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. Revelation xx. 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 .Jeremiah xix. 1 and 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, 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 Matthew xii. 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.