Elder John R. Daily's First Negative Reply
on the Second Proposition

In our reply to the argument on the purpose of God, drawn from Eph. 1:10, we showed that all man kind was not meant in the expression, "Gather together in one all things in Christ." There is a vast difference between the prepositions in and into; and a similar difference between the Greek words en and eis. En corresponds to in, and denotes position occupied and not entrance. The use of en here shows that those to be collected together were in Christ. But all are not in Christ as we learn from I Cor. 5:17, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." This proves that some are not in Christ. As it is said that those who are in Christ are to be "gathered together in one," it follows that those who are not in him are not to be thus gathered. But the next verse destroys Mr. B's argument, for Paul goes on and says, "In whom we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the council of his own will." The pronoun we here used refers to the believers only, as the address of this epistle shows: "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." This shows that it is the saints and faithful in Christ who are to be finally gathered together.

In regard to I Tim. 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved," we reasoned as follows:

1. The term all men may be used here in a restricted sense, as it is often so used. The expressions all and all men are seldom used to denote a mathematical whole. Gen. 3:20: "And Adam called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living." This means all of her kind, while all other living creatures are excepted. Paul says, "Even as I please all men in all things." I Cor. 10:33. Yet at one time he must be let down over a wall in a basket to escape the wrath of his enemies. At another time a number of men bound themselves under an oath that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed him. The fact is Paul pleased but few in anything; truly none but the devoted followers of Jesus. Hence, when he said he pleased all men in all things, he referred only to classes and nations; as, Jews, and Gentiles, and kings; and not to all men individually. Again, speaking of the healing of the lame man at the gate of the temple, it is said, " All men glorified God for that which was done." In the same connection it is said that some threatened the apostles and charged them to speak no more in the name of Jesus. This shows that the term "all men" in I Tim. 2:4, may mean God's people of all classes and nations.

2. But I propose to show, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that such is the use of the term in that connection. Acts 15:14. "Simon hath declared how God at first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name." Since a people was to be taken out of the Gentiles all of the Gentiles were not taken. In Rev. 5:9, the song sung by the four and twenty elders declares, "Thou was slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." These four and twenty elders were emblematical representatives of the church or redeemed family of God. As they were redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, some of all these classes were not redeemed. Again, in Rev. 7:9, it is aid, "After 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." This shows conclusively that the "all men" whom God wills to be saved are his people of all classes mentioned
in these passages.

We admitted the sovereignty of God, that his counsel should stand, and that He works after the counsel of His own will, but denied that this proved the Universalist doctrine. We showed that if the hearts of all men are in the hands of the Lord, and if He turns them wherever he will as the waters of the rivers, none are responsible for the crimes they commit, and no one ought to be punished.

Mr. B. had argued that if any are not finally holy and happy it would be because God does not want them to be, or because he wants them to be and cannot have it so. We applied this argument to the present state of mankind thus: If all are not now holy and happy it is either because God does not want them to be, or because he wants them to be and can't have it so. But all are not holy and happy, hence the fallacy of the argument. As he had said that God would not have created the human race if he had known that countless millions would suffer endless misery, we replied that he must have known that countless millions would suffer here, yet he did create them.

In reply to the argument that God created man subject to vanity, and that all the race thus created would be delivered from the bondage of corruption, we argued that the creation referred to in Rom. 8:20-21, is the new creation in Christ, and not the original creation of mankind, referring to II Cor. 5:17 as proof. To show that this is the creation referred to we read Rom. 8:14-18. We presented two insurmountable difficulties that attended the argument made by Mr. B. on the passage, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive:" 1. The resurrection of the body is here under consideration. If it be granted that Paul is speaking of the resurrection of all men, it does not follow that all will be made finally holy and happy, for the resurrection of the body cannot affect the state of the soul. 2. But the context shows conclusively that the resurrection here spoken of is limited to the righteous. In this chapter Paul speaks of the first and last Adam, and teaches that as all connected with the first Adam die in consequence of his fall, so all connected with Christ, the last Adam, attain to the resurrection of the just. Such is evidently the meaning, for the apostle immediately explains, "But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming." It only remains for me to prove that all are not Christ's. Gal. 5:24, "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Rom. 8:9. "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His." These passages teach that some are Christ's while others are not His. Since all are not Christ's, and Paul is speaking of those only who are Christ's, it follows that he does not here speak of all mankind, but of those only who will be Christ's at his coming. The teaching of this passage is, therefore, that as in Adam all those who are his die, even so in Christ shall all those who are his be made alive. Paul does not intimate that all that die in Adam are to be raised to incorruption, glory, honor, immortality, power, and victory, and possess the spiritual body and the image of the heavenly. He refers only to Christians for he says, "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." In the pronoun we Paul includes himself as the writer with those addressed. But he is not addressing the entire world, for he says in the next verse, "Now this I say, brethren. " Also in the 58th verse he says, "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast." It is the brethren, therefore, or those who are Christ's at his coming, that will be made alive in Christ, and bear the image of the heavenly.

In reply to Mr. B's argument on the universal fatherhood of God, we reasoned:

1. If God is the father of all mankind because He created them, He is as much now their Father as He ever will be. But all are not now saved, and sin and misery exist in the world now. As men are rebellious now, and as God is punishing men for their sins now, according to Universalism, it follows that such a state may always exist: for if God's being the Father of all men now does not result in their present salvation from sin and misery, there can be no evidence produced that his being their Father will ever result in their salvation.

2. If God is the Father of all mankind by creation, he is as much the Father of the brute creatures, for He created them. It follows, therefore, that all brute creatures will be finally holy and happy if Universalism be true.

3. Our being God's creatures enables us to share the blessings of His providence only, but spiritual blessings are of a higher order and are to be enjoyed through the death and mediation of the Saviour, and by reason of being born of Him. If being born of the flesh only, constitutes one a child of God, it is not necessary to be born again.

4. But it is plainly taught that all are not children of God. Rom. 8:14-16. It is taught here that as many are the children of God as are led by His Spirit. Then those who are not led by His Spirit are not His children, and none can say, "Abba, Father," except those who have received the Spirit of adoption. If all were children of god none would need the Spirit to bear witness with their spirits that they are his children. Rom. 8:8, "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." The first or natural birth constitutes us children of the flesh; the second or Spiritual birth constitutes us children of promise, and hence children of God. John 8:41-44. "Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they unto him, We be not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth and came from God: neither came I of myself, but He sent me. Why do ye not under stand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my words. Ye are of your father the devil, and his works ye will do." These Jews were like the Universalists. They thought they were God's children, but Jesus declared they were not.

Mr. B. had quoted Ezek. 18:4, in which God said, "All souls are mine." He dwelt on this at some length, insisting that it proved the universal fatherhood of God. We replied by saying that there was a buggy in the grove of which we could say, "That buggy is mine," but that would not imply that I was its father. We admitted the universal reign of God in a sense, but denied that this proved the Universal doctrine. It is true that in Ps. 22:27-28 it is taught that "all the ends of the world shall remember and return unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him." But we argued that this simply taught that his people of every nation, kindred, and tongue would return and worship. In Isaiah 25:23, and Phil. 2:10-11 it is taught that every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess, &c. In reply to the argument on these passages we reminded the people that Mr. B. had argued that the body formed no part of the real man, so the real man has neither knee nor tongue. We showed that three things are herein set forth: 1. The reason God exalted Christ; "He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death." 2. The obligation to confess Christ, growing out of his character and exaltation; "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. 3. The nature of the confession: "Confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father." This is not an assurance of universal salvation, but a pledge that God will finally come to judge the world, when He will be seen and acknowledged in His true character, even by those who have despised Him, who, having borne "thorns and briars," are "rejected," "whose end is to be burned." Heb. 6:8.

Mr. B. had argued that God is love, and loves the entire human family alike. This argument refutes itself at once. The reasoning is this: God is love, therefore all men will be finally holy and happy. But I can as logically reason thus: God is love, therefore all men are now holy and happy. The latter conclusion we know to be false, and the presumption is that the former is also false, for they are drawn from the same premise. Since God is love now, and all are not now holy and happy, there is no assurance that all will be finally holy and happy as a result of his love, for He loves all as much now as He ever will. Love is an attribute of God but not the only attribute, for while it is said that God is love, it is also said that vengeance belongs to Him. Rom. 12:19, and Deut. 32:34-35. Furthermore God is said to be a consuming fire in Heb. 12:29. So, while my opponent may argue that God is love, therefore all men will be finally holy and happy, I might argue by the same parity of reasoning, that God is a consuming fire, therefore all men will be finally consumed and lost.

But God does not love the entire human family exactly alike, for he said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." As he is unchangeable, whom He loves in time He will love in eternity, and whom He hates in time He will hate in eternity. Paul refers to Jacob and Esau to illustrate the doctrine of election, and show that it is "not of works but of him that calleth." So Jacob represents the elect of God while Esau represents the rest of mankind. Then Jacob represents those whom God loves, while Esau represents those whom He hates. As God hates those represented by Esau in time, and as He is unchangeable, He will hate the same persons in eternity. He must be opposed by nature to whatever is opposed to His nature. It belongs to the very nature of things that just as any being loves one thing, in the same proportion he hates its opposite. Hence God hates sin in the same proportion that He loves holiness. As He has infinite love for holiness, He has infinite hatred for sin. Now, as our nature opposes sin, our conscience will, in the same degree, sanction its punishment. If we do not hate sin, we will oppose its punishment.

But as God is opposed to sin in an infinite degree, corresponding to the infinite holiness of His character, He will punish sin accordingly.

In regard to the argument based upon the mercy of God, we showed that, according to Universalism, God does not extend mercy to any. To be merciful to sinners is to treat them better than they deserve. If all sinners are punished as much as they deserve, as Universalists teach, then none are treated better than they deserve. Therefore no mercy is extended to sinners. Mercy has no application to this subject, and, indeed, on these principles has no existence! We propounded the following questions: What do you mean by saying sinners are saved: If all are punished as much as they deserve, from what are they saved, who saves them, and what is done to save them? Can there be final salvation without forgiveness? If sins are remitted or forgiven, is it before or after they are punished? If before, why are they punished? If after, what benefit is conferred? You say sinners are punished in this life as much as their sins deserve: is this punishment inflicted upon their physical bodies, or upon their conscience? What has the mission or death of Christ to do with the final state of man? Are sinners lost in respect to final holiness and happiness unless saved by Christ? Are you afraid to commit yourself on these points? If so your non-committalism arises from the indefensible nature of your cause.

Having given the main points from which Mr. Ballard argued this question, and not being able to reproduce either his arguments or our replies in a manner at all satisfactory, we beg leave to close our review of this debate by giving a few of our negative arguments.

I. I base my first argument on the fact that the Universalist church is of modern origin. If the doctrine of Universalism as stated in this proposition were true, the church founded by Christ would have been a Universalist church; and as he said the gates of hell should not prevail against His church, the Universalist church would have existed since the time of Christ. But the Universalist church was not founded by Christ as I propose to prove. In a work entitled "Universalism in America," Vol. 1, by Richard Eddy, D. D., a Universalist author, p. 175, is found the following statement:

"Thus cut off from former associates, and formally separated from other Christian believers, they turned their attention to the creation of an organization for themselves; and on the first day of January, 1779, bound themselves together under the following Articles of Association." This was in Gloucester, Mass. There were sixteen in this first organization, the followers of John Murray.

I will now read an admission made by Rev. H. R. Nye, a noted Universalist, in a work entitled "A brief statement of Universalist belief." In the introduction, page 5, he says, "For an hundred years and more, the doctrines of Universalism have been preached from the pulpit and widely disseminated by the press." Again, on page 10, he says, "But there is a distinct, separate organized body of Christian believers called the Universalist Church. It was organized a little over a hundred years ago. . . . The founders of this church were not atheists." Also on page 16, he says, "At the beginning of the Universalist movement in the land, some Universalists were Trinitarians."

My opponent cannot show by history that there existed any Universalist church as long ago as two hundred years. The Bible is a plain book, given by a wise and holy Being for the express purpose of furnishing information to men, of His own character, and the nature and plan of salvation, and yet, if Universalism be true, the students of that book, during seventeen hundred years after it was given to man, failed to find a single feature of the true gospel in it! They read it, wrote comments on it, suffered and died for it, and yet not one of them understood a single gospel fact or principle announced by it! The true church, if Universalism be true, did not exist during all that time!

Syllogism--1. If the doctrine of Universalism be true, as expressed by the terms of this proposition, the Universalist church was founded by Christ at the beginning of the Christian era.

2. But the Universalist church was not founded till the latter part of the 18th century, as Universalist historians themselves assert.

3. Therefore, this proposition, which states the distinctive doctrine of the Universalist church, is false.

II. My second argument is that the doctrine of this proposition falls in with the natural bent of the human heart, and is understood, loved, and cherished by wicked men as well as good men.

The Bible declares the heart to be deceitful and desperately wicked. It is further declared that "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." This being the moral state of the heart, it is wholly at variance with the purity of God's law, and the principles of His gospel. A wicked heart will love only that which is assimilated to its likeness. The gospel requires self-denial, renunciation of sin, and a course of holy obedience. Hence the wicked heart hates the gospel. But the wicked heart loves the doctrine of this proposition, since it allows all that a wicked heart can claim or desire, without any hazard of a final consequence. Let a wicked person be persuaded this doctrine is true and he is at once happy in the belief of it, for it leads him to think that though he loves the practice of sin here, and continues through life in the practice and enjoyment of sin, yet in the end he will be made holy and happy.

Syllogism--1. Any system of religious doctrine that is loved and cherished by wicked hearts is false in its character, dishonoring to God, and dangerous to the souls of men.

2. The doctrine asserted by this proposition is loved and cherished by wicked hearts.

3. Therefore the doctrine of this proposition is false in its nature, dishonoring to God, and dangerous to the souls of men.

III. My third argument is founded upon the unpardonable sin. Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:29.

Syllogism--1. No one can be finally holy and happy without forgiveness.

2. Those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost will never have forgiveness.

3. Therefore some will not be finally holy and happy.

The Saviour says some are in danger of eternal damnation. He would not have said this if there were no eternal damnation. Therefore when He said some were in danger of eternal damnation He taught there is eternal damnation.

Syllogism--1. A proposition that clearly implies that there is no eternal damnation contradicts the Saviour and is false.

2. This proposition clearly implies that there is no eternal damnation and contradicts the Saviour.

3. Therefore this proposition is false.

IV. My next negative argument is that Christ taught that those who die in their sins cannot come to Him. John 8:21. This passage teaches that some will "die in their sins," and that those who die in their sins cannot go after they die where Christ went after His death. It will admit of no other interpretation. This argument is unanswerable, and proves that the proposition affirmed by Mr. B. is false. (In Mr. B's. effort to cover up this argument he said that all men die in their sins. In our reply we showed that if what he and Christ said are both true universal damnation will take place.

Syllogism--1. Christ said that those who die in their sins cannot go where He went.

2. Mr. B. said that all die in their sins.

3. Therefore none will go where Christ went.

Mr. Ballard repeatedly asserted that men are punished in this life as much as they deserve to be, that all punishment was for the reformation of the punished, that God predestinated all evil, and controlled and directed sinners in the commission of sin, so that no one ever does anything contrary to His will. The essential steps to a glorified state, according to his theory, are, 1st, Sin; 2nd, Punishment; 3rd, Reformation; 4th, Holiness; 5th, Happiness.

We showed that the punishments of the Antediluvians by the flood, and the Sodomites by fire, were not reformatory, and that those who were drowned and burned were not punished as much as Noah and Lot, for they were taken up to heaven while the righteous were left to suffer here. We read a poem which forcibly presents this argument. We give it to our readers with one more argument.

"Thus Pharaoh and his mighty hosts
Had God-like honors given:
A pleasant breeze brought them with ease
And took them safe to heaven!

So all the filthy Sodomites,
When God bade Lot retire,
Went in a trice to paradise,
On rapid wings of fire!

Likewise the guilty Canaanites,
To Joshua's sword were given:
The sun stood still that he might kill
And pack them off to heaven!

God saw those villains were too bad
To own that fruitful land;
He therefore took the rascals up
To dwell at his right hand!

The men who lived before the flood
Were made to feel the rod;
They missed the ark, but, like a lark,
Were washed right up to God!

But Noah he, because you see,
Much grace to him was given;
Was forced to toil, and till the soil,
And work his way to heaven!

The wicked Jews, who did refuse,
The Lord's commands to do"
Were hurried straight to heaven's gate,
By Titus and his crew!

How happy is the sinner's state,
When he from earth is driven;
He knows it is his certain fate
To go direct to heaven!

There's Judas too, another Jew,
Whom some suppose accursed
Yet with a cord he beat his Lord,
And got to heaven first!"

V. I base my next argument on the following reasonable conclusion: - In as much as many sinners continue sinful and miserable during their whole life, we have strong reason to believe they would continue so were their earthly existence protracted to a much greater length. More than this: Were their earthly existence to be eternal, instead of being removed from this to another state to spend eternity, we have the conclusion forced upon us from analogy that they would continue sinful and miserable ad infinitum. Facts connected with the history of the antediluvians, when the life of man was continued to little less that one thousand years, go to establish this conclusion.

The existence of human depravity, I presume, will not be disputed. It is natural for this depravity to become more inveterate the longer it is cherished, and increase its fruits with greater and greater facility in a constantly increasing ratio. A tide of corruption rushes on against numerous and powerful legal and moral checks and restraints. Now, as men are in a state of depravity, it follows they are not saved - they are under condemnation and death. Hence as long as they remain depraved they remain condemned and lost to real virtue and happiness. The bare fact that such a state exists is positive proof that it will continue unless there be positive evidence that some power external to itself is employed to bring it to an end. Depravity left to the operation of its own laws will perpetuate its own existence ad infinitum. It shuts out moral light and love of virtue from the mind and promotes a love for sinful indulgences. Hence the Bible says, "Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil," and "They will not come to the light lest their deeds should be reproved." We are told of a class of sinners who are willingly ignorant: they hate light to such an extent and depravity has such a strong hold on them that they "do
not like to retain God in their knowledge." Such a state is a pledge that it will continue unless removed by a superior power. There is no fact more potent and clear to the human mind than the fact that punishment cannot remove depravity. If we consider punishment in the sense of arising directly out of a sinful course, we must admit it to be a natural consequence or effect of sin. Hence punishment in this sense cannot remove depravity because an effect can never destroy its cause. If we consider it in the sense of the positive infliction of a penalty for sin, it cannot destroy sin or depravity, because it is its object to preserve the honor and stability of government. Punishment can never destroy a single inherent disposition of evil. We have abundant proof of this fact in the practical and moral results of the systems of punishments established among men, and in the fact that thousands persevere and die in sin, though they are subjects of God's penal dispensations and visitations in this world.

The stream of human depravity runs downward, and the farther it gets from its source the deeper and more rapid does it become, till every moral barrier and restraint is swept away, and the sinner abandons himself to the full power and influence of his vicious propensities. "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." Look at the downward course of the drunkard, the liar, and the thief, as practical confirmations of the truth of this position. One is a tippler at twenty, a drunkard at thirty, and at forty dies with delirium tremens. Another is a liar at ten, a thief at twenty, a murderer at thirty, and to escape detection ends his miserable life by suicide. Thus in various ways thousands live and die exhibiting no other feelings than hatred of God, and love of everything vicious.

As we trace man to the end of his earthly career we find him going from this world marked with the blackest moral turpitude. Seeing he has not ceased to be depraved, that punishment has not so far reformed him, we ask will he ever cease to be depraved? If so, when, where, and how? Give us a reasonable and logical demonstration, please, for the burden of proof rests upon you, and nothing short of positive proof and actual demonstration will answer the inquiring minds of this audience or satisfy my mind.

Let my opponent prove that there will be a change in the state of such as I have described after they leave this world, and that punishment will produce this change. Whenever he does this I promise to admit my defeat and embrace his doctrine.

We have given only five of our arguments against this position, not one of which was there any attempt made to answer. While we could not give Mr. Ballard's arguments in full, we have given the main lines followed by him in his attempt to sustain his doctrine.

Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.

This page maintained by: Robert Webb - (bwebb9@juno.com)