Benoni Stinson's First Speech
on Hume's First Proposition
STINSON'S FIRST REPLY
ON HUME'S FIRST PROPOSITION.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:--I rise before you to take the negative of the proposition presented for discussion, which makes it my duty to follow the affirmant as far as I understand the evidence and arguments to apply to the subject in question. I regard it as my privilege to determine whether all the scriptures he introduces are relevant to the subject; therefore, though I may not notice all, I will endeavor to pay my respects to them as far as I can. We always find a possibility of different minds understanding the proposition itself differently. Elder Hume and I took pains to remove this difficulty, and strove to have each proposition so definite that we would have no caviling over the meaning of the proposition when we appear in debate. Elder Hume seems to start out be giving an interpretation of the proposition as meaning that the elect of God or Church of Christ was chosen in him--was chosen in him before the foundation of the world! Choice implies more objects than one. Then, if God, according to our brother, made choice, there must have been others before a choice could be made. The selection of a part or choice also implies not only the existence of two objects, between which the choice is made, but it implies the rejection of the one of these objects. We, therefore, approach the proposition with the understanding that, before the world was, God takes up the human race, which he intends to create. And what does he do? He chooses a part of the race, and makes them heirs of salvation; the balance he refuses or does not elect. I assert here, if the premises be correct, it renders the salvation of a part certain. Now, I ask, according to the language of the proposition, does not make the salvation of the rest not only certain, but positively impossible. My Brother Hume says he is not a Calvinist. I do not call him a Calvinist, but I say that he is responsible for the true meaning of the proposition, both as expressed and implied in the text. While he is not a Calvinist, while he repudiates many things that Calvin taught, yet this proposition is one of Calvin's favorite articles of faith.
It was one of St. Augustine's favorite articles of faith, in the fourth century. And neither of these learned men have ever attempted to evade the responsibility of reprobation following in connection with election; so far from it, they positively affirmed the doctrine fearlessly. Does the elder intend to-day to try to fix it upon the minds of the audience, that the choice of one was not the rejection of the other; and that the certainty of the salvation of the one has not made certain the impossibility of the salvation of the other? And as man must be either condemned or saved, does he mean to say their condemnation must not be rendered certain, by choosing others and leaving them? You see I appear before you in a new dress, to oppose this doctrine of election and reprobation. I defy my brother, in the use of the English from the other. This is inferred also from the incorporation of the phrase, "Christ died for the elect;" and add to this, that there is no other name under heaven, whereby men can be saved. You see, then, the balance of the race are eternally excluded from the economy of redemption, and that, too, before they had an existence in the world. This is the doctrine which he has to prove. He sets out to sustain his position, occupying about two thirds of his speech in quotation from the Old Testaments, under the old dispensation. I might apply the rule he leveled on me, and make a wholesale disposal of his evidence from that source. When I quoted the Old Testament life or death, he told us that spiritual life or eternal death was not known under the language of that dispensation. If I would apply his rule, it would at once exclude every text he has introduced from that source; but I will not take that advantage. I believe that when I quoted my scriptures, they were applicable to my proposition; therefore, as a gentleman and a Christian, I will not be governed by any course he might pursue against me, but by him. Had he consulted with me about the Jews being the peculiar people of God, I could have relieved him a little. I had some quotations in my mind that I believe would have made the matter stronger than any he has introduced. I would give him the one that says, the Jews are God's vineyard, and that he had bought them and ransomed them; nay, more, that he recognizes them as being his wife. He represents himself as being their husband--though he did not bring these forward.
Now, the question is, whether these prophecies had reference to the Jewish family, or whether they had reference to the "Church of God in the world." I would pledge myself to show, but I can't show it now, that all the good that was promised to them was done for that nation, either temporarily or spiritually. I could have helped him a little more upon this point; I would not only have admitted the covenant with regard to God's engaging to take care of the Jews, but I would have admitted that the covenant was made with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law to Moses. God entered into this covenant with Abraham, and promised him in it that in him and his seed, should all the elect be blessed. No, that is not the way it reads, but to make his argument good, it ought to ready that way. But, mark, "In thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Not all the families of the elect.
Well, now, who did God allude to in the passage? My opponent has tried to convey the idea that it was the elect or Church of God, the chosen. Paul says of this covenant, not of seeds, as many, but all they seed, and that seed was Christ. "In thee and in thy seed, shall all the families of the earth be blessed."
Paul says of these people: "They all (mark the word all) were under a cloud; they all eat of God's manna; they all drank of the spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ." If my brother intends to show, or try to show that a part of this family was made up of heathens, God says he took them from the nations of the earth and planted them in his vineyard. And then he says (mark it), "What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?" That is, for the Jewish nation.
Let him separate it if he can; let him show us that it was any but the Jewish nation, and for them God claimed to have done all that could be done, consistent with his character of holiness and their condition as moral agents. Well, what is the result? When he looked for them to bring forth grapes, they brought forth wild grapes. If he claims that means the elect, he is bound to admit that the elect brought forth wild grapes; if he admits it meant the nation, his interpretation necessarily fails. We can not take up and examine all his proofs; we will admit, some of them alluded to the coming of Christ. All those scriptures that are prophecies of the coming of Christ, I will take the liberty of passing over, without saying much upon them.
Elder Hume comes into the New Testament, and refers to Mat. xxiv, where Christ is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. He finds the word elect. The same word is used by the Apostle Paul, when he says, that God determined a remnant to be saved of that nation. What for? that their name might not be blotted out, that they might not be able to break the golden chain or link, that in after days would show the old dispensation was a kind of schoolmaster to introduce the new one? God determined that neither men nor devils should be able to break this link, therefore a remnant was to be saved, according to election. A remnant of who?
Allow me to say, without any levity, a remnant of the elect was saved; because the Jews were God's elect. A remnant of God's elect was saved; therefore, if the Jewish nation was God's elect, then we find only a remnant of them saved. When I quoted the language of Christ, "How often would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings," etc., he took the bold stand that he had completely demolished my views by introducing one of his ideas on chickenology, with reference to the chickens being outside of the hen. Elder Hume said he referred to the national privileges of the Jews, and he was willing to restore them to them, but they were not willing for it to be done.
I say that he meant precisely the reverse of this. So far as spiritual things were concerned, he had been willing to gather them together as a hen doth gather her chickens, but they would not. I therefore lay this down as a fixed fact, which I will not suffer to be removed, that some were lost for whom Christ died, as taught here. Mark x, 4,5. It was on this passage that he undertook to play upon the word many, and rather made it a matter of boast that I had used it in connection with general atonement, and that it did not always mean the race. This brings us back upon our old field. By the sin or disobedience of one, many were made sinners; but by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous? My brother has taken the ground that they were righteous before. My reason for introducing this word, is to show that its meaning is to be understood by its connection. I contend that the word many, in connection with the fall, means the same as the word many, in connection with the atonement. If he can show that it does not, I hope he will do it. If they mean the same thing in that connection, then Jesus meant the same thing in the text he has given us. Reference to Luke xix, 10, "Come to seek and save that which was lost." My brother takes a strong position on this test. I do not remember having used it before, but I know he used it. When he used it, he dwelt on God's power, and said, "Will he not do it?" Will he not save that which was lost?" What did he mean by it? I understood one of two things--one of which he did not intend to teach--that only a part was lost, that therefore he came to seek and save that part, and did it; or else, all were lost, and therefore he came to seek and save ALL and did it; hence, universalism is a matter of course.
Let us look at this idea. First, if only a part were lost, and he came to seek that part, where, in good faith, will he put the part of the human family not lost? If he came to seek only that part which was lost, then, to make good sense of his system, he did it. Then where are we to seek for the condition of that part of the human race that he did not come to seek and save? The only conclusion that can be derived from it, is that if there is a part of the human race that Christ did not come to save, then, in the estimation of Christ himself, they never were lost. To use his own language, has he done it? John x, 12.
Here we come to the sheep. Brother Hume yesterday thought I was rather hard on those poor sheep. He told us that he had called my attention to them, and that I would not even notice them. I am falling in love with him a little more every day for the credit he has given me. He said the reason why I did not notice them, was that I either had not time, or I was afraid of it. I claim his interpretation of my reason as most liberal. But as he has given the passage again, I must follow him. "My sheep hear my voice." I wish to ask this question: were they sheep before they heard his voice and followed him? or was it because they heard his voice and followed him that he acknowledges them to be his sheep? I understand him to say that they were his sheep because they heard his voice and followed him, and that they were not his sheep previous to this. How does that look? Jesus asserts plainly that his sheep know him. I quote from John x, 14: "I am the good shepherd and know my sheep, and am known of mine." I repeat, they became his sheep by hearing and then believing and obeying him, and by faith they became the people of God.
But what say the scriptures? "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another." Let us put in the word sheep instead of disciples. Love, then, is the strongest evidence the Bible gives of our being sheep. Again, Jesus says, "If any man will be my disciple (my sheep), let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." Mark, my quotation says Jesus was known of his sheep--they had denied themselves, taken up their cross and followed him--they knew him by faith in the covenant; therefore they were his sheep. But my brother says I would reply that he had other sheep. I did not intend to use it, as I thought he had anticipated me. We may allude to the Syrophenecian woman, of whom Jesus said her faith was great. He had already made disciples in Samaria, and they knew him, and they were his sheep in the strict sense of the term. We have now got these sheep in the pen, and we will let them stay till our friend rustles them up again.
John xv, 16-17. That passage alludes to Jesus choosing the apostles. Brother Hume will not deny this. He (Jesus) says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;" not them, the whole elect, but I have you, and not you me. What does it mean? That he had selected these twelve to be the pillars of the New Jerusalem. Upon the twelve patriarchs we might say he founded the covenant of the Jewish economy. He elects the twelve that they may be the pillars of the new covenant. He prayed for them, and told Peter that he prayed that his faith should not fail him.
Brother Hume tells us that he did not pray for the world; this he brought in as indirect evidence that he did not die for it. In John xvii, 20: he says: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." Let Paul explain this difficulty: "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." To them that believe--every one in the whole world, in all ages, that believes in Jesus Christ, becomes at once a subject of that blessed prayer. Then it did not only mean those he had chosen--the twelve, nor the seventy--but it reached down from age to age, and every child of God to-day, that has become such by faith, claims, and may claim, an interest in that blessed prayer of Christ. Acts xiii, 43: Here is a text which I thought was from his most powerful battery. He uses this with a great deal of (I was about to say pride, but I will not, for Elder Hume is not proud)'; but he uses it as if he expected finally to succeed by showing that as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed. I would say, according to my view, the thing is out here. If all believed that were ordained, how would he save anybody else, if these were gentiles? and Christ demonstrated that the gentiles continued to believe, continued to come to Christ. I will not give my own poor opinion upon this passage. I quote the decision of wise men, who have examined it in the original language. I do not say positively it is right, but they say it means that as many as were ordained to eternal life at that time, believed; then, if this is the right view of it, there must be another ordination to make room for the rest.
I have not noticed some of his most important quotations, and I ask you, has he proved, from any one text, that a definite number, that a church, that a congregation, or that the Church of God, as he calls it, was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world? Has he showed, even indirectly, that Christ died for them only? He saw the difficulty he had placed himself in by the language of his proposition, and he told us he was not going to be able to prove that there was positively anybody that Christ did not die for.
(HUME.--You misunderstood me, I simply admitted I could not find the word "only" in the scriptures.)
I suppose he does not intend to try to prove from the word of God, that there is any fallen son or daughter of Adam for whom Christ did not die, and I shall claim, therefore, that up to the present point his proposition is not established. He said he would bring in his proofs collectively, that some would prove that the Church of God was chosen in him before the foundation of the world, some would prove that Christ died for the elect, some would prove that none would be saved but those that Christ died for. Has he satisfied you on any of these points? He may have brought only his weakest texts. Logic makes it sensible to conclude that he has only put these out as feelers, merely to lead us to waste our strength in controverting that which he considered might not be directly at issue. Permit me to say that I have, during the three days we have been here, been trying to establish the theological theory of a general atonement, of the moral agency of man, freedom of the will, and conditional salvation; and I remark that every text that proves these three propositions true, proves his propositions false. He said that one of us must be wrong, that we could not both be right. And I will tell you, friends, we have not met to investigate this question for mastery, we have not come here to play with the people, but we are old men, who have become established in opposite Bible opinions, and we have come as men resting our salvation, and the salvation of others, upon the gospel (this is true, so far as I am concerned, for I believe in instrumentalities); and, consequently, I feel deeply anxious lest I might give a wrong theory, which might result in the damnation of a sinner who might otherwise be saved. I feel responsible to God for every word I utter on this occasion. I have now feebly presented one side of the question. I told you in my first speech that the imperfection which attaches itself to humanity precluded the possibility of my being able to present a perfect system of theology, but I anticipated it would be subject to many imperfections. In closing, I contend that Brother Hume has admitted many of the most important points I contended for, while others he has denied; but according to my understanding, he has failed to sustain his position, and I take it upon myself to say that Christ did die for the race of man. I have employed the strongest terms known in the English language to enforce this idea. I have inquired of men, of learned men, who have told me that there were no stronger terms or words that those used in the word of God, to prove that Christ made a general atonement. My hour is just about up. Brother Hume will address you next, and I will follow him. We are going to fight over this question for two more speeches, after which it will be laid aside for future generations, and the present, to read at their leisure. In attempting to follow him, I will give a fair and candid interpretation to the scriptures he introduces to prove his position, and I will, without being impudent, and in all fairness, if he introduces a text that does not bear upon the subject, admit it. He has traveled from Deuteronomy to Malachi, but has failed to establish his proposition.
(Time expired.)
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
