“Yes; I admit that, for the sake of argument.”
“Well, when the proper time arrived, Judas betrayed the Lord. He evidently performed a part which was predestinated. Was he not a free agent?”
“Not if he was compelled to do as he did,” answered Ernest.
“No, if he was compelled,” replied Mr. Hillston, “but where was the compulsion? He was carrying out his own will and if he was, that makes him a free agent. His conduct afterwards proves that he never felt that he was constrained by any extraneous influence. The crucifixion was foretold with all its attendant prominent circumstances, and to prove that it was predestinated, let us turn to Acts 2:23. ‘Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.’
“Here it is emphatically declared that Jesus was delivered by the determinate counsel of God. To show that the actors in the disgraceful tragedy were free agents, it is said that they crucified Him with wicked hands. But to put it beyond all dispute, that it was all predestinated, let us turn to Acts 4:27-28: ‘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.’
“Here, the actors are all clearly specified. They met at a certain place. For what? To do whatsoever God had determined before should be done. You can get no other meaning out of it. Dr. Adam Clarke saw a difficulty here, and he took the liberty to transpose the passage so as to make it read thus: ‘For a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.’
“Dr. Clarke thus makes the predestination clause apply to Jesus, instead of Herod, and the others. It seems the Doctor did not mind stripping Jesus of free agency, just so he could preserve it to men. But Mr. Benson, who had no leaning towards predestination, says that such a transposition as Clarke makes is unauthorized and unnecessary.”
“Do you think,” asked Ernest, “that Dr. Clarke was insincere? I mean, do you believe he discovered the doctrine of predestination in that passage, and then deliberately tried to eliminate it?”
“O, no,” replied Mr. Hillston, “I think he honestly believed that the doctrine of predestination, as taught by most Baptist ministers and especially by the Presbyterian Church, has no foundation in the Scriptures, and thus believing, he could not admit the plain meaning of what seems to me a plain passage. He, no doubt, thought by transposing a clause, he would make the Bible say what was intended. But what does the Doctor gain by this transposition? If Jesus was not a free agent, we are under no obligation to Him for fulfilling the law in our stead and suffering for us. He was merely undergoing a penalty which He could not avoid. Was it not necessary that Jesus should be a free agent as well as that men should?”
“But according to your view,” said Ernest, “He could be a free agent, and yet His career be fore-ordained.”