Thursday, September 26, 2013

Review: Living the Quaker Way



The book begins with a couple of short chapters that give a quick introduction to the Quaker religion (or is it a way of life?). The bulk of the book consists of five chapters corresponding to the five major values of the Quaker way -- Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, and Equality.

Philip Gulley writes well. His chapter on Simplicity is full of wisdom and sound teaching. Other than that, there's not much good I can say about this book. His tone becomes more critical as he moves into the chapter about peace, perhaps reflecting his passion for the subject and the weight he feels it deserves. Unfortunately, he spent an entire lengthy chapter without mentioning abortion(!), the role of police(?), or whether self-defense or the protection of one's family ever justifies violence. The remaining chapters were a mixed bag of a bit of good stuff along with plenty of theological and political liberalism. If you're a fan of gay marriage, abortion, socialism, and religious pluralism you might well enjoy this well-written book.


Thanks to Convergent for a free review copy. 

Monday, September 9, 2013

Book Review: Jesus On Every Page


Jesus On Every Page helps us see that the whole Bible, from start to finish, reveals Jesus. The New Testament itself insists that the Old Testament was all about Jesus. David Murray provides helpful guidance for those who seek to read the Scriptures faithfully and typologically. Each chapter includes study questions.


This book is written for a popular audience. You won’t be befuddled by obscure vocabulary or material that depends on extensive prior knowledge in order to be understood. Even though I can’t affirm all that Murray says, what he does say tends to be basic enough that most Christians will take no issue with it.  Most of my criticisms are on the nitpicky side. Overall, this book is a good introduction to an important subject. 



Thanks to Thomas Nelson publishers for the review copy. 

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Beware the Evil Eye



Remember Gilligan’s Island? Growing up, I spent many yours watching re-runs of that classic (and very silly) sitcom. In spite of it's obvious silliness the show included allusions to Shakespeare, Melville, and Becket. Gilligan’s Island also explored many popular American idioms. Gilligan, the knave character, regularly took idiomatic expressions quite literally, to the amusement of generations of Americans.

Idioms are fruitful sources of humor. My wife has told me about her childhood affection for Amelia Bedelia, a children’s book character who made the same sort of jokes as Gilligan (taking idioms in a wooden literal sense). Not only do idioms provide us with fuel for comedy, they add color to our linguistic worlds. Phrases like: 

“Break a leg”

“Chew the fat”

“Face the music”

“On the ball”

“Let the cat out of the bag”

“Sleep tight”

“Toe the line”

Idioms provide variety, beauty, and clarity. At least, that is, until they don’t.

Idioms make sense when they’re born. Eventually they become so embedded in a language that they die. They lose their poignancy. If I tell you that I’m “under the weather” I suspect that you’ll not think of weather at all. You’ll not even notice the idiom. I might as well have simply said “I’m sick.” And so, new idioms are constantly being born to replace geriatric and deceased idioms. But what happens to the old idioms? Eventually, they fall out of circulation and then cease to communicate.

Take, for instance, the expression “swimmingly.” I think the original idea was that events were transpiring in a way that could be likened to swimming – smoothly, like through water. Only a couple of weeks ago I learned that the term (which until then was a regular part of my vocabulary) is basically obsolete. People no longer know what it means.

The Bible, being as ancient as it is, contains many obsolete idioms. We don’t understand them. And sometimes we don’t even recognize their presence. We’re a bit like Gilligan or Amelia Bedelia – taking things quite literally.

One example of an idiom we miss is the “evil eye” Jesus spoke of in Matthew 6:23.

"The lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. "But if your eye is bad [or evil], your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (Mat 6:22-23)

The verses immediately preceding teach the importance of laying up treasure in heaven rather than on earth. And the verse immediately following these verses warns against attempts at dividing ones loyalty between God and mammon (an Aramaic word for riches, here personified as a false God). So the context certainly leads us to expect that these two verses (22-23) relate to riches.

An old Hebrew idiom is hidden in this text. “The evil eye” was a way of referring to the sin of greed (Prov 28:22; 23:6; Mat 20:15; Mark 7:22 – visible in KJV). So it may be that the “clear” or “single” eye of verse 22 actually refers to generosity. And “the evil eye” of verse 23 refers to contrasting stinginess.

There remains some question about the “good” eye. It could refer to a singular focus on discipleship. It could also refer to generosity. However, there seems to be some consensus about “the evil eye” of verse 23 – it is a warning against greed.

“Clueing in” (or “catching on”) to this sort of ancient foreign idiom can be difficult. Some translators leave them be in all their befuddling glory while others attempt to adapt them so that their intended meaning will not be lost on the contemporary audience. Yet none of the translations I regularly use (KJV, NAS, NET, NIV, NAB, NKJ, ESV, NLT, NRS, RSV, YLT) gave any indication that covetousness might be in view in verse 23. This is a good example of why good bible commentaries are a valuable tool for Christian disciples.

Perhaps we’d better “hit the books.”






Bibliography:
Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament
Carson, “Matthew” Expositor’s Bible Commentary
Hagner, “Matthew” Word Biblical Commentary


Monday, August 19, 2013

Are All Sins Equal?



It’s wrong to steal a pack of gum from the convenience store. It’s also wrong to eat a stranger’s face off. Though these two crimes belong to the same category – they are both crimes – they’re worlds apart. And the penalties our justice system metes out reflect this difference.

What about God’s perspective? Does God think chewing stolen gum is just as bad as chewing a stolen face? The answer may not be as obvious as you think.

God is, by definition, quite different from us. If God tells us that, from his perspective, all sins are equally grave then we should take him at his word – even if it violently contradicts our intuitions.

Many Christians believe that God does in fact consider all sins to be equal. After all, Jesus says that to look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery with her in one’s heart (Matthew 5:28). And his brother, James, says that if one obeys the entire law but fails at one point he is guilty of breaking 
the whole law (James 2:10).

The conviction that all sins are equal in God’s sight (even if not in ours) comes up frequently in current controversies. Most of us recognize that Christians often fail in our aim to live holy lives. From that premise the argument goes something like: Since speaking unkind words to a spouse is on par with aborting a baby in God’s eyes then we should treat the two sins the same (i.e. with equal leniency).

If gossip and rape are equal then I believe we should consider gossip to be a very serious matter. After all, sin is sin. But what if they aren’t equal? What if our intuitions are right?

Different Punishments
You’ve heard the old expression, “an eye for an eye”? That comes from the Bible. The idea was that if a person lost an eye in a violent attack the offender was sentenced to lose an eye too. If a tooth was lost then a tooth was taken. The punishment was tailored to fit the crime.

In the Old Testament some sins were punished by death (Ex 21:16; Lev 20:10-12; 24:17; etc.) Others were punished by whipping or a fine (Deut 25:1-3; Ex 22:1-4; etc.). Before the perfect sacrifice came (Jesus) different sins also required different sacrifices (Lev 4-7).

The New Testament reveals that God still punishes some sins more severely than others (Heb 2:2-3; 10:28-29; 1 John 5:16). The practice of certain sins unequivocally precludes one from entering the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21).

If all crimes were the same in God’s eyes we could reasonably expect that all punishments would be the same. After all, we know that God is just. Since the punishments God issues differ it’s reasonable to think that, from his perspective, there are gradations of guilt – that some sins are worse than others.

Jesus’ Perspective
If God in the flesh said anything about this subject we ought to pay close attention. Jesus told us that some parts of the law were “weightier” than others (Mat 23:23), that some had committed a “greater sin” than others (John 19:11), and he warned that some will receive harsher sentences than others on the Day of Judgment (Luke 12:47-48). Jesus also spoke of one particular sin that could never be forgiven (Mat 12:31).

It sounds like Jesus considered some sins to be worse than others.

Relationships and Transgressions
All sins do not impact our relationships to the same degree. If, for instance, my wife steps on my toe out of anger the effect on our relationship would be minimal. If I then responded by giving her a concussion the effects would be much more severe. I contend that the same is true of our relationship with God – some sins hurt the relationship more than others.

Gossiping would damage my relationship with God (especially if I know better). Abortion, being the greater sin (especially if I know better), would do even greater damage.

This recognition, that some sins are more destructive to our relationships with God and neighbor, should impact the way we exhort (and even rebuke) one another. If I see a brother or sister sin a “small” sin I may only need to pray for them or offer a very mild and meek correction. If, on the other hand, I see my brother or sister engaging in a more serious offense I will need to respond in a way that fits the higher stakes of the situation. The goal is and must always be to preserve and protect sacred relationships.

Hate and Love
As Christians we have two great commandments – Love God and Love our Neighbors. There’s a flip side to that commandment. When our affections begin to line up with God’s we begin to not only love – we begin to hate. Loving my God and my neighbor means hating sin. That means the big sins and the little sins, the few sins and the many sins – it especially means my sins.


Since all sins are not equal we should hate some sins even more than others. But, since all sinners are equal (made in God’s image), we should love all sinners equally – sincerely and sacrificially. 

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Meditation



We live busy lives. We’re inundated by news, music, phone calls, texts, Facebook, Twitter, and email – and that’s just the drive to work! Our down time includes TV and movies. Books are nice decorations. And we do intend to read them – when we have time. But for now, we’re busy.

How does all this distraction relate to our relationships with God and one another? I think you know the answer. Relationships suffer. Our speed produces an unparalleled quantity of life and an astoundingly empty quality of life. The best things in life are free – but they are not instant. Relationships take time.

The deep thinking and intimate communion necessary for holy living cannot happen without occasions of quiet and solitude. 

A life without meditation tends toward chaos and confusion. In the muddled haze of busyness our relationships suffer and our priorities become misaligned. Meditation helps us to shift our perspectives back into place. Deep peace of mind comes when we fix our focus on the things of God. Soon enough our lives and relationships begin to return to proper order. We see clearly again.

Think about it. When was the last time you sat in silence, pondering and praying, for as little as 10 minutes? Slow down. Read and ponder these verses: Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1-3; 19:14; 49:3; 63:5-6; 77:11-12; 104:33-34; 119: 15,23,27,48,78,97,99,148; 143:5; 145:5

Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Victory of Defeat


Everyone here is at war from the beginning. From childhood we fight against our common enemy. He’s stronger than us, but still we fight. We don’t know him, but still we count him an enemy. After all, everybody knows what he’s out to do. He wants to control our lives. He wants to rule over us all. And so we all participate in the great rebellion. Well…almost all of us.

Some of us end up giving in. A few of us meet the Enemy and experience a crushing defeat. When confronted by his power we find ourselves broken. The few who have met the Enemy and been defeated by him discover something quite strange. The defeat is unique – it’s actually a victory.

When we learn that we’re on the wrong side of the great and ongoing cosmic conflict, laying down our weapons, we gain a Friend who sticks closer than a brother. We find that the One we were rebelling against actually deserves to be king. He’s the only ruler fit to govern the universe.


I’m glad to have lost this battle. This is one defeat I can rejoice about. I welcome him to rule over me and my family. Will you surrender too?

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

What does the Bible say about the Sabbath?

This is a paper I wrote in Bible College. I believe it includes all references to the Sabbath in the (Protestant) Bible. 


Sabbath


The Sabbath was a sign between Israel and God given to Israel through Moses (Neh. 9:14; Ex. 31:13,16-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20). No (human) Sabbath keeping is mentioned before the law of Moses. The rest of redemption is memorialized and anticipated in the Old Covenant (deliverance from Egypt in Deut. 5:15; Christ). There is no New Testament command to keep any particular day. However, the New Testament does warn against judging non-Sabbatarians (Rom. 14:5-6; Col. 2:16) and the keeping of special days (Gal. 4:10,11). Nevertheless, we are told that congregational worship is important and should not be forsaken (Heb. 10:25).

In examining the Scriptures pertaining to the Sabbath I found three universal principals. These principles underlie the specific applications that governed the nation of Israel. The Sabbath was a time for Israel to rest from their own works as a shadow of the time when the Israelites would keep a perpetual Sabbath. Many of these verses are specific applications of the universal principle of ceasing from their own works and allowing God to work in them.

Principle one: Teaching of the spiritual rest to come.
Gen. 2:2,3 (note that God blessed and sanctified the day through Moses because He “had rested”); Ex. 16:23-30; 20:10-12; 31:13-17; 34:21; 35:2,3; Lev. 16:31; 19:3,30; 23:32; 23:38,39; Num. 15:32; 28:9,10; 28:25; 31:24; Deut. 5:12-15; 16:8; Neh. 9:14; 10:31; 13:15-21; Isa. 1:13; 56:2-6; 58:13; Jer. 17:21-27; Ezek. 20:12-24; 22:8,26; 23:38; 44:24; 45:17; Amos 8:5; Hosea 2:11; Mat. 12:1-12; Mark 2:23-28; 3:2-4; Luke 6:1-9; 13:10-16; 14:1-5; 23:56; John 5:9-23; 9:14-16; Rom. 14:5-7; Col. 2:16, 17; Heb. 4:1-11;

Many of these verses demanded that no work be done. This is specific application of the universal principle that there was a time coming in which Israel would cease from her own ways and would allow God to work in her. Christ has now come and enabled us to live in the Spirit and cease from our own works.

Principle two: A day for congregational worship.
Ex. 2:16; 20:8; Lev. 19:30; 23:3,8,24; 24:8; 26:2; Deut. 16:8; Neh. 10:33; 13:22; Isa. 66:23; Ezek. 23:38; 46:1,3; Luke 4:16, 31; Acts 13:14,27,42,44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4

            The Israelites were commanded to meet on certain days for worship. These specific applications taught the universal principal that God expects congregational worship. To this day God expects His children to assemble and worship Him in holiness.

Principle three: A day of rest for workers and land. (Stewardship)
Ex. 20:10; 23:12; Lev. 23:8; 25:2-8 (stewardship); 25:8; 26:34,35, 43; Num. 28:25; Deut. 5:14; Mark 2:27


            God demanded that His people allow those who served them, both man and beast, to rest on the Sabbath. God also required Sabbaths for the land. These specific applications were based on the underlying universal principles of stewardship, and mercy. Employers should not inhibit their employees from worshiping God by requiring constant service. Likewise, the land should not be exploited to the point of being detrimental to the land’s health. 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

7 Men



Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by Eric Metaxas

These brief biographies offer us shining examples to follow. Rather than merely bemoaning our contemporary lack of heroes (or, if you prefer, role models) Metaxas aims to point us to 7 men worthy to become our heroes.

George Washington
His greatest act of integrity was his refusal to seek or accept the title of King. Without his self-control and example the American presidency would not be what it is today.

William Wilberforce
Not only did Wilberforce work tirelessly to abolish slavery, he also fought for the ‘Reformation of Morals’ in general. What did that mean? He aimed to end the widespread child labor, rampant sex trafficking (25 percent of single women in London were prostitutes in his day), bullbaiting, bearbaiting, public hangings (sometimes followed by public dissections), and alcoholism that plagued England. His Christian faith gave him a countercultural view of human life. He believed that each person was of great worth because made in the image of God. That perspective motivated him to make a difference.

Eric Liddell
Best known for refusing to run his event in the Olympics because it was scheduled for the Lord’s Day (aka Sunday), Eric Liddell went on to become a self-sacrificing missionary to China.

Jackie Robinson
Jackie’s faith helped him to stand up against mockery and scorn as he broke the color barrier in major league baseball.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer was a theologian and man of faith who chose to suffer with his people rather than stay in the safety of the USA during WWII. His faith led him to help Jews escape the Nazis and participate in a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. For those deeds he was executed.

John Paul II
Karol Wojtyla sought to demonstrate Christian humility, believe and practice Christian orthodoxy, and extend welcome to those with whom he disagreed.

Charles Colson
Infamous from the Watergate scandal, Chuck Colson was famously ‘born again.’ His conversion to Christianity led him to refuse a lie that would have gotten him off very easily. Instead, he confessed to another crime! Then, when the judge threw the book at him, he took his sentence gracefully. In prison he served his fellow inmates. After his release Church Colson went on to form Prison Fellowship Ministries, helping to bring prison ministry back into popularity among American churches.


Review
Metaxas has written an excellent book. It’s not only well-written, it’s also timely. We need role models. We need to learn from the mistakes and successes of others. We hear altogether too often about moral failures and cowardice at the highest levels of our societies. Perhaps books like this will serve to stem the tide. Perhaps stories of excellence will spur us on to nobler aims.

I knew something about each of these men. But now I’m inspired by each of them. These stories of courage and sacrifice challenge me to follow suit. This is recommended reading.



Thanks to Thomas Nelson for the review copy. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

How bad is bad enough?



Excluding the damaged
We visited Finch Park this evening. Anne brought along bread to feed the mean, hissing geese. Our dog Henry even got in on the fun, barking his happy barks. We noticed that one of the geese was damaged. He swam using just one leg. The damaged goose kept his distance from the others. Then I saw why. It seems that the others were rather vicious towards him when he came near. Anne said that some birds are that way. Sadly, so are some people.

Damaged people often receive our cruelty rather than our compassion. This should never be the case among God’s children. After all, weren’t we all once damaged ourselves?

Are you a bad person?
One day Jesus was invited to join a Pharisee, a devoutly religious man, for a meal. While they ate, a woman who was known for her sinfulness (she may even have been a prostitute) entered. The woman began to weep. Her tears fell on Jesus’ feet as he reclined at the table. She washed his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed them again and again, and then poured perfume onto them.

The Pharisee who invited Jesus thought to himself that perhaps Jesus wasn’t a prophet after all, otherwise he would have recognized what kind of woman she was.

Jesus then asked the man one of those powerful probing questions that still challenge us today:

"A certain moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. "When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him more?" Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have judged correctly." And turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. "You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. "You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. "For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." And He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven." Luke 7:41-48

I don’t think Jesus is saying that we should all go out and do a bunch of nasty stuff so that we can love him better. I think he is reminding us that God has a special relationship with and attraction to those who see their own need. People who are humble, broken, and desperate are magnetic to God. They’re the kind of people he gives extra grace to (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). He draws close to those with broken hearts and contrite spirits (Psalm 51:17; 34:18; Isaiah 57:15; 66:2).

Becoming bad enough
In a way, I hope you can say that you are a bad person – or at least that you were. It turns out that people who were once very bad make the best Christians. Paul the Apostle, for instance, said he was the worst sinner of all (1 Tim 1:15). Paul was a very bad person. Who loved and served Jesus better than Paul? Or what about Peter? He repeatedly denied Jesus in front of people. Just shortly after that Peter, filled with the Spirit, preached the first Christian sermon. After that he began an amazing healing ministry.

May we grow close to our holy God and see ourselves as we are – imperfect. May we have experiences reminiscent of Isaiah’s when that godly man cried out, “Woe is me! For I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips.”

When we see our own inadequacy we learn to lean on and love our God. When we remember our sinfulness we learn to show compassion toward the damaged among us.


Photo by Jim Ario



Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Resources for Bible Students








Commentaries 

New Bible Commentary – A good single-volume commentary



Expositor’s Bible Commentary – NIV based 13 volume set

Expositor’s Bible Commentary – 2 volume Abridged Edition

Tyndale New/Old Testament Commentary – Good set (48 volumes), in-depth without being overwhelming, $480 from CBD

Beacon Bible Commentary – a good resource, this 10 volume set is out of print but can be found used online for $200-300. A new Beacon set is slowly coming out now. Several volumes are available already.


Counterpoints Series – these books are not traditional commentaries. They present different views on controversial topics such as: Four Views of Works at the Final Judgment, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide, Five Views on Sanctification, Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper, Four Views on Eternal Security, Four Views on Baptism, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Four Views on Hell, Four Views on Divine Providence, Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-tribulation, Pre-wrath, or Post-tribulation, etc.

Bible Dictionaries
New Bible Dictionary – Recommended

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary

Atlases
Zondervan Atlas of the Bible



Hebrew/Greek


Online
www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/  -- some excellent resources here!

Freebiblecommentary.org – these commentaries aim to help you dig into the meaning of the text

Studylight.org/com/ -- an impressive array of older commentaries

Software
IVP Essential Reference Collection – Excellent resources at an incredible price

Tyndale New/Old Testament Commentary – Good set (48 volumes), in-depth without being overwhelming

Esword – good free software. Several good and free commentaries are available with it.

Mysword – like Esword but for Android OS, free

Hermeneutics (How to read the Bible)


Hermeneutical Spiralexcellent resource (for advanced students only)


Friday, June 14, 2013

Etymology of Cool


He leaned nonchalantly against his 1953 Ford smoking a cigarette and caring about nothing. Dean was his name. And cool was his claim. What made him so cool? Was it his clothing? Yes. But that’s not all. Was it his cigarette? Sure. But the single most important factor in the mix that made him cool...was his coolness.

I knew a cool kid in ninth grade. He showed me some things on the guitar like “Say it Ain’t So” by Weezer. If I remember correctly, the video for that song featured The Fonz – another exemplar of coolness. Anyway, my guitar playing friend didn’t seem to care about much (his marijuana use probably contributed to his uncaring/non-responsive aura). His apathy was cool. He was too cool to care.

The other day I was thinking about the etymology of the term cool. Here’s what I found at the Online Etymology Dictionary site:
Cool (adj.)Old English col "not warm" (but usually not as severe as cold), also, of persons, "unperturbed, undemonstrative," from Proto-Germanic *koluz (cf. Middle Dutch coel, Dutch koel, Old High German kuoli, German kühl "cool," Old Norse kala "be cold"), from PIE root *gel- "cold, to freeze" (see cold (adj.)).  
Applied since 1728 to large sums of money to give emphasis to amount. Meaning "calmly audacious" is from 1825. Slang use for "fashionable" is 1933, originally Black English; modern use as a general term of approval is from late 1940s, probably from bop talk and originally in reference to a style of jazz; said to have been popularized in jazz circles by tenor saxophonist Lester Young.
I had suspected something to that effect. To be ‘cool’ meant to be “unperturbed" before it ever came to be a 'general term of approval'.  

By that early definition, Christianity is not cool. It never has been and never will be . Christianity is certainly not "unperturbed." Christians are disturbed by the wickedness in this world. And we cause a disturbance as we confront and reject the evils of our societies. Neither is Christianity cool in the sense of fashionable. It's always been a counter-cultural religion. It'll never really be fashionable. 

Sadly, many Christians are quite cool. We can see suffering around us and respond with apathy. We can see abortion clinics in our towns and turn a blind eye. Caring so much that you fast and pray and speak with intense earnestness is not en vogue, not even among Christians. Instead of brightly burning flames of passion for God and lost souls we often choose cool complacency. We sacrifice our souls (and the souls around us) at the altar of fashionability and coolness. 

Jesus called his followers to abandon all sorts of things – money, jobs, family, romantic relationships, everything really. But what about our cool? Do we dare to lose our cool for Jesus? Do we dare to care?


Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The Suffering of the Impassible God (Arianism Opposed)





Continuing the summary of Gavrilyuk’s book:

In reaction against Patripassionism, with its failure to distinguish the Father and the Son, some turned to ditheism or tritheism and others demoted Christ from full deity. It was this last proposal that gained the most traction at the popular level.

Anti-Nicene literature is full of arguments against Sabellianism, a clear sign that their theology developed in response to modalistic extremes. Dionysius of Alexandria (d. c.264), for example, sought to correct certain Sabellian bishops by emphasizing the differences between the Father and the Son.  He wrote to them that ‘the Son of God is a creature and made’ and compared the Father and Son to a boat and its maker.

Another evidence of this resistance to Sabellianism can be seen in the local editions of the ancient Roman creed. In Aquilea and Milan (for part of the 4th century) the words ‘invisible and impassible’ were added to the first article (referring only to the Father). Rufinus of Aquilea wrote (early 5th century) that this language was added to counter the Patripassian heresy ‘which said that the Father himself was born of the Virgin and became visible, or affirmed that he suffered in the flesh.’

Ambrose of Milan, while recognizing that these creedal additions did effectively refute Sabellianism, contended that in his day they should be rejected because they lent credence to the Arians’ views. They used these additions to commend their contention that, unlike the Father, Christ was passible and mutable from the beginning. Again, the rejection of the extreme of Sabellianism led to the opposite extreme of subordinationism.

Five Interpretations of Arianism
There are at least five distinct interpretations of Arian theology:

1)      Following the later Platonic model of reality, Arian subordinationism emphasized the transcendence of the Father. He possessed all the apophatic attributes, unlike the generated God. The Son, being passible mutable, was able to communicate and interact with the creation. Suggested influences include: ‘Aristotle, Plato (and Platonists like Atticus and Albinus), Philo, origen, Lucian, Paul of Samosata, and the exegetes of the “schools” in Alexandria and Antioch’[1]
2)      The Arians were Judaizers, not Hellenizers. They sought to preserve Jewish monotheism. Christ was still somehow recognized as divine, or, as they often said, the ‘uniquely-generated God’ (monoghnej qeoj).
3)      Arius was a careful Bible student and took the statements about the Son’s inferiority to the Father seriously (John 14:28; Mark 13:32; John 6:38, etc.). Arius did not do much allegorizing. He tended to take the text rather literally, siding with the simpliciores rather than the Alexandrians who came before him. Maurice Wiles comes close to this interpretation.
4)      Arians believed that the Father freely chose to generate the Son. The Father foresaw the (Stoic) moral progress of the Son and adopted him – leaving an example for us all. Robert Gregg and Dennis Groh introduced this hypothesis. They claimed that Arians ‘emphatically’ denied that Christ was God.
5)      Arians insisted that Christ was in some way divine. That’s why they denied that the Logos had a human soul. The affirmation of the divinity of the one who suffered and died was of central importance for Arian soteriology. Hanson-Wiles interpretation.

Considering these diverse proposals about the overarching concern of Arian theology, Gavrilyuk contends that there is no single governing principle – the quest is in vain. He contends that the first three theories offer useful insights, the fourth has too many faults to be of much use, and the fifth theory needs drastic revision. [He goes into greater detail about the basis for these judgments here and later in the chapter. I’ll not be covering that material.]

Gavrilyuk stops here to point out that the diverse influences and interests of Arian theology is a good example of what is wrong with The Theory of Theology’s Fall Into Hellenistic Philosophy. The Theory utterly fails to explain Arianism. No philosophically neutral reading of Scripture is possible, contrary to the implications of the Theory. There’s more to the question of the nature and extent of divine involvement than a mere dichotomy of either Bible or philosophy.

Does Generation Entail pathos?
The generation of the Son, viewed primarily as a cosmological rather than soteriological matter, was a central concern of Arian theology. They sought to articulate the precise boundaries of analogical statements about the Son’s generation. So did their opponents.

Arian theologians tended to take the analogies more literally than orthodox theologians. The Arians accused the orthodox of sucking all meaning out of the terms. The orthodox accused the Arians of excessive anthropomorphism.

One of the primary issues of debate was the question of pathos. Did the generation of the Son involve pathos? Defining this term, pathos, is no simple matter. Jean Danielou suggests that ‘Pathos, as used by all fourth century theologians is an almost untranslatable word; it means anything that necessitates change or becoming or human experience.’

Arians insisted that the Son was necessarily involved in pathos since he was generated. And if generated he must have had a beginning. If not, what meaning remains to the analogy of generation? The Fathers insisted that the primary commonality between the generation of the Son and human birth is that humans beget humans. Likewise, God begets God.

Nevertheless, several Arian bishops refused to sign at the council of Nicaea because the term homoousios seemed to them to imply that the Son is the result of either ‘division, derivation, or germination.’ All of these analogies unacceptably entailed pathos.

Even those bishops who rejected homoousios upheld the impassible generation of the Son. The [semi-Arian] ‘dated creed’ of 359 declares that that the Son was ‘like to the Father who begot him,’ and affirmed that ‘the uniquely-generated Son of God…was begotten impassibly from God.’ This creed anathematized anyone who claimed that ‘the Father begot the Son unwillingly, i.e., being compelled by the necessity of his nature.’

The Arians offered Nicene theologians two options: either the Father was compelled to generate the Son (denying his sovereignty) or he begot him as a matter of will (which entailed that the Son came from the Father’s will instead of his essence). Athanasius responded by insisting that an act of essence is higher and did not minimize the freedom or power of God. He emphasized that the generation of the Son is a mystery beyond our understanding.

Gregory of Nyssa made the excellent contribution that even Christ’s earthly birth was without pathos. He was not the product of sexual union, but rather of the Holy Spirit. He further introduced the analogy of the new birth in water baptism. This birth frees us from passion. It is an impassible birth (John 1:13). If Christians can be willingly born-again impassibly then so can the Son.

Orthodox Responses
According to Gregory of Nyssa, the thing of primary importance for the Arians was that the High God be protected from the shame of the cross. They contended that his inferior (passible) nature allowed the Son to suffer on the cross. To say that the Father suffered was blasphemous to the Arians.
The orthodox, on the other hand, affirmed a sort of impassibility that still allowed the fully divine Son to suffer.

It is true that for the pro-Nicenes the Logos did not become an exact copy of his passible human nature. At the same time, as one of Athanasius’ supporters point out, when the flesh suffered, the Logos was not outside of it (evktos), which is why the suffering is said to be his’. As we will see in the next chapter, Cyril of Alexandria made the concept of appropriation (ivdiopoih.sij) of the flesh by the Logos central to his defence of the unity of Christ’s person in the economy of salvation. In the incarnation God put human nature to God-befitting use, sanctified it, and made it life-giving.

The orthodox held that the Logos was somehow the subject of the human experiences of Christ. He suffered impassibly. Athanasius declares that the Logos ‘permitted his body to weep and hunger,’ and ‘let his own body suffer’.



Closing Comments (Chapter 5)
I think I have a better grasp of Arianism after reading this chapter. It seems less ridiculous now.
Apparently, the intuition that God cannot suffer or change was truly widespread by this time. Would Arian theology have become the force it was had it not been for the popularity of this conception of impassibility?
Are we really expected to believe that impassibility came from somewhere other than Hellenistic thought? One thing I don’t think I’ve seen yet is any suggestion of an alternative source for it other than the LXX, which allegedly downplayed anthropomorphism/pathism in the OT in Alexandria without any influence from Hellenistic philosophy. I’m not persuaded.
It is noteworthy that orthodox theologians allowed that the fully divine Son did indeed suffer impassibly.  







[1] Robert Gregg, Early Arianism

The Story of the Bible: The Fascinating History of Its Writing, Translation, & Effect on Civilization

The Story of the Bible: The Fascinating History of Its Writing, Translation, & Effect on Civilization by Larry Stone


The story of how we got the Bible is a fascinating one, and Larry tells it in an accessible and engaging way. He doesn't just tell the story -- he also shows it. One of the coolest features of this book are the many (23 to be exact) facsimiles of manuscripts and translations. In addition, there are a multitude of full-color pictures throughout.

I learned things from this book. I appreciated that the author seems to have a deep personal respect for the Bible. In the process of telling the story of the Bible he did describe some rather appalling behavior from the Roman Catholic Church. And it did seem to me that he might even hold some anti-Catholic bias. That being said, I would still recommend this book to anyone who wants an overview of the Bible's history.



Thanks to Thomas Nelson for the free review copy. 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Holy Spirit's Emboldening Work


Reading Acts 3:1-10 this morning I was reminded of the impressiveness of Holy Spirit’s work in believers. The most obvious and spectacular miracle in the passage is the healing of a man born lame. But this morning I am especially amazed and challenged by the way God used Peter, a common man like you and me.

I am confident that Peter’s actions on that morning were the direct result of his fresh Pentecostal experience. Imagine the boldness it took to look down at the lame man and tell him to rise up and walk in the name of Jesus. I can imagine that boldness because
I’ve felt that sort of boldness when full of the Spirit. That boldness can’t be manufactured. We do the Lord no service by foolishly attempting to be bold without the inspiration and authority of the Spirit. The sort of effective boldness Peter demonstrated comes only to those who are filled with the Spirit.

Being filled with the Spirit is not a once and for all experience. Like any relationship, it must be maintained. In the very next chapter we read that Peter was part of a prayer meeting in which they were “all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:31). The challenge for us is to seek to be obedient to God’s command that we “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). Holy boldness and God-glorifying works will surely follow. 

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Why Does it Hurt to Have a Baby?




This question could be answered in terms of biology. Biological science can tell us all about the process. It can teach us about the dilation of the cervix and the changes to the shape of the uterus. But what if there were deeper answers available?

More substantial and foundational answers to our questions about origin and purpose – questions like “why does it hurt to have a baby?” – can be found in the Bible. What does the Bible say about the pains of childbirth?

In the Beginning
When Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s commandment, partaking of the forbidden fruit, they earned punishment. Their punishment did not come from some sort of impersonal force or spiritual laws. God personally confronted them with their sins and pronounced a curse on them (Gen 3:8-19).

The curse included labor pains. Apparently, excruciating pain was not part of God’s original design for mothers.

Cruel Creator?
This scene, viewed in isolation, has led many to assume that God is cruel. After all, didn’t he know all along that we would sin?

But there’s another, more important, scene perhaps foreshadowed in this story. In the midst of God’s curses on man, woman, and serpent, we learn that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15). Many have seen here a reference to the coming Messiah.

God planned to send Jesus to die for the sins of the world from the beginning (1 Peter 1:19-20; Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9; 2 Tim 1:9-10). The Lord did not curse us and then leave us to suffer alone. He entered into our suffering and curse in order to deliver us from it.

God’s Pain in Childbearing
Motherly pain in childbearing mirrors God’s own pain in bearing children. He is the God who gives birth to us (Deut 32:18). And he does not do this painlessly.

In order for us to become God’s children (being born again from above) Jesus had to suffer great physical and spiritual travail. Without the new birth made possible through his suffering and death none of us would have been born into God’s family (John 3:5-15).

God took our curse on himself. Our shame became his shame. Our sweat became his. Our thorns crowned his head. He punished our sin only to then bear the punishment himself.  Somehow, like the mother who forgets her pain when she sees her newborn baby, God thinks we’re worth it.

The Church’s Pain in Childbearing
Having been born into God’s family we are invited to participate in the pain of bearing spiritual children. United with Christ, we begin to share his sacrificial love for our friends and neighbors. We join Jesus in prayer for them. We join the Holy Spirit in inviting them to God.

Childbirth still hurts. Sometimes it’s the pain of rejection. Sometimes it’s fasting. Almost always the birth only comes after much prayer. Sometimes there will be setbacks. Paul even talked about going into labor “again” for his children in the Lord (Gal 4:19). But when the new life comes all the pain is forgotten.


Thank you mothers for the pain your love for us has cost you.

Happy Mother’s Day!


Thursday, May 2, 2013



A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A PREDESTINARIAN AND HIS FRIEND.
—————
Out of thine own mouth!
—————
TO ALL PREDESTINARIANS.

1. I AM informed, some of you have said, that the following quotations are false; that these words were not spoken by these authors; others, that they were not spoken in this sense; and others, that neither you yourself, nor any true Predestinarian, ever did, or ever would, speak so.

2. My friends, the authors here quoted are well known, in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them know in your own conscience, they were spoken in this sense, and no other; nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken.

3. But, be this as it may, do you indeed say, “No true Predestinarian ever did or would speak so?” Why, every true Predestinarian must speak so, and so must you yourself too, if you dare speak out, unless they and you renounce your fundamental principle.

4. Your fundamental principle is this: “God from eternity ordained
whatsoever should come to pass.” But from this single position
undeniably follows every assertion hereafter mentioned. It remains therefore only that you choose which you please (for one you must choose) of these three things: Either,

(1.)To equivocate, evade the question, and prevaricate without end; or,

(2.)To swallow all these assertions together, and honestly to avow
them; or,

(3.)To renounce them all together, and believe in Christ, the Savior of
all.

FRIEND. — SIR, I have heard that you make God the author of all sin, and
the destroyer of the greater part of mankind without mercy.

PREDESTINARIAN. — I deny it; I only say, “God did from all eternity
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” (Assembly’s Catechism,
chap. 3.)

Friend. — Do you make no exception?

Pred. — No, surely; for “nothing is more absurd than to think anything at
all is done but by the ordination of God.” (Calvin’s Institutes, book 1.,
chap. 16, sect. 3.)

Friend. — Do you extend this to the actions of men?

Pred. — Without doubt: “Every action and motion of every creature is so
governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass, but
what was ordained by him.” (Ibid., sect. 3.)

Friend. — But what then becomes of the wills of men?

Pred. — “The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they
are carried on straight to the mark which he has fore-ordained.” (Ibid., sect.
8.)

Friend. — I suppose you mean the permissive will of God?307

Pred. — No: I mean, “all things come to pass by the efficacious and
irresistible will of God.” (Twissi Vindiciae Gratiae Potestatis &
Providentiae Dei. Editio Jensoniana, par. 3, p. 19.)

Friend. — Why, then, all men must do just what they do?

Pred. — True: “It is impossible that anything should ever be done, but
that to which God impels the will of man.” (Ibid., p. 19.)

Friend. — But does not this imply the necessity of all events?

Pred. — “I will not scruple to own that the will of God lays a necessity
on all things, and that everything he wills necessarily comes to pass.”
(Calvin’s Inst., b. 3, c. 24, sec. 8.)

Friend. — Does sin then necessarily come to pass?

Pred. — Undoubtedly: For “the almighty power of God extends itself to
the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men.” (Assembly’s Catechism,
c. 5.)

Friend. — I grant, God foresaw the first man would fall.

Pred. — Nay, “God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also
ordained that he should.” (Calvin’s Inst., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 7.)

Friend. — I know God permitted Adam’s fall.

Pred. — I tell you, “he fell not only by the permission, but also by the
appointment, of God.” (Calvin Responsio ad Calumnias Nebulonis
cujusdam ad Articulum primum.) “He sinned because God so ordained,
because the Lord saw good.” (Calvin’s Inst., b. 3, c. 24, sec. 8.)

Friend. — But do not those who differ from you raise many objections
against you as to this point?308

Pred. — Yes: “Those poisonous dogs vomit out many things against
God.” (Ibid., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 2.) “They deny that the Scripture says God
decreed Adam’s fall. They say he might have chose either to fall or not;
and that God fore-ordained only to treat him according to his desert: As if
God had created the noblest of all his creatures, without fore-ordaining
what should become of him!” (Ibid., sec. 7.)

Friend. — Did God then make Adam on purpose that he might fall?

Pred. — Undoubtedly. “God made Adam and Eve to this very purpose,
that they might be tempted and led into sin. And by force of his decree, it
could not otherwise be but they must sin.” (Piscatoris Dispute. Praedest.,
Praef., p. 6.)

Friend. — But do not you ground God’s decree on God’s foreknowledge
rather than his will?

Pred. — No: “God foresees nothing but what he has decreed, and his
decree precedes his knowledge.” (Piscat. Disput. Praedest.)

Friend. — Well, this may truly be termed a horrible decree.

Pred. — “I confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God
foreknew Adam’s fall, and therefore foreknew it, because he had ordained
it so by his own decree.” (Calv. Inst., b. 3, c. 23, sec. 7.)

Friend. — Do you believe, then, that God has by his own positive decree,
not only elected some men to life, but also reprobated all the rest?

Pred. — Most surely, if I believe one, I believe the other. “Many indeed
(thinking to excuse God) own election, and yet deny reprobation; but this
is quite silly and childish. For without reprobation, election itself cannot
stand; whom God passes by, those he reprobates.” (Calv. Inst., b. 3, c. 23,
sec. 1.)

Friend. — Pray explain what you mean by election and reprobation.309

Pred. — With all my heart. “All men are not created for the same end; but
some are fore-ordained to eternal life; others to eternal damnation. So
according as every man was created for the one end or the other, we say he
was elected or predestinated to life, or reprobated, that is, predestinated to
destruction.” (Ibid., c. 21, sec. 1.)

Friend. — Pray repeat your meaning.

Pred. — “God hath once for all appointed, by an eternal and unchangeable
decree, to whom he would give salvation, and whom he would devote to
destruction.” (Ibid., sec. 7.)

Friend. — Did God make any man on purpose that he might be damned?

Pred. — Did not I tell you before? “God’s first constitution was, that
some should be destined to eternal ruin; and to this end their sins were
ordained, and denial of grace in order to their sins.” (Zanchius de Natura
Dei, p. 553, 554.)

Friend. — But is not God’s predestining men to life or death grounded on
his foreknowledge?

Pred. — “So the vulgar think; that God, as he foresees every man will
deserve, elects them to life, or devotes them to death and damnation.”
(Calv. Inst., b. 3, c. 22, sec. 1.)

Friend. — And do not you think that reprobation, at least, is grounded on
God’s foreknowing men’s sins?

Pred. — No indeed: “God of his own good pleasure ordains that many
should be born, who are from the womb devoted to inevitable damnation.
If any man pretend that God’s foreknowledge lays them under no
necessity of being dammed, but rather that he decreed their damnation
because he foreknew their wickedness, I grant that God’s foreknowledge
alone lays no necessity on the creature; but eternal life and death depend
on the will rather than the foreknowledge of God. If God only foreknew all
things that relate to all men, and did not decree and ordain them also, then
it might be inquired whether or no his foreknowledge necessitates the thing
foreknown. But seeing he therefore foreknows all things that will come to
pass, because he has decreed they shall come to pass, it is vain to contend
about foreknowledge, since it so plain all things come to pass by God’s
positive decree.” (Ibid., c. 23, s. 6.)

Friend. — But if God has positively decreed to damn the greater part of
mankind, why does he call upon them to repent and be saved?

Pred. — “As God has his effectual call, whereby he gives the elect the
salvation to which he ordained them, so he has his judgments towards the
reprobates, whereby he executes his decree concerning them. As many,
therefore, as he created to live miserably, and then perish everlastingly;
these, that they may be brought to the end for which they were created, he
sometimes deprives of the possibility of hearing the word, and at other
times, by the preaching thereof, blinds and stupefies them the more.”
(Ibid., c. 24, s. 12.)

Friend. — How is this? I say, if God has created them for never-ending
death, why does he call to them to turn and live?

Pred. — “He calls to them, that they may be more deaf; he kindles a light,
that they may be the more blind; he brings his doctrine to them, that they
may be more ignorant; and applies the remedy to them, that they may not
be healed.” (Ibid., b. 3, c. 24, s. 13.)

Friend. — Enough, enough. Yet you do not make God the author of sin!

Pred. — No certainly: “God cannot be termed the author of sin, though he
is the cause of those actions which are sins.” (Petri Martyris Vermillii
Com. in Roman., p. 413.)

Friend. — How is he the cause of them then?

Pred. — Two ways: First, by his eternal, unchangeable decree; Secondly,
by his present irresistible power.311

Friend. — Did God then fore-ordain the sins of any man?

Pred. — “Both the reprobates and the elect were fore-ordained to sin, as
sin, that the glory of God might be declared thereby.” (Zanchius de Nat.
Dei., p. 555.) “The reprobates,” more especially, “who were predestinated
to damnation, and the causes of damnation, and created to that end, that
they may live wickedly, and be vessels full of the dregs of sin.” (Piscator
contra Tauffium, p. 47.)

Friend. — But surely the sins of the elect were not fore-ordained?

Pred. — Yes, but they were: “For we neither can do more good than we
do, nor less evil than we do; because God from eternity has precisely
decreed that both the good and the evil should be so done.” (Piscatoris
Responsio ad Amicam Duplicationem Conradi Vorstii, p. 176.)

Friend. — I understand you, as to God’s decreeing sin. But how is his
irresistible power now concerned in the sins of men?

Pred. — “God is the author of that action which is sinful, by his
irresistible will.” (Dr. Twisse, par. 3, p. 21.)

Friend. — How do you mean?

Pred. — “God procures adultery, cursings, lyings.” (Piscat. Responsio ad
Apologiam Bertii.) “He supplies wicked men with opportunities of
sinning, and inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, deceives, and seduces
them. He, by his working on their hearts, bends and stirs them up to do
evil.” (Pet. Martyr. Ver. Comment. in Rom., pp. 36, 413.) And thus
“thieves, murderers, and other malefactors are God’s instruments, which
he uses to execute what he hath decreed in himself” (Calv. Inst., b. 1, c. 17,
s. 5.)

Friend. — Do you not then charge God himself with sin?

Pred. — No: “God necessitates them only to the act of sin, not to the
deformity of sin.” (Twissi Vindiciae, par. 3, p. 22.) Besides, “when God312
makes angels or men sin, he does not sin himself, because he does not
break any law. For God is under no law, and therefore cannot sin.”
(Zuinglius in Serm. de Provid., c. 5, 6.)

Friend. — But how does God make angels or men to sin?

Pred. — “The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side with the
hand of God, that they cannot conceive, or contrive, or execute any
mischief, any farther than God himself doth not permit only, but
command. Nor are they only held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a
bridle, to perform obedience to those commands.” (Calv. Inst., b. 1, c. 17,
s. 11.)

Friend. — This is true Turkish doctrine, and ought so to be exploded as
that used to be in these words: —
“I do anathematize the blasphemy of Mahomet, which saith that God
deceiveth whom he will, and whom he will he leadeth to that which is
good. Himself doeth what he willeth, and is himself the cause of all good
and all evil. Fate and destiny govern all things.” (Nicetus Saracenita.)

Pred. — Nay, our doctrine is more ancient than Mahomet: It was
maintained by St. Augustine.

Friend. — Augustine speaks sometimes for it, and sometimes against it.
But all antiquity for the four first centuries is against you, as is the whole
Eastern Church to this day; and the Church of England, both in her
Catechism, Articles, and Homilies. And so are divers of our most holy
Martyrs, Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer in particular.

Pred. — But does not antiquity say, Judas was predestinated to
damnation?

Friend. — Quite the contrary. St. Chrysostom’s express words are,
“Judas, my beloved, was at first a child of the kingdom, and heard it said
to him with the disciples,” Ye shall sit on twelve thrones; “but afterwards
he became a child of hell.”313

Pred. — However, you will own that Esau was predestinated to
destruction.

Friend. — Indeed I will not. Some of your own writers believe he was
finally saved, which was the general opinion of the ancient Fathers. And
that scripture, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,” plainly relates
not to their persons but their posterities.

But, supposing Esau or Judas to be damned, what is he damned for?

Pred. — Without question, for unbelief. For as we are saved by faith
alone, so unbelief is the only damning sin.

Friend. — By what faith are you saved?

Pred. — By faith in Christ, who gave himself for me.

Friend. — But did he give himself for Esau and Judas? If not, you say
they are damned for not believing a lie.

This consideration it was which forced Archbishop Usher to cry out,

“What would not a man fly unto, rather than yield, that Christ did not die
for the reprobates; and that none but the elect had any kind of title to him;
and yet many thousands should be bound in conscience to believe that he
died for them, and tied to accept him for their Redeemer and Savior?

Whereby they should have believed that which in itself is most untrue, and
laid hold of that in which they had no kind of interest.”

Pred. — But what then do you mean by the words, election and
reprobation?

Friend. — I mean this: First, God did decree from the beginning to elect or
choose, in Christ, all that should believe to salvation. And this decree
proceeds from his own goodness, and is not built upon any goodness in
the creature. Secondly: God did from the beginning decree to reprobate all
who should obstinately and finally continue in unbelief.

Pred. — What then do you think of absolute, unconditional election and
reprobation?

Friend. — I think it cannot be found in holy writ, and that it is a plant
which bears dismal fruit. An instance of which we have in Calvin himself;
who confesses that he procured the burning to death of Michael Servetus,
purely for differing from him in opinion in matters of religion.

- John Wesley