“Yes,” replied the Lieutenant, “He knew that some would be saved, and some lost—just put it on that ground; now, Christ died effectually for those who He knew would be saved, and yet sufficiently to save those who He knew would be lost; and this is the election which my Church advocates, that is, leaving out fore-knowledge as the ground upon which the scheme of redemption is based; for God’s choice of the elect does not depend upon anything in the creature. But I am showing that your own position leads to a kind of predestination. Do you not see that your position also runs into the broadest universalism?”
“How does it?” asked Ernest.
“Why, your idea is, that God, to be impartial, must treat all alike—give all the same opportunities, and bring the same influences to bear upon all. Now let us see how that will work. Mr. A. is convinced by the Holy Spirit, and is converted, as we may say: he is saved; Mr. B. his neighbor, must be treated in the same way, or God would be partial.”
“God gives both the same opportunities,” said Ernest, “but one resists and the other yields.”
“Then,” said the Lieutenant, “you have mankind divided into two classes—one resists, and is certain to be lost, and the other yields, and is certain to be saved. What is that but predestination?”
“I mean,” said Ernest, “that God gives each class sufficient grace to save them, if they would use it.”
“It is well,” replied the Lieutenant, “that you brought in that ‘if.’ Certainly, ‘if’ they would use it. The grace is sufficient, do you not see, to save one class, but not the other? So here is predestination again. The line is drawn between the two classes, and one class can never be saved, because the grace given is not sufficient to induce them to make an effort to secure salvation.”
“Well,” said Ernest, “do you not make God unjust in not giving them sufficient grace?”
“If He did give every man sufficient grace to save him,” said the Lieutenant, “then every man would be saved. What is that but the broadest universalism?”