Brethren Moderators, my Worthy Opponent, and Kind Friends:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ELDER RHODES: Some do.

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

    ELDER RHODES: That’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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