But let us turn to Ezekiel's prophecy, 33:11, "As I live, saith the Lord God, 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?" If the house of Israel was of the elect on an unconditional basis of salvation, they surely would return at some time, and why such concern? If not, all the calling after them that could be done would not fetch them back, because they were not of the elect. This is exactly where the doctrine of unconditional election leads.
Again, 2 Peter 3:9, God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." If God is not willing that any should perish, why did he not make provision and save all? If it is possible for him to save some just because he chooses to do so without any conditions, why not save all? I know what the advocates of this doctrine which I am combatting teach: they say God makes his elect willing to repent and turn to him in the day of his power. I ask, If he is not willing that any should perish, why does he not save all? If he wills that all should come to repentance, why does he not give repentance to all and remission of sins? I mention these things merely to show the contradictions and confusion involved in the doctrine of unconditional elections.
I will here relate what I read somewhere not long ago. A very pious African slave was employed in waiting on the guests at a public house of entertainment. One of the guests, who was a man of some prominence in the world, having been informed of the unaffected Christian piety of this poor slave, thought to sport with him. Addressing him by name, he said: "I want you to tell me whether I am one of the Lord's elect or not." "Indeed, sir," said the poor slave, "I have never heard of your being a candidate. If you want a place in the good Lord's service you must go to him and tell him that you are a candidate, that you will accept the lowest place that he is willing to give you, and that you will do whatever he requires at your hands. If," continued he, "you come out publicly in this way, I can then tell you what I think as to whether you are one of the Lord's elect or not."
Friday, August 5. Harvest meeting at our meetinghouse. Much good singing, with thanksgiving and speaking suited to the occasion.
Sunday, August 28. Meeting at Edom, a village about six miles northward from Harrisonburg, Virginia. I spoke from 1 Peter 3:18, 22. The first part of this text should be handled with great caution. Precisely what is meant is not very clear. I am told that a critical examination of the Greek text does favor the doctrine that Christ went from the cross to carry the news of his victorious death to the spirits of those who perished in the flood. If it pleased the good Lord to carry the news of salvation to this throng of prisoners and release them from their prison, who can say aught against it? My heart would rejoice to think that every being in the universe could and would, sometime, in the course of the ages, be made sinless and happy. But we should never concern ourselves about what God has not revealed. It is our right and privilege to rejoice evermore in the free and full salvation clearly set forth and freely offered in his Word. To the unconverted and careless sinner, I here say to-day, as I love your immortal soul, Do not rest your hope of salvation upon anything short of a saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. If our Father in heaven has provided another way, as some would say, "by fire," I know not that way.
History says that
"Kings are men to glory known
Who wade through fire to a throne;"
but a seared and blistered body is a great price to pay for an earthly crown. So I think that "by fire," even if such a thing were possible, would be a very undesirable way of getting into heaven, especially if the fire means "hell fire." Martyrs, it is true, have gone to glory through fire; but not the fire that burns and sears the soul. It was only that elementary fire kindled by wicked hands around the stake. It could kill the body, but after that there was no more that it could do; and the purified and ransomed soul of the sainted being who thus had suffered could look down from heights of glory upon the ashes of his martyrdom and sing: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"
But to return to the text. We here note this remarkable language, that "baptism doth also now save us." I suppose Peter uses the word "baptism" here in its authorized acceptation, which is the immersion of the body of a believer in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a properly authorized administrator of the ordinance. But in what sense can baptism be said to save us? My first answer is, It saves us just as the sevenfold washing in Jordan on the part of Naaman saved that leprous nobleman from being consumed by the leprosy.