Ernest made no reply.
“But you are not a universalist,” continued the Lieutenant. “If not, you must believe the doctrine of election; there is no other alternative. The difference between us is this: I affirm that God elects His people upon a principle with which He has not acquainted us; you say that the election depends upon men themselves; and you divide men into two classes, and the individuals of one class are so constituted that it is certain they will resist all sacred influences, and consequently will inevitably be lost. This is as rigid predestination as ever John Calvin advocated.”
“You have a way of making me say things I do not mean, Lieutenant.”
“No,” answered the Lieutenant, “I merely followed out the proposition you laid down to its legitimate consequences. I do not see how you can escape these consequences, and I would be glad if you would show me how to avoid them. For, I confess that there is something about it which sorely puzzles me, and troubles me.”
“I thought you professed to fully understand it,” said Ernest.
“On the contrary, I do not understand it. I merely take the Bible at what it says. But I never pretended to reconcile election with human free agency. We can go to a certain point, and there we must stop.”
“What is it that perplexes you so?”
“Well,” answered the Lieutenant, “some people assert that God desires and wills every human being to be saved. Now, if He does, why does He not save them? Why does He not accomplish His own will? He, undoubtedly, has the power.”
“We might answer,” replied Ernest, “that God will not destroy their free agency.”