Deep Waters; Or, A Strange StoryCrozier, R. H. (Robert Hoskins)
Religion
Deep Waters; Or, A Strange Story
Crozier, R. H. (Robert Hoskins)
American fiction -- 19th century; Predestination -- Fiction; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865 -- Fiction
“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?”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account