The Suffering of the Impassible God (Arianism Opposed)

Introduction

Chapter 1
Chapter 2

Chapter 3
Chapter 4 

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 4^th century) the words ‘invisible and impassible’ were added to the first article (referring only to the Father). Rufinus of Aquilea wrote (early 5^th 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. 

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. 

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!

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