Some notable quotes from Francis Hodgson, The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted: Being the Substance of a Series of Discourses:
“This doctrine (predestination) is at variance with man’s free agency and at variance with his moral accountability. There would be as much reason in holding the atmosphere accountable, or the trees, or the grass, or the clouds, or the stones. All his views, feeling, and volitions being thus predetermined, he can no more be accountable for them than for the circumstances of his birth, or the natural color of his skin. He cannot reasonably be made the subject of commendation or censure–of reward or punishment.”
“It follows, from this doctrine that there is not, and cannot be any such thing as sin. If man be not a free agent–if he be incapable of acting otherwise than as predetermined by Jehovah–he is incapable of either virtue or vice.”
Every individual of the human race, while in a state of probation, without a knowledge of God’s predetermination respecting him, and without any controlling influence brought to bear upon him, has, in every instance, willed and acted in accordance with the will of God. The result is universal voluntary holiness. Here, then, is a dilemma. Either there is no possibility of sin or holiness, or, if there be a possibility of sin or of holiness, there is, in fact, no sin–there is, in fact universal holiness.”
“This doctrine (predestination) renders utterly baseless the doctrine of pardon, or the remission of sins. It renders the offer of pardon a mockery. For what is pardon offered? For doing the will of God–for doing just what he decreed we should do; for carrying into effect his eternal counsels. How can any man need pardon if this doctrine be true?”
“If Calvinism be true, regeneration is nothing more than a preordained change from doing the will of God perfectly in one way, to doing it perfectly in another way.”
“This theory makes all civil government manifestly unreasonable . . .”
“[the logical consequences of Calvinistic predestination is] that God is the author of sin, or, if not the author of it in the strict and proper sense of the term, at least the plotter–the prime mover of it; that he prefers sin to holiness in every instance in which sin takes place; that he regards sin as the necessary means of the greatest good; that he has, at the same time, two hostile wills relative to the same thing.”
“What shall we say of his holiness, when the vilest crimes that ever caused the blush of shame, or the feelings of indignation or horror–fornication, adultery, bestiality, fraud, oppression, lying, murder–are in perfect coincidence with his eternal purposes, part of his great plan, when he chose them in preference to their opposites, . . . and where is his benevolence, when he freely chooses, ordains, and brings to pass all the sin and misery in the universe?”
