about.

My proposition is true, because there is a profit in not neglecting the gift that God has given, and also the salvation of my proposition in taking heed to the doctrine. First Timothy iv. 14 to 16: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine." That is a categorical statement. Let me pronounce that for you.

ELDER RHODES: If I were to swap teeth with you, you might be in the same fix I am.

ELDER WEST: It is not your teeth. "Continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." The categorical proposition in that is taking heed unto thyself; in saving thyself and them that hear thee is dependent upon the first. And that is not eternal salvation in heaven, either. That is the time salvation that you are pleased to call an apple cart. Elder Rhodes, I think the text is salvation in time. Or, do you think it is salvation for eternity? Do you think a man taking heed unto the doctrine will save himself for eternity, and those that hear him, for eternity? Do you? I don't believe that men save themselves for eternity. If that is the truth, Jesus Christ isn't their Saviour, and you cannot cause contradictions in the Book, because there are no contradictions in the Book. Paul said to Timothy, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth mot to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." If you had rightly divided the word of truth and studied to do it, you wouldn't have so many contradictions in this record. That is a glaring demonstration of the fact that you haven't studied God's Book. If your proposition were true there would be no room for admonishing being taught in the Bible. You wouldn't have any right to admonish people. According to his affirmative proposition you couldn't do it, anyway. There is no use to admonish them. Everything in the world is just fixed with him. He is referring to this that he referred to in his affirmative argument, so I am going to do it, too. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And there is no use in the world to give admonition to anybody in the world if it is just fixed, and they have to do it because they can't help it. You remember that I sat down here yesterday and I asked Rhodes when I sat down, I said, "Is this the Lord sitting down or is it Ariel West sitting down?" And do you know how he replied to that? He said, "Yes, but way back yonder David said that "the Lord knoweth my downsittings and uprisings." Sure the Lord knew it. I am not saying the Lord did not know it. That is what your text says, that the Lord knows everything, but I asked you if it was Ariel West sitting down or the Lord doing it. I think the Lord is all wise. I think He knows everything, but I don't think He is the cause of everything. The Lord knew I was sitting down, but that wasn't the Lord sitting down. That was Ariel West sitting down with the life that he got which God breathed into the nostrils of Adam, the breath of life, and he became a living soul. Sure, I couldn't have done it without life.

All right. 2Th 3:10-15: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." He said that doesn't make any difference in the world, you can eat all you want to and you don't 'have to work a bit in the world. I wonder if you hire colored folks on your plantation down there in Louisiana on that basis. We are not talking about eating in heaven now. We are talking about eating here m this world. That is the categorical proposition that rests one upon the other. One is eating, and the other is, if you don't work, you aren't going to eat. Can't you see that? "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies," I wonder if they are active in walking disorderly? He will not have them active in doing good works, or he wouldn't to start with, but he finally did say that they were active. I wonder if they are active in walking disorderly. "Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread," Those boys were walking disorderly and the Lord is exhorting by inspiration: "We command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing." They just had to work. Why did he tell them to work and not be weary in well doing? "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother," What is the use of admonishing him if he cannot do it?

All right; again, in 1Th 5:14-15: "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly," What is the use of warning them? What is the use of warning unruly folks if they are not active in their unruliness? "Comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man." Can you do that? "See that none render evil for evil unto any man," Now, if there is just as much evil as God wants to be, and just as little evil as the Lord wants to be, how in the world could the apostle have been telling them to see that no man renders evil for evil, because it is just fixed and it had to be that way, according to Rhodes.

But ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men," I wonder why the apostle didn't write to just do all the good you can, because you can do just so much and no more, because the Lord is going to have that nasty little devil there to keep you from doing it.

You can talk about Balaam's ass all you want to. We have heard it braying during this discussion. Now, that is just as much in the proposition and just as much according to the rules as what he said.

Paul said that none render evil for evil. Rhodes says that God predestinated it, and you cannot do any more evil than the Lord predestinated, and you cannot do any less evil than the Lord predestinated.

All right; I will refer to 1Th 4:1-7: "Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more." If they can't walk right and please God, then why tell folks to walk right and please God, that they might abound more and more? I believe that folks can walk right. I believe that they can please God. My brother, I believe they can abound more and more. Oh, think about the terribleness of a doctrine going out all over the land and country that Primitive Baptists believe that you cannot abound in good works. I used to get mad when these folks in the cities would tell that on the Old Baptists, and I thought they were yarning on them. Then, as I began to study what these men have said, I found out they were right in their accusation, that some folks that defamed the cause of Christ and the name of Jesus, would advocate that you cannot abound in good works. They are a disgrace to the Primitive Baptist name. No wonder they are dying. They will die and cease to exist, and God is going to pour out His wrath upon them, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. "For ye know what commandments we "gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." Do you wonder why I thought of all these things? Because they are in the Bible. That is why I thought about them. He said I had these things on my mind. The reason I have them on my mind is because God's Word teaches against those things, and I have a right to have on my mind what God's Word teaches against. If it is such embarrassment to you, there is a reason, sir. I am not insinuating what that reason might be; "that every one of you should know how to possess his vessels in sanctification and honour;" "that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified." A man should not defraud his brother in any matter, but if everything is predestinated and fixed, he couldn't keep from it to save his life. "For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness." The Lord never did call anybody unto uncleanness. He didn't even call Adam unto uncleanness. God didn't call Adam to do it, sir. But you say that heaven would have never been populated unless Adam had done it, and the little devil caused him to do it, through the indirect cause of God. I don't believe it. I don't believe that the devil is in any way responsible for the salvation of God's people. I would rather believe that good men were responsible for the salvation of God's people than to believe that the devil was responsible for the salvation of God's people. If it were left to me to choose between Arminianism and your doctrine, I would take Arminianism two to one. I don't believe either of them. Both of them are everlasting and damnable heresies. That is a Bible expression I am not cursing. The Lord talked about damnable heresies, and that is the truth of the proposition.

All right; my proposition is true, because the Lord has promised to be with those who do righteous works. Php 4:8-9: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report;"-and all evil do ye-no; he didn't say that, sir. He didn't say that. I wonder why. Because he is admonishing them what to do. "If there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Think on what? That which is good; that which is pure, and that which is upright. "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do." That is something. "Do." Well, is it them doing it, or is the Lord doing it? It is them doing it through the help of the Lord, isn't it?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: That is right. He said yes. "And the God of peace shall be with you." Why? Because ye do these things. That is the reason. To get a home in heaven? No. That you might enjoy the joys of your salvation, your peace and happiness as a child of God while you live here in the world.

Brother Rhodes said a child of God can do no more good or wrong than the Lord predestinated. He said that time after time. If not in direct expression, he did so in indirect expression and in implication.

My proposition is true, because the Book teaches us that God's people have a salvation to work out. Now, we are going to come back to that. Php 2:12-15: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." You said that meant to get it clear out of the way. How in the world, if it were absolutely fixed and predestinated, could they get that kind of salvation out of the way? He says that is the rotten salvation contended for in teaching folks how to live here in the world. You just work that clear out of the way. Well, if God predestinated for me to tell these folks like that, according to you, how in the world could they work it clear out of the way? It just had to be, because the Lord predestinated it. So, they couldn't work it clear out of the way, because He predestinated it, according to Rhodes.

My proposition is true, because we are commanded to put on the whole armor of God that we might stand against the wiles of the devil. Do you believe we can stand against the wiles of the devil?

ELDER RHODES: If the Lord enables us, we can.

ELDER WEST: That is fine. There is no apple cart about that, not a bit in the world.

Time expired.

02.12 ELDER RHODES' SIXTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am here again to resume my negative argument, and I want to say, first, did you notice the evasion on that last argument of his? Did you notice that?

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." But the other was not so healthy. There is no apple cart about that. "For it is God that worketh in you both the will and to do of His own good pleasure." That answers every word that you have said. I believe those things, my brother. I believe in the church trying to maintain cleanliness, morality, virtue, honesty, and all of those things, and I believe it is the duty of every church member, and a fellow, whether he is a church member or not, to live right, morally speaking, honest and upright. I believe that. I am not questioning those things, but you are trying to prove the doctrine of conditional time salvation. What have you said about it?

That reminds me. I am going to tell it. I don't know whether I should or not. It reminds me of a certain old-timy, old-fashioned Sunday School class that I heard of once. The old gentleman who was teaching the Sunday School was named ]efferser. I mean he had a son named Jefferser, and he didn't have the catechisms and quarterlies then like they do now. They just read from the Bible. One would read a verse, and another would read a verse and the other would read a verse. When it came Jefferser's time to read, Nebuchadnezzar was the first word that he had to pronounce, and I imagine he was about like I was when I was about old enough to go to Sunday School. I suspect that would have been a mighty hard word to pronounce. So, he hesitated, and the old fellow walked up and down the aisle with his wrist in his hand. "Read on, Jefferser; read on." Jefferser still hesitated, and he walked up and looked over his glasses on the book, and he couldn't pronounce it, either, so he said, "Just skip 'er, Jefferser." So, he has just skipped 'er on this conditional time salvation proposition. He skipped 'er altogether. You people know he hasn't made one single argument that I cannot endorse and will not endorse if he will leave off what he means by conditional time salvation. Since he has been on this proposition he has not made one argument that I cannot endorse, and he hasn't anywhere proved that conditional time salvation has its origin in the Book. Neither one of the phrases are there.

"Take heed." I don't know if he overlooked it in his notes. "Take heed." Yes, God's ministers are commanded to take heed. All do not do that, though they should. Some do, and some don't. Why is it? The God of heaven worked in them the will and to do of His own good pleasure; and if it is in His own good pleasure that causes you to walk in the steps of obedience He is plenty able to make you do it. I can tell you, it will come nearer concerning you and enabling you to do that than that little activity or apple cart that he is speaking of. He called it an apple cart. I guess that is a pretty good name for it. He said that apple cart was just a phase of God's salvation. Well, if it is, is it a conditional phase? If it is, it is not of God. It is not of God if it is. He knows that, just as well as he knows anything, and all of you, my brethren, know that he has not proved conditional time salvation. Let him take that "conditional" out of it, and I will shake hands with him on everything he has said on this proposition. I mean, all that he has affirmed. Of course, he has charged me with a bunch of things that I do not believe, and that I did not say, but that is all right.

Obedience is ordained. That is true. It is ordained of God. It is good works, isn't it? It is ordained that we should walk in it.

If none shall work, neither shall he eat. What does that have to do with conditional time salvation? That is the truth. If a fellow is lazy enough not to work, the church cannot be responsible for his eating. That is all that means. What does it have to do with conditional time salvation?

1Th 5:14: "See that none render evil for evil." We do not believe that, either, but what does that have to do with conditional salvation-conditional time salvation? I will say that the salvation of God has to enable a man to contend for these things. If he will take that out of it, I will shake hands with him, but I will never do it as long as he is sitting in front of the steering wheel of his little cart.

He said that he heard him bray since he has been here. That's right. He sure has. But I can tell you one thing, brethren and sisters, it doesn't make any difference what kind of an animal he might assert that I am, I have something for him on the end of my tongue, and I have decided to answer him, as I said, according to his folly. Solomon said, "A whip for the horse and a bridle for the ass, and the rod for the fool's back." I would rather be the ass with the bridle on than to be the fool with the rod on his back. That is the position that he is in. He has the rod on his back, good and deep, and it is burning and he is squirming under it. He cannot produce one thing that will prove conditional time salvation. That is why that rod is burning. Now, you may have heard him bray, and all like that, but you also felt the rod. I don't even insinuate what you are, but I am letting the Bible say it.

1Th 1:4: "Abound more and more." Yes, it is the duty of God's children to abound more and more in obedience and in walking in all of these things, and whenever they fail to do it, they have not done their duty; but if they fail, my brother, it is because that God has not ordained them to walk in them. Every step that God has ordained for him to walk in, they are going to walk there or God's ordination fails.

Which one will you take? He said such doctrine as I Was preaching was a disgrace to Primitive Baptists. That may be so. That probably may be so. God is my judge, and He will render justice. He is a just judge. He will render to me and to you, my brother, whatever is just in this matter. But I want to ask you this question: If I am taking the doctrine that the Primitive Baptists preached in the division of the Primitive Baptists from 1832 until 1903?

Elder Gilbert Beebe-he has called his name since we have been here-"According to Sikes and Rhodes and Beebe, and so on, this absolute predestination, and the things that go with it, are preached." I would like to know where he would have been, denominationally speaking, if he had not followed through the descendants of Beebe, theologically speaking, or whatever you might call it, doctrinally speaking, I will say.

He said that God has just predestinated that we do so much and not do any more, according to Rhodes. That is a fact. That is a fact. He predestinated, however, that you do all this good, and He will lead you into it, and if He doesn't lead you into it, it is not predestinated, or else, predestination fails, is what I mean.

Now, he said something or other about Arminianism. He has that on his mind and I want to get it off. Quoting Webster: "Arminian: one of a sect or party of Christians, so-called from Arminius, who flourished about the end or close of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century. Arminian doctrines are conditional election and reprobation, in opposition to absolute predestination." I am not charging here that you are teaching conditional eternal salvation. That is not what I am reading this for, but you are in opposition to absolute predestination.

ELDER WEST: As you gave us your definition there, do you contend that we believe in conditional election?

ELDER RHODES: Oh, no; I am not reading it for that purpose. That is what I said. "But in opposition to absolute predestination; universal atonement, or that the atonement was made by Christ for all mankind though non-believers can't be partakers of the benefits. The man, in order to exercise true faith, must be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God, but that this grace is not irresistible." In other words, you can run your apple cart or let it turn over.

(Moderator Cayce asked Elder Rhodes a question which the shorthand reporter failed to hear and understand, making this fact known to Moderator Cayce.)

MODERATOR CAYCE: I asked him if that grace was as to eternal life, and he said no.

This is from Hodge's Outline of Theology, page 201: "What is the distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination, and what is the general position of the Socinians on this point? Foreknowledge is an act of the infinite, intelligent God, knowing from all eternity, without I change, the certain futurization of all events of every class whatsoever that ever will come to pass. Foreordination is an act of the infinitely intelligent, foreknowing, righteous, and benevolent will of God from all eternity determining the certain futurition of all events of every class whatsoever that comes to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the certain futurition of events, while foreordination makes them certainly future. Socinians admit that the foreknowledge and the foreordination of God are co-extensive, but they limit both such events in creation and providence as God has determined to do by His own immediate agency, or to bring about through necessity. They deny that God has ever foreordained or foreknown the voluntary action of free agents, which from the very nature, are contingent, and not objects of knowledge until after their occurrence."

He spoke yesterday about me believing that God moved us around like a checker on a checkerboard. That shows that is what he believes. He said that God knew nothing about Adam as a sinner until after he sinned. What is the position of the Arminians on this subject? The Arminians agree with the Socinians in denying that God foreordained the voluntary acts of free agents or in any way whatsoever determines them beforehand to be certainly future. But they differ from the Socinians and agree with us in holding that the certain foreknowledge of God extends equally to all events, as well as to those in their nature contingent, as to those produced by second causes acting under the law of necessity. They hold that He foresees with absolute certainty from all eternity the futurition of the free actions of moral agents, and that He embraces and adjusts them in His eternal plan-which plan embraces all things, the free action of moral agents as simply foreseen, and the action of necessary agents as absolutely foreordained." "They hold that He foresees with absolute certainty from all eternity the futurition of the free action"-. That is what he meant by sitting down here yesterday and getting up. He could do as he pleased about it; that he is free. "And that He embraces and adjusts them in His eternal plan; which plan embraces all things, the free actions of moral agents as simply foreseen, and the actions of necessary agents as absolutely foreordained." "Necessary agents" mean our eternal salvation. That is the way I take it.

Now, I am going to show you what the Calvinist doctrine is: "Calvinist admits that the all-comprehensive decree of God determines all events according to their inherent nature, the actions of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary causes, necessarily. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects of every kind; of the motives and conditions of free action, as well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed salvation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act He decreed the fate of those persons whose salvation He has determined. 'Whom He did predestinate, them He also called.' Thus, His decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free agency of man, as well as the regular procedure of nature, according to established laws. Thus, also His covenant or conditional promises, which He makes in time, are in all their parts the execution of His eternal purpose, which comprehended the promise, and the condition in their several places as means to the end. But that the decree of God can be regarded as suspended upon conditions which are not themselves determined by the decree is evidently impossible." That is what I have been telling you; that it is impossible for you to walk in the steps of obedience unless the Lord enables you so to do. "The Lord worketh in you." He evaded that argument. He used the 12th verse, where he gets right off his apple cart, but he doesn't tell us what kind of cart he gets on or needs to be on, I should say, because he says, "For it is God that worketh in you both the will and to do His own good pleasure."

Now, I want to say, my friends, that I have answered all that he has said. As far as going over all other Scriptures, there is no need to go over them if I endorse every one that he said when he leaves his conditional time salvation. There is no use to deny them if I believe them. He makes it easy for me because he agrees with me. If he will just remove his little apple cart, we will sing the songs that we are ready to receive him with open arms. Possibly that is too much jesting, but it seems like I am forced to it.

Jas 5:13: "Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray. Is any among you merry? Let him sing songs." Why did he not say, "Let him keep the law" if your doctrine is correct? In other words, get on the apple cart. Any time any of you brethren are in the condition that James is speaking of here, when he said, Let him pray, if my opponent's position is true, all you have to do is get on the little apple cart. I will say that whenever it is time for you to pray and the Lord puts a prayer in your heart you cannot keep from praying to save your life. He believes that. Yes, he believes that. He knows that he cannot pray unless the Lord enables him to. He knows that. Then, my friends, I want to say that in praying, if there is a condition which he infers, but which it is not, if prayer is a condition, contingent-and you understand when I say "his little red cart" I don't mean to reflect on him. No, sir. It is just my way of expressing it. I can express it shorter by saying that if it is riding in his little red cart when it says, "If any among you be afflicted, let him pray"-if he bows down to where his hips stood two feet beneath the floor, if the Lord will not enable him to pray " he will never pray until Gabriel blows his trumpet. He can't. Paul says, "We know not how to pray as we ought." "If any man thinketh he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." "Without me, ye can do nothing." And Jesus, the blessed Son of God of heaven and immortal glory said while He was here, "I can of my own self do nothing." Is he bigger than Christ? Can he get on his apple cart any time he is ready? Jesus said, "I can of mine own self do nothing." That is what "conditional" means, that you can do it of yourself. That is what the word implies. He tried to give me a lesson or two with these new teeth about how to pronounce the word "categorically." I want to say this, my friends. I have had too much to say about that categorically dilemma that he is in. I have had too much to say about it; and I want to say, my friends, that the same thing goes with every spiritual exhortation of God's people. You cannot take heed unless the Lord works in you both the will and to do of His own good pleasure. No, sir, you cannot take heed. You cannot sanctify yourself as a clean vessel unless the Lord enables you to do so, and I want to say to you that he has quit saying "conditionally" because he knows that I am waiting for him. He knows that I have the trap set. He knows good and well that he is already in it and the door has already closed, and he knows it is not very long until day-light and the master of the trap will come along.

1Th 1:6: "And ye become followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost." They receive it in much affliction. Why do they? According to his statement, our sufferings and afflictions are conditional on us not living as we should. Can you live as you should? Do you always live as you should? Have you always lived as you should? I say that he cannot say that he has always lived as he should. As far as his duty and his obligations are concerned, he is just like me. He is full of shortcomings and I confess mine, my brethren. I don't want to charge that I am anything just about to sprout wings. I have never claimed that. No, sir, I don't want to say that. No, sir. Oftentimes, my friends, tears wet my pillow at night. Why? Because I know I am a sinner. I know that in me-that is, in my flesh-dwelleth no good thing, and, Oh, how I do wish, brethren and sisters, that I could live like I want to live. But it says "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary, the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would." You know that you have experienced that in your heart. You know that you cannot do the things that you would unless the Lord enables you to, even though he said, "To will is present with me." You are willing to do it, but how to perform it. You cannot find it, not unless the Lord leads you to it. So, coming right down to brass tacks, get off your little apple cart and acknowledge the salvation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, both for time and eternity. There is no other salvation. You cannot find it anywhere in the Book. Let us walk in the gospel of obedience which is a manifestation of all that salvation that the Lord works in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

So, we will next come to Heb 11:24-25: "By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction." I gave him the citation. I will not quote the rest of it. Here is where Moses chose affliction rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. He chose affliction. Someone says, "No, not according to Elder West. He just failed to comply with conditions." In other words, he just didn't sit down firmly in the little apple cart, and that is why he was afflicted.

Ac 20:23 says: "Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." I want to ask you this question, brethren. If bonds and "afflictions abide you, how can you miss them? How can you miss them? I don't care how many apple carts you have, I want to tell you right now that if bonds and afflictions abide you, you are going to share them. That is all there is to it, and I want to say, brethren and sisters, that I believe my brother knows good and well that all of these points which I am mentioning are correct, though in contradiction to his proposition.

In conclusion I want to say that a few minutes ago when I said that he said God did not know Adam until he sinned, I meant to have said that God didn't know him as a sinner until he had sinned. That is what Elder West said, and I don't want to misquote him and I am glad the brother called my attention to it, because I am sorry I said that.

Time expired.

02.13 ELDER WEST'S SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am again in your presence to affirm the proposition which you heard read. Our brother introduced, in his last speech, Webster, in defining an Arminian. I believe the record will show that after he read that definition, he said that he would be willing to withdraw that accusation which was implied.

Our brother has said that he objects to me using the word "Conditional." He has said that if I will leave my little cart, and that is the word "conditional," that he will shake hands with me on the argument debated. I don't believe I misrepresent him in that statement. But in turning here in his book, which is edited by A. A. Hodge, he defines Calvinism and he says that is what we believe. Let me read an expression which he read: "Thus His decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free agency of man, as well as the regular procedure of nature, according to established laws. Thus also His covenant or conditional promises." Now, if you believe that, then why object to me using the same expression? I am honest about this thing. If he believes it and Calvin said it, why does he object to me saying it? It is as broad as it is long. That is the rod that I am getting on my back. That is why I asked for the book.

ELDER RHODES: Will you read the next portion?

ELDER WEST: I will read the whole paragraph: "Calvinists admit that the all-comprehensive decree of God determines all events according to their inherent nature, the actions of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary causes, necessarily. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects of every kind; of the motives and conditions of free action, as well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed salvation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act He decreed the fate of those persons whose salvation He has determined. 'Whom he did predestinate, them he also called.' Thus His decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free agency of man, as well as the regular procedures of nature, according to established laws. Thus also His covenants or conditional promises, which He makes in time are in all their part the execution of His eternal purposes, which comprehended the promise, and the condition in their several places as means to the end." "Which He makes in time." Conditional in time. "But that the decree of God can be regarded as dependent upon conditions which are not themselves determined by the decree is evidently impossible." I am a Calvinist.

ELDER RHODES: So am I.

ELDER WEST: Theologically. Now, you don't object to the word "conditional" in that, do you? Do you object to the word "conditional" in that? That is your witness. I would never have known you had that unless you read it. Why in the world object to Ariel using the word "conditional" and then bring a witness and say that you believe what he says when he uses the same word? Yes, that trap is going to close in on me.

Now, we have to have a little fun as we go along or we will grow stale. He said the word "conditional," if I would leave it out, he would endorse everything, so that is what he endorses. We might just as well call it off, hadn't we, if you endorse that? If you endorse that, I don't see a bit of use in the world going any further with this debate, because that is exactly what my proposition says. Now, I am in earnest about this. It either says what I read or it doesn't say it.

I do not believe in conditional election. I do not believe that the atonement was made for all mankind. I do not believe, my brethren, an individual can fall away and finally be lost. I mean a child of God, after regeneration, born again, cannot fall away and be lost. I believe that every individual who preaches the gospel must have special grace to preach the gospel with. I believe that every individual that prays must have a special unction of prayer; and without the spirit of prayer, the individual cannot pray, even a child of God. But it is a child of God that does it upon what you said this morning, that he is responsible and he is not a graphophone, either. It is a child of God that does it. He is not a victrola. But the child of God that is active is a child of God that can feel, isn't it? Do victrolas feel? Do graphophones feel? Certainly not. Therefore, it is a child of God that has feeling, and the love of God in his heart to pray. But it is still the child of God who prays by the grace of God in his heart.

My proposition is true, because we are commanded to put on the whole armour of God that we might stand against the wiles of the devil. I had just begun to read, but did not get through, Eph 6:10-17. "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." It is the child of God, that is, after regeneration, who puts on the armour of God. Don't you believe that the child of God can put on the full armour of God? I believe that, my brother. I believe that he can do that with the help of the Lord, and by the grace of God. The child of God can do that, and I am glad that he can, and I am glad that the power of God enables him to do it and gives him the strength whereby he does it. I am going to say again that we are responsible here in this world for our lives as moral individuals. And being regenerated and born of the Spirit of God, translated from the kingdom of darkness into the life and liberty of the Son of God, that we, as individuals, as I have read from your book, are free as individuals, to keep the commandments of God and do the commandments of God. I believe that, with all of my heart and soul. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Therefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Now, you are to do that that you may stand in the evil day. In the evil day; put on the whole armour of God. I am not trying to appeal for sympathy, but I am going to say this: There is more consolation in belief of the omnipotence and power and goodness of God in this dark hour of distress to the children of God when they are actually serving the Lord. You can think in this dark hour that confronts us as men and women, one of the darkest hours that has ever been in the history of individuals, in the history of the world, my brother. Putting on the whole armour of God, loving one another, and keeping the commandments. It makes us feel better toward each other and helps us to prove the mutual feeling of confidence that we have in each other to lift up our eyes unto God and render praise in a church capacity to His holy and blessed name. Don't you tell me that the service of God is not worth something to the children of God. Let me tell you this, Brother Rhodes. I go to church many times, and when I go to church, I feel better because I went, and the reason I feel better is because I go, and I was saved from feeling badly by going. You don't object to that, do you? I was saved from feeling badly by going to church. Don't you feel better when you go to church? Now, if you don't feel better, will you please tell me why you ever go? Why do you ever make an attempt to preach the gospel if you don't feel better after you make the attempt? I know it is a discouraging road. I know that the road of God's servants is a rocky road. I know that the hills are high and the mountains are steep, and sometimes we will faint by the way. But I am going to tell you this, if we didn't get something out of the service of God, and God did not give us peace in our hearts for trying to strive to do His blessed holy will, we would quit. We would fall by the way. I am not talking now about going to hell. I believe every child of God under the sun within the sound of my voice-not dead, alien, sinners-I believe every child of God under the sound of my voice feels better because of going to church, and that is exactly what I am talking about-the child of God here in time. "Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace." Who is that? The child of God. God is a God of peace. God is a God of love, my brother, and so it is the duty of the child of God to walk in these things and to keep the commandments of God, and that is a time salvation, and I am going to say, according to what you believe there, a conditional time salvation. "Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Now, you do that. That is something that you do. But you have to have salvation before you can do it. You have to have salvation before you can work out anything. Why, he said that is the truth of the proposition. You know it. But it is the individual that works something out. Why? Because it is God that worketh in you. What is it that is in you? It is the Spirit of God in the individual's heart, and that is the prompting that causes that individual to want to do something. But it is him that does it. That is what Old Baptists believe. That is what Old Baptists have always taught. That is what we preach.

The proposition is true, because we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in baptism. Now, I didn't say we received the Holy Ghost in baptism. I said that we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in baptism. I believe that, don't you?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: He says that he does. All right, I am going to quote Ac 2:38. I am sure that you have heard this before if you have debated with those boys that I have in mind, without calling their names. Listen and see what the text says: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Who? "Every one of you." The individual who was a believer. Who was the believer? The individual who has already been regenerated, and born again. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you." He is talking to the child of God after regeneration. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name or Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." I am going to make an argument that may do you some good in meeting those boys the next time. Individuals are not baptized for the remission of sin. That is not what the text says. There never was anybody that was baptized to get their sins remitted. That is not what the text means. The word "Christ" is not a translated word, but it is a transliterated form, and the original word is "Christou." The "ou" is dropped in the transferred or transliterated form that we have today is Christ. Jesus, Christ Jesus. The equivalent of that in English is anointed. And Jesus was anointed for what? The remission of your sins. Who? You. The child of God after regeneration is commanded to be baptized that you might get what? Not the Holy Ghost, not eternal life, nor a home in heaven, but the joy, peace, and happiness of your soul in doing what the Lord has commanded, and that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. Not eternal life, but the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is what the child of God did receive, the gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe that when I was baptized I got the gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe I came out of the water happy, my brother. My father took me into the water and baptized me when I was nine years old. I believe if I ever was happy in my life, I came up out of the water happy, and I want to say that if I am what I profess to be as a child of God, it was the grace of God in my heart that gave me the want to be baptized. But I believe it was my father who went down into the water with me. I believe it was Ariel that went down in the water. I believe it was my father that buried me beneath the liquid wave and I believe it was Ariel West who felt better when he came up out of the water.

God's eternal truth will stand when the world is on fire, regardless of expressions of men. God's eternal truth will stand the test of ages and God is going to perpetuate it and carry on. If you fail to declare God's eternal truth, the great eternal God of heaven will raise up some other man who will not bow his knee to the image of Baal. We will take Cornelius' case. Let us look at Cornelius a minute. He was a child of God before the preacher ever got to him, but there was one thing he didn't tell. He didn't feel the joy and the peace and the consolation of my proposition that belonged to him in the gospel. He was a devout man. He prayed to God continually. He had righteous thoughts and righteous intentions, but he prayed to God because-listen to him-his prayer came up as a memorial before God. That was his prayer, the fervent prayer of a child of God, "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much." That was a righteous man. My brother, I am going to tell you that Peter had a dream. What did the Lord have him dream when Peter had that dream? Peter was dreaming-he was asleep. Listen to him. He said: "Arise." Who? He told Peter to arise. Why? For the purpose of going down yonder-I am not going to deal with all of that; because it is not necessary, but "Arise." Why? Because there is a child of God down there needing the gospel to be preached. "Arise." But Peter said, "No, not so, Lord. Nothing common and unclean at any time ever entered into my mouth." What happened? Read Ac 11:14: "Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." He was already a child of God. He did not need spiritual life, but I will tell you what he did need: He needed saving from darkness and distress, that he might enjoy the joys of his salvation while living here in the world. That is what he needed.

The proposition is true, because a child of God is justified by his works. Not justified by his works before regeneration. Certainly not. He cannot even work in spiritual things before regeneration. Jas 2:17-26: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without works is dead?" This is talking about gospel faith. It is not talking about the faith in Eph 2:8. There is more than one phase of faith. I am not telling you that there is more than one faith, but there is more than one phase of faith. A child of God has faith, here in this world, in God, but when that faith that saves the individual-it is the saving faith, the faith of God that saves the individual. The faith of God saves the individual in heaven. It will be the faith of God and not the faith of the creature, and that is why he says, "By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourself; it is the gift of God." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, He has saved us." Whose faith? The faith of God. Somebody said, "Why God hasn't any faith." But see if He has not. I am not saying my brother here says that, but some folks say that. "But shall our unbelief make the faith of God of no effect? No, in no wise: So, my brother, it shall not make His faith of no effect. He saves individuals and gives them eternal life here in time according to His purpose, and by the grace of God, and it is the child of God capacitated to perform works of righteousness in the house of God. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" He was not a dead, alien, sinner at all. Abraham was a child of God. He was an individual that had been raised from a state of death in sin to a state of life in Christ. This individual was the father of Israel, so here is Abraham, the father of that nation. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Yes. You believe in justification by works, then, don't you? The works of the child of God and not the works of dead, alien, sinners, don't you? Then, we are not as far apart as you thought we were. "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." That is what Old Baptists contend for. That is what Old Baptists believe, but they do not believe you can do that without faith. You can't even work without faith, but with faith you can work. There is not anything bad about that, is there? "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

All right, I will pass on to my affirmative arguments. A child of God will die on account of his iniquity. Now, right here is where you ought to have started following me with some of those things that you introduced here yesterday afternoon, but you can do it over again, and I will answer you in my next speech. A child of God will die on account of his iniquity, but if the child of God will turn from his wickedness, he shall save his soul, in the sense of my proposition; that is not a home heaven, either. Eze 18:26-30: "When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die."

That doesn't mean to go down to a devil's hell. He is not talking about that. That man has already been in righteousness, "but if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die, but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." That is a child of God. A child of God does that. "Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive."

Is that a dead, alien, sinner? No, but it is the child of God that saves his soul alive.

Time expired.

02.14 ELDER RHODES' SEVENTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am before you again to resume my negative argument. I want to say that I am glad it is this way. I think our people are beginning to enjoy this. My brother has been preaching the Old Baptist doctrine. He has been proving it by the Scriptures. I would just about as soon have his scrapbook as mine. But he has not been preaching conditional time salvation. He has taken every precaution to tell you that the Lord had to enable you to do it. Now, he has been doing some good preaching. I am not making fun of him or casting sarcasm. I mean what I say. He has been doing some good preaching and proving it by the Bible. I wonder if he thinks that I will deny that. That is not his proposition. His proposition is for him to prove conditional time salvation. Now, there is no use for me to go on with the whole harangue all the afternoon, when I have been nodding my head at nearly everything he has said.

I believe I will mention the last verse he gave as new argument in Eze 18. He took heed to tell you that was the child of God under consideration, and that he would die in his wickedness if he did not return from his wickedness-that he would surely die.. I believe that also. But I want to say this, beloved friends, that if he commits iniquity-and a lot of children of God do, to the extent that they die from the fellowship of the church-from the fellowship of the saints, and from the joys that they are blessed therein-if the Lord doesn't enable them to turn from that wickedness, they will never, never, never turn, and he says you cannot do it without the Lord. I say so, too. What is the use of going over everything like that? I see no use in that. He just preached you a good sermon.

He mentioned about those conditions in what he read from the book. It was talking about the things that he is calling "conditional"-if he is a mind to call them conditional-if he will make them a part of the "all things" that God appointed, he can call them what he may. It doesn't make any difference to me what he calls them, but as long as he emphasizes this little red wagon and it is contained in his proposition-I believe your graces by which you do these-I believe they are foreordained and predestined. I believe they are decreed. I believe they are purposed and all of those things.

Now, he said the, children of God are justified by works. That is true. That is Bible. Do you think that I would deny that? Do you think that I want to? Do you think I signed a proposition to deny that? Did I sign a proposition to deny that God's people are justified in the sense of the saving graces of the gospel by works? No, sir. But what kind of works? Is he going out here somewhere and try to save a soul? Is it out here somewhere helping some poor sick person just because you want your name in the papers? It is the justification by the works of the grace and faith of Almighty God in the heart of His people. This faith works by love and purifies the heart and overcomes the world and gives you that ability through the leadership of Almighty God to walk in the steps of that faith.

Brother West, I believe, in, all sincerity, that you can see how near that you have gotten to me and how far you have gotten from asserting the full emphasis of this little cart. If you will just allow me to call it a little cart, because I am sincere about it, and only use that term to illustrate it and not to laugh. If he will just get rid of that little cart, we can go right on down the pike together. He has been doing some good preaching. I hope that you brethren and sisters, could see the Scripturalness and the fervency of the Spirit of God. I want to say, my brother, that I am glad to see you come out on this question. I cannot but believe, to save my life, that if you understand your proposition as it is defined to me, I cannot believe that you believe it. I don't believe that you believe it. Not that I am charging you with being unintelligent or insincere, but I do not believe that he understands what he is trying to teach, and I am not reflecting on his intelligence.

The joy and peace of Cornelius. Well, if he will take the conditional time out of it, that is what Cornelius needed, and that is what he got. He made the argument on baptism, that you receive the Holy Ghost in baptism: Yes, sir, the Bible plainly states that.

ELDER WEST: The gift of the Holy Ghost.

ELDER RHODES: That is what I mean. Ac 2:38. I have looked at that. I think he has been given to a little of my weakness. I think he has been debating a little with Uncle Alex' boys, and of course, they always pull you over this Ac 2:38. I want to say, brethren and, sisters, that a lot of people came to baptism in those days that if they had ducked them a dozen times they would not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost, would they? No, sir. I am not even going to let you get in your little cart there, no, sir. The gift of the Holy Ghost is not because of baptism, nor because of your own initiative. But what is it? It is like I told an opponent of mine in the last discussion I had with him. He was a very intelligent fellow and a good man-a sincere man. I said that my opponent reminded me of a man who was hungry for fruit; that he went out in the orchard and opened his knife, but instead of reaching up and taking the fruit off the tree and peeling it, he stooped down in the clear sunshine and tried to pick up the shadow of an apple on the ground. I want to say, beloved friends, that baptism is only an answer to a good conscience. If you haven't a good conscience it might be a little more trouble, but if you haven't a good conscience, you might as well baptize a hog. It might be a little harder for you, but you might just as well baptize a hog.

I believe I would just as soon swap scrapbooks with him as any other if he will just cut conditional out. He quit yesterday before this time on this proposition of conditional salvation-and I would just about as soon have his scrapbook as mine if he is quoting everything that he has in it.

He said that he wasn't a graphophone. I haven't said that he was a graphophone, but I want to say this. A graphophone never played a tune in its life without something enabling it to do so, and in that sense of the word you will never sing one ounce of spirituality unless the Spirit of God enables you to do it.

Resist the devil. If the Lord enables you to do it, yes; if, He doesn't enable you, your little red cart will not enable you.

Put on the whole armour of God. If the Lord enables you to, you can do that. If He doesn't enable you to, you will never have on the undershirt of it, nor any portion of it.

I am just answering him. That is all I have to do. He said it was better for fellows to go to church: Well, I am going to differ with him just a little bit about that. I have gone to church sometimes when, instead of feeling better, I felt worse. I don't know whether that is the experience of all of you or not, but I have gone to church and sat and listened to what I knew was a good discourse and could just stretch my hand clear to the back of my neck, trying to get something out of it while I could see tears running down the faces of those in the congregation which I knew they were feeling, and I couldn't do it to save my life. I guess, though, they had their little red cart and I didn't have mine. I guess that was the reason why. I have gone in many a time, brethren, when it seemed to me I would sink through the floor because I felt my sense of unworthiness, and. depravity, if you please, and to my surprise, brethren, when the glorious gospel of God our Saviour begins to fall from the lips of his humble minister, it seemed that my heart was melting into tears, and I was humbled down before Him, and now there is rejoicing in my soul.

Brethren and sisters, I want to say that if it were due to a little red cart, and you could teach me how to use that little red cart that I am talking about, I would be glad to do it. And yet, there are other times, brethren, that I have gone to the stand when it seemed like I was as heavy as a bag of sand. It seemed like I would sink, for I felt my unworthiness and inability, and maybe I would have to sit down that day. It was because I didn't have my little red cart. Oh, brethren and sisters, no, sir. That is not it. It is ordained for our good. We must suffer afflictions. We must suffer disappointment and things of that kind. I want to just relate a little personal circumstance. I was baptized in 1914, and I was the youngest man in all the country, and one of the things I felt why I hadn't joined the church earlier, it seemed that I was too young. I was too unfit. I was too vile and sinful to belong to His people. I saw them as old and grayheaded and Christ-like, and I couldn't picture myself being good enough to belong to them. But, friends, when I couldn't stay away any longer, brethren, let me say that if any of you jumped into the little red cart and could go to church just when you wanted to, that is all right, but I am talking for myself. But I wanted to go. Something said to me-the very quotation of Scripture from Timothy which says, "Let no man despise thy youth" -so much so that I couldn't sleep. I couldn't think of anything else. I got up and hunted it. "Let no man despise thy youth." I began preaching, if I ever preached, and I will say, my brother, if I ever preached, I don't know it. I will let you be the judge of that. But when I began to preach, the brethren began to come from far and near and began to send for me. Why? They ought to have known better than that. They were so glad. That was why they did it. They didn't know what a lesson I was going to get out of it. I didn't feel like that I could preach without the Lord, but I thought that He would always be present to take care of it for me. That was just what I thought about it. And I went on that way for about three months before I had any likeness of liberty. I had as good liberty the first day I entered the stand as I have ever had since, God bless His holy and righteous name. He enabled me to preach brethren, to my satisfaction, the very first time. But when this church sent for me to come and preach to them, I went there and they already had preaching going on. They all came out and almost worshipped me, and I went on in, and they put me up, and I couldn't preach a lick. I couldn't think of a line. I couldn't think of a single Scripture, no, sir. I want to say, brethren, I thought that my preaching was all over with, and I have thought so many, many times. I am not going to agree with him on that point. I don't always feel good in going to meetings and things of that kind. I sure have not always felt good in staying away, either. So, I had rather go.

I spent a miserable day in Dallas, Texas, during the Centennial. I was in the legislature of Louisiana and I spent the most miserable day I ever spent in my life in Dallas. I could not be at my church appointment and be there also, and that was so dead and so dull and so dry to me, brethren, that I just couldn't appreciate it. But I was over there, and my church was over here.

He said not to tell him that we don't get something from God's service. We do. I am not denying that, but we don't get what he calls conditional time salvation out of it. It is not conditional, brethren. It is salvation manifested in time.

He said, that is what he preached-Ac 2:38. I have already endorsed that. Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Abraham was justified by works. Thus, Abraham was justified by works, just like I have already said and when I nodded my head to him all the way through. I have no argument along that particular line.

La 3:26: "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord." Now, is this the salvation of the Lord, or is it that little red cart? "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord." If it is good for him, then do not tell us to get in a hurry and get into the little cart and take a spin. "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord." I want to say, brethren and sisters, this is as plain a passage of Scripture against him as I have ever seen in this conditional time salvation proposition. It is up to you to do it or let it alone. If it is up to you to do it or let it alone, why sit down and quietly wait? The Old Baptists are often accused of sitting on a stool of do nothing. I want to say, beloved friends, as far as what the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did for them, they are the only ones that stool belongs to. It belongs to them. The Lord gives it to them. But when it is His will for them to be up and walking in the steps of obedience, in gospel obedience, He will lead them forth. Let us see. It says, "They shall come." I want to prove something about that stool. "They shall come from the east and west; the north and the south, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." They shall come and shall sit down in the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord." That is the only kind of salvation there is. No other kind is mentioned in the Book. He can look for conditional time salvation, as much as he pleases. You can call these graces and qualifications and these steps of obedience if you want to-you can call them conditions if you will tell me that they are all embraced and appointed of God, and I will have no objection to that, not a bit. I do not want to split hairs over the truth.

Now, I have an argument here that I wanted to make in rebuttal to what he has had to say on these things:

"For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of' my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." I want to know, my brother, if you don't mind telling me in your next speech, what word of God this is. "My word shall go forth out of my mouth. It shall not return unto me void, but shall accomplish that which I please and prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." I want to ask you if the word of the Lord has gone out and has designed to accomplish the salvation of His people in every gospel sense. I want to ask you if it doesn't do that. If not, it will return to Him void, won't it? It will do that. So, then do you want to place this conditional yoke on the brethren? But I want to show how, my brethren and sisters, that the Bible teaches the word of the Lord, and I am going to say that this word doesn't mean Jesus Christ right here. It means the word that goes forth out of the mouth of God through all of His apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ, and the Psalmist David. Yes, His words shall go forth out of His mouth and it shall not return unto Him void.

Lu 19:9: "And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham." What kind of salvation was it? Was it in time? Yes, it was in time, but was it conditional? That is all that I need to ask him.

Ac 4:12. I believe I have already quoted that. "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven among men, whereby we must be saved."

Second Corinthians vii. 10: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death." Now, I want to say, my beloved friends, that the Lord works these things.

1Th 5:8-9: "But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation." I told you. I had just as soon have his scrapbook as mine. There it is. There it is, brethren. While he was burning kerosene and electricity, I was burning mine, and here is exactly the same argument. It is exactly the same. He has quit his little cart. He has quit his little cart and hasn't mentioned it. He is leaving it off entirely. Maybe the bearings are burning out.

2Th 2:13: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Yes, God has chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Regardless of the fact that your little red cart may often turn over, I am glad, brethren and sisters, that we get all of the blessings of God from the bountiful hands of God, our Saviour, through the Lord Jesus Christ; so, it is not going to fail any of His saints.

Titus ii. 11: "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly righteously, and godly, in this present world." That is the same argument. He has already quoted it to me. If he will keep his little cart out of the back way or turn it over to Santa Claus for the Arminians-l am not saying that reflectively-but I think what I have shown that he is somewhat inclined, at least, toward Arminianism-but if he will back that little cart out and turn it over to Santa Claus, we can keep our scrapbooks and use them.

Heb 1:14: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" Who shall be heirs of salvation? If the receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost in baptism is under consideration, I believe it is the same salvation. They are just as sure to get it as there is a God on His throne.

Here it is, Elder West: "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" I want to say this: If the grace of God is in your soul and the Spirit of God is operating in your heart, I want to say that you will not neglect this salvation; but if you turn to your little so-called apple cart, you will be neglecting it. You will be neglecting so great a salvation. Yes, Jesus is our great salvation, worthy of our best esteem. Let us cleave to that.

Jude, He writes to us about the common salvation. The most uncommon salvation I ever heard of in my life is conditional time salvation. It is not even mentioned one time in all of the Bible. It is the most uncommon salvation that I know of. What is the common salvation? The common salvation is the salvation of God, which is the Lord Jesus Christ; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, these three are one." So, then, Jesus is our common salvation; yes, sir, He is our common salvation. He is the one that grace was stored in from before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before God in love, having predestinated us, unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, and, not according to anybody's apple cart.

Now, brethren, I want to say that this is a serious matter. This is really a serious matter, and we have boiled it down to where there is just one word between us, and he knows it. There is just one word. I don't have any objection to him saying salvation manifested here in time. That is what we say. We just speak it out, wide open, and don't care who knows it. We know it is the truth. It is according to the Bible, but I say again, if you will get rid of the stress that you put on the word "conditional," and will say that God appoints, all of it, and they are sure and cannot fail, I assure you that I will do my dead level best to come to your house. I am doing my best to do it.

Time expired.

02.15 ELDER WEST'S EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

I am before you to make the last speech that I shall make in this discussion. I am going here to read the proposition and give the definition to that proposition. He just about got on the apple cart with me in his last speech.

ELDER RHODES: I tried to.

ELDER WEST: And the very thing that he got on was my apple cart. He can call it a cart, or whatever he wishes, but that is what he got on.

"The Scriptures teach that the salvation of God's people here in time after regeneration is conditional." That proposition doesn't say a thing in the world-you have been putting stress on "conditional time salvation" and claiming it that way, and it doesn't have the phrase that you object to. He has been miswording my proposition. Now, when you reply to that, I will not have another reply coming, but you will make yourself ridiculous. "The Scriptures teach that the salvation of God's people here in time after regeneration is conditional on them living up to Scriptural requirements. Also their sufferings and afflictions are conditional on them not living as they are commanded." The same "conditional" here is the same conditional in your book that you say you believe.

By the Scriptures, I mean the Old and New Testament.

By "teach," I mean to impart knowledge to; to instruct, to inform, to give instruction. Do you believe that is what the Bible teaches? You believe that, don't you? Yes, I believe you believe that.

By the word "salvation'" in the proposition, I mean much of their joy, peace, and happiness in the service of God. You believe that, too, from a manifest standpoint, don't you?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: All right. By "God's People," I mean those who are His by covenant. You believe that, too, don't you?

ELDER RHODES: Yes, I believe that.

ELDER WEST: All right, by "here in time," I mean by that duration to which they exist as born again individuals here in the world. You believe that, don't you?

By "after regeneration," I mean after being born of the Spirit-born again. That is what regeneration is, born from above. Don't you believe that, too?

By "is conditional," I mean those things which have served the dependence of one categorical proposition on another. Didn't you say that we had it if we depended upon the grace of God?

ELDER RHODES: That's right.

ELDER WEST: So we are agreed on that.

ELDER RHODES: Not the apple cart, though.

ELDER WEST: That is all that I ever contended for; that it was the grace of God who gives the incentive, the motive, and only by the grace of God that we are children of God could render obedience to His name here in the world. You believe that, don't you? All right, what is the difference on that?

ELDER RHODES: Not conditional, though.

ELDER WEST: By "on them living," I mean by the way the child of God conforms his or her life. You believe that, don't you? A child of God can conform his life by the grace of God and through the help of the Lord. You believe that, don't you?

ELDER RHODES: Yes.

ELDER WEST: Why, of course, you believe that. And on this morning you said that you believed that folks suffered for what? Let us see exactly what he said. I want to quote it exactly. He said they suffered for their correction and instruction. And you believe that, don't you? Yes. All right, so that is the end of that. That is the proposition defined and you agree with me on every definition of the proposition.

Ac 2:38: I will say exactly as you, my brother, unless the individual has got the grace of God in his heart, you might just as well baptize a billy-goat, because without the grace of God the individual would be the same dead, alien, sinner that he was, and so, baptism never could make a child of God of him.

ELDER RHODES: It would never give him any joy, either.

ELDER WEST: No, sir; not a bit in the world. That is after regeneration. The only time that you can get it is after regeneration.

Now, I am going to turn over here and read from Lamentations iii. 26. Our brother has quoted that. I am reading the 26th verse and the one just below that. "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord," Well, who it is that shall wait quietly and hope? Is it the child of God?

ELDER RHODES: That's right.

ELDER WEST: All right, that is spiritual life. Well, there is no difference between us.

ELDER RHODES: Only the apple cart.

ELDER WEST: That is the same apple cart that you had in your book that you said you believed, and my apple cart is just as good as the one in your book. What is the difference in an apple cart, anyway? You said that you believed that one in there, so why do you object to mine when they are both the same apple cart? He objects to my apple cart, which is just like his. I have as much right to my apple cart as you have to yours.

ELDER RHODES: I would rather you keep it.

ELDER WEST: "The Lord is good unto them that wait for Him, to the soul that seeketh Him. The Lord is my portion, saith my soul; therefore, will I hope in Him. The Lord is good unto them that wait for Him, to the soul that seeketh Him." Who? That individual who has hope; and without grace, and without hope, he cannot seek.

Brother Rhodes said that I get closer to him all the time. The trouble with Brother Rhodes is that he is just getting closer to me all the time.

"Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgression that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, the way of the Lord is not equal. 0 house of Israel, are not my ways equal? Are not your ways unequal?" That is the children of God. "Everyone according to his ways," saith the Lord. "Repent." Who? The child of God, after regeneration. "And turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin."

My proposition is true, because those who do not obey the Lord suffer. Eze 7:1,9. I am not talking, my brother, about the suffering that comes from Adam; but I will ask you again, my friend, if any individual would have ever suffered if the commandment had been kept, in the first place, back yonder in the garden of Eden?

ELDER RHODES: There wouldn't have been any to suffer.

ELDER WEST: "There wouldn't have been any to suffer." So, we are going on just a little more with that. We are talking about the sufferings and chastisements that the Lord causes His people to suffer and that He beats them with the rod when they do not do the things that He has commanded them as his children do. "Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Also thou Son of man, thus saith the Lord God unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations." For their abominations He will punish them. It is the purpose of God that He will punish His people for their abominations. He did not predestinate their abominations, but He did suffer their abominations, and He whipped them for their abominations. That is what the text says, and that is God's eternal truth. He didn't purpose that sinners should sin, but I will tell you what He did do. He foreknew that sinners would sin, and He predestinated to save His people from their sins, and they will be landed in heaven and immortal glory because He did predestinate to save them from their sins. That is the doctrine of God's Book. That is the doctrine of God's Bible. That is the doctrine of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is rightly divided, too, sir; and sir, I hope it is, anyway, according to my understanding, it is. "And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee." "I will recompense thy ways upon thee." They are going to suffer for their ways. "God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." I am going to quote that over again. I am going to say that it takes an individual that has been born of the Spirit of God, that has been born to the spiritual things, and just as sure as that individual who has been born of the Lord sows spiritual things just that sure he is going to reap them; and Just as sure as a child of God sows to his flesh here in this world, he is going to reap of the flesh; and the things he IS going to reap of the flesh is sorrow, afflictions, and tribulations. I am not saying all tribulations. I am not saying all sufferings and afflictions, but in my proposition as defined by me on yesterday morning and has been defined today. "All sufferings and afflictions" is not in there. The word "all" is not in there. He says "suffering and affliction." There is some suffering and affliction that is not caused but some other suffering and affliction are caused. "Thus saith the Lord God; an evil, an only evil, behold, is come. An end is come, the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come. The morning is come unto thee, 0 thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains." Now, listen to the Lord: "Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee; and I will judge thee according to thy ways." He is not going to judge folks in eternity according to their ways. Individuals aren't going to be judged in heaven according to their ways, but here is where He says, according to the word-and there is no man who can take the negative of that and stay out of Arminianism to save his life. And I had just as soon believe Arminianism as your doctrine. I don't believe either of them. I believe what this Book says. "Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee; and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations. And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the Lord that smiteth." "And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity." If that is not suffering, I don't know what you call it. If that is not affliction, I don't know what to call it. It is just a fearful thing. Either way that you want to go to fall in the hands of a living God. "And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the Lord that smiteth." That is what He is going to do to the child of God who forsakes His ways, and keeps not His commandments.

I will read to you again the Scriptural citation in Ps 89:30-32: "If His children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes."

The Lord promised suffering and affliction to His people because they had defiled His sanctuary. Eze 5:11-17: "Wherefore, as I live, saith the Lord God; Surely, because thou hast defiled my sanctuary with all thy detestable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will I also diminish thee; neither shall mine eye spare, neither will I have any pity." Why? What condition? "Because thou hast defiled my sanctuary." That is what it says. "A third part of thee shall die with the pestilence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst of thee: and a third part shall fall by the sword round about thee; and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them. Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted: and they shall know that I the Lord have spoken it in my zeal, when I have accomplished my fury in them. Moreover I will make thee waste, and a reproach among the nations that are round about thee, in the sight of all that pass by. So it shall be a reproach and a taunt, and instruction and an astonishment unto the nations that are round about thee, when I shall execute judgments in thee in anger and in fury and in furious rebukes. I the Lord have spoken it. When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you: and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread." If that is not affliction and suffering, I would like to know what you call it. I wonder where you will find affliction and suffering if that is not it. "So I will send upon you; famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee. I the Lord have spoken it." For what reason? Because thou hast defiled my sanctuary and brought these detestable things into my sanctuary, I will do that to you. Who? The Lord. There is suffering and affliction. So, my proposition is true, by his own admission.

My proposition is true, because we are afflicted for our disobedience. Lamentations i. 3 to 5: "Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude: she dwelleth among the heathen, she findeth no rest: all her persecutors over took her between the straits. The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to the solemn feasts: all her gates are desolate: her priests sigh, her virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness. Her adversaries are the chief, her enemies prosper; for the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions." There is the proposition proved. The Book of God says He afflicted them for their transgressions. Don't you believe that, Elder Rhodes? You believe that, don't you?

Brother Rhodes, I ask you, candidly and honestly, and not in sarcasm-don't you believe that?

ELDER RHODES: I believe the text; yes.

ELDER WEST; My proposition stands, because there is no other construction to put on it. The Lord shall afflict thee for thy transgression. You cannot put any other construction on what it says.

Do you know the reason he doesn't want to admit my construction? He knows that they just as well tear this thing down. These Old Baptists here should get together and cut off this foolishness. They ought not to have ever been apart. My folks ought not to have ever been apart, sir. If they had stayed with these Bible terms that we are trying to use in this discussion, they would never have been driven apart. It was something that was not in the Bible that separated our people. It wasn't something in the Bible that separated our people, but something that was not in the Bible that separated them.

The instruction was brought to the poor children of God in this world. I am not going to charge ungodly division to God Almighty either. I am not going to say that God caused it. I am not going to say that it couldn't have been otherwise. If these fellows had behaved themselves it could have been otherwise, and would have been otherwise. This ungodly division brought about among the Baptists.

I am going to read just a little bit from First Corinthians the fifteenth chapter, and bring my remarks to a close. I believe you folks know that I have enjoyed this discussion. I have enjoyed it. I will tell you, frankly, my brother, I felt the presence of the Lord, if I ever felt it in my life, in this discussion. I have said some things that weren't pleasant for me to say, but regardless of that, I felt the presence of the Lord. I don't say that for sympathy or demand sympathy, Brother Ethridge. I am willing to die for what I contend for here. "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 0 death, where is thy sting? 0 grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." We receive a victory through the Lord Jesus Christ. "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable." That is what the child of God is commanded to do. That applies to you folks who are members of Brother Rhodes' faction down here, just as well as it applies to my folks. I have seen some of the evidence here that some of you are children of God. I actually love some of you. I want you to know that I love some of you. Some of you have come to me and talked to me on the grounds here, and I know that you have faith in your hearts, and you have received a victory, and my brethren have received a victory, and we have received a victory; that is why we are commanded "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." The word "abounding" means to be abundant in the work of the Lord. Not to turn to the right or the left, but press forward and lay aside what? Every weight and the sin that doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. That is Old Baptist doctrine. That is the doctrine of the Bible and the doctrine I try to preach. That is the doctrine I loved when I was a small boy. It is the doctrine of grace that I love now. It is the doctrine of grace that I want to die on, giving God the honor and glory of our salvation while we live in the world, and, my brother, finally, we will get to that eternal home, because our victory is in Christ.

May God bless and keep you is my prayer in Jesus' name.

Time expired.

02.16 ELDER RHODES' EIGHTH NEGATIVE

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Before I begin my concluding address I can say of a truth that I have enjoyed this debate, regardless of some of the unpleasantness that has come, which I feel in a sense has cast some reflection on this discussion. But I have enjoyed it, regardless of that.

Now, he spoke of my apple cart, and I told him in my last speech that his decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free agency of man. I claimed all the way through that God did not take Adam by the hair of the head and shove him into the tree; that he acted with his own will and his own mind. * * *

He said that we have been coming closer and closer. That's right. Ever since he left conditional time salvation we have been coming closer and closer. You couldn't hardly tell our scrapbooks apart and if I didn't know that he belonged to the other faction-if some of our members would go into his home church and hear him preach as he has here this evening, we would say, "What a wonderful young preacher that is preaching for us, who preached that doctrine so sweet and fervent and so full of spiritual truth ever since he left his little apple cart." But if he were there with his little apple cart, he would have to leave it or in just a few minutes he would meet plenty of opposition.

He said that nobody would be judged according to their ways in eternity. I sort of thought he was mistaken about that, but I am not allowed to bring in new proof from the text to prove it. I think that everybody not regenerated in this life will be judged according to their works.

Chastisement. Yes, we receive chastisement for our good. We don't whip our children just because we think It feels good to them. We chastise them for their good-for their correction and for their instruction; for their benefit.

He preached some pretty good predestination in this last speech. I believe if this thing would go on for another week that by that time, maybe, his apple cart would run dry, sure enough, and he would be preaching predestination right along.

Recompense your ways. That is true. The Lord does recompense our ways, as taught in Ezekiel, but He said to turn-He talks to them about turning from the evil of their ways, and David, I believe it was, said, "Turn me, 0 Lord, and I shall be turned."

Now, because they defiled His sanctuary, He is going to pour out His judgments upon them. He is going to do this, that, and the other. That is true. He is going to do that, and I want to say, my brother, that I believe that just the same as you do. But, if you remember, this was the children of God under the Mosaic law, and He did exactly what He said He would do. But we are no longer under the law, but under grace, where Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

He said if we would preach Bible terms there never would have been any division. But he would have to leave his apple cart out of it, because it certainly is not in the Bible. He knows it is not in the Bible, and these good intelligent brethren and sisters know it is not. They know it is not in the Bible. Conditional time salvation is not in the Bible. Who is guilty of preaching terms not in the Bible, according to this proposition that my brother has been affirming here for the past two days? You know the Scriptures say, "By thy mouth thou shalt be condemned," and he said it was preaching terms that are not in the Bible that divided us. I say, Amen. That is exactly what did it, and conditional time salvation is not in the Bible.

First Corinthians xv. "We shall have put on incorruption." I don't know what he is trying to set forth, whether he is trying to set forth conditional salvation or not; but if that is what he has in mind, I want to say just one thing.

ELDER WEST (interrupting): I beg your pardon, Brother Rhodes. I have no chance to reply to you. I began to read up there to get to the text, "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast."

ELDER RHODES: "Be ye steadfast." Jesus said, "Without me, ye can do nothing." Being steadfast would be something, wouldn't it? Does that mean that you can be steadfast conditionally, or leave it off conditionally? If it does, it doesn't say so.

Now, I want to stop right where the Bible stops and begin where it begins, and if you will show me-and I have begged him here for two days to show me where conditional time salvation is taught in the Scripture. He has had a long time. I opened this negative argument with Ac 4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." The only name. Is "conditional" another name? Are we going to get salvation from the apple cart? That is another name. It is the only name under heaven or among men whereby we must be saved, and I believe he feels the rebuke of it.

We made the argument where it says that "Him being delivered by the foreknowledge and determinate counsel, ye by wicked hands have taken, crucified, and slain the Lord of glory." I am going to say that unless the Lord prayed something that was not the truth-and I don't believe He did-no, I am not allowed to bring that in. That is a new text. I don't want to take any advantage of my opponent at all. But, anyway, he hasn't proved a single text on conditional time salvation; not with one single text.

"Be ye steadfast and unmovable." If the Lord enables you to be steadfast by His grace, nothing can move us. Nothing. And I am going to tell you, brethren and sisters and friends, that I am glad that there is a God who is supreme in heaven above and on the earth beneath, in the seas and in all deep places. I am glad that He holds the curtain of the seas in His hands. I am glad that He controls all things. I am glad that He has all power, and I want to say, my friends, whatever is necessary for His children here in this world, or whatever He has appointed them in the way of joys and pleasures and satisfaction and graces, it will all take effect; every bit of it will take effect. I am not one bit afraid under the sun of any of it going astray. It was given us; not given Him to give us, but it was given us in Him before the foundation of the world. Grace was given us in Him before the foundation of the world; and I want to say, brethren and sisters, with all due respect to whatever my opponent may have meant by his proposition, with due respect to everything that he thought he had a right to say, I say that he has absolutely fallen down on his proof of the proposition. He has fallen flat of bringing one single passage that will show conditional time salvation, or conditional salvation is true in any sense of the word. I have contended that God has appointed all of the graces and all of the salvation of His people. I have contended, from the start of this discussion, that if he would cut out-and, my old brother (addressing Elder West, Sr.), I have a lot of respect for you, because I can see in your countenance sincerity, and I have a lot of respect (addressing Elder West) for your mother and your brethren. I know their feeling in this matter is with you; but brethren and sisters, when we can look beyond these little petty theories and discover in the countenance of God's children that evidence of the grace of God and see and feel the recognition of that gift, the never-dying love of Almighty God, I don't care whether their membership is with our creed, or whose they might be tied up under, I cannot keep from loving them, no matter if their skin is as black as the ace of spades. Make not a brother an offender for a word. If you come to my church and would preach as you have here this evening and as you preached yesterday evening, after you got your apple cart turned over, if you had to say "conditional" sometimes, we wouldn't raise any bars of fellowship against you. We never did that in the association. If you couldn't just exactly say "absolute predestination of all things," we would feel inclined to bear with you, because it is the duty of the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak. We wouldn't make it a test of fellowship. We have not made it a test of fellowship yet; no, sir. It is the duty of the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak, and I don't mean that in jesting. I don't mean it jestingly, but, brethren, you know as well as I do that some of us are weak on some points, and maybe others are not.

MODERATOR CAYCE (interrupting): Elder Rhodes, if we are weak, in what way are we weak? Are we weak in the upper story, or somewhere else?

ELDER RHODES: I want to say this relative to that weakness that I have referred to. I did not mean that he was weak in human intelligence. He is a fine specimen of humanity. He is highly intelligent, but I mean weak insofar as being able to see on this point as we do, as we believe the Bible teaches, and as I tried to show him here for the past four days, and as I drove him from his pet "conditional" idea. It may wallow in the bushes and get back to him before he gets back to the highway over there, but it is gone now. It is gone. He needn't be one bit uneasy about that. His house is empty, swept and garnished. He is walking in dry places seeking rest and finding none; but if Brother West can catch up with it again, I am afraid he will pick it up again. I want to hear him in about a month from now and see whether or not his house is still swept and garnished. I mean that good-humoredly even if it does probably sound out of place.

So, my brethren, with all sincerity and honesty, and all fervency, I hope I love everyone that can embrace the truth of God our Saviour as the Bible expresses it. Yes, sir, and so I want to say, right here, if you will again leave your little word "conditional" off, why, then, I am ready-yes, sir, to extend a hand to you. We are ready to see whether or not you can preach for us like you have preached here since you got your little apple cart turned over on yesterday. I want to say, my friends, that I hope that little apple cart will go to the crippled children through Santa Claus this Christmas. I hope for at least one winter season we can hold it away from him.

I want to say, my friends, in all sincerity, that I don't believe like Brother Smith's old negro-I don't believe a word of that "conditional" stuff. No, sir; not a word of it.

MODERATOR CAYCE (interrupting): Pardon me, but if he leaves off the expression "conditional time salvation," will you leave off the expression "absolute predestination?"

ELDER RHODES: I don't have to express it as "absolute predestination." I can express predestination just as strongly as I want to without using the word "absolute." You know, that is why I am not afraid of God getting in a crawfish hole. Maybe not many of you have ever plowed, but I was raised to plow. If you ever plowed a blind mule, you know that he could tell right where a crawfish hole was a hundred yards away from him. My opponent was just as afraid of predestination, especially absolute predestination, as a mule is of a crawfish hole a hundred yards away.

But I want to say, my friends, what I believe in absolute predestination, and if I bring it down to God's decrees, he would acknowledge it. If I brought it down to God's foreknowledge, he would acknowledge it, or God's purpose, he would acknowledge it. The word "predestination" is in the Bible. Do you know why we adopted the word "absolute?" I am going to blame him with that-or, rather, his people, theologically speaking. I want to blame him for it. Absolute means unconditional, and he can't find the word "conditional" in the Bible. His little pet baby doll phraseology gave rise to the words "absolute predestination" to show that it is not "conditional" predestination; to show that it doesn't depend on anything else except God's decrees. That is the way it is, and that is what we mean when we say "absolute predestination:" that God predestined it without help and without hindrance.

I feel that I have answered, and more than answered everything that my opponent has said. I could take his scrapbook since yesterday and do just about as well as I have done, because he has left his "conditional time salvation." I don't know what broke him of it. He was pretty easy on the trigger about that. It didn't take many doses. But I will admit that I think that some of the arguments I gave him were in pretty good-sized capsules.

Now, my friends, to cut out this foolishness and this jesting, God, in His infinite wisdom, in His love and tender mercy, in His all wise and all-seeing eye, is looking down upon all the events of time, and in every grace and every qualification that is necessary for us to walk in the gospel steps. And he was talking about-trying to use this conditional time salvation. The Lord leads and directs you in those steps, and if I have had an experience of grace-I don't know whether I have or not-I wish I did know. But if I have had an experience of grace, brethren and sisters, there are times with me when I cannot feel like I want to feel to save my life. No, sir. If I could always sit together with the brethren and with those who have been born of the Spirit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, if it took an apple cart or one with a trailer to do that, I would give anything under the sun if I could always do that. But brethren, I want to say that I am dependent upon the grace of God. I am dependent upon Him to lead and direct me; to visit me and comfort me, to stir up my poor heart unto the joys and comforts and all of the graces that the Lord has given.

I want to say just a little bit in conclusion relative to the adding which he gave me to do on yesterday. Add to your faith virtue. He asked me if I could add. That is true. I do a little bit if the Lord enables me to, but I cannot add something that I haven't got. I cannot add a thing in the world that I haven't got, but if the Lord gives me faith and gives me virtue and knowledge and temperance and brotherly kindness and godliness, and all of these things, it merely means that I add them together to see what the sum total is. That is exactly what the total means. Brethren and sisters, it is equivalent to all the graces of God, every bit of it, as the grace of God. Add it all together and you find it is all a gift, and the little cart is out of it.

So, then, brethren and sisters, let me say to you here, as one who feels-I feel that I am very weak, physically. I feel that my health is impaired so greatly for some reason, that I think I should not even hope, as busy as I have been, and as strenuous a life as I have lived-l don't even hope to live very long. But I want to say to you, God being my strength, I believe that the doctrine I have advocated before you-there will never be a day, God being my strength, but what I will advocate this doctrine. Yes, Sir. That Jesus is all our salvation. Do we have any right to preach any other name? No, sir. It is just the name of Jesus Christ, the blessed Son of God, from first to last.

So, my friends, let me say to you, each one and all, regardless of the things that I have said, regardless of the things that you may have considered insulting, and everything of that kind, let me say to you, Go to your home and if God will give you the spirit of prayer-not because I have said it; not because it would look possibly like you art stooping to something, but may God enable you to pray as to whether or not these things are true. If they are true, and nothing but the truth will ever do you any good. Nothing except the doctrine of God our Saviour will ever feed one of the little children of God. Nothing else will do it.

Elder West, my young opponent, I want to say to you, in conclusion, and not to boast, or to crow. There is no need of me doing that, and I don't mean it that way. But inasmuch as you started out to maintain the proposition of conditional time salvation, and quit on yesterday, I believe that your pure mind is stirred up by way of remembrance of some of these things, and may God bless you to see and understand further of His blessed truth. And I have not aught in my heart against you or any man in this congregation. No, sir. We have said some pretty sharp things. We have said some things that possibly would have been better unsaid. But I am enough Irish that when you get me to the right point, if you don't believe that I will answer you, it will be because my tongue won't move. So, brethren, I am just human enough that if I have said anything that would hurt your feelings-if I have said anything that would reflect on this discussion, to keep it from being what it ought to be, then I ask you to forgive me. I ask you to pray for us all that we might be enabled to come together in the unity of the faith, because it is the day of the outpouring of God's wrath upon this earth.

I believe the time will come when God's people will be so persecuted and so killed and destroyed that we will be glad, regardless of this little word "conditional" or "predestination," either-I believe there will be a time when I will be glad to meet one of you and speak to you concerning these things that we are talking about.

Brethren, the world does not like us. The world hates this doctrine. Yes, sir, the time is coming when that great beast-and I believe he is on his way now-I believe, if you will pardon me-I don't mean that in rebuttal on anything that you have said, but this great beast that is to cause all men to receive his mark-I believe that he is on this earth today.

Oh, you might say, "You are speaking too fast. You are speculating." Brethren, allow me to say that I believe it. Yes, sir. I believe that the world is being wrecked today for it to be made manifest. And then, if we are persecuted down here and I can slip up to the back door of Brother West's house. Oh, someone says, that is foolish. There will never be anything like that. The Lord knows, brethren whether it is foolish or not. The devil hates us worse than he hates anything on this earth. And all the peoples of the earth are going to come together against you.

I saw in your paper, Elder Cayce, one thing that I want to commend you for. You are fighting the so-called Union of Primitive Baptist Churches throughout the United States. I am glad of that. I was afraid-pardon me for letting you know how I felt about it-but when I first knew about this move, I thought you would be right in the middle of it, but you are fighting it, and I am glad to see that. You know that it was made over just like the Federal Council of Churches, and will go with the rest of them. "Babylon shall become the hole of every foul spirit; the cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you.

CS.000 Title Page

IS SALVATION CONDITIONAL OR UNCONDITIONAL?

 

A DISCUSSION BETWEEN

C. H. CAYCE, Primitive Baptist, 

AND 

F. B. SRYGLEY, Christian.

 

Conducted in the Primitive Baptist Meetinghouse,

Third Avenue, South,

Nashville, Tenn.

 

December 25-30,1911.   

 

MODERATORS: John R. Daily, for C. H. Cayce; J. W. Shepherd, for F. B. Srygley.

CS.001 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION. 

 

The following discussion between C. H. Cayce, of the Primitive Baptist Church, and F. B. Srygley, of the church of Christ, was held at the Primitive Bap­tist meetinghouse, on Third Avenue, South, Nash­ville, Tenn. It began on December 25 and closed on December 31, 1911. John E. Daily, of Indianapolis, Ind., was the moderator for Cayce, and J. W. Shep­herd, of Nashville, Tenn., for Srygley. The interest aroused by the discussion demands its publication. The debate was largely attended. 

 

The public is indebted to Brother J. C. McQuiddy, who kindly consented, in deference to the general demand, to make arrangements for its publication. 

 

The vital importance of the two propositions dis­cussed, together with the recognized talent, ability, and wide reputation of the debaters, is, I presume, a sufficient apology for the present volume. The points at issue are so fundamentally opposite, and, at the same time, are so vitally connected with the question of human salvation, that they cannot be too seriously considered and examined. 

 

The grounds covered in this debate have long been the subjects of careful and continued controversy. The first proposition contains the kernel of the con­troversy that has been waged so long upon the work of the Holy Spirit. It is contended, on one side, that, in conversion, the Spirit of God operates directly, apart from preaching, upon the heart of the sinner, and thus, without the word, convicts and converts him. On the other side, it is contended that, in con­version, the Holy Spirit operates through the preaching of the word. Brother Cayce, together with Brother Srygley, heartily concurs in the belief that the Holy Spirit is the great agency in conver­sion. Indeed, all are happily agreed in saying that, if the sinner is converted at all, it is the work of the Spirit of God. The controversy is over the manner in which the Spirit does the work.

 

The second proposition assumes that the Holy Spirit, through the word, as preached by inspired men, has given certain terms, or conditions, upon which the blessings of the gospel may be enjoyed. The contention is that faith, repentance, and baptism are these conditions. 

 

No man can afford to allow prejudice or passion to prevent an impartial investigation of any ques­tion. 

 

We very heartily commend a careful perusal of this volume. As long as the points at issue among religious people are discussed, in the proper manner and spirit, good only can be accomplished. No man, with the cause of Christ at heart, who recognizes the benefit of high-toned, honorable discussion, can af­ford to harbor bitterness or enmity or to indulge for a moment in those low wrangles in which oppo­nents seek for victory and not for truth. To investi­gate and examine any question, as continual agita­tion purifies the ocean, will naturally increase infor­mation and knowledge. If a proposition is true, it cannot be injured by investigation, but, on the other hand, will be confirmed and demonstrated. 

 

Miss Grace Dawson, an expert in stenographic work of this city, has, as nearly as possible, given each speech as it was spoken. The candid inquirer, in an honest search for light, upon reading both sides, can "prove all things" and "hold fast that which is good."       

 

 james A. allen. 

CS.002 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE MODERATORS

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE MODERATORS. 

 

mr. daily.—The proposition which we have met to discuss, or to begin the discussion of, this evening, reads as follows: '' God gives eternal life to an alien sinner without a condition upon his (the sinner's) part, and the Scriptures so teach." Elder C. H. Cayce in the affirmative; Elder F. B. Srygley in the negative. 

 

It is agreed to discuss this proposition and the sec­ond proposition, and to be governed by the rules laid down in "Hedge's Logic" as rules of logic, which.I will now read: 

 

Rule I. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them. 

 

Rule II. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself, and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right. 

 

Rule III. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. 

 

Rule IV. Personal reflections on an adversary shcruld in no instance be indulged. 

 

Rule V. No one has a right to accuse his adversary of indirect motives. 

 

Rule VI. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. 

 

Rule VII. As truth, and not victory, is the professed abject of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. 

 

Rule VIII. That in the final negative no new matter shall be introduced. 

 

These are the rules by which these speakers have agreed to be governed, and as moderators we pro­pose to see that they are governed by these rules. We are sure that that is their desire, as well as ours, and that they will observe them as they should, which I believe they will, and the audience should observe that respect for the occasion that should be observed, and there will be little for the moderators to do other than to count time. 

 

mr. shepherd.—I most heartily indorse what Brother Daily has said with reference to the rules, and wish to add a few words. I have found in an experience of several years that when these rules are strictly observed good results follow, because they are absolutely fair to all parties. They narrow the discussion to a specific proposition. All matter that does not add to the proof of the specific proposition under discussion is ruled out, and I request the dis­putants to bear this in mind. 

 

The seventh rule says that a disputant shall not en­deavor by wit or caviling to confuse his opponent or to draw him off of the subject under discussion, and we, as moderators, are here for the purpose of see­ing that this rule is observed. We want them to stick to the subject. All stories that do not bear directly on the subject under discussion are ruled out. The very wording of this rule excludes them. Brother Srygley, I do not want you to introduce anything of that kind—not a thing. I want you to present the truth with all of the force and clearness that you pos­sibly can. I want you to magnify the word of God. I want you to make those who hear you understand and appreciate that the object of this debate is to get the truth before them that they may meditate upon these things, that the truth may make an im­pression on their hearts and bring forth fruits in their lives.   So far as anything else is concerned, it is not to be even mentioned. 

 

These things are vital. They look unto the salva­tion of immortal souls. And with these things before their minds, I hope that they will continue to press on from day to day in the presentation of the arguments pro and con. 

 

Now there is one other thing to which I call atten­tion. I have never known but little trouble to come up in debates when the first rule is observed. Notice it: " The terms in which the question in debate is ex­pressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined that there can be no misunderstand­ing respecting them." Now when this is done the points at issue are clearly defined, and the debaters come to them at once, and that is what we demand. 

 

And now, a few words to the audience. I do not anticipate anything along this line, but I want this to be understood, and I feel that my fellow-moder­ator will bear me out in it: that so far as demonstra­tions are concerned, they are ruled out. We do not want any demonstrations. We are not here for that purpose. You are here, I trust, for the purpose of listening respectfully to the arguments presented on both sides; and when you shall have done this, do not go any further. Do not think about taking part in this debate by giving demonstrations, either favor­able or unfavorable. Brother Daily, do you agree with me in this?

 

mr. daily.—I agree with you. 

CS.003 FIRST PROPOSITION, MR. CAYCE'S FIRST ADDRESS.

FIRST PROPOSITION, MR. CAYCE'S FIRST ADDRESS. 

 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

 

I am glad of the privilege of appearing before you this evening, surrounded by as favorable circum­stances as we all are, and I wish to say in the be­ginning that I do not ask, in this discussion, my op­ponent to show any quarter. Truth is what I want. If the position that I occupy is not true, I want to know it. I trust that my heart is open for a recep­tion of the truth, if my position is not correct. 

 

I affirm the proposition which you have heard read: "God gives eternal life to an alien sinner without a condition upon his (the sinner's) part, and the Scriptures so teach." 

 

As the result of a challenge being sent by my op­ponent, or his people, to this church, I stand before you, affirming this proposition. 

 

The rules you have heard read require, first, that the terms of the proposition, or point at issue, should be so clearly denned that there can be no misunder­standing respecting them; so I shall define my prop­osition. 

 

By the term "eternal life" I mean that life that prepares and qualifies sinners of Adam's race to live with God in heaven; that life that will continue on, (separation or dissolution of soul and body, eternally. God gives that. 

 

By the term "gives" I mean that God bestows it; that he gives this life to an alien sinner, one who is separated from God by reason of sin and transgression. 

 

An ''alien sinner.'' I mean by that the same as to say a "dead sinner;" a sinner who is in a state of death in trespasses and sin. God makes that sinner, who is in a state of death in sin, alive again; raises him up out of a state of death into a state of life. God does this without a condition on the sinner's part—that is, without anything that the sinner must do as a condition in order to that end. God does not require works by the sinner, or obedience on the part of the sinner, in order that he bestow that life on him. 

 

By the "Scriptures" I mean that which is recog­nized as the written Word of God, the books of the Old and New Testaments. 

 

I think the proposition is clear. I think we can all understand just what the proposition means. How­ever, it is somewhat awkwardly worded, for which I am not responsible. 

 

My first argument is that God gives spiritual or eternal life to alien sinners without conditions on their part, because the alien or unregenerate sinner is represented in God's word as being in the flesh, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. In support of this argument I call your attention to Ro 8:5-9: "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually mind­ed is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is en­mity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." In order that this may be plain, I have put on the blackboard Ro 8:8-9—a portion of the ninth verse: "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Under this I draw this perpendicular line. On the left side of the line the character is in that condition which the apostle calls "in the flesh," and in that condition the apostle says he cannot please God. On this side of the line, the right side, he is in that condition of which the apostle says: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit, of God dwell in you." That is, the character on this side of the line can please God, being in possession of the Spirit. On the other side of the line he is destitute of the Spirit, and hence in that condition which the apostle calls "in the flesh;" and the apostle emphatically says he can­not please God.

 

the diagram on the blackboard. 

 

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." (Ro 8:8-9.)

In the flesh.

Not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.

 

Cannot please God.

Can please God.

 

       

 

If my proposition is not true, then God does give eternal life on conditions—the sinner must perform certain conditions in order that God bestow this life on him; and if the alien or unregenerate sinner must perform conditions while he is on that side of the line, I maintain that, as the apostle emphatically says he cannot please God, the conditions which he performs must be displeasing to God, if he performs conditions on that side of the line. The apostle emphatically says he cannot please God. 

 

In order that my proposition be overthrown, it must be proven that the sinner performs conditions which are displeasing to God, and as a result of the sinner displeasing God, God bestows eternal life on him; for the apostle emphatically declares that while in that condition he cannot please God. So if he per­forms conditions in order to be placed on the other side of the line, it must be true that these conditions are displeasing to God, for on that side of the line he cannot please God. 

 

I request that this be examined, and that the brother show in his reply to my speech what the sin­ner can do on this side of the line in order that he may be placed on the other side of the line. It makes no difference what he may say is required of the sin­ner that he be placed on the other side of the line, the apostle, by inspiration, stands before him with the affirmation that the sinner cannot please God. 

 

I next call attention to my second argument. The alien or unregenerate sinner is in a state of death. Ge 2:15-17: "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Here we have the man in his primitive state, as he fell from the plastic hand of his Creator, placed in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it; and his Sovereign gave him a law to govern him in his living, and the penalty of that law was death. "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." If the sinner is not in a state of death, then God either failed to inflict the penalty or else he falsified when he said the penalty was death, one of the two. 

 

Ge 3:4-5: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." "As gods"—not as God, but as gods—in the plural number and with a little "g;" idol gods, or false gods,'' knowing good and evil.'' 

 

Now, then, I maintain that God told the truth when he said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," and that Satan told a falsehood when he said, '' Thou shalt not surely die.'' One or the other of these characters told the truth. If Satan told the truth, then God misrepresented the matter. If God told the truth, then Satan did not tell the truth; and if God told the truth about it, then the sinner is in a state of death, for we admit —surely that will not be disputed—that man did transgress God's holy and righteous law, bringing sin into the world, "and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.'' 

 

Here, in Ro 5:12-14, we have the broad state­ment made by inspiration—the apostle penned this, and he was moved by the Holy Spirit to pen the lan­guage: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." This will embrace all of the posterity of Adam. "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.'' The people who lived from Adam to Moses were not un­der personal law, as was Adam, yet death reigned. Notwithstanding the fact that they had not personal­ly transgressed the law as Adam did, yet death reigned from Adam to Moses; and as death reigned from Adam to Moses, then all are under sin. Death reigns over the entire human family, and without the intervention of divine grace in extricating from that death in sin all wotild be ruined and lost for­ever.

 

Eph 2:1:" And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.'' Here the apostle tells us that all the time prior to the time that these per­sons were quickened into divine life they were in a state of death, and hence the proposition must be true that the alien sinner is in a state of death. 

 

My next argument is: Eternal life must be given' to alien sinners without conditions on their part, be­cause they do not perform good works. Moral works are not referred to, but spiritual works. Bear that in mind. Ro 3:8-23: "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported)" -now it was charged against the apostle that he preached, "Let us do evil, that good may come," but he denied that charge; he said it was a slanderous report; and he stated of those who made the charge that their damnation was just; that is just what he said of them—"Whose damnation is just. "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise.'' He says their condemnation was just who make this slanderous charge against us, and then asks: "Are we better than they?" Then he answers: "No, in no wise." If we are no better than they, and their condemna­tion is just, then our condemnation is just; and if our condemnation is just, then we have no claim upon the Lord. "For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." I do not have to prove that, for the apostle has already said for me that he has proven it. Will you accept what he says! "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." All the Jews are under sin and all Gentiles are under sin, as they stand related to Adam and under the law. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes." Remember that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. They haven't even the begin­ning of wisdom in a state of nature, and as they are in this deplorable state which the apostle here de­scribes, it must necessarily be true that if they are ever the recipients of eternal life, it must be without a condition on their part. They do not do good works. Certainly the brother will not argue that the sinner obtains eternal life by doing bad works, and we have proven that they do not perform good works. They haven't even the fear of God before their eyes. . 

 

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.'' Here the apostle, after describing the condition of the human family in a state of nature, now draws the conclusion that no flesh shall be or can be justified in the sight of God by the deeds of the law. Why! None perform the deeds of the law, none live up to the law's requirements. They are all condemned by the law, and the law cries put: "Guilty, guilty; pay that thou owest." That is the law's demand, and the condition of the sinner is such that he can­not meet the law's requirements. If my proposition is not true, it must be that the sinner obtains life in obedience to the law, and the apostle here emphat­ically declares that "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being wit­nessed by the law and the prophets; even the right­eousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." That is the condition of the human family—none of them doing good works. 

 

Ps 53:1-3: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Here the prophet David emphatically tells us that God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that were doing good, and he emphatically de­clares none do good, none are righteous, no, not one. If my proposition is not true, then it must be that either God does not give eternal life at all, or, if he does, he gives it on condition of doing bad things, for it is emphatically declared that they do not do good; it is emphatically declared by inspiration. 

 

Ge 6:5-12: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagi­nation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con­tinually. '' Here is what God saw: that the wicked­ness of man was great in the earth, and that the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart were evil, and that continually. It was that way all the time, and remember that the Savior says that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; and if every thought and imagination of the heart is evil, and that continually, and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, that is the way he will talk. "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt: for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." 

 

Ps 10:2-11: "The wicked in his pride doth per­secute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined. For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.'' Here the prophet emphatically tells us that the wicked, the alien, unregenerate, will seek after God now and then? No, sir! Not at all. Instead of that, he says he will not seek after God. God is not in all his thoughts. He does not even think to care about God. He does not even think to love God. He does not even think to engage in the service of God. God is not in all his thoughts. '' His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them. He hath said in his heart, I shall not be moved: for I shall never be in adversity. His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity. He sitteth in the lurking places of the villages: in the secret places doth he murder the innocent: his eyes are privily set against the poor. He lieth in wait secretly as a lion in his den: he lieth in wait to catch the poor: he doth catch the poor, when he draweth him into his net. He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall by his strong ones. He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it.'' That is the condition of the alien, the unregenerate sinner. 

 

Eph 2:1-3: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobe­dience: among whom also we all had our conversa­tion in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." All of these characters, prior to the time that God quickened them into divine life, were walking ac­cording to the course of this world. If God gives eternal life on conditions, this would have been the very place to have said so, for the apostle here tells just what these people were doing; all the time prior to the time that God gave them eternal life, they were walking according to the course of this world, and were by nature the children of wrath-; and that is the condition that they were in, not doing good works; and as they were not doing good works, and yet God does give eternal life to some of Adam's race, it must be that he gives eternal life without conditions on the part of those to whom he gives that life. That must be true. 

 

Ec 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." Jas 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." 

 

Ec 7:20 tells us that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not," and James tells us that he that offends in one point is guilty of the whole law, so that the sinner in trans­gressing God's law in one point is guilty of the whole law, and hence condemned by the law; and if he ever receives eternal life, it must be, therefore, without conditions or works upon his part. 

 

Ga 3:10-11: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." Here the apostle clearly and emphatically tells us that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God. As he is not justified in the sight of God by the law, it must be true that God bestows the eternal life, or gives eternal life, without condition on the part of the sinner, or the one upon whom he bestows that life. 

 

My next argument is that eternal life must be given to alien sinners without conditions on their part, be­cause adults and infants are saved the same way; and as infants are not saved by performing conditions, so the adult is saved without performing them. 

 

Mr 10:13-16: "And they brought young chil­dren to him, that he should touch them: and his dis­ciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 

 

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." In con­nection with this I call attention to Lu 18:15-17: "And they brought unto him also infants [Luke uses the word'' infants;'' they were children in their mothers' arms] that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whoso­ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." 

 

Now I call attention again to the fifteenth verse of the tenth chapter of Mark: "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.'' 

 

I ask you, how does the little child receive the king­dom of God? Does the little child receive the king­dom of God by performing conditions'? Can you make your conditions so simple and so easy to un­derstand as that the little child can understand and perform those conditions? You know that the little child cannot understand the conditions, and there­fore cannot be saved upon that platform; and the Savior emphatically declared that "whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child," in the very same way, through the very same process, as a little child—unless you receive it that way, you "shall not enter therein." This is the emphatic statement of the Lord. As you cannot reach the case of the little child with conditions, and as the adult is saved the same way the little child is saved, neither can you reach the case of the adult with conditions. Then it must be true, if God bestows eternal life at all, he does it without conditions, and it will not be denied that God does bestow eternal life. The ques­tion at issue, then, is: Does God bestow eternal life upon conditions or without conditions'? That is the point of difference. I say it is without conditions, for the infant is unable to perform them, and the Savior emphatically declares that "whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God" in the same way, through the same process, that the little child re­ceives it, "he shall not enter therein"—an emphatic statement that the adult must receive the kingdom of God in the same way, in the same manner, and through the same process that the little child re­ceives it. If the little child receives the kingdom of God without conditions, because of his inability to understand them, then you must receive the kingdom of God in the same way, or you shall not enter there­in. If you receive it by performing certain stipu­lated conditions, then the child must receive it that way, as you receive the kingdom of God in the same way the child receives it, or else you shall not enter therein—the plain statement of the Son of God. 

 

My next argument is that eternal life must be given to alien sinners without conditions on their part, because they cannot come to the Lord or do good works. 

 

Jer 13:23: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." 

 

The plain statement of inspiration is that when­ever the sinner can do good works in order that he may have a home at God's right hand, just about that same time will you see the leopard change his spots and the negro change his skin and become a white man. 

 

Again, Joh 5:37-44: "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." Who was the Savior talking about? He was talking about characters that did not have the word of God abid­ing in them; he was talking about characters that were not believers. He was talking about characters that were destitute of the love of God, and he says: '' Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.'' If they will not come to the Savior that they might have life, and we persuade one to perform condi­tions, and thereby come to the Savior in order that they may have life, what have we done! Made the Savior out a falsifier. "I receive not honor from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only!" [Time expired.]

CS.004 MR. SRYGLEY'S FIRST REPLY

MR. SRYGLEY'S FIRST REPLY. 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I take pleasure in replying to the address that you have heard, and I desire, before beginning, to make a few statements about debates. I believe in de­bates, and am heartily in favor of honorable con­troversy. I believe that people who differ about the word of God should meet as we have met here to­night, and discuss these questions in the right spirit, and try, if possible, to arrive at the truth with refer­ence to the teaching of the word of God. I have always held myself in readiness to contribute any­thing I can to accomplish this end. However, I may say that many people enjoy debates very much that are not very good on the prayer meeting, and many attend debates very well that are not very good in the ordinary meeting. 

 

I do not believe in debating just to show our strength, nor to show which can overcome the other; but I believe that the purpose of debating should be like preaching—to arrive at the truth with reference to the teachings of God's word upon all these ques­tions about which we may differ. 

 

I do not believe the gentleman's construction of the passages that he has read. I do not believe his proposition, and therefore I am here to meet, in an honorable way, the issue, and to show you that the passages he relies upon do not teach the doctrine for which he contends. 

 

I wish to state, also, before beginning this investi­gation, that I believe that the terms of a proposition should be so clearly defined that there can be no mis­take concerning them, that the point at issue may be so clearly defined that all the people may understand exactly the point at issue, that they may be able to arrive at the truth on the question discussed, thus making this investigation profitable to all who may hear or read our speeches. 

 

I do not believe that my opponent has sufficiently defined the term "alien" or an alien sinner. I be­lieve that it is necessary for us to know the sense in which the Bible talks about an alien. It is a Bible word, and I believe that we ought to understand its meaning in the proposition in order to see if the alien sinner does receive eternal life without condi­tions upon his part. 

 

Now the fact that the gentleman has stated in his proposition that the "alien" sinner receives eternal life indicates to my mind that he thinks there is some other kind of sinners besides the alien sinner. If so, I would like for him to tell us the condition of the other kind of sinners and what they get. If the alien sinner gets eternal life, and gets it without condi­tions, I would like to know what the other kind gets and how he gets it. I would like to be able to know him, and I want the audience to know who he is and what he receives. 

 

Neither do I believe that the gentleman has suffi­ciently defined '' eternal life.'' He says that eternal-life means the same as "justified." I say eternal life is that life that the righteous have as a promise with God in heaven. Now the question is: When does the sinner—the alien sinner—get this eternal life? Does he obtain this eternal life here? If so, what kind of a life does he get when he goes to heaven? I believe it is necessary for us to understand what eternal life is, and I believe it is necessary for us to understand when the alien sinner receives it so gra­ciously without any conditions upon his part, as my opponent asserts. 

 

But he stated a little further on in giving his defi­nitions that eternal life is spiritual life. Of course it is spiritual, but spiritual life is not necessarily eter­nal. I believe there is a distinction in the Bible be­tween states of life, and therefore I call his attention to this fact, and I want him to read a scripture that says that eternal life can be lived in this state. I do not believe it. 

 

And then when he proves that the alien sinner re­ceives eternal life without conditions, I want him not only to tell us what that eternal life is, but wh^n he gets it; then I want him to describe it, so we can tell it; and then I want to know if he gets it in this life. If so, then what does that passage mean in

Mt 25:46 to prove that those that are in the flesh cannot please God, and applies the pas­sage to alien sinners; but those to whom reference is here made were not alien sinners, but erring children of God, or members of the church. Paul says: "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Romans  8:5,6|.) 

Brother Cayce, by his diagram, has it that all the flesh is on one side, and on the other side it is all spirit, but he has that Wrong. I believe that sinners are in the flesh when they are walking after the flesh, but I believe that they have some good in them. I know the preachers have never talked much in favor of wicked humanity, and I would not indicate that there are not some men too mean and too bad to have any good in them, but there ie some good in a great many alien sinners; but here on this side of the line Brother Cayce says they are in the flesh, and on that side in the spirit. I want to state that a man on this side—i. e., a Christian, if he means these are Christians and these are alien—that the Christian can have some carnality sometimes. Paul had it. He had to war against the flesh continually. He says: " I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1Corinthians 9:27|.) This passage teaches that Paul him­self was living in the flesh, but not subject to the flesh. The apostle tells us exactly how it is when he says: "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." (Ro 8:5.) 

 

I want to suggest that this is true of alien sinners, and it is equally true of the other kind of sinners— viz., erring children of God. If they mind the things of the flesh, they will be after the flesh; but if they will mind the things of the Spirit—that is, do what God teaches—they will be in the Spirit and walking after the Spirit, and they will be the ones that will receive the blessings. 

 

My friend's argument is that because Paul says a man is in the Spirit, there is no flesh about him. I take it that while the brother hasn't a great deal of flesh, he still has some. All men have. But he must not follow it. Brother Cayce's idea is that when God gives to man eternal life, he breaks up and de­stroys all flesh. I deny that. The flesh, he says, is not subject to the law of God. That is so. God does not address his law to the flesh. The truth is, ac­cording to this apostle, we are in the flesh until we are entirely redeemed from this flesh by death, but we are not following it. We are holding it in check, holding it in subjection, but still it is there all the time; and so, my friends, I do not believe a man is in the flesh and out of the flesh at the same time, but a man may be in the flesh to-day and follow the Spirit to-morrow, or go back and follow the flesh again. The apostle teaches this in this eighth chap­ter of Romans. I really do not believe that this pas­sage touches the question at issue. 

 

But I notice that he refers us to the law imposed upon Adam in the garden of Eden. God commanded him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. At the very beginning the Lord God gave the commandment to our father Adam, and he dis­obeyed it. This fact shows that Adam, though made pure, upright, and holy, yielded and fell upon the first temptation presented; and this is true of hu­manity in general—they never sin till tempted. I nev­er sinned until I got a chance, and Adam sinned the first opportunity. But Brother Cayce says that Adam was dead. '' In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Yes, but what does death mean? Does it mean a condition of absolute inaction or sim­ply separation? Does it mean that Adam and his race died in the sense that he and they cannot hear, believe, and obey God! It means that they were separated from the garden of Eden, or dead in a sense. But if Adam was so dead that he could not do anything or think anything, why, did God place the flaming sword near the tree of life to keep off this "dead" individual? The truth is, he was not dead in the sense Brother Cayce claims. He was dead, but not so dead as Brother Cayce thinks he was. My friend refers to Ro 5:14, where it is said that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned. Certainly death, physical death, passed upon all men, but all men ob­tain a resurrection in Christ, for Paul says: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order." (1Corinthians 15:22,23|.) Let me suggest that all that we lost in Adam unconditionally we-gain unconditionally in Christ. You need not worry about anything you lost in Adam, for we will receive all that back in the resurrection, through Christ. But the brother proved we lost our lives in Adam. We did lose our natural lives. We are not guilty of Adam's sin, but we suffer physical death on account of it. I did not eat the fruit, neither did you, yet we suffer the con­sequences of Adam's sin. Coriolanus was banished from Borne for transgression of the Roman law. His children were not guilty, yet they suffered the consequences of their father's sin. They were not guilty of their father's transgressions, but they were born away from the Roman government, and there­fore were not citizens of Rome. We were born away from the tree of life, and must, therefore, die as a result of Adam's sin; but we gained that back in Christ unconditionally in the resurrection from the dead. 

 

The apostle says: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph 2:1.) Notice, he does not say in a trespass and in a sin. If he had been talking about Adam's sin, he would have said in a trespass and in a sin, for Adam was guilty of only one sin. Do you want to know whose sins they were dead in? In their own sins. Why were they dead? Because they walked after sin. Brother Cayce says: "God gives them life." He does give spiritual life, but he does not do it un­conditionally. He does it on condition that they obey him. 

 

Paul says: ''Are we better than they?  No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gen­tiles, that they are all under sin." (Ro 3:9.) Brother Cayce read a good deal from this third chapter of Romans, and came very near reading enough to ruin his contention. I don't think he stopped on purpose, but he stopped all the same. The twenty-second verse says:'' Even the righteous­ness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.'' That looks like a condition, does it not I I do not know the reason he stopped with the twenty-first verse, but it is a good thing he stopped when he did, for here in the twenty-second verse it is de­clared that God gives it to all them that believe, for there is no difference. He was talking about the Jew and the Gentile. He was arguing with these Jewish brethren that with God they were no better than the Gentiles, for God proposed to save all men on con­dition that they obey him, for all, both Jew and Gen­tile, are under sin and need a Savior; but that does not prove he would save unconditionally. Paul said nothing about that in this passage, and therefore I insist that you will have to go to some other passage to learn how he saves them, whether conditionally or unconditionally. 

 

David says that "there is none that doeth good." (Ps 53:1) I believe this is true, that there is a class of people he was talking about, and they were God's people, too, that had all gone astray, and therefore were under sin, and needed a Savior; but that passage does not prove that God will save them unconditionally, by any means. It does not say one word about how God would save them. He does not even say that they were alien sinners. They had gone astray. God's own people had gone astray. 

 

Again, he refers to Ec 7:20, which reads: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that do-eth good, and sinneth not." That is true. While the Savior was here on earth he would not let the lawyer call him "good." He said: "There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mt 19:17.) I do not believe that there is absolute goodness in any one, except in God, which only proves the need of a Savior for all. 

 

There is one thing I notice. Half his passages did not have a single word of his proposition in them. 

 

He refers to another passage which I do not be­lieve teaches his doctrine either. The passage is: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are writ­ten in the book of the law to do them.'' (Ga 3:10.) That is the old law. No one is justified by the law of Moses. "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." (Ga 3:11.) But, according to my friend's contention, he cannot live "by faith," for he lives before he gets to faith.

 

He says adults and infants are saved alike. I deny that. I do not believe infants are saved at all. The Bible says not one word about their being saved.  But they are safe, because they are born in a saved state. 

 

He says the sinner cannot come to the Lord, and he asks if the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leop­ard change his spots. Do you not know the Lord was talking about his own people when he said that? They had been in covenant relation with God. This does not touch his proposition. If you will read the last verse of the chapter, you will see it is Jerusa­lem he was talking about—God's people. 

 

I note a passage or two to show you that the gen­tleman is wrong and cannot be right in saying that God saves unconditionally. I call your attention to a passage in the sixteenth chapter of

Ac 1-28.) This is the proposition exactly we are discussing, and the passage requires obedience in order to ob­tain eternal life. "Unto all them that" do what? That do nothing? No, but "unto all them that obey him." Now you have it. And you tell me, then, in the face of that passage, that a man can obtain eternal life and not obey Christ? You tell me, in the face of that passage, that man can be saved in disobedience to God, when the passage says that Jesus became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him ? I insist from this passage, as well as the other I mentioned, that his contention about the passages he has read cannot be true. He is mistaken. He has read these passages over and over, and has not looked at these others. In studying the Bible, you ought to get all that God says, ought to hear him through, and I insist that the passages he has read can be explained without admitting that man is saved without condition. If man is saved without any condition, and the Lord does not save them all, all alien sinners, and one is as mean as the other and just as good as the other, why does the Lord not save them all! If the Lord saves one alien sin­ner without any conditions, will he save them all that way ? If not, why not ? Have not I a right to ask that? I have many friends out of Christ, who are alien sinners, and I want to know whether they have any hope or not, whether God ever loved them or not, whether Jesus Christ ever came to die for them. I have a right to know. I am not charging that the gentleman teaches that. I am here to follow him. 

 

If God saves some alien sinners without condi­tions, how many does he save that way! Does he save them all, or just a few! And if he only saves a few, why does the Lord make this difference! Why does he not save everybody, if he saves them without condition? I am not charging consequences, but am anxious to know what he teaches on this point. 

 

I want to call your attention to a passage or two to show the conditions upon which the Savior saves. Paul says: "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." (2Corinthians 5:20|.) If a man can­not do anything— [ Time expired.]

CS.005 MR. CAYCE'S SECOND ADDRESS

MR. CAYCE'S SECOND ADDRESS. 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I am before you again in the affirmative of the proposition that ''God gives eternal life to an alien sinner without a condition upon his (the sinner's) part, and the Scriptures so teach.'' 

 

I wish to call your attention first to a statement that the gentleman made in his speech, near the close, that he had answered every proof text which I had introduced. I wish to call your attention to the fact that I introduced Ge 3:4-5; Ro 5:12-14; Ge 6:5,12; Ps 10:2-11; Jas 2:10; Mr 10:13-16; Lu 18:15-17 (he made some little state­ment in regard to this text, but paid no attention to the argument and did not tell what the text means); Joh 5:37-44. These are passages that are not no­ticed. I can tell you every one that he has noticed: Ro 8:5-9; Ge 2:15-17; Eph 2:1; Ro 3:8-23; Ps 53:1-3; Eph 2:2-3—he did not notice this; the second and third verses were used in a separate argument from the first verse. He also noticed Ec 7:20; Ga 3:10-11; Jer 13:23. These are the passages that the gentleman has noticed. I in­troduced seventeen proof texts in my speech, and he pretended to notice eight out of the seventeen. That is how far along he is. 

 

Now he says I have not sufficiently defined my proposition. He says that we should understand the term "alien." If he doesn't understand the term "alien" to mean as I defined it, let him say what he thinks it means. I defined it as being one separated from God by reason of sin and transgression, cut off from God. If this is not a state of alienation, tell us what it is. 

 

He asks me to tell what other kind of sinners there are besides alien sinners. I will say to you, there are saved sinners and unsaved sinners. An alien sinner is an unsaved sinner, one in an unsaved or unregenerate state. The saved sinner is one that has been born from above, is in a saved state. There are two kinds of sinners, then. 

 

He asks: Does one have eternal life in this world, or while here? If not, then not one of Adam's race is in possession of the Son of God, for John says: "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Not only is that true, but the Son of God falsifies when he says we have passed from death unto life. The Son of God emphatically says that the believer has everlasting or eternal life. Let the gentleman deny it if he dares. 

 

He wants to know, if we have eternal life, what is meant in Mt 25:46, where it says: '' These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the right­eous into life eternal.'' They go away into that eter­nal life which God has given them, which God has bestowed upon them. I think it means just what it says. 

 

He asks: ''God bestows eternal life upon the sin­ner whether he wants it or not, does he?" The in­ference must be, from his—may I say, sarcastic—way of asking this question, that the man never possesses life, never becomes in possession of life, until he first wants the life. I will ask the gentleman to tell us: Did you want your natural life before you were born into the natural realm? Now please answer that, will you? and don't forget it. He asks: "Is he in condition to receive it if he wants it?" The idea conveyed, then, is that the man must want the life in order that God bestow it upon him. I have shown you the condition of the man who is destitute of that life. He is not in love with God; he is in love with sin, drinking sin down as the thirsty ox drinks the water; rolling sin under his tongue as a sweet mor­sel: the poison of asps is under his lips; the world is what he loves; godliness he cares nothing about. The contention of the gentleman is that a man must want what he does not want in order that he get what he does not want. He must desire what he hates in order that he obtain that which he does not desire. That is his contention exactly. The sinner does not want God. He does not love God. He hates God. He loves sin. That is his delight, but godliness he cares nothing about; but he must quit loving that that he does love, and want godliness—what he doesn't want—in order to get what he doesn't want That is the gentleman's contention exactly. That is logic for you! 

 

He refers to Ro 8:8-9. He says these are not alien sinners. True, Paul was writing to the church of God at Rome; and in writing to the church at Rome, he describes in that chapter, in the fifth verse, the difference—draws a line of distinction—between those that are in a saved state and those that are in an unsaved state, or the unregenerate sinner, and says that "they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh." Notice the plain, emphatic statement of the apostle. These characters on this side of the line mind the things of the flesh. If they mind the things of the flesh, the apostle having told the truth about it, do they mind the things of the Spirit? If they mind the things of the flesh, and do not mind the things of the Spirit, and if they must perform certain conditions in order to get on the other side of the line, then they must mind the things of the Spirit. The apostle emphatically declares that they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh. They do not mind the things of the Spirit. "But they that are after the Spirit," on this side of the line, in contradistinction from "they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh," on the other side of the line—"they that are after the Spirit [do mind] the things of the Spirit." He must be on this side of the line in order that he mind the things of the Spirit. He must be on this side of the line in order that he care anything about the things of the Spirit, or be concerned about them; he must first be on this side of the line. 

 

I demand that the gentleman tell us what the sin­ner can do to get on the other side of the line. I want him to tell. He must do that to refute my proposi­tion; and unless he shows what a man can do on this side of the line to get on that side, my propo­sition must stand, since it takes that to overthrow the proposition. 

 

If to be carnally minded is death, to be on that side of the line, carnally minded, is to be in a state of death. The gentleman says that God says the flesh is not subject to his law. Please give us book, chapter, and verse where he says that, where he says the flesh is not subject to his law. I want to know where he said that. Please give us book, chapter, and verse. We want proof now. 

 

On this side of the line is to be carnally minded, and to be in that condition is to be in a state of death, and the gentleman says death means separation; and if they are in a state of death, then they are sep­arated from God and from eternal life; and if my proposition is not true, then it devolves upon him to show that the dead man can do something in order to obtain life. On that side of the line he is in a state of death; but he says: "They are dead; 0, yes, they are dead, but not so dead as Cayce thinks they are.'' I never said how dead I thought they were. Did you hear me say ? '' They are not so dead as Cayce thinks they are!" I wonder how he knows how dead Cayce thinks they are. Did you hear me say a word about how dead I thought they are? He says:'' They are dead, but not so dead as Cayce says they are.'' If they are not as dead as Cayce thinks they are, they are not dead. Will the gentleman tell us that the word "dead" is an adjective, that it may be com­pared? Is there a ten-year-old schoolboy in this town but what knows better than that? Is there a ten-year-old schoolboy in this town that does not know that there is no such thing as degrees in death; that the word "dead" is not an adjective, that it may be compared? If there is, he had better be taken out of the school. Positive, dead; compara­tive, deader; superlative, deadest! How dead is he, Brother Srygley? Now if he is not as dead as I said he was, he is not dead. I did not say he was any deader. I just said he was dead. God's word says so, and as Cayce said the same thing, Elder Srygley being witness, Cayce told the truth about it when he said the sinner is dead—God's word said so. 

 

   ''So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.'' On that side of the line, in the flesh, the apos­tle emphatically declares that he cannot please God. If he must perform conditions in order that he get on the other side of the line and become in posses­sion of the Spirit of Christ, or eternal life, then he must do that which is displeasing to God in order to get on that side of the line, for the apostle em­phatically declares that on this side of the line he cannot please God. I want to know how the man, on the other side of the line, by doing things dis­pleasing to God, gets on this side the line. Don't forget that. If you do forget it, I will call your at­tention to it again. I do not intend for you to for­get it. 

 

He says alien sinners are in the flesh when walk­ing after the flesh, but that they have some good about them. Why does he not tell us what it is? I demand, since you affirm that they have some good about them, that you tell us what that good is, and in what place may that good be found. Is that good in the man's head, or is it in his heart, or is it in his mouth, or is it in his throat, or is it in his eyes, or is it in his hands or in his feet? Where is that good? I want you to tell us where that good is. I have shown you from the apostle's statement that it is not in his eyes, because '' there is no fear of God be­fore their eyes." I have shown you that it is not in the mouth, for it "is full of cursing and bitterness;" that it is not in the throat, because the '' throat is an open sepulcher." I have shown that it is not in the heart, because the heart is deceitful and wicked. I have shown that it is not in their ways, for "de­struction and misery are in their ways." I have shown that it is not in their feet, for '' their feet are swift to shed blood." Where, then, is any good about them? I want to know if the gentleman's re­ligion is all head religion. 

 

Ge 2:15,17. God said: "In the day that thou eat-est thereof thou shalt surely die.'' He says that is true; that they were separated from the garden. You remember his calling your attention to the fact that God placed at the east of the garden a flaming sword and cherubims which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life, lest man reach forth and take of the fruit of the tree and live forever; but the gentleman says the man can perform condi­tions now and partake of the tree. He has got the Lord fooled, hasn't he! Since the man is a violator of God's law, now, lest he reach forth his hand and take of the fruit of the tree and live forever, God drove him out of the garden, placed him where he could not reach that tree, as a result of disobeying the command of God. That is the reason why he is placed where he cannot reach forth his hand and take of the tree of life and live forever. Then the man cannot perform the condition in order that he live. Thank you, thank you, Brother Srygley, for giving me the text. 

 

He refers to 1Co 15, and says all that you lost in Adam you have unconditionally in Christ. In the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians the apostle is dwelling upon the resurrection of the Lord's peo­ple. " As in Adam all die''—who die ? God's people —die, not died, but in the present tense. "As in Adam all die," die, now, in Adam; you die. Every day we are surrounded by death, and we see our fellow-men fall in death, dying in Adam—"as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.'' He did not read the next verse:'' But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; after­ward they that are Christ's at his coming." These are the characters. There is the order. "Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming;" every one of them raised in Christ. 

 

He refers to Eph 2:1, "And you hath he quick­ened, who were dead in trespasses and sins," and says it is trespasses and sins. True. Dead in tres­passes and sins. That is exactly what it says, and they are sinners, and I have shown you that the apostle emphatically declares that the whole race are under sin, and hence all the race are sinners, and all, therefore, in that state of death; and as they are in a state of death, if they live, the life must be given without conditions or works on their part. It must be that way. 

 

He replies to Ro 3:8-23. I say he '' replies'' to it. He does not. He makes a wrong statement, how­ever. He says that I stopped just before I read verse 22|. He makes a positive false statement be­fore you. I do not charge that he does it intention­ally, but he made it, all the same. Either he was so absorbed in something else that he did not hear what I said, or else it is a wrong statement intentional­ly, one of the two, for I did read it. Listen. See whether I did or not. Twenty-second and twenty-third verses—the gentleman stopped himself before reading the twenty-third verse, after saying I stopped before reading the twenty-second. Let me read, beginning with the twentieth verse on down to and including the twenty-third verse, and see whether you remember that I read it: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justi­fied in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." You remember the argument I made on that. "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." 

 

   Didn't I read it? Read it emphatically, that the apostle here declares "both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin," and "have come short of the glory of God,'' the last one of them. That is the argument that I made upon that, that all have come short of the glory of God, and all in sin, and resting under the condemnation of the law. If we are not saved unconditionally, then it must be by obedience to the law, and the apostle emphatically says that we are not justified that way, not saved that way. 

 

He says that God proposed to save all that would obey him. Book, chapter, and verse, please? I want citation of that. Proof is necessary in debating. But how many assertions did he make! Assertions are not proof. It requires proof, if you please. 

 

He refers to Ps 53:1-3. He says: "Yes, there is a class; God is talking about all that are gone astray." Mark, he says now it says class, and yet God says all. He wants to divide, and say class. You mind if he does not get out of that class busi­ness before he gets through. That is all I will say about that at present, but just mind and see if he does not get out of that class business. 

 

Ec 7:20: "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." I showed you from this that the prophet declares that there is not one that sins not. 

 

Jas 2:10, which he does not notice: "For who­soever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." So if he transgresses one point he is guilty of the whole law, and there­fore condemned by the law, and hence impossible for him to be saved by performing good works or condi­tions. 

 

   He refers to Ga 3:10-11: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.'' You remember his comments on that. He says that I will be saying, before this thing is over, that they live without faith. Just wait until I say it. Just wait until I say it. 

 

He denies that infants and adults are saved the same way. "I deny that," he says. "Infants are not saved," the gentleman says. He says: "They are safe." All right. Can you tell me how anything can ever be lost that is safe? Now don't forget that. You tell me how anything that is in a safe condition, and safe, in a safe state, how it will ever be in an unsafe state, and how it will be in a lost state, how it will ever be lost? Now don't forget to notice that. 

 

He denies that infants and adults are saved the same way. All right. Listen.

Mr 10:1: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." He says God was talking about his people in that. All right. Then here are the alien or unregenerate sinners, those not God's people; and these over here are God's people. He says God was talking about them when he said that: '' Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots ? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.'' Then, ac­cording to the gentleman's contention, God's people cannot do good things, but the unregenerate can. Children of God cannot, but the children of the devil can. God's people cannot do good things, but the devil's children can. That is the position the gen­tleman is in by his contention. He did it himself. I didn't put him there. 

 

He refers then to the jailer. The jailer says: '' What must I do to be saved?'' Wasn't that jailer an awakened character? Certainly he was, else he wouldn't have realized any danger. He must have been an awakened character. Then it was too late for the apostle to tell him what he must do in order to be awakened; but the apostle said: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He says Cayce would have said: "Not do anything. Just sit right still, and don't do anything." Wait and see what Cayce says. The apostle says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.'' Did he stop there ? '' And thy house." The belief, then, of the jailer would save himself and his family. Would the gentleman say that the believing of the father or the mother saves the children in an eternal sense? Will he? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.'' Why, he stopped in the mid­dle of the sentence. To read the whole sentence would prove too much for him. It would place him in a position that he must say the belief of the father or the mother or the guardian will save the children, as well as themselves; it will save the whole family, if the head of the family, if the father, will just be­lieve—that will save the whole family. 

 

   Heb 5:9: "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Now let us see about that. Here is a character that does not obey him. Here is one that does obey him. "He became the author of eternal salvation." If he is the author of eternal salvation, then he is the beginner of it. He begins it and carries it on; and, remember, he says emphatically, "being made perfect," and, as a literal translation would give it, "having been made perfect," "he be­came the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Made perfect, a perfect Captain. It must be true, then, as he is a perfect Captain, and the author of eternal salvation, that he saves every ore whose salvation he undertakes. The gentleman contends that he won't save any one but those who perform conditions. I say every one who has yet or ever will really and truly obey the Lord from a spirit of love for God will be saved in heaven. I maintain that. I ask the gentleman, do you believe it? Do you believe that every one who ever has yet really rendered service to God from a spirit of love to God will be saved in heaven? Put that down, Brother Srygley. I demand that you answer that. Do you believe they will all be saved in heaven? I challenge him to say whether he does or not. 

 

He refers then to 2Co 5:20, but as he did not get through with that, I will leave it. 

 

I proceed now with my affirmative arguments. My argument that I was on was that eternal life must be given to alien sinners without conditions on their part, because they cannot come to the Lord or do good works. I quoted Jer 13:23 and Joh 5:37-44. 

 

   I now call attention to Joh 6:44: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Here the Savior emphatically declares that no man can come to him unless drawn by the Father. "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." A plain statement of the Son of God that that character, the believer, has everlasting life. That character, in a state of unregeneracy, the Savior emphatically declares cannot come to him; that "no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." If he must perform conditions, then the Savior was wrong when he says: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." 

 

Mr 10:15: "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.'' In the very same man­ner, in the very same way— [Time expired.] 

CS.006 MR. SRYGLEY'S SECOND REPLY

MR. SRYGLEY'S SECOND REPLY. 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The gentleman complained at the very beginning of his speech that I had not noticed certain pas­sages. Well, I shall take my own time, and in my own way reply to him. It is not the number of pas­sages introduced that proves a proposition, but their relevancy to the question in controversy. I have no reason to hold back anything. I feel sure that there is not a passage he has introduced that will in any way prove his proposition, and therefore I can have no inclination to dodge any of them. I can, with perfect safety, examine all of them, if I have time, for none of them prove his proposition. 

 

He says I did not notice Ge 3:5, where Adam sinned, in disobedience to God's law, and died. I noticed it in my way; but I want to say, in reference to the disobedience of Adam, that the Lord gave him a commandment, and said: "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam evi­dently understood that command, and he could have obeyed God, else God would not have given him the commandment; but the devil told them a falsehood, that they should not surely die in the day that they ate thereof, and they believed that falsehood. As long as Adam and Eve believed God and obeyed him, they were happy and all right; but when they disbe­lieved him and believed the devil instead, and dis­obeyed God, they brought ruin upon themselves and their posterity. In fact, that was the sin, the belief of a falsehood, and obedience to it that brought death and ruin on the human family. He says that I said that God placed a flaming sword to keep the way of the tree of life. The Bible says that. He further­more said, according to my position, no man can get back to the garden of Eden. The tree of life has been transplanted in the paradise of God, and man can get there, by faith and obedience to God, but he cannot get there in disobedience. You see, if a man would retrace his steps, what he must do. Adam lost by believing a falsehood and disobeying God, and I insist that man returns to God by belief of the truth and obedience to it. He did not go away from God by doing nothing. He got away from God by believing a falsehood and obeying it, and he returns by believing the truth and obeying it. If I walk over here three steps and wish to get back, I retrace my steps, go back as many steps as I came forward. Adam heard a falsehood, he believed it and obeyed it, and thus he was banished from the garden of Eden. My friend says I teach that a man can get back to God. I do teach that he can go back to the tree of life, or into God's favor. He returns by re­tracing his steps. He hears the truth, he believes it and obeys it, and that puts him back. He says I did not notice that before. Well, he is not the judge. I leave that entirely to the audience, as to what I said on that point. 

 

   He says I did not notice Jas 2:10. You ought to know that that was written to the brethren, and not to the alien sinners. I am sure he is not making the distinction between the alien sinner and the sinner who is in God's covenant that he should, for I am sure these were not alien sinners. The passage says if a man transgresses in one point, he is guilty of all. That is true. If a mule is in the lot, and jumps over one panel of the fence, he is out, as well as if he had jumped every panel; but this has nothing what­ever to do with the question at issue. 

 

The erring child of God must get back by obedi­ence. God has made provision for this, full provi­sion. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." (1Joh 1:9.) The brother has it that he forgives without any condi­tions; but when we turn to the word of God and read you the conditions, we know he is mistaken in his contention. 

 

Again he says that the difference between the alien and the sinner who is not an alien is that the alien is an unsaved sinner and the other sinner is a saved sinner. Well, I want to ask, is it possible for the saved sinner to become an unsaved sinner? Can the saved sinner go back into sin and do according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth; and if so, will he still be a saved sinner? The prophet said that his righteousness would not be mentioned unto him, but in his trespasses and in his sins that he sinned, in them shall he die; and therefore I say the alien sinner can turn away from sin and inherit eternal life, and the Christian, who has entered the service of God, can turn back to sin and do all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, and he will die, too, for all his righteousness will not be mentioned. (See Eze 18:20-32.) 

 

   My opponent says that he that hath the Son hath life. I ask again: Is he actually in the enjoyment of the eternal life, or has he it only in prospect? It would be natural to say that if there is a girl in this city whose father left her a million dollars, that she will get when she is twenty-one years of age, while now she is only fifteen, that that girl is worth a million. It is not in actual possession. It is in the hands of her guardians, perhaps, but she will get it in actual possession on condition that she lives till she is twenty-one. I believe we have everlasting life in that sense, but we will actually come into pos­session of it when we go away into eternal life. That is the way. I am sure it is. 

 

John says, in speaking of eternal life:'' This is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.'' (1Jo 2:25.) Is one actually in possession of a thing which is only promised? Brother Cayce says he actually has it. John says it is a promise, and Paul says: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." (Tit 1:2.) Can a man hope for a thing that he already has ? 

 

The Savior says: "And every one that hath for­saken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." (Mt 19:29.) Brother Cayce says he has it now. And again the Savior says: "Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or chil­dren, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." (Lu 18:29-30.) Brother Cayce says that "the Bible says he that believeth on the Son has everlasting life." I know it does, but that means in prospect. He is liv­ing here in this fleshly life now, and will come in possession of eternal life in the world to come. He says they have it in them, and then they go into it. I don't understand how that is. "Hath everlasting life" means we have it in prospect. This I have shown you. And they come in possession of it in the world to come. There is no reason in it as he puts it—first in him and he in it. 

 

 Paul says: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.'' (Ro 8:7.) My opponent says: "I want you to show me where it says the flesh­ly mind is enmity against God, and where the fleshly mind is not subject to the law of God." Paul says: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." I said flesh and carnality mean fleshly. That is what I believe, and so I used flesh instead of car­nality. Does the gentleman say the carnal mind is not the fleshly mind1? I am sure it is. 

 

Again, he says:'' One must want what he does not want." I say a man must want eternal life. Still Cayce says the Book teaches that he does not want it. Well, some folks do not want it, but some do. Those that want it will get it by complying with the condi­tions presented, and those that do not want it will not get it, for they will refuse to comply with the condi­tions. 

 

Again, he comes back to his diagram and to Ro 8. He says I did not answer it. I am sure I did. Notice the first verse of that chapter. It says: '' There is therefore now no con­demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.'' No­tice, here are two conditions that must be present be­fore a man is in that place that there is no condemna­tion resting upon him. First, he must be in Christ. Second, he must walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. If those brethren could not walk after the flesh, why was Paul exhorting them not to do it? I say there is danger, brethren, of even Christians walking after the flesh. I am sure that we some­times follow the things of the flesh. 

 

   He says, again: "I demand that the gentleman tell what the sinner must do in order to be saved." He has no right to make such a demand on me at this time. I am following him. I am not here to prove anything. I am here to examine the passages he relies on to prove his proposition for two more nights. After that I will tell him on what conditions God saves men. It is illogical to make such a de­mand on me now. 

 

He says he wants to know where God says that the flesh is not subject to the law. Paul says: "For the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not sub­ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Romans  8:7|.) Carnality means fleshly here. 

 

He says he wonders how I know how dead Cayce thinks they are, and then he says he would just like to get a schoolboy to compare dead—dead, deader, deadest. Let me suggest here that this term'' dead,'' or death, is a figurative word in this connection, and the Savior here teaches that the man is separated from God and from truth and righteousness, and is in that sense dead—dead, not literally, but only in a figurative sense. The child of God is represented as being dead, too. He is dead to sin. He is dead and alive at the same time. So is the sinner. The sinner is dead in sin, but alive to sin; but the righteous man is dead to sin, but alive to Christ and to righteous­ness. 

 

When a man dies the natural death, the spirit is separated from his body. The sinner is said to be dead, and he is, in a figure; and Cayce says he cannot hear. But he can hear politics; he can take part in all the affairs of this life; still he is figuratively dead. The word "dead" is used figuratively. Cannot he hear God and obey him? The gentleman does not know what spiritual death means. 

 

I want to reply to the whole speech, if I have time.  Again, he says he demands that I tell what good there is in a sinner. I am not here to tell. I am following him. I am in the negative. I am here to examine his proof, but if it will accommodate him, I will say that there are sinners in this city who love their wives or families, and do good to them, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and do good in many ways. 

 

I said there is good in some sinners. I did not say there is good in every one. I believe a man can get so wicked that the gospel will not reach him, and some of those the gentleman read about were per­haps in that condition; but when the sinner gets so bad he cannot hear the gospel and believe it, then he will be lost. 

 

We read: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1Co 15:22.) He says I stopped at that without reading the re­mainder of the passage. The next verse says: "But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his com­ing. " '' They that are Christ's''—some are Christ's and some are not. Cayce says Christ's are those that have eternal life and that God has done some­thing for, and those not Christ's are those that God has not done anything for. A man is Christ's if he keeps Christ's commandments. In the third chapter of Galatians the apostle is talking about them that are Christ's. In the latter part of the chapter he says: "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul says, in Ro 8: "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Then the man who obeys him, walks by his teaching, will be raised to everlasting life; and that man that has not believed and obeyed the Lord will be raised to everlasting gloom and despair. 

 

 Paul says: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph 2:1-3.) If the apostle wanted to teach that they were dead in Adam's sin, he would have said "dead in a trespass and in a sin," for Adam disobeyed but one com­mandment in the fall. The fact that Paul used the plural is proof to my mind that they were dead in their own sins. 

 

He says God gives eternal life unconditionally. I do not remember a passage that he has read that says that God gives eternal life without any condition. He read one, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life," and that looks to me like a condi­tion, but he says he had the life before he believed. A man cannot have life in unbelief. 

 

   He says again, infants and adults are saved the same way. I say that infants are not saved—they are safe. But he says the Lord said that they are saved the same way adults are saved. The Lord never said it. Cayce says, "If you do not receive the kingdom as a little child receives it," but the Book does not say that. It says: If you do not receive the kingdom as a little child, in the same trusting, loving way that a little child will receive a thing from its father or mother, you cannot enter therein. In all of my sins, I do not remember the day that I did not know there was beauty in holiness, and my Savior, through the gospel, came to me and found me in sin. He offered me something better than sin. It is like the mother when her little child has a dangerous knife in his hands. She offers him a beautiful apple, and in his eagerness to get the apple he drops the knife. That is the way the gospel came to me. He offered me something better than sin. I dropped it, and I took hold of that which was offered through obedience to God and the gospel of Christ. You remember how Paul puts this: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." (Romans  1:16|.) But it is the power of God to what? To salvation to him that believeth. But if I believed that man had eternal life without conditions, I would say that I can afford to be ashamed of the gospel, for it is not the power of God unto salvation. In fact, it is not God's power to anything. God came to me with the gospel in its beauty and offered me something better. Drop your sins and take salva­tion. 

 

Brother Cayce's position is that God comes to you, and in his divine violence rushes in upon the heart of the sinner like a thief in the night, and gives you something you do not want. The Bible does not teach it. There is nothing in it that teaches it. 

 

In regard to Ro 3:8-23, he says I made a false statement, and that he does not know whether I did it on purpose or not. I tell you I did not do it on pur­pose, if I did it at all. I did it with as good grace as I ever did anything in my life. I did not think he read the twenty-second verse. He says he did. Well, I was busy taking notes and may have been mis­taken. One thing is certain: if you did read it, it did not help your contention. It says: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference." Is that not a condition? If he read the twenty-second verse, I do not know how he gets over it. 

 

   God proposed to save all that would obey him. He says there is not much in that. Well, there is this in it: Your contention is wrong if that passage means just what it says, for it says: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the au­thor of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb 5:8-9.) Brother Cayce says there is nothing in that. His proposition is not true if that is true. His proposition is that God gives eternal life to the alien sinner without condition, and this passage says he gives it to them that obey him. I would hate to be under it. Nothing in it, though, Cayce says. 

 

Of the sixteenth chapter of #Acts, he says: "Do you know that the brother takes the position that the father's faith saves the children!" The brother did not do any such thing. Let me read the passage again:'' Sirs, what must I do to be saved! And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Ac 16:30-31.) His house is promised salvation on the same terms as the jailer. That is what it means, that the house will be saved exactly like the parents. But he says the passage teaches that the house or family was prom­ised salvation on the faith of the jailer. It means that the children and all the family will be saved just like the father, or on the same condition. The jailer is going to be saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. The others did not believe, did they? Bead a little further. "And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.'' (Ac 16:34.) So that was the reason the house was saved, because they did the same thing the father did. My opponent says that means that the children will be saved without doing anything. He is so anxious that one be saved without doing anything that he cannot see anything when it is right before his eyes. 

 

   The jailer said: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?'' Not what must God give, not what must the Spirit do, not what must the apostles do, but what must I do to be saved, not in order to save himself. People do not save themselves; God saves them. You understand the difference between a condition of sal­vation and the Savior. This man was not his own savior. Christ was the Savior. The Bible teaches plainly that Christ save?. How was he saved? Without conditions? This passage does not indicate it. He said:'' Sirs, what must I do " that the Savior may save me? And Paul and Silas told him what to do. My friend says he was already saved. But he was a heathen jailer. He had never heard of Christ, so far as this record goes, until that night. There could be but one possible chance for him ever to have heard anything about Jesus, and that was that poor afflicted girl that was healed, who said: '' These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation." (Ac 16:17.) My opponent says the jailer was already saved when he asked the question: "What must I do to be saved?" If this was true, why did not Paul and Silas say:" We will disabuse your mind. You cannot do anything. You are all saved; you have it, but you do not know it." It was the best place in the world to do it. I know why: because it was not true. He was not saved. So Paul and Silas told him, like they knew he could do something. They said: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straight­way. '' (Ac 16:31-33.) And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them and re­joiced. Here is where the rejoicing came. They had obeyed the Lord. Here is where they had assurance of remission of sins, because the salvation here must mean the salvation from past sin, and here is where the joy comes in. They had believed and repented of their sins. There is nothing said here about it, but that is implied. He evidently repented and was bap­tized between twelve and one o'clock. He came back into his house, then, rejoicing, believing in God, with all of his house. How simple is the plan of salva­tion! 

 

There is another thing. He says there is not a just man on the earth—not one. I admit that. All have come under sin, and nobody lives absolutely free from sin. There is but one way that a man can be free, and that is by obeying the gospel of Christ, and after he does enter the service of God, he still is liable to do wrong; but when he does, he has an Ad­vocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit says: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1Jo 1:9.) 

 

Again, Brother Cayce says that infants and adults are saved in the same way, but they are not. In­fants are safe. They are not saved. The blessed little buds of life will blossom and bloom in the para­dise of God. They need nothing but the resurrec­tion. Life is what they lost in Adam; and they gain that through Christ. All they need is the resurrec­tion from the dead. I do not believe that your little one, playing and laughing on your bosom, is as mean as the devil himself. I do not believe that he has been poisoned by sin and wickedness, and many of us have little ones in the paradise of God. He says that if they are safe, they will always be safe and can never be lost. I am sure that an infant can grow into an adult. The infant is safe; but when they are grown they are adults; and if they are lost, they will be lost on account of their own sins. It is the easiest thing possible to understand the gospel. [Time ex­pired.] 

 

CS.007 MR. CAYCE 'S THIRD ADDRESS

MR. CAYCE 'S THIRD ADDRESS.

 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I am before you again in the affirmative of the proposition which you have heard read: "God gives eternal life to an alien sinner without a condition upon his (the sinner's) part, and the Scriptures so teach." That is, the Scriptures teach that God gives eternal life to an alien sinner, a dead sinner, without conditions on his part.

 

   Before resuming my affirmative arguments, I wish to notice the things that were said in the last speech last night that are worthy of notice.

 

   First, I wish to call your attention to Brother Srygley's illustration as to how the man died, and as to how the man must live again. In the garden he heard a falsehood, he believed a falsehood, and obeyed a falsehood. In so doing, he went three steps away from God. Now in order that he may be saved in heaven, he must take three steps back—hear the truth, believe the truth, and obey the truth. I wish to illustrate that as he illustrated it. First, we find the man here in the garden of Eden, as he fell from the plastic hand of his Creator, where the tree of life is, this book representing the tree of life. The man, Elder Srygley tells us, heard a lie, believed a lie, and obeyed a lie—went three steps away from God, there­by going into death. Now let's try it. I am going to show you that his position—laying his position down as a platform—is too short at both ends and is broken in two in the middle. The man hears a lie—that is one step. He believes a lie—two steps.  Obeys a lie—that is three steps. He has gone three steps away from God, into death. The platform is too short at this end, for in Joh 8:43 the Savior says: "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." The man must hear the truth, believe the truth, and obey the truth, in order to get back where he started from. The Son of God says that you cannot hear his word, and hence the platform is too short at this end to reach the case of the sinner. But suppose we grant that the sinner can hear, notwithstanding the Son of God says he cannot. Let's grant, in order that we see the result of his position, that the sinner can hear. He hears the truth, he believes the truth, and he obeys the truth, gets back to the place where he was; but, behold, the tree of life is gone, Elder Srygley be­ing witness, for he says it has been transplanted in the paradise of God. Where is it? The man has got back to the place he started from; but, behold, the tree is gone, Elder Srygley being witness, and the man cannot now eat of the tree of life and live for­ever. Hence the platform is too short at that end, because the man cannot hear; and too short at this end, for Elder Srygley himself says the tree of life has been taken away and transplanted in the para­dise of God.

 

   Is that the only reason it is too short at this end? No, sir. Where was the man at first? He was in the garden of Eden. In order that he be saved, he must be taken to heaven and immortal glory. If the man hears the truth, believes the truth, and obeys the truth, it takes him back three steps and lands him into the garden of Eden, and fails to land him into heaven, into immortal glory.

 

   But I said it was broken in two in the middle. Elder Srygley says he goes away from God, and comes back in the same way that he left. Isa 42:16 says: "I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known." Hence they do not go back the same way that they left. It is a way that they knew not, and a way that they have not known. Hence his position is too short at both ends and broken in two in the middle.

 

   In reference to Jas 2:10, he says: "James was talking to the brethren." That is the language he uses. James was talking to the brethren; but in writing to the brethren James makes a plain, posi­tive statement of a fact. That fact is that whoso­ever shall transgress in one point is guilty of the whole law. The alien sinner is a transgressor. Hence he is guilty of the whole law. In order that he be saved in heaven by obedience, he must keep the whole law, and that perpetually, too.

 

   In reply to that, or in speaking of that, he referred to Eze 18, and in Eze 18 a blessing is promised to those who obey the law, but only temporal bless­ings; these people are promised the temporal bless­ings under the law, the protection of the law, by living in obedience to the law; but these were tem­poral blessings. He must give an instance where the alien sinner is under consideration.

 

    But then he says that no one actually has eternal life now. Hence, according to the Elder's own state- ment, as no one has eternal life now, his religion is a dead religion. I guess, when this thing winds up, we will have a second-class funeral. Dead religion! His own admission! No eternal life now! Nobody has it Dead religion, the Elder himself being wit­ness—they only have the promise of it. He refers to 1Jo 2:25: "This is the promise which he hath promised us." Notice that—" this is the promise which he hath promised us." The promise was made a long time ago; not the promise made now, but the promise made a long time ago.  What was it that he promised a long time ago? Eternal life. And John was writing to people to whom God had made that promise. God had now fulfilled that promise. How do you know? 1Jo 5:11-12: "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Now let the Elder tell you that he does not possess eternal life. If he does, I will say that he is without Christ. "He that hath not the Son of God hath not life." "He that hath the Son hath life." If he has Christ, he has eternal life; and if he says he does not have eternal life now, then he ad­mits he does not have Christ, and Christ is not on his side of the question. He is destitute of Christ. It is a dead religion.

 

   Tit 1:2. God promised eternal life before the world began—before the ages of time began God made the promise of eternal life. He has fulfilled that promise now with this people, and has bestowed that life upon them; but the Elder said something about hoping toward eternal life, and at the same time not being in possession of it. I wonder if the gentleman thinks that a man who is destitute of nat­ural or physical life can hope to have natural or physical life? Who is it that hopes to live? The man that has life, or the man who is destitute of it? The man that is already in possession of the natural life hopes to live the natural life. The man that is destitute of natural life is destitute of the hope of natural life. Hope springs from life. Hope grows out of life. Hence that character who is in posses­sion of the hope of eternal life, and hopes to live with God in the glory world, is in possession of the eternal life, from which the hope springs, and he expects, by reason of that life, to live on and on in all eternity with God in heaven.

 

   Then he says something about Mt 25, you know—"go away into eternal life; " then he says, "You are in it, and it is in you, and you are in it, and it is in you, and you are in it," and makes fun of it, you know; makes sport of it. All right. Joh 14:20—Jesus says: "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." You in me and I in you. Now make fun of that, will you! Try your hand on that for a while.

 

   He says, though, they must want life bad enough to obey in order to get it. I have answered that. Who is it that wants to live—the man that is dead or the man who is in possession of life? But he says they are only dead figuratively. Prove it, Elder. Assertion is one thing; proof is another. Let's try it. Eph 2:1: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." He says they are figuratively dead. All right. "And you hath he figuratively quickened, who were figuratively dead in trespasses and sins ; wherein in time past ye fig­uratively walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now figuratively worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all figuratively had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, figuratively fulfilling the de­sires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature figuratively the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is figuratively rich in mercy, for his great figurative love wherewith he figuratively loved us, even when we were figuratively dead in sins, hath figuratively quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are figuratively saved)." Now where are you? Bosh!

 

   He says I have no right to demand that he tell what the sinner must do. Yes, I have. Let's see. "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." (Ro 8:8-9.) The apostle said they that are in the flesh cannot please God. On this side of the line they are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, and can please God. Who is in the Spirit? That character that has the Spirit of Christ. It makes no difference what the character on this side of the line, he that is in the flesh, does, he cannot please God. He that lives after the flesh, it is emphatically told us, that character is destitute of the Spirit of Christ—the man that lives after the flesh, the man that is in the flesh—and he cannot please God. I ask the Elder to tell us what can he do to get on this side of the line. He cannot please God to get over there. The apostle emphatically declares that he is destitute of the Spirit of God on that side of the line, and he cannot please God. If he must get on the other side of the line by performing conditions, I have a right to ask what they are, and unless he shows what the man can do on that side of the line, while in the flesh, in order to get on the other side, and thus not be in the flesh, but in the Spirit, then my argument remains unanswered, and while that remains unanswered my proposition stands." It takes that to overthrow and disprove my proposi­tion; it just takes that. He don't have it to do, of course not. He don't have it to do. He don't have to disprove the proposition. Why don't he do it? Because he can't. He would if he could; but if he could not, how could he?

 

   1Co 15:22-23—the twenty-second verse he in­troduced to prove that what we lost in Adam we gained in Christ. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." I quoted it and called attention to the twenty-third verse—" But ev­ery man in his own order: Christ the first fruits ; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming"—showing that the apostle is talking about the resur­rection of the bodies of the saints, and then the Elder admits that there is a restriction in it. Shifts his position. Put your finger on him, will you?  He says the Lord never said an adult receives the kingdom as a little child, but as a little child receives a gift from its mother. Let us quote the text again. Mr 10:15: "Whosoever shall not receive the king­dom of God as a little child receives a gift from his mother, he shall not enter therein." No, sir! That is Srygley That is Brother Srygley, but not Christ. Christ said: "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not en­ter therein." What was he talking about? Receiv­ing the kingdom of God. He was not talking about receiving gifts from the mother. Elder Srygley knows it.

 

   "God offers life and immortality." Give us book, chapter, and verse that says God ever offered life, will you?

 

   Ac 16:31. The jailer again. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." The language has in it that the jailer's house are saved just the same as the jailer. I make that statement again: "Thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

 

   I now resume my affirmative arguments. I was on my fifth argument. I introduced Jer 13:23; Joh 5:37-44; 6:44. He has not noticed Joh 5:37-44 or Joh 6:44. I now introduce Mt 19:16-26: "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why call­est thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the com­mandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" Now, here we have this proposition: Here is one that be­lieved he would have eternal life by doing good things, by doing something. The Savior will try him on that platform, and we will see whether he can be saved that way or not. He was a pretty good young man in his own estimation, wasn't he? I guess he was just about as good in his own estimation as almost any people in this community are; don't you suppose he was? He says all of these he had kept from his youth up.

 

   Now, if I love my neighbor as myself, and I have five dollars, I would be just as willing for my neigh­bor to have the five dollars as to keep it for my own. I would be as willing for my neighbor to have the five dollars as to keep it myself, else I do not love my neighbor as myself. Let's see if he does love his neighbor as himself. "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrow­ful: for he had great possessions." He went away sorrowful. Did he love his neighbor as himself?  No, sir; he did not want to give up his possessions. Not only is that true, but it shows he did not love the Savior, for he did not want to do what the Savior told him to do.

 

   "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." What have we here? That it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a man to enter into the kingdom of heaven on his own righteousness, good works, or deeds. I believe it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a cambric needle than for a man to be saved that way.

 

   "When his disciples heard it, they were exceed­ingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved! But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible." What is impossible with men? Impossible to be saved. As it is impossible with men, then they are not saved by performing condi­tions. If any are saved, then it must be without con­ditions; but as some are saved, and it is impossible with men to be saved, then it must be that they are saved without conditions on their part. "But with God all things are possible."

 

   My next argument is, eternal life must be given to alien sinners without conditions on their part, be­cause sinners are justified by grace.

 

   Tit 3:3-7: "For we ourselves also were some­times foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hate­ful, and hating one another. But after that the kind­ness and love of God our Savior toward man ap­peared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Here we have it emphatically stated in the seventh verse that they are justified by grace. Grace is a favor that is bestowed upon one who is unworthy to receive, and hence he has not performed works and conditions in order that the grace may be bestowed. Hence it is a matter of grace. Not only that, but the apostle tells us in the third and fourth verses what they were doing. Were they doing good works? No, sir; they were doing bad works. "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobe­dient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another." Now God bestows the grace, and takes them out of this condition wherein they performed these evil works, and places them in a saved state. 

 

    Ro 4:1-10: "What shall we say then that Abra­ham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are for­given, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." Righteousness imputed without works. Here is an imputed righteousness, and that without works ; and as this righteousness is imputed to Abraham before circumcision and without works, it follows that the sinner is saved without effort on his part.

 

   Heb 7:19-22: "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did: by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not with­out an oath he was made priest: (for those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec:) by so much was Jesus made a sure­ty of a better testament." Jesus did not merely be­come security for his people, and promise to pay what they could not pay, but he is their surety; and as he is their surety, his name is placed in the con­tract instead of their name ; and hence the Father looked to him for the payment of the debt. He paid the debt, made the atonement for them, satisfied di­vine justice in their room and in their stead, satis­fied the law for them; and hence it is what Jesus did that saves sinners, and not what the sinners do for themselves that saves them.

 

   Ga 2:16-21 "Knowing that a man is not justi­fied by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin t God forbid. For if I build again the things which I de­stroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteous­ness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." If sinners are saved by performing conditions, they could be saved that way without the coming of Christ just as well as with it; and hence Christ died in vain, if that is the way sinners are saved. But the apostle forever settles that question, and states that sinners are not saved "by the works of the law," or by performing conditions.

 

   Ac 13:38-39: "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

 

   Ro 3:20: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

 

   Ro 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Wages is what you get for what you do; you transgress God's holy law, and death is the result. But God gives eternal life. He bestows eter­nal life as a gracious gift, and takes the poor sinner out of that state of death in sin, and fits and qualifies him to live in heaven with Jesus and the holy angels, and takes him home to glory by and by, and thus sin­ners are saved by his grace. "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

   My next argument is, eternal life is given the alien sinner without conditions on his part, because it is the work of the Lord that puts the sinner in Christ, and not the work of the sinner; hence he is saved without performing conditions on his part.

 

   1Co 1:26-31: "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemp­tion"—everything the poor sinner needs— "that, ac­cording as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." It is of God that you are in Christ, and not the works of the sinner, and there­fore it is without conditions on the part of the sin­ner.

 

    My next argument is that eternal life is given with­out conditions on the part of the alien sinner, because the covenant of God's peace is an unconditional one, being like the covenant with Noah. Isa 54:9-10: "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee." What is it that shall not be removed? The covenant of his peace; and his kindness shall not depart from these characters that are embraced in the covenant of his peace. That covenant is just like the covenant that he made with Noah. Did God say unto Noah, if you will obey my law and live uprightly, and all your posterity, that I will never again destroy the earth by flood or wa­ter? No, sir. If God had made a covenant like that, do we not know that this earth would have been de­stroyed long ago?  Certainly. For we have all lived in disobedience. This covenant is just like the cove­nant that he made with Noah. The covenant that he made with Noah was an unconditional covenant, and the covenant of his peace is just like that. And as the covenant of his peace is just like that, then sin­ners are saved without conditions on their part, just like the earth is kept from being destroyed by water without conditions on the part of men and women. So the sinner is saved by unmerited grace without conditions on his part.

 

   My next argument is that eternal life is given with­out conditions on the part of the alien sinner, be­cause Christ Jesus came into the world to save sin­ners, and accomplished the work of redemption. The salvation of the sinner, therefore, does not depend upon works performed by him, but depends alone upon the finished work of the Lord.

 

   Isa 63:1-5: "Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah this that is glorious in his apparel, traveling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save." Mighty to save! Notice that, if you please. "Wherefore art thou red in thine ap­parel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salva­tion unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." Is it not a pity that God would not look again? He would see somebody now to help him, wouldn't he? Alien sinners, according to Brother Srygley's posi­tion, can help the Lord in the salvation of their souls by performing good works, and thereby bring them­selves into favor with God. But he says there was none to help.

 

   Zec 9:11: "As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water."

 

   Isa 42:1-4: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

 

   Isa 45:17: "But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."

 

   Mt 1:21: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

 

   I want the Elder to tell me, do you believe that Mary did bring forth a son? Do you believe that they did call his name Jesus? Do you believe that he saves his people from their sins? Do you believe the angel from the glory world told the truth when he said, "He shall save his people from their sins?"

 

   Mt 18:11-14: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray." [Time expired.]

CS.008 MR. SRYGLEY'S THIRD REPLY

MR. SRYGLEY'S THIRD REPLY.

 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

   I am before you to reply to the speech that you have heard.

 

   In the first place, my opponent said that my posi­tion that man returned to God by reversing his steps could not be true, because of the fact that no­body knows where the garden of Eden and the tree of life are, because the tree of life has been moved. Well, it seems to me that the gentleman mixes up things here considerably. I believe that the man gets back to God; and while it is stated that the tree of life is in the paradise of God, I understand, of course, that is figurative language, and the meaning of it is: we will come back to him, and we always come back from where we started by reversing our steps. Man, while in the favor and mercy of God in the garden of Eden, was living in obedience to the law of God. God gave him one truth to believe and one commandment to obey. The truth that God re­quired him to believe was that "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The command­ment he gave him to obey was: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall sure­ly die." (Ge 2:16-17.) But Adam was influenced by his wife, and led to disbelieve God, and that dis­belief was of such a character as to lead him into disobedience. He disbelieved God and acted upon it, and by doing that he lost the favor of his Maker, and was banished from the garden. This is the way all men depart from and forfeit the favor of God; and in order to get back to the favor of God, it is neces­sary for man to retrace his steps, to believe, not a lie, but the truth, and obey, not a falsehood, but the word of God. Hence, my friends, God has given man truth to believe and commands to obey in order that man may return to his loving favor, in all of which man becomes an active agent and not a passive recipient in the salvation of his soul, as my opponent would have you believe. Now the great central truth to be believed and the one specific and positive law to be obeyed in order for man to reenter the covenant of grace with God is expressed by his Son thus: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mr 16:15-16.) Hence, when I said last night that man could return to the "tree of life," I sup­posed, of course, that the gentleman would under­stand that nothing more was meant than that man could come back to God; but, like a drowning man, he "catches at straws." Brother Cayce says: "The tree of life is gone." I ask: "Gone where? Is it not transplanted, standing in the midst of the heavenly paradise? (Re 2:7.) And now what completely refutes my friend's position is that an inspired man says that in order to reach that "tree" we must obey Christ. "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb 5:9.)

 

   Again, he quoted, as I understood: from Isa 2:16. I asked him the place, and he said: "Keep your ears open." He asked me last night where I was read­ing and I told him, but he refuses to tell me where he is reading. If you object to telling me, it leaves the suspicion that the passage gives you no support other than to fill up space. It seems that the gentle­man is trying to run off and get away from me, but I will follow where he leads, and turn enough of his proof texts against him to convince the candid of his erroneous position.

 

   He says I must quote the passages which refer to the alien sinner. When he quoted Jas 2:10 and I replied to it, he says: "Why, that is not the alien sinner." Well, why does he bring it up? I was re­plying to him when I quoted it; and if he did not in­troduce it as referring to an alien sinner, what point is there in it?

 

   Last night one of his chief proof texts was: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." (Jer 13:23.) The context shows that Jeremiah was talking about God's people who had been in covenant relation with God, but turned away from him. I believe a man can do evil till he gets so he cannot do good, and when he gets into that condi­tion he is in a condition to be lost.

 

   Last night he said he thought I had "head reli­gion." Well, it does not make any difference whether I have any at all, so far as the proposition is con­cerned. I can answer him, and that is what I am here for. I will remind the gentleman that we are not discussing my religion, but an entirely different proposition. I am in the negative, and I will reply to him as I see proper; and when it comes my time, I will tell him where and what the religion of Christ is. He says he thinks my religion is "dead." He should not worry about me, but about his proposition, which, if not dead, is in a very bad way. He wants to get me off the subject, but he will find it hard to get away from me. I intend that he shall defend his doctrine, for I will hold him responsible for the positions he has taken, which are out of harmony with the word of God.

 

   Again, he quotes, "He that hath the Son hath life," and says that "Srygley thinks he only has it in prospect." That is not what I think. He has life here; but I am sure the believer has everlasting life only in prospect. I call attention to the language of the apostle Paul, who says: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." (Tit 1:2.) He says God promised it before the world began, and that God did after­wards bestow it. My friends, God's promise here was made before the world, the present dispensation, began, and we are now living in hope of that ever­lasting life that is yet to come.

 

   Again, Paul says: "But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." (Ro 8:25.) I call your attention to the fact that the Savior himself said that everlasting life was in the future. Brother Cayce says the Savior says he hath it; and if God says he has it, he has it actually, or in reality. In prophecy, God sometimes says a thing exists, when he only means in prospect. Turn with me to the book of Joshua, and I will read you a statement in proof of this. He says: "Now Jeri­cho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in. And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor." (Jos 6:1-2.) And yet it was more than a week before they possessed it, and still God's book says: "Now I have given into thine hand Jeri­cho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor." Here he declares that they have a thing that they only have in prospect; and if these people could have Jericho in prospect, can we not have everlasting life that way? If not, why not? That ex­plains the passage that says we have it "in the world to come," and that explains the passage in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, where he says, "These shall go away into everlasting life," and this position explains the passage that says, "It is a promise," and the passage that says, "It is a hope;" but if you take his position, that because God says you have it, it means that you have it in actual possession, there is no possible way to explain these other passages. Do you know why he fights so on this? If I am right on this position, his proposition is not true. I do not care how many passages he reads, his contention cannot be true, if a man only has everlasting life in prospect in this life; and that, I am sure, is true. I have given you these reasons. I am perfectly willing to give more.

 

   He says again, in his last speech: "Can a man who is destitute of natural life hope for it? No. Therefore he cannot hope for eternal life, unless he has it in actual possession." Well, he contends that a man who has not spiritual life is in the same condi­tion as though he did not have natural life! But this is not true, for as long as a man has natural life he has hope, and the power to desire and expect things. If there is a man that has no hope, I suspect he is in the asylum. Without any hope of anything, man would be insane. Now, if men and women can hope for other things, why can they not hope for eternal life? But he says they are dead. He does not seem to understand what death is, and neither does he seem to understand what life is, in consequence of which fact he contradicts himself.

 

   He seems surprised because I said that death in

Eph 2:2; Isa 1-66) if we are in the Spirit, we please God; and if we are not in the Spirit, we do not please him. I say that Paul was in the flesh and in the Spirit at the same time. He had a body of flesh, though he was following the Spirit. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." There are two laws mentioned here—" the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," which Paul said had made him free from "the law of sin and death." "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are-after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be spiritually mind­ed is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is en­mity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Ro 8:1-7.)

 

   I understand that there is a carnal and a spiritual nature in all of us, and the difference between the sinner and the Christian is found in the fact that the Christian is being led by the Spirit, following the teaching of the Spirit of God, and the sinner is fol­lowing the flesh, has turned away from the Spirit of God and its teaching and is following the flesh. And after a man has become a Christian, he has his faults and his failures. I have heard of people that after they became Christians lost their appetite for smok­ing; but if you have a habit of that kind, you will want to continue it as long as you live or until you overcome it. I say his idea of conversion does away with all the benefits that might be derived from the proper training of children. If they are as mean as they can be, and have contracted all manner of evil habits, and their evil habits are burned out at conversion, God saves them, and all the flesh is de­stroyed, and the spiritual only remains after conver­sion. That is not the teaching of the Book. But this passage teaches that brethren who follow the Spirit and not the flesh will live; but if they follow the flesh, they will die.

 

   He says of 1Co 15:22 that I had better look into that. Well, I did look into it. Paul was there talk­ing about the resurrection, and he says that Christ was raised first, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming. But in the same chapter he says: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order." And there is another passage that says: "They that have done good [are raised] unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Is there not a passage of that kind? Well, if there is, suppose you look into that, and you will see that your doctrine is not in it.

 

   Again, he says: "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child." I said that meant as a little child receives other things. He said that it means as a little child receives the kingdom. I deny that. I say a little child does not receive the kingdom. It was people old enough to be converted that Christ was talking about, for the text says: "Ex­cept ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." The little child does not receive the kingdom here. The little child only needs a resurrection to go home and live with God in that everlasting kingdom. All we lost in Adam unconditionally we gain in Christ un­conditionally. We lost our lives in Adam. We gain a resurrection in Christ.

 

   But he says the jailer and his house were all saved on the faith of the jailer. He said last night that I did not read the passage that said: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." That was the way I understood it. Did not you understand it that way, Mr. Moderator, And in his last speech he said I did not read that passage. If I should treat you about that as you did me, I would say that that is a falsehood, but I suppose it is only a mistake. He does not seem to know the difference between a false­hood and an honest mistake. When I made an hon­est mistake, if it was a mistake, he said it was a false­hood, and then added that it might not have been in­tentional, as though it could be a falsehood and be unintentional. He does not know what a falsehood is. It does not hurt me for him to say I told a false­hood. I do not care if a man calls me a liar, just so he does not prove that I am one.

 

   I believe he says I have not noticed Joh 5:37, and for his accommodation I will notice it, though I am sure his doctrine is not in it. This is the way it reads: "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." I cannot see any of his doctrine here, for it does not say they could not hear his voice. "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye be­lieve not." This is Joh 5:38, and neither is his doctrine here. The trouble with these people was that they had not believed what they heard, and they were damned for it, while my oppo­nent's doctrine is that a man is saved without believ­ing. So I know he must have given me the wrong passages, if he thought they sustained his doctrine. He says I do not notice the sixth chapter of John, and I will now see if it is in there. He says it is, and I am willing to examine the passage. Beginning with the forty-fourth verse we have: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day." The next verse says: "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This says they will come. He says they do not have to come. God comes to them, and breaks down his image, and rushes in on their hearts, and gives them something they do not desire. That is his position, and, as strange and in­consistent as it may appear, he is striving to uphold it.

 

   How does he have eternal life? He says in actual possession. I deny it. I say it is in the world to come. Here is another passage that supports my contention: "But after thy hardness and impeni tent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man ac­cording to his deeds." (Ro 2:5.) That is hard on his position, but I cannot help it. Does not that look like he gives it to the faithful, and gives it to them in the world to come, like the Savior said? My friend does not seem to know in what sense we have everlasting life. I do not, therefore, wonder at his being so crippled in his position.

 

   He appeals for help to the rich young man, but he, too, fails him. The trouble with the rich young man was that he loved his money more than he did God. Mt 19 tells us that the rich young man came to the Savior and said: "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Now I imagine if my friend had been there, he would have said: "Do nothing. You cannot do anything." But the Master did not so teach. He said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." He saith unto him: "Which?" Jesus said: "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The young man saith unto him: "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?"

 

   My friend would have said: "You just lack God giving to you eternal life, that is all." But the Savior told him to do something. Something he could do himself. "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." But if my friend had been there, he would have said: "You lack eternal life, and that is given you of God with­out conditions on your part!" Can he not see that passage is against his position? If he thinks it is not, let him try it out. I want to see the passage that is not against him.

 

   Again he says: "We are saved by grace."  I be­lieve we are saved by grace as much as he, but this does not forbid conditions. The apostle says: "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." But he does not say we are saved by grace only. Brother Cayce talks that way, but the Bible does not.

 

   Suppose a farmer has a fine field of corn, and I say: "How did you happen to have so much corn?" He would say: "My two boys made that crop of corn." But they did not make it without seed or without plows. Then another man comes along and says: "How did you make it?" And he says: "Made it with a plow." That does not mean that the plow alone made it; but he made it with a plow and a horse. And the preacher comes along talking about the goodness of God, and the old brother says: "It is the grace of God that made the corn. If he had not given me the sunshine and the showers, I never could have made it. It is God's grace." Everything we have is an evidence of his grace, and because we are saved by grace is no proof that we do not have to believe in Christ and obey him in order to be saved—none whatever; and in Tit 3:5 it is said: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ac­cording to his mercy he saved us."

 

   There are certain kinds of work in the Bible that are forbidden. If a man undertakes to do what his own judgment dictates and not what the Lord com­mands, that kind of work is forbidden. But this pas­sage does not forbid obedience to God; for when a man is obeying God he is doing God's work, when he. is doing just what God says in the way that he says do it.

 

   I believe that God saves us according to his mercy; but how does he save us according to his mercy? He saves us by the gospel of Christ accord­ing to his mercy. The brother then read another passage: "Unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." (Ro 4:6.) The apostle is talk­ing about the works of the abrogated law when he says that righteousness is imputed without works, and is not condemning obedience to the gospel. If you will notice carefully the Roman letter, the object of the letter is to keep the brethren from going back to Judaism, and Paul, in Ro 1:16, states that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation unto all that believe it, and none of his arguments come in conflict with that statement. I am sure that Paul nowhere in the Roman letter con­tradicts the statement: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto sal­vation to every one that believeth." Every quota­tion made and every argument offered is in support of that fact.

 

   Again, he says that "Christ became a surety of a better testament." That is so. The world is saved by Christ. He is man's only Redeemer, and the foundation for that redemption was laid by his death on the cross. I tried to get my opponent to tell last night when the Lord gives eternal life. His argu­ment on this point will not sustain his conten­tion unless God gave it to the alien at the cross. I believe that Jesus Christ died to save us, and I be­lieve the plan of salvation was finished when Jesus Christ was suspended on the cross and said, "It is finished;" he had reference to his plan of redemp­tion, and this plan was for the salvation of the world. Paul says: "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Ro 5:9.) Here is Christ on the cross lay­ing the foundation of man's redemption, and when we obey the gospel he is applying it to us.

 

   The foundation of man's redemption was indeed laid on the cross ; and if man obeys the gospel, he will be saved. But the gentleman's passages will not connect with his proposition, for he reads something that took place on the cross, and tries to make it prove something that happens right now. I am sure that will not do. He must do better than that.

 

   I now call attention to a statement made by Paul: "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the for­giveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justi­fied from all things, from which ye could not be justi­fied by the law of Moses." (Ac 13:38-39.) We are not justified by the deeds of the law. The law of Moses has been abolished, and no man is justified by the deeds of that law. But that does not prove that Paul was wrong when he said that the gospel was the power of God unto salvation. If you are saved without the gospel, you are saved without God's power, for the gospel is the power of God unto salva­tion. Listen to Paul: " I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is [not one of the powers, but] the power of God unto salvation." That is what we are talking about—salvation from sin. We are not talk­ing about Christ dying on the cross and laying the foundation for our salvation, but about salvation from sin now, and Paul never said anything in all of his writing that would conflict with the statement that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. In the Roman letter he proves this proposition, and there­fore it is unnecessary to go back to the law of Moses in order to be saved.

 

   Brother Cayce asks me if I believe what the Lord said to Joseph: "He shall save his people from their sins." (Mt 1:21.) Of course I do, and he knew it. Furthermore, I understand it, too. I do not have to believe it without under­standing it. He says if he just saves his people from their sins, he does not save anybody else. That does not follow. It says that his name shall be "JESUS: for he shall save his people from [not in] their sins;" and I believe that Christ is the Savior of his people, and sinful men and women can become his people by obedience to the gospel. I told you last night that it is like a mother whose child has a dan­gerous knife in his hand, and instead of trying to force the knife from his grasp and probably cutting him, she holds up a beautiful apple, and in his eagerness to get the apple, the child drops the knife. So Jesus offers us a beautiful life of purity, and the sin­ner drops his sin and wickedness, and Christ saves him from them. [Time expired.]

CS.009 MR. CAYCE'S FOURTH ADDRESS

MR. CAYCE'S FOURTH ADDRESS.

 

Brethren Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

   First, I wish to notice some things that were said in the speech to which you have just listened. Much of that speech is irrelevant. Much that has been said is irrelevant, not to the proposition at all. But the gentleman said that I said nobody knows where the garden of Eden is. He misunderstood me again, for I never said that. But he says the sinner must come back into favor with God. He has been arguing this from the standpoint that the man heard a lie, be­lieved a lie, and obeyed a lie. I call your attention to the fact here that it was not Adam that was de­ceived, but "the woman being deceived was in the transgression." It was the woman that heard the falsehood from Satan; she was deceived. But the man was here in the garden where the tree of life was. He went three steps away—heard a lie, believed a lie, and obeyed a lie—has gone three steps away from God now. So he must come back three steps. The man was in the garden when he disobeyed God's. law (heard a lie, believed a lie, and obeyed a lie) ; so, if he retraces his steps, it lands him right back in the garden of Eden where he started from. I said the platform was too short, because it will not land him in heaven. It lands him back where he started, granting his own contention. That is what I said, and I say it again. I believe any man with one eye can see that. If I go three steps away from this pul­pit, and take three steps back, where will I land?  Right back in the pulpit where I started. Any man with one eye can see that. But he says: "I am fol­lowing you." He is a long way behind. So far, I have introduced thirty-six passages in support of my proposition. Out of the thirty-six, he has pretended to notice nineteen. That is all. Seventeen behind. He will never catch up. Do you want to know which ones they are? I can call them out to you. I called out several last night.

 

   He says he was replying to me when he quoted Jas 2:10. That was Eze 18 that he quoted when he was replying to me. I had quoted Jas 2:10 to show you that if a man transgresses any one point of the law, he is guilty of the whole; it makes no difference who he is, if he transgresses one point of the law, he is guilty of the whole thing.

 

   And I have shown you that a man does not love his neighbor as himself. Hence he transgresses in that point of the law, and therefore he is guilty of the whole law; and if he cannot get to heaven unless he obeys, then he must actually render perfect, per­petual obedience to the law all of his life; but if he transgresses one point, he is guilty of the whole law. Hence sinners cannot be saved that way.

 

   But he says a man gets in such a position that he cannot obey God. The unregenerate sinner is in that position, the man on this side of the line—there he is in a position that he cannot obey God, or render spiritual service. You remember that I called atten­tion last night in my opening speech to this. I said the alien, unregenerate sinner cannot do good works, but I called attention to the fact that this referred to spiritual works only, that moral works were not considered, and that the natural man can do moral works; but will a man go to heaven for performing moral works? Morality is one thing and spirituality

 

is another. The man in this condition cannot render spiritual service to God; and as he cannot render' this service, then he cannot be saved on conditions. My proposition stands.

 

   He says that I said that God had made his promise good—that is, "the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." I quoted 1Jo 5:11-12. I believe this is where it says: "He that hath the Son hath life." Elder Srygley says he does not have it. And John says "He that hath the Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Hence, if Elder Srygley does not have the life now, he does not have Christ. Now he admits that he does not have Christ.

 

   He says no man destitute of natural life can hope for it. All right. As it is in nature, so in grace. The man, then, who hopes for natural life, who hopes to live the natural life, is the man that possesses nat­ural life; so the man who hopes to live eternally with God in heaven is the man who has the spiritual life, or the eternal life, and the hope springs from that life. The hope is an evidence that he does possess the life.

 

   He refers again to figurative death. He says that I might figure all through the Bible, and he might speak of me figuratively as a mule, though he would not have you to understand that he would. No, good fellow, he would not do anything like that. He is mighty good, now, isn't he? Well, you know when you whip a child right good he is going to promise to be good. He promises to be good.

 

   But right in that text the apostle says: "You hath he quickened, who were dead." If that does not mean that they were dead, or does mean, as Elder Srygley says, they were figuratively dead, then they were not actually quickened, but figuratively quickened. "You hath he figuratively quickened who were figuratively dead in trespasses and sins"—the whole thing was a figure if the death was a figure, because it is the same thing that he is talking about—" where­in in time past you figuratively walked according to the course of this figurative world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now figuratively worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all figuratively had our conver­sation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, figura­tively fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature figuratively the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great figurative love wherewith he figuratively loved us, even when we were figuratively dead in sins, hath figuratively quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are figuratively saved;) and hath figuratively raised us up together," and so on. If they were only figuratively dead, then they were only figuratively the children of wrath. But he did quicken us, because of his love, even when we were dead in sins, and "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ," and so on. But it is all a figure in that con­nection, if what he says is a figure.

 

   He says he doesn't believe that I know—that Cayce knows—how God dwells in a man. He does not know, and doesn't believe Cayce knows. But he is a good boy—yes, bless his little soul, he wouldn't insinuate that anybody is ignorant; no, he would not. We will pass that as being just a little too small to notice further at this time.

 

   He says: "Who is in the Spirit?" Who is it in the Spirit? Let's see who it is. This man on that side of the line is in the flesh, not in the Spirit. The man on this side of the line is in the Spirit, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Who is it? "If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you," then you are not in the flesh. That man who is in the flesh is the man in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell. If Paul was in the flesh, the Spirit of God was not dwelling in him. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ [on that side of the line], he is none of his." He is not a child of God. Will he say Paul did not have the Spirit dwelling in him? Will he say Paul did not have the Spirit of God? In that statement the apostle affirms the negative. Every question has two sides. The other side of this question would necessarily be: "If any man have the Spirit of Christ, he is one of his." So those on this side of the line can please God; on the other side, in the flesh, destitute of the Spirit, they cannot please God. What can he do to become in possession of the Spirit' and get on the other side of the line ? What can he do, Elder Srygley, to possess the Spirit and get on the other side of the line?

 

   1Co 15:22 again: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." I call your at­tention to the fact that he introduced that verse to prove that what you lost in Adam you gained in Christ, and hence all may live in Christ. But the next verse says: "But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." The apostle is here setting forth the doctrine of the resurrection of God's peo­ple in the twenty-second verse, and afterwards, in the next verse, he gives the order in which this will come to pass. That is all that you can put into that text. No more can be put into it to save your life.

 

   He says again, you receive the kingdom of God as a little child receives a gift from its mother, and he says, also, that the little child does not receive the kingdom. If the little child does not receive the kingdom, I will ask him: Does the little child enter the kingdom of heaven and immortal glory? "Who­soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a lit­tle child, he shall not enter therein." That is the plain statement of the text.

 

   He says I said he didn't read Ac 16:31. What I said with reference to that was that he didn't read the latter clause of that text. If he did, I didn't hear it. I will hand you this question—let me read it: "Did you quote the entire verse, Ac 16:31?" The part he quoted was: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." In my reply I called attention to the fact that the latter clause of the verse was omitted. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." That is the way the verse reads.

 

   Mt 19:16-26. Did you notice that he didn't read down to the twenty-sixth verse, or notice down to the twenty-sixth verse? "When his diseiples heard it"—heard what Jesus had said, that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"—" when his disciples heard it, they were ex­ceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." As it is impossible with men to be saved, then it is impossible for men to be saved by per­forming conditions.

 

   Tit 3:3-7. He noticed verse 5, and says it does not forbid a man's obeying God. Who said it did? Who says it did