053. CHAPTER 24 - CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED.
CHAPTER 24 - CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED.
HAVING progressed so far in the investigation of the extent of the atonement as, first, to consider the Scripture testimony in favor of the Arminian view, and, secondly, to examine some of the principal Scripture proofs relied upon by Calvinists for the establishment of their system, we now proceed to institute a comparison between Calvinism and Arminianism, by an examination of the leading difficulties with which each of these systems has been said, by the opposite party, to be encumbered.
I. We will notice the principal objections which Calvinists have alleged against the system of Arminianism. The following are all that we deem worthy of consideration:
1. Calvinists allege that Arminianism is contrary to fact.
2.That it is contrary to grace.
3.That it is inconsistent with the divine sovereignty.
These difficulties we will present in the language of Dr. Hill, as follows: “1. It does not appear agreeable to fact that there is an administration of the means of grace sufficient to bring all men to faith and repentance.
“2. The second difficulty under which the Arminian system labors is this, that while in words it ascribes all to the grace of God, it does in effect resolve our salvation into something independent of that grace.
“3. This system seems to imply a failure in the purpose of the Almighty, which is not easily reconciled with our notions of his sovereignty.” The three difficulties above specified are more fully expressed by the same author in another place, as follows:
“1. It is not easy to reconcile the infinite diversity of situations, and the very unfavorable circumstances, in which many nations, and some individuals of all nations, are placed, with one fundamental position of the Arminian system, that to all men there are administered means sufficient to bring them to salvation.
“2. It is not easy to reconcile those views of the degeneracy of human nature, and those lessons of humility and self-abasement in the sight of God, which both Scripture and reason inculcate, with another fundamental position of that system, that the faith and good works of those who are elected did not flow from their election, but were foreseen by God as the grounds of it.
“3. It is not easy to reconcile the immutability and efficacy of the divine counsel, which enter into our conceptions of the First Cause, with a purpose to save all, suspended upon a condition which is not fulfilled with regard to many.” (Hill’s Lectures, Chap. 9., Sec. 1, and Chap. 7., Sec. 4.)
We know of no difficulty urged by Calvinists, as involved in the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement, meriting a serious reply, which may not properly be embraced under one or the other of the preceding divisions. The difficulties above described, it must be confessed, are of so grave a character, that a clear demonstration of their real existence must be a sufficient refutation of the system to which they adhere. The system of revealed truth is perfectly consistent throughout, and completely harmonious with the correct view of the divine attributes. If, then, it can be satisfactorily shown that the Arminian system really labors under any one of the above difficulties, however plausible the argument for its support may have appeared, we shall be compelled to renounce it; but we think a close examination of the subject will evince that the objections named by Dr. Hill are entirely groundless. We will examine them separately.
1. The first alleges that the Arminian system is contrary to fact. The great distinguishing feature of Arminianism, as has been exhibited in the preceding chapters, is a belief in the truth of the following position: that the atonement of Christ so extends to all men as to render their salvation attainable. That this is inconsistent with fact, is argued by the Calvinist both from the supposed destitution of the means of grace in heathen lands, and from the great inequality in the distribution of those means in those countries where the gospel is published.
(1) First, we will consider the subject in reference to the case of the heathen.
We think it must be clear that the objection to a possible salvation for all men, as deduced from the condition of the heathen, can only be sustained upon the supposition that the destitution of their condition is such as to render their salvation utterly impossible. Hence Calvinists have generally, so far as they have expressed an opinion upon this subject at all, consigned the entire mass of the heathen world to inevitable destruction. That this bold stand is assumed by all Calvinists, cannot be affirmed; for many of them hesitate to express any opinion on the subject, and others clearly intimate that there may be, even among the heathen, some elect individuals, upon whose hearts divine grace may, in some incomprehensible manner, so operate as effectually to call and prepare them for glory. But then it must be plain that such as assume this ground can charge upon the system of Arminianism no inconsistency with fact, in relation to the heathen, that does not pertain equally to their own system.
As, therefore, the objection itself rests upon the assumed position that the heathen are necessarily precluded from the possibility of salvation, it is an obvious begging of the question. The very position upon which it depends for all its force, is what is denied, and ought first to be proved. But what entirely destroys the objection is, that this position never has been, and never can be, proved. In relation to the heathen, we may freely admit, 1. That their privileges are far inferior to those conferred upon nations favored with the light of the gospel.
2. That this national distinction is fairly attributable to divine sovereignty, which, for wise and inscrutable reasons, may dispense peculiar blessings, in an unequal degree, to different nations and communities, and even to different individuals. But the great question is, Does it follow, from this inequality in the distribution of privilege, that the least favored are entirely destitute of a sufficiency of grace to render their salvation possible? This none can with safety affirm. In reference even to the heathen, the Scriptures declare that God “left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave” them “rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling” their “hearts with food and gladness.” Acts 14:17. And again, in the first chapter to the Romans, St. Paul informs us, in reference to the heathen, that “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” And in Romans 2:1-29. we read: “For there is no respect of persons with God.… For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one another.” In the first chapter of St. John, Christ is said to be “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And St. Peter declares Acts 10:34-35, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Thus we clearly see that, according to the Scriptures, the heathen themselves are not left destitute of a possibility of salvation. But the Calvinist may rejoin that, notwithstanding the Scriptures show forth a possible salvation for the heathen, this does not reconcile the facts in their case with the principles of Arminianism; for still it must be admitted that they are far less favored, in point of privilege, than Christian nations. To this we reply, that it follows, at least, from the possibility of salvation to the heathen, that the objection under consideration falls to the ground; for it rests for its support on the assumed position “that it does not appear agreeable to fact that there is an administration of the means of grace sufficient to bring all men to faith and repentance.” The point upon which the objection stands or falls, is not the equality or inequality in the means of grace, but the sufficiency or insufficiency of those means to result in salvation. That such a sufficiency of the means of grace extends to the heathen, we have seen from the Scriptures. Hence the assumed fact by which the Calvinist would involve the Arminian system in difficulty, is shown to be contrary to Scripture. But if we confine ourselves to the bare inequality in the distribution of the means of grace, Calvinism, as well as Arminianism, is compelled to admit this inequality, even in reference to the elect; for it is undeniable that some of them are much more highly favored than others. If, then, a bare inequality in the distribution of the means of grace is evidence that God does not intend the salvation of the less favored, it would follow that, according to Calvinism, he does not intend the salvation of some of the elect! But if Calvinism did not recognize this inequality, it could involve the Arminian in no difficulty for which he is not furnished with a scriptural solution. The Bible illustration of the subject is, that God will require of men according to what they have, and not according to what they have not. If to the heathen only “one talent” has been disbursed, the improvement of “five” will never be required at their hands. It matters not, so far as the supposed difficulty now under consideration is concerned, whether the means of grace extended to the heathen be explained to mean the teachings of tradition, the light of nature, or the secret influence of the Spirit; or whether all these are thought to be connected. Nor does it at all matter how great or how small the degree of faith, or what the character of the obedience essential to the salvation of a heathen. These are questions which cannot affect the point in hand. That the heathen cannot believe the gospel in the same sense, and to the same extent, as Christians, may readily be admitted; but this cannot affect the question concerning the possibility of their salvation, unless it first be proved that the same is required of them, which is a position alike repugnant to reason and to Scripture. We hence conclude that, so far as the case of the heathen is concerned, there is no evidence that Arminianism is inconsistent with fact.
(2) But Dr. Hill also urges this objection from “the very unequal circumstances in which the inhabitants of different Christian countries are placed.”
Some have the gospel in greater purity than others, and, in many respects, are more highly favored. Perhaps it is a sufficient reply to this objection to say, that it bears with equal force upon Calvinism. Indeed, it is a little surprising that it did not occur to the learned author above quoted, that this same inequality, which he here adduces as a fact to disprove a possible salvation for all men, would, upon the same principle, prove far more than he would desire: it would prove the impossibility of the salvation of some of the elect.
If this inequality of circumstances, in reference to different Christian countries, and different individuals in the same country, were invariably found to preponderate in favor of the Calvinistically elect, there might seem more propriety in the objection; but such is evidently not the case. Will the Calvinists affirm that all the elect of God are found in those portions of Christendom which are favored with the gospel in its greatest purity? Or will they pretend that the electing grace of God always searches out the most highly privileged individuals in the same community? Surely not. It is admitted that while many in the most highly favored countries and of the most highly favored individuals, in point of external privilege, live and die reprobate sinners, there are to be found in the darkest corners of Christendom, and among the least distinguished individuals in point of external privilege, some of the faithful elect children of God.
If, then, this inferiority in point of privilege, which applies to some of the elect when compared with their more highly distinguished brethren, argues nothing against the possibility of the salvation of all the elect, by what mode of reasoning is it that a similar inequality amongst mankind, or Christian nations in general, is appealed to as a fact inconsistent with a possibility of salvation for all men? That the inequality appealed to by Dr. Hill is precisely the same when applied to the elect people of God as when applied to mankind in general, is so obvious a truth that it is astonishing that a discerning mind should glance at the subject without perceiving it; and, when perceived, it is still, more astonishing that this inequality of circumstances should be cited as one of the peculiar difficulties of Arminianism.
(3) Dr. Hill next argues that Arminianism is irreconcilable with the fact, “that amongst those to whom the gospel is preached, and in whose circumstances there is not that kind of diversity which can account for the difference, some believe, and some do not believe.” This diversity, Calvinists infer, results entirely from “an inward discriminating grace.” But this we view as a gratuitous assumption, not countenanced by Scripture; while the Arminian method of accounting for the faith of some, and the unbelief of others, by reference to their own free agency, and making the unbelief of the one result entirely from the willful rejection of a sufficient degree of grace to result in saving faith, presents a solution of the difficulty at once satisfactory, and consistent with the general tenor of the gospel.
2. Arminianism is said to be contrary to grace.
Dr. Hill’s words are: “The second difficulty under which the Arminian system labors is this: that while in words it ascribes all to the grace of God, it does in effect resolve our salvation into something independent of that grace.” From the days of Calvin to the present time, the term grace has been pronounced with a peculiar emphasis, and dwelt upon as a hobby, by those who have borne the name of Calvinists. They have designated their own peculiar views of predestination, election, divine sovereignty, etc., by the imposing title of “doctrines of grace;” and all who have differed from them on this subject have been characterized, by them at least, as enemies of salvation by grace, and abettors of salvation by works. But that the “doctrines of grace,” scripturally understood, belong peculiarly to Calvinism, is a position which Arminians have always denied, while they have disavowed most strenuously the doctrine of salvation by works, Indeed, none who acknowledge the Bible as their standard can deny the position, that salvation is of grace, and not of works. The important point is, to ascertain the Bible import of the doctrines of grace, and to determine the sense in which salvation is not of works, but of grace.
If the system of Arminianism really involve the inconsistency imputed to it in the above-named objection, it cannot be true. The objection represents that, “while in words it ascribes all to the grace of God, it does in effect resolve our salvation into something independent of that grace.” Now it is clear that our salvation cannot be all ascribed to grace, and at the same time, and in the same sense, be all ascribed to, or “resolved into, something independent of that grace,” without a manifest contradiction.
If it be meant that Arminianism plainly contradicts itself, by representing salvation to be, at the same time and in the same sense, in words, of grace, and in effect, of something else, it should be shown in what sense it is represented to be of grace, and that, in the same sense, it is represented to be of something else; and then the inconsistency would be fairly proved upon the system itself; but this Dr. Hill has not attempted to do. We are therefore induced to believe that we are not to infer from the objection, that one part of Arminianism is inconsistent with another part of the same system, but only that it is inconsistent with Calvinism. Unless the premises in the objection, as stated by Dr. Hill, are utterly false and good for nothing, we must understand the language to imply, that while Arminianism ascribes salvation to grace, in the Arminian acceptation of the term, in the Calvinistic sense, it ascribes it to something else. Then the only controversy will be, whether the Calvinistic or the Arminian view of the sense in which salvation is of grace, is in accordance with the Scriptures. That salvation is of grace, in the sense in which that term may be explained by Calvinists, is perhaps more than Arminians can admit, either in words or in effect. For if by salvation of grace, Calvinists understand that faith and obedience have no connection whatever with salvation, either as conditions or otherwise, this view of salvation by grace must be rejected by Arminians, as directly contradictory to the Scriptures. And this, we are persuaded, is the sense in which salvation by grace is understood, when it is said that the Arminian system does, in effect, deny it. If the Scriptures are true, salvation cannot be of grace, in such sense as to be entirely irrespective of repentance and faith, and to supersede the necessity of good works. The plain difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, on this subject, is this: Calvinists cannot see how salvation can be entirely of grace, if it have any respect to faith; or any thing else, as a condition; whereas Arminians, while they understand that “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” are indispensable conditions of salvation with all to whom the gospel is addressed, understand, at the same time, that salvation itself is entirely, from beginning to end, a work of God through grace.
If it still be insisted that salvation cannot be ascribed to grace, if it be suspended upon a condition, then the charge of inconsistency or heterodoxy must be made upon the Bible itself; for nothing can be plainer than that God has promised to save the believer upon the condition of faith, and threatened to punish the unbeliever in consequence of his unbelief and voluntary rejection of the gospel. Notwithstanding salvation is thus suspended upon conditions, and, in a certain sense, man, by his own agency, must determine his eternal destiny, yet it may easily be shown that salvation itself is all the work of God through grace.
(1) Man is by nature utterly helpless, incapable of any good whatever, only as he is visited and strengthened by divine grace.
(2) It is attributable to grace alone that a plan of mercy has been devised and proposed to man.
(3) Nothing that man can do can avail any thing toward purchasing salvation by merit; for “when we have done all that we can do, we are unprofitable servants.”
(4) The work of salvation, in all its stages, can be performed, either in whole or in part, by none but God; and this is entirely a work of grace, for none can claim it at the hand of God as a matter of right, and it is of his mere grace that God has promised to save the sinner, according to the plan of his own devising. This subject may be illustrated by a reference to the case of the man with the “withered hand.” He had no strength to lift his hand, yet, in his effort to obey the command, strength was imparted. Now, none can certainly say that, if he had refused to obey the command, his hand would have been restored, and yet how absurd would it have been for him to boast that his cure was of himself, merely because the Saviour saw proper to effect the work in a certain way, and the man received the benefit in accordance with that plan! Even so, if God see proper to save one man and to damn another, under the dispensation of his gospel, it will be because the one accepted and the other rejected the gospel message; and still the work of salvation will be a work of God through grace. Thus we think it clear that there is no just ground to impugn the Arminian system as being inconsistent with the doctrines of grace.
3. The last difficulty alleged against the Arminian system is, “that it proceeds upon the supposition of a failure of the purpose of the Almighty.” which is irreconcilable with the divine sovereignty. That God is an independent sovereign, and governs the material and moral universe according to his will, is a truth so fully developed in Scripture, and so conformable to our best conceptions of the divine character, that no system of divinity which denies it can be admitted as true. Calvinists have generally represented Arminians as denying the divine sovereignty; but Arminians, so far from acknowledging that they deny this doctrine, have ever contended that their system recognizes it in a more scriptural and consistent acceptation than the Calvinistic theory admits. That Arminianism is inconsistent with the Calvinistic presentation of that doctrine, will not be denied; but the question is, Can the Arminian system be reconciled with the correct and scriptural view of the subject? We think it can. The point in reference to which Dr. Hill alleges that Arminianism is inconsistent with the sovereignty of God, is that, according to the Arminian system, the will of God is absolutely defeated; for in that system it is declared that God wills the salvation of all men; but if, as Arminians admit, all men are not saved, then, according to the objection, the divine will is defeated, and the sovereign dominion of God is overthrown. This difficulty, which, indeed, at first view, wears a formidable aspect, upon a closer examination will be seen to originate entirely in a misunderstanding of the import of the term will; or, rather, from the use of the term in two different senses. For illustration of these two acceptations of the will, the one may be termed the primary, or antecedent, will of God, and the other his ultimate will. The primary, or antecedent, will of God contemplates and recognizes the contingencies necessarily connected with the actions of free moral agents; but the ultimate will of God is absolute and unencumbered by any conditions whatever. Thus it is the primary, or antecedent, will of God that all men should be saved, but it is the ultimate will of God that none shall be saved but those who comply with the conditions of salvation. The question will here be asked, Has then God two wills, the one inconsistent with the other? We reply, No: there is really but one will, contemplated in two different points of view; and the terms antecedent and ultimate are merely used for the convenience of describing two different, but perfectly consistent, aspects of the same will, under different circumstances. This may be familiarly illustrated by the analogy of parental government. The father prescribes a law for his children, and threatens chastisement to all who disobey. Now it is very clear that the affectionate father does not primarily will that any of his children should suffer chastisement. It is his desire that all should obey, and escape punishment. But some of them disobey: the will of the father is that they be chastised according to his threatening. This is necessary in order to the maintenance of his authority. But we demand, Has any change really taken place in the will of the father? Surely not. Is not his ultimate will, which orders the punishment, perfectly consistent with his primary will, which desired not the punishment of any? Or, rather, is it not the same will, under a different modification? The perfect consistency, or, more strictly, the identity, of the primary and ultimate will, may be clearly seen by adverting to the conditionality of the primary will, necessarily resulting from the principles of government suited to moral agents. Thus the father primarily willed that none of his children should be punished. This is his first desire, flowing from the benevolence of his nature. But he does not will this absolutely and unconditionally. He only wills it conditionally - that is, he wills that they should escape punishment only in a certain way - by obeying his law; but if they violate his law, his will is that they consequently be punished.
Let it be remembered, also, that the primary will or desire of the parent is not in the least weakened by the strength of his apprehension that some of his children will, in the abuse of their agency, disobey, and incur the penalty. Indeed, if the mind of the father should fix upon one more refractory than the rest, his affection would naturally desire more ardently the obedience, and consequent escape, of that child. Now it must be confessed that the affection of an earthly parent, though exceedingly ardent, is but a faint representation of the extent of the love and compassion of God for all his intelligent creatures, But yet the illustration thus presented may aptly serve the purpose for which we have used it. The primary will of God is that all men should be saved. This he has most solemnly declared, and the benevolence of his holy nature requires it. But he does not thus will absolutely and unconditionally. He only wills it according to certain conditions, and in consistency with the plan of his own devising. He wills their salvation, not as stocks or stones, but as moral agents. He wills their salvation through the use of the prescribed means; but if, in the abuse of their agency, they reject the gospel, his ultimate will is that they perish for their sins. This is essential to the maintenance of his moral government over his creatures.
Thus we may clearly see how the Almighty can, according to the system of Arminianism, primarily will the salvation of all men, and through the atonement of Christ render it attainable, and yet maintain his absolute sovereignty over the moral universe. But it is not the sovereignty of an arbitrary tyrant, nor yet such a sovereignty as that by which he rules the material universe, according to principles of absolute and fatal necessity, but the sovereignty of a righteous and benevolent Governor of moral and intelligent agents, according to holy and gracious principles. If this be the sovereignty for which Dr. Hill and the Calvinists contend, they can find nothing in the system of Arminianism inconsistent therewith; but a sovereignty variant from this would not only be inconsistent with Arminianism, but it would be repugnant to Scripture, and derogatory to the divine character.
We have now briefly considered the three leading difficulties under which, according to Calvinists, the Arminian system labors; and we think we have shown that they are all susceptible of a rational and satisfactory solution.
II. We shall now briefly sketch some of the principal, and, as we think unanswerable objections to the Calvinistic system. That we may more clearly perceive the force of these objections, it will be necessary to keep still in view the great distinguishing principle in the Calvinistic system, viz.: That salvation is not made possible to all mankind; and that this impossibility depends not upon the divine foresight of the conduct of men, but upon the eternal decree and inscrutable will of God. That this is a correct presentation of the Calvinistic scheme, has been abundantly shown in the preceding chapters. But we think that, notwithstanding the number of learned and pious divines who have exerted their utmost ability and zeal in the support of the above system, they have never succeeded in extricating it from the following weighty objections:
1.It is contrary to the prima facie evidence and general tenor of Scripture. This has been shown -
(1) By appealing to those numerous and plain declarations of Scripture, in which, in speaking of the atonement, or of the death of Christ, terms of the widest possible import are used - such as all, all the world, all mankind, the whole world, etc.
(2) By appealing to those passages which place in direct contrast Adam, and the extent of the effects of his fall, with Christ, and the extent of the effects of his death.
(3) By appealing to those passages which teach that Christ died for such as do, or may, perish.
(4) By referring to those plain declarations which authorize the preaching of the gospel to all men, and require all men to repent and believe.
(5) By appealing to those passages which unreservedly offer salvation to all men, and declare that men’s failure to obtain it is their own fault.
(6) By referring to those passages which teach the possibility of final apostasy, and warn Christians of their danger of it. This is only an index of the classes of texts with which the Scriptures are replete upon this subject. Considering their great number, and plain and pointed character, it is clear that they present a prima facie evidence in opposition to Calvinism little less than irresistible to the unsophisticated mind. With such a mass of plain Scripture, the most natural and common-sense interpretation of which is against them, Calvinists have ever been trammeled, and have based the defense of their system mostly on philosophic speculation and abstract theoretic reasoning.
2.The Calvinistic system is irreconcilable with the character of man as a free moral agent. This characteristic of our nature has been already considered. At present, we assume it as one among the most plain and undeniable truths of philosophy and religion. Calvinists have generally admitted that to reconcile their views of the eternal and absolute decrees of election and reprobation with the free agency of man, is a task too difficult for their finite powers. Hence they have seldom attempted it. Their course on this subject has not been uniform. While some have boldly repudiated the doctrine of man’s free agency, and therein battled against common sense itself, the greater portion have contended that the doctrines of the eternal and unconditional decrees, and of man’s free agency, though to human comprehension irreconcilable, are nevertheless both true; and they have referred the solution of the difficulty to the revelations of eternity!
If, indeed, the difficulty now before us belonged legitimately to that class of Bible truths which are too profound for human wisdom to fathom, a reference to the developments of eternity would certainly be an appropriate disposition of the subject. But when we consider the true character of the difficulty in question, it may well be doubted whether such a reference has any thing to justify or recommend it, except that it is an easy method of dismissing a troublesome difficulty. What would we say of the individual who would pretend to believe that light and darkness are both the same and refer to eternity for their reconciliation? Or what would we think of him who should profess to believe in both the following propositions, viz., 1. Man is accountable to God:
2. Man is not accountable to God: or in any two positions plainly contradictory to each other, and refer to the revelations of eternity for their reconciliation?
We think very few would tamely accede to an opponent the right to dispose of such difficulties by that summary and easy process. And with just as little propriety can the Calvinist refer to eternity for the reconciliation of his system with the free agency of man. The doctrines of the eternal and absolute decrees of Calvinism, and the free agency of man, are plainly and directly contradictory; and although their reconciliation is a task too difficult for finite minds, yet a limited capacity may clearly perceive that, in their very nature, they are absolutely irreconcilable. Nothing can be plainer than that, if all the actions of men are absolutely and unconditionally decreed from all eternity, it is impossible for man to act otherwise than he does. And if man is necessarily determined to act precisely as he does, he cannot be free to act differently; and if so, he cannot be a free agent. It will avail nothing to say that man may act according to his own will, or inclination; for if the will be necessarily determined, man can be no more free, though he may act in accordance with that necessary determination, than a falling stone, which moves in accordance with the necessary laws of gravity. As the doctrine of free agency has been fully discussed in former chapters, we will now dismiss this subject by the single remark, that when two propositions directly antagonistic to each other can be harmonized, then, and not till then, may Calvinism and man’s free agency be reconciled.
3.The Calvinistic system is inconsistent with the love, or benevolence, of God.
“God is love.” “He is loving to every man; and his tender mercies are over all his works.” It is the nature of the feeling of love to seek the happiness of the object beloved; and if God loves all men, as the Scriptures declare he will, in his administration toward them, seek to promote their happiness, as far as it can be done consistently with his own perfections and with the character of man. But if one part of mankind have been “passed by” in the covenant of redemption, and doomed to inevitable destruction, when another portion, equally undeserving, have been selected as the favorites of Heaven, and set apart to eternal happiness, and this distinction, as Calvinism say, is founded upon the sovereign will of God alone, no reason can be assigned for the salvation of the elect, that did not equally exist in reference to the reprobate, unless it be that God willed arbitrarily the salvation of the former, but did not will the salvation of the latter. In willing the salvation of the elect, he necessarily willed their happiness, and in willing the damnation of the reprobate, he necessarily willed their misery. Hence it follows that he loved the former, but did not love the latter; and the position that “God is loving to every man,” must be discarded, or Calvinism must be renounced. Thus it is manifest that the Calvinistic system is irreconcilable with the love, or benevolence, of God.
4.The Calvinistic scheme is inconsistent with the justice of God. No just government can punish an individual for doing what he never had the power to avoid. Such conduct would be universally execrated as the basest of tyranny. But, according to Calvinism, it is impossible for any man to act differently from what he does. The reprobate never had it in their power to embrace the gospel, or to avoid sinning; therefore, if they are punished for the rejection of the gospel and the commission of sin, they are punished for doing what they never had the power to avoid; and such punishment is not in accordance with justice, but is an infliction of tyranny. Hence it is clear that Calvinism is irreconcilable with the justice of God.
5.The Calvinistic scheme is irreconcilable with the sincerity of God. To see this, it is only necessary to contemplate the general invitations, commands, and exhortations of the gospel. With what earnestness is it proclaimed, “Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.” “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts.” “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” In reference to the many such invitations and ardent entreaties as are to be found in the Scriptures, it may well be inquired, if Calvinism be true, how can they be the language of sincerity? Can God in sincerity command those to obey who have no more the power to obey than to make a world? Can he in sincerity offer salvation to those for whom he has never provided it? Can he entreat to “come unto him and be saved” those whom he has never designed to save, and whose salvation he knows to be absolutely impossible; and that through no fault of theirs, but by his own eternal decree, according to his sovereign will?
Calvinists endeavor, it is true, to reconcile these commands, entreaties, etc., which are addressed alike to all men, with the sincerity of God, by alleging that, if the reprobate have no power to come to Christ and be saved, this results only from a moral inability - they are unwilling themselves. But this cannot alter the case in the least, when it is remembered that, according to Calvinism, this “moral inability” can only be removed by the influence of that grace which God has determined to withhold. The numerous subtilties by which Calvinists have endeavored to reconcile their system with the sincerity of God, have made no advance toward removing the difficulty. It may be shifted from one ground to another, but by no artifice can we reconcile with sincerity the offer of salvation to all men, if it be only possible to a few.
6.The Calvinistic system tends to destroy the distinction between virtue and vice, and to render man an improper subject for future judgment, and for reward or punishment.
Virtue or vice can only exist in man, as he is supposed to have the power to do right or wrong, according to his own determination. If, according to the theory of Calvinism, all the actions of men are determined by an absolute and eternal decree of God, so that the virtuous man cannot but be virtuous, and the vicious man cannot but be vicious, virtue and vice, so far as they determine the moral character of men, must be the same. They are both in accordance with, and result from, the will of the Divine Sovereign; and flow as impulsively from the eternal decree, which determines the means and the end, as the effect does from the cause. And it necessarily follows that virtue and vice are essentially the same, and no man can be a proper subject of praise or blame.
Again: we look at the solemn process of the general judgment; we see all men assembled at the bar of God, and called to account for all their actions here; and then see the reward of eternal life bestowed upon the righteous, and eternal punishment inflicted on the wicked; and we ask the question, why, according to Calvinism, are men called to account, and rewarded or punished for their actions? If all things were unalterably fixed by the eternal decrees, the judgment process is only an empty show, and no man can be a proper subject either of reward or punishment. For what, we ask, in view of the Calvinistic theory, can the wicked be punished? If it be said, for their sins, we ask, had they the power to avoid them? If it be said, for their unbelief, we ask, in whom were they required to believe? In a Saviour who never designed, or came, to save them? Surely it must be evident that if salvation never was possible for the reprobate, by no process of reasoning can it be shown to be proper to punish them for their failure to attain unto it. We think, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile the Calvinistic system with the real distinction between virtue and vice, and with the doctrine of future judgment and rewards and punishments.
We have now noticed some of the leading difficulties with which the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism have been thought respectively to be encumbered; and, in conclusion, we would say that, notwithstanding, according to our showing, Calvinism labors under some very serious difficulties, and leads to some revolting consequences, it likewise embodies much evangelical truth; and the most objectionable consequences which have been deduced from the system have not been fairly acknowledged by all its advocates; yet, as we think they necessarily follow, as logical conclusions, it is but fair that they be plainly presented. We now close our discussion of the extent of the atonement, and present, as the substance of what we have endeavored to establish, the leading position with which we set out - “that the atonement so extends to all men as to render salvation possible for them.”