Larry McCallister

How I Passed My Amateur Extra Exam

2023-01-23T18:10:00.031-05:00

I don't have a background in electronic circuitry or radio theory. I'm horrible at math. Yet with three weeks of study I passed the Element 4 Amateur Extra exam, the highest class ham radio license the FCC offers. Let me explain how.

My ham radio hobby began in the 90's. I earned my "no code" Technician, Technician Plus and General class licenses along with passing the 5 and 13wpm cw ("continuous wave" or Morse Code) tests. Most of my communication was on 2 meters (VHF) with a Kenwood TH-22AT handheld. I also had a Yaesu FT-5100 dual band mobile rig so I used 70cm (UHF) but very little. I've had less than a handful of HF contacts on my dad's rig. I've never had a cw or digital contact.

I unwisely let my General class license expire over the years. I finally decided to regain my privledges so I retook the Technician exam and I was a General once again. (I noticed how everthing seemed to turn digital since I had first become a ham. I was an analog operator in a digital amateur radio world.)

Since the FCC no longer required a 20wpm cw test I purchased one of many Extra books found on Amazon; this one was titled, "Pass Your Amateur Radio Extra Class Test" by Craig "Buck" K4IA. It remained unused for a year. When I decided to dip my toe in the Extra waters I realized just how daunting the task was. The book has a section with just the questions and right answers but reading them wasn't going to do it for me; I was reading too slowly for too much information. There are 622 questions in the pool from which 50 would be drawn, one from each section! I needed help.

I decided to add some audio. (The greater the number of senses you use while learning something the better the retention of the material.) I purchased the kindle book of the same title mentioned above for around $9. Then I began my study. I would use either Alexa or my kindle to read the question and answer as I listened and read along. Often I listened at 1.5x speed. For around three weeks I listened and read the entire question pool once a day, as well as other study.

I grew sick of this intense study so I went to the RCARA Laurel VE testing session in Ashland, KY and took my test. I didn't bother to bring a calculator because I didn't memorize one formula. To my amazement, I only missed one question! Remember, I am not a tech guy. Much of it was gobbledygook. However, I had beaten the answers in my head through listening and reading so thoroughly that I could recognize most of it.

I used little tricks to help with the answers. This isn't a scientific observation but I noticed that if an answer included the word "discreet" or "desired" the answer seemed to be right.

Anytime you can draw a mental image in your mind helps. For example, the digital mode Pactor doesn't use a keyboard. Well, I don't know what Pactor is but I imagined a pastor in front of his keyboard and waving his hands and shaking his head, "No!" (No, I didn't get that question on the test!)

Remember, you don't have to understand the answers, just recognize them. You can learn later. Pass your test to begin.

Use any little tricks to help you recognize the answers and they will serve you well. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to make sense to you!

73 ("Best Regards")

Why Christians and the World Don't Fit

2022-09-22T11:09:00.005-04:00

Christians serious about sanctification (the crisis and process of being made holy) will always feel a bit detached from this world system. They know this isn't the Kingdom they belong to; this isn't the ultimate allegiance they pledge to. Their values and priorities are out of sync with (and unappreciated by) the world. Consequently they will feel out of sorts in this world. The Bible says Christ followers are travelers who aren't home yet (1 Peter 2.11-12).

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world is under the sway of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true one. We are in the true one — that is, in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."
1 John 5:19‭-‬20 CSB

How to Translate the Bible Into English

2022-09-11T22:31:00.005-04:00

Americans don't read very well. Bible translator Dr. Douglas Moo explains,

First, our translation choices must reckon with our audience’s ability to understand English. I tell you nothing you don’t already know when I say that fewer and fewer American adults can read effectively. A 2013 study concluded that 35 percent of adults in the US can’t read at all or read below a fifth grade level. Even college-educated and fully acculturated adults, who spend their time on Facebook and Candy Crush rather than reading books, have difficulty handling English at any level of complexity...[A]nd if, as surveys reveal, the average American is reading at a seventh to eighth grade level, translations cannot necessarily be faulted for trying to hit that target.

Ouch.

Boyce W. Blackwelder

The writings of the late Reverend Doctor Boyce Watson Blackwelder (February 3, 1913—August 22, 1976) introduced the Church of God (Anderson) to New Testament Greek. He received his Th.D. while under the supervision of the 20th century Greek grammarian giant, J. R. Mantey, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. Blackwelder taught at Anderson University School of Theology and was one of our most well-known scholars in the Church of God. His specialty was New Testament Greek and he published exegetical translations of the four gospels and Paul's letters. He titled them, simply, The Four Gospels: An Exegetical Translation and Letters from Paul. Blackwelder also wrote the immensely popular Light from the Greek New Testament.

Dr. Blackwelder believed that accurate translation didn't require a strict word-for-word method of translating but, rather, to express the thoughts/idioms of the Greek (donor language) in an accurate English expression (receptor language).

As he explains in Gospels:

This is an exegetical translation—not a paraphrase. The aim of biblical exegetics is to make as clear as possible the means of the scriptural text...[t]hus an interpreter tries to discover what each statement meant to the original writer and render it accurately into the language at hand.

It is impossible in every instance, to translate the same Greek word by the same English word. Translation is more than a mere word-for-word rendering of one language into another language. Transferring the idiom characteristic of the Greek into the corresponding idiom characteristic of contemporary English becomes a challenging task. (pg. 8)

Consider a traditional rendering in a portion of The Lord's Prayer:

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6.9b)

Contrast it with Blackwelder's rendering:

Our Father who art in heaven,
May Thy name be held in reverence. (Mat 6.9b)

To seek that God's name be hallowed is to seek that his name be held in reverence. Which rendering is clearer for a 21st century audience? I believe it's Blackwelder's. All one has to do is read Blackwelder's translations of the gospels and letters of Paul to see the latitude the Church of God scholar allowed himself in expressing the New Testament language in crisp contemporary English of his day. (For those who might think Blackwelder didn't stick to the text closely enough, the same charge could be leveled against the Septuagint [LXX], the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced by Jewish scholars shortly before the birth of Christ. This was the common Bible of the early church and, in fact, heavily quoted by the New Testament writers, themselves. If it was good enough for them then such translational philosophy can be good enough for us.)

The New Testament Greek employed by the biblical writers was Hellenistic koinē (i.e. "common") Greek. That is to say, it wasn't the literary Attic Greek of earlier writers. And, in fact, vernacular [spoken] biblical Greek is simpler than a literary [written] koinē of the era. As Blackwelder explains in Light:

Another category of material of the Graeco-Roman world which is an important source of light for New Testament studies is the literary Koine. There are two types of Koine, the literary Koine which is represented by extrabiblical literature, by most of the inscriptions, and by a few papyri; and the vernacular Koine which is represented by most of the papyri and ostraca, by a few inscriptions, and by nearly all biblical Greek.

It is not difficult to understand why there were two basic varieties within the Koine. Though no literary speech develops independently from the vernacular, yet spoken language is never identical with the literary style. The old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and a literary style that differed from each other, and such a distinction characterized the Koine from its beginning.

"There was formal literary effort of considerable extent during the Koine period." The forms of the literary Koine more nearly approached the classical nature of the Attic than do those of the New Testament. The Koine literati sought elegance of expression while trying to avoid pedantry. The literary Koine occupies an intermediate position between the vernacular Koine and the older classical form of the language. (pgs. 24-25)

The Bible's Greek was written in the easy-to-understand everyday Greek that people spoke in day to day life. Why did the koinē emerge from the formal Attic Greek vernacular dialect? It had to do with war. Blackwelder helps us understand in Light:

In the latter part of the fourth century B.C., the forces of Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian Empire, bringing the language of the victors into the ascendancy throughout the then-known world. "Remaining as armies of occupation, and settling amongst the conquered peoples, they popularized the language, simplifying its grammatical and syntactical structure." (pgs. 18-19)

The New Testament is beautiful but doesn't try to sound artificial. But neither was it sloppy speech. In Light:

Although the new Testament writers were not Atticists, neither were they "mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms." [A. T.] Robertson reminds us that Paul was a man of culture as well as a man of the people, and says, "The New Testament uses the language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains." "The New Testament is mainly in the vernacular Koine, but it is the vernacular of men of great ability" and reflects definite literary elements especially in the writings of Luke, the letters of Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But above all, the New Testament is the language of spirit and life. (pg. 25)

Bible translations have to change with the times. Why change? Blackwelder put it well in Light:

There is a need, from time to time, for new translations of the Scriptures because all languages change and every generation needs a clear, accurate rendition of the Book of books. Certain English words do not mean what they did a few hundred years ago; hence the proper ones must be substituted in order to express in contemporary thought the meaning of the original text." (pgs. 16-17)

Some words don't need hundreds of years but merely years, perhaps a decade or two.

Notice carefully Blackwelder's words, "every generation needs a clear, accurate rendition of the Book of books." Every generation. The daunting task of translating the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible into clear English is never-ending. We must not ask ourselves merely, "What version do I prefer?" but, also, "What speaks accurately and clearly to this generation?"

My Preaching Translation: The Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

2022-07-10T16:51:00.018-04:00

In 2021 a new translation became available to the English speaking world: the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). John MacArthur and his scholars at The Master's University and The Master's Seminary were given the unprecedented opportunity by the Lockman Foundation to revise their copyrighted New American Standard Bible and publish it under a new title. The small hand-selected translation committee, in God's wise Providence, had the opportunity to pour over the NASB verse by verse and revise it because of the shutdown in America due to Covid-19. The LSB is the kind of translation for which I have been waiting for years. I specifically have been waiting for a Bible version to accomplish point one below:

1. It restored the covenant name of God as found in the Old Testament. Many translations do not mention His Hebrew name but, instead, print it in all-caps as THE LORD. Lord is a title, not His name. The Trinity's Hebrew name—Yahweh, pronounced closely like "Yah-way"—is extremely important to Him. It is recorded over 6,800 times in the Old Testament!

Yahweh means "He Is." When He speaks of Himself He may say, "I Am." When Hebrew speakers spoke of Him they often said Yahweh, "He Is." Both come from the Hebrew "to be" verb hayah.

Consider this passage from the LSB:

Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am about to come to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ And they will say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
And God furthermore said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name from generation to generation. (Ex 3.13-15)

If it matters to God it should matter to us. Some years ago the Lexham English Bible restored the name of Yahweh in their translation but they never published their version. It is only available in digital format. This prevented me from using the LEB as my pulpit Bible.

2. It translated the New Testament Greek word doulos as "slave." It took intestinal fortitude for them to do it. Some translations translate it as "servant" or "bond-servant" but the LSB bluntly says "slave."

3. They refined and tweaked the entire NASB text, already an outstanding translation. They made it even better. In particular, the translation committee paid close attention to the New Testament Greek verbs and were careful to translate them accordingly, such as the imperfect verb.

I love this translation. Though the carefully-selected translation team differs with me in places—they are Calvinists and Dispensationalists while I remain Wesleyan and Amillennialist—theologically they are all very conservative and able scholars and orthodox in the faith. They are my Christian brothers.

Examine the Legacy Standard Bible yourself for free. Click here to go to the entire Bible which is online.

If you prefer another translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV or NIV I have no quarrel. At this time for me, the answer is the LSB. I consult other translations as well. [If I didn't have the LSB I most likely would preach from the Christian Standard Bible (CSB).] We really do have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to the translated Bible into English.

Alcohol: Ancient & Modern

2022-06-26T12:10:00.005-04:00

Unless it's in cough syrup I abstain from alcohol. I refuse to have it under my roof. As for me and my house we will not drink alcohol. I would never marry a drinker, no matter how light a "social drinker" she would claim to be. It's either me or the alcohol. Period. I believe there are good reasons for refusing alcohol, physically, psychologically, culturally and, most importantly, biblically.

My social stand against alcohol isn't anything new. Evangelical Christians such as myself once were all tee-totalers. For some reason newer generations of folks want the hooch. I just don't get it. Maybe it's because we don't preach against it anymore. We should.

Dean Emeritus of Anderson University's School of Theology, Dr. David L. Sebastian, honored me by asking if I would read and write a short review of his book, Sober Conscious: Educational Essays for Alcohol Awareness.

Alcohol and the Christian (Part 1):

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

In Jesus' Name

2021-12-09T12:05:00.010-05:00

Many Christians learn, directly or indirectly, to say, "In Jesus' name, Amen" at the end of their prayers. Why do we do it? Most probably do it without giving it much thought. It's just the way prayer is done. Actually, while we don't have to say it (we really don't) it is meaningful when we learn the significance of those words.

In the ancient world a person's name (or a god's) stood for the person. When we say, "Bless the name of the Lord," we are really saying, "Bless the Lord." In the Bible a person's name stood for his character as well. We still say today, "I know that business. It has a good name in the community."

To say, "In Jesus' name," we mean, "In light of the person that Jesus is, in light of what he accomplished on the cross, we have confidence to say 'Amen.'" Amen is an affirmation which means so be it. Amen is the confidence to believe that our prayer will be answered.

Christianity is all about Jesus. We are "in Christ." We receive grace and mercy from God the Father because we come "in the name of" his Son. All answered prayer happens because of what Jesus deserves, not what we deserve.

Consider this passage:

I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both "Yes, yes" and "No, no"? But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No." For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me and Silas and Timothy—was not "Yes" and "No," but in him it has always been "Yes." For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. (2 Cor 1:16-20 NIV)

Paul said that even if the Corinthians wrongly thought his word was unreliable, Jesus' word certainly is not. God answers our prayer because of Jesus. And that's why we say, "In Jesus' name, Amen."

Criticism in the Ministry is Inevitable

2019-07-15T13:02:00.004-04:00

Aesop (circa 620 BC–564 BC) was a Greek story teller who provided fables to teach morals. There is one such fable that encourages me in ministry:

The Man, the Boy and the Donkey

A Man and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: "You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?"

So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: "See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides."

So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn't gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: "Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along."

Well, the Man didn't know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: "Aren't you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey of yours and your hulking son?"

The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the donkey's feet to it, and raised the pole and the donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.

"That will teach you," said an old man who had followed them:

"Please all, and you will please none."

I would phrase the moral of the story in another way: Christian worker, you will be criticized no matter what you do, so never fulfil your ministry to please people. Only minister to please God.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10 ESV)

When You Can't Baptize by Immersion

2019-07-15T13:00:00.007-04:00

As an ordained minister of the Church of God (Anderson) I believe baptism by immersion was the normal practice of the early Church. The issues are complex; I am a credobaptist as well, not a paedobaptist. (Look those up if you care.)

However, what happens if baptism by immersion ("dunking" for the non-technical folks) is not feasible? What if a person is gravely ill? Should an immersionist like myself just shrug his shoulders and say, "Well, baptism doesn't save a person anyway so I won't do it"? I believe baptism is important; King Jesus demanded it of his followers. While there are times when immersion is impossible some occasions present themselves where a compromise can be reached.

There is an impressive ancient document from early Church history called the Didache, which is Greek for "teaching." While scholars debate the age they all arrive at an extremely early dating for the manuscript, from the mid-first century to the early second-century. In fact, even though consensus did not grow to include it as part of Bible canon (as one of the authorized books of the New Testament) some early Church Fathers did believe it was inspired Scripture. I don't think it is Scripture but its importance would be hard to be overstressed.

The Didache has a section on baptism. It reads as follows:

7 Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then "baptize" in running water, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." ²If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. ³If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." ⁴Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

This certainly is interesting. It appears to me that this manuscript hints that the early Church baptized by immersion (or at the least they stood in a considerable amount of running [Greek: "living"] water). Notice, however, that the produced document isn't legalistic about the mode of baptism. It says, "Do A, but if you can't then do B, but if you can't then..."

If a person becomes a Christian in a hospital, on his sickbed, etc. and is in grave illness then I advise the immersionist minister to wrap a towel around the convert's neck and pour water on the new believer's head three times, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Yes, the mode of baptism is important but it is not as important as the act of doing it, and the mode is far less problematic than a minister refusing to perform baptism if he can't do it in his theologically preferred way. It appears the early Church was flexible. I pray immersionists like me will be flexible as well.

My Favorite Dream

2019-07-15T12:58:00.007-04:00

I am claiming no prophetic insight. However, I would like to share with you a recurring dream that I've had. The dreams aren't identical but they follow a common pattern. It's hard to describe but I'll try, however imperfectly, to be faithful to the impressions of my dreams.

I am in a church sanctuary but not during a worship service. The church building once housed a thriving congregation that has dwindled in numbers over the decades. I go exploring throughout the building because, over time, the congregation has remodeled it, adding rooms, sections and even floors to the original huge sanctuary, cutting it down to size because they had no need for such an enormous sanctuary as they did in their heyday.

In my dream I investigate, walking into different rooms and sections as I mentally trace the outline of the original sanctuary. Perhaps behind a wall is the former stage of the old sanctuary, complete with stained glass windows that nobody pays attention to anymore. Perhaps in another section is a divided off room where theater seating has been removed and one can see where the seats were once bolted to the floor. By climbing floors and going through dividing doorways it becomes clear that it was a breathtaking artifice where throngs of people once gathered.

It isn't a sad dream for me but one of hope. I thrill in the possibility of the discovery of the once-used sanctuary. I thirst for revival so that the building will once again be filled with worshipers. It is an open-ended dream.

Is it a prophetic dream?

For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds, (Job 33:14-15 ESV)

I just don't know. W. Dale Oldham believed in the prophetic dreams of Church of God evangelist, W. F. Chapel. Perhaps the best response is for me to quote John Wesley concerning another matter:

Now, he that will account for this by natural causes, has my free leave: But I choose to say, This is the power of God. [i.406]

In any event, it makes me hunger and thirst for revival.

Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee? (Psalms 85:6)

Divine Healing

2019-07-15T12:40:00.001-04:00

I believe in divine healing. The testimonies from credible witnesses are simply too numerous to dismiss out of hand. (Consider the compilation of modern day miracle testimonials found in the two volume work, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Dr. Craig Keener of Asbury Theological Seminary.)

My father, Larry McCallister, Sr., experienced one powerful case during the 1962 Church of God state campmeeting then held at Cross Lanes, West Virginia. In those days they held a daily divine healing service at 5 P.M. during the campmeeting. A man from Clendenin, West Virginia learned of the service; he suffered with a broken back. The man called and said that he wanted to attend if he could raise the money to rent an ambulance. He was told to rent the ambulance and the bill would be paid. A group of ministers pooled their money for the trip.

Dad remembers that the man wore brown pajamas as he came wheeled in on a stretcher. Some of the ministers present were J. Ross Taylor, George Oiler and Gene Curtis. Preachers prayed for him. Nothing visibly happened and the ministers left his side. However, during the second verse of Amazing Grace his hands were raised. During the third verse the man was walking up and down the aisles. The man rode home in the ambulance; he sat up in the front with the driver.

I believe in divine healing. I'm sure that man did, too.

Theology of Holiness and Love by Kenneth E. Jones

2019-07-15T12:27:00.004-04:00

I was honored to know the late Dr. Kenneth E. Jones during his latter years after his retirement from Mid-America Bible College (now Mid-America Christian University, my alma mater). My senior year I took a Daniel/Revelation video class that was taped from Gulf-Coast Bible College years before. He penned such works as The Commitment to Holiness, Divorce and Remarriage, The Word of God and his extremely helpful article in a Gedenkschrift (tribute) to Dr. Boyce W. Blackwelder entitled, "Babylon and the New Jerusalem: Interpreting the Book of Revelation." Dr. Jones provided the interpretative notes to Ephesians and Colossians in the now discontinued The Wesley Bible, a study Bible from the Wesleyan theological viewpoint. (We expressed our displeasure to each other that the translation used was the New King James Version. Both of us were Alexandrian Text people, not Textus Receptus folks.) I own a few books written by him in which he autographed and wrote some nice remarks.Theology of Holiness and Love, his systematic theology, is the culmination of many years thinking about the Savior and is his magnum opus.

Most people in the Church of God may be familiar with him (though perhaps without realizing it) by his editorial work; Jones condensed Frederick G. Smith's What the Bible Teaches to a more readable level. The old paperbacks are probably still sitting in the basements of a gajillion church Sunday School rooms across the nation.

Jones never tried to "sound" like a scholar in his writings. He wrote for the average person on the street and could bridge the gap between lofty theologians on the one hand and the homespun folksy prose of holiness preacher, Uncle Bud Robinson, on the other. In this regard he is similar to the late Scottish scholar, William Barclay, though far more conservative. He had the knack of being an academic without sounding like an academic. Let me stress: you don't have to be highly educated and brilliant to understand his books. Don't let a fear that you aren't professionally trained in theology deter you from this book!

Admittedly Theology of Holiness and Love never will rank as one of the most important Wesleyan theologies. Even at 359 pages it is too brief and cannot be compared to a William Burt Pope, a John Miley or an H. Orton Wiley. However, it is intensely readable and reliably helpful. I compare it favorably against three other Church of God volumes: It is far easier to understand than Russell R. Byrum's Christian Theology. It is more in-depth than Albert F. Gray's Christian Theology. I, personally, prefer it over the more recent Theology For Disciples by Gilbert W. Stafford. (I mean no slight on the late Dr. Stafford's scholarship; I believe Stafford's book, by design, was penned to accomplish other goals.)

Along with past Gospel Trumpet editor, Charles E. Brown, Dr. Jones' genius is in his stress that humans—because of Adam's fall in the garden—are born deprived and not depraved. That is, because of Adam every human enters the world deprived of a relationship with God, without the Spirit of God and, because of that, quickly becomes depraved as a result. Jones helps us by making theological terms personal: holiness is being turned to God in love and wickedness is being turned away. Sin isn't a thing, not an "it", not a thing to be removed. It's a relational term, not an abstract concept. For these clarifications I owe a great debt to him.

I purchased my copy of Theology of Holiness and Love directly from him years ago. I called him at his home in Louisville and then sent him the money. In the mail arrived his book with his autograph and short note just inside the work. Today you can buy the book through Reformation Publishers in either softcover or hardcover. Just mentally digesting this single book probably would give the "regular guy in the pew" a comprehension of theology he never knew he could have. Don't cheat yourself.

Study this book in Sunday School classes or small groups, at least in part. It could raise the theological IQ of a congregation. No, I don't think I'm over-selling it.

I thank God for Kenneth E. Jones and his commitment to holiness.

"Slain" in the Spirit? D. S. Warner vs. B. E. Warren's Father

2019-07-15T12:18:00.007-04:00

In 1989 Joe Allison provided the following account in the “Songs of Faith” section of Vital Christianity, a discontinued publication of the Church of God (Anderson). It is entitled, “Barney is the Lord’s: A story form the life of B. E. Warren”. The article is quoted in its entirety.

Gospel singing played an important role in the early growth of the Church of God reformation movement. The importance of music is clearly shown by the gospel quartet that D. S. Warner formed just after he moved the Gospel Trumpet to Williamston, Michigan.

In April 1886, Warner’s group was holding cottage prayer meetings at Geneva Center, Michigan. Here lived a teen-ager who had been converted just a few months earlier as a result of the preaching of Joseph Fisher, and now he was feeling God’s call to enter the ministry. His name was Barney E. Warren, and he had a wonderful bass voice. Only one obstacle kept Barney from joining the singers-his unsaved father, Tom Warren.

One night the singers conducted a prayer meeting at the home of Joseph Smith. When the service ended and the farming folks began putting on their coats to go home, Warner came directly to the Warrens to express his appreciation for their presence. “And I want to thank you for bringing Barney to sing with us tonight,” Warner added. “Your son has a beautiful voice, and I’m glad to see him using it for the Lord.”

“Won’t you reconsider your decision about letting Barney go with us?” Warner pleaded. “I can understand your concern for his welfare; but believe me, he will be well cared for. And I’m sure he’ll write to you often and tell you about his travels. You’ll be proud of him.”

“Barney knows how to take care of himself,” Tom retorted, pulling on his gloves. “I raised him good. But I ain’t about to see him gallivanting around the countryside when he’s got plenty to do at home.”

“Yes, I know. I grew up on a farm myself. But isn’t the Lord’s work more important for a young man with Barney’s abilities?”

“Ha! That’s what all you preachers say! ‘The world is coming to an end!’ ‘Repent, the Lord is drawing nigh!’ Be that as it may, somebody’s got to keep food on your table and clothes on your back. Someobdy’s got to keep the home fires burning. That’s where Barney belongs.”

Warner bristled. Stepping up close to Tom until their faces almost touched, Warner looked him straight in the eye. “Tom Warren,” he said, “you are fighting against God, and you can’t get away with it.”

Warren began to tremble. Suddenly he sank to the floor and shook violently, as if chilled by a draft. With his feet planted on either side, Warner towered over him. “God has smitten you, and you cannot get up until you let Barney go,” the preacher said.

Tom Warren made an effort to get to his feet, but he kept falling back to the hardwood floor and shivering in helplessness. The neighbors watched. Tom pounded the floor with his fists, but it was no use-he couldn’t get away. Finally he stopped fighting and relaxed his body upon the slats. “Barney is the Lord’s,” he sighed.

D. S. Warner smiled in relief. “Now you can get up,” he said.

And Tom Warren did.

Barney Warren made a lasting contribution to the reformation movement through his work with the gospel quartet, which traveled together until 1890.

Curly-headed young Barney proved to be a skillful songwriter as well as singer, and after the quartet broke up he continued to travel as a music evangelist for many years. His songs formed the backbone of the movement’s early hymnals and were used by other Christian groups as well. (33)

Allison, Joseph D. “Barney is the Lord’s: A story form the life of B. E. Warren”. Vital Christianity. Anderson, IN: Warner Press, 13 April, 1989. Arlo F. Newell, Editor in Chief.

Dale Oldham to Sam Hines: Delivering a Message From God

2019-07-15T12:14:00.002-04:00

The late Sam Hines (1929—1995) and Joe Allison wrote the theme book for the 1993 North American Convention of the Church of God (Anderson). It is entitled Experience the Power. In this excerpt the late W. Dale Oldham(1903—1984) first radio preacher of the Christian Brotherhood Hour (Now Christians Broadcasting Hope), brought an encouraging message from God to his friend, Hines, when he needed it desperately. In the words of Sam Hines:

When I came upon rough times in my ministry in the early years, no one spoke of “ministerial burnout.” We didn’t even know that term. We just said that such a minister was “backslidden.” No matter how you describe it, I came to an impasse in my ministry that could have been the end of it all. I left the pastorate and I left Jamaica. I went to England in pursuit of a new vocation and a new style of life. I contemplated studying to become a physician and began setting my sails in that direction.

In 1955, the First World Conference of the Church of God was held in Fritzlar, West Germany. I had heard about it and was planning to go.

Dale Oldham

As I was packing for the trip, one hot summer afternoon in London, Dr. Dale Oldham appeared on my doorstep. Dr. Oldham had been the speaker at my ordination service in Jamaica, two years earlier. He was enroute to Fritzlar, too. We sat down in the living room for what I expected to be a bit of idle chit-chat. But Dr. Oldham came right to the point.

He said that he had heard that I had decided to leave the ministry. I told him, “Yes, that’s true.”

For several minutes, we discussed all the ramifications of that change. We reviewed my own failures and foibles in the ministry. It was a painfully searching conversation.

Then he paused and said, “Milton,” (that is how I am known in my family and among hometown friends), “what has happened to the vows that you made at your ordination?”

“Well, now,” I said. “I just don’t feel anymore that that’s the way I ought to go. I’ve come on some hard times in my own life and some hard times in ministry. It just takes a lot more that [sic] I have to be a pastor. I can’t attain the high standards I set for myself or achieve at the level of accomplishment expected of me. I just can’t do it.”

“Well, maybe you are right. I don’t know,” Dr. Oldham said. “I’m here, though, because the Lord gave me a message for you.”

“The Lord said to tell you that the calling of God is without repentance” (Rom. 11:29 KJV).

“Okay,” I said. “What does that mean?”

“I was never told to explain it,” Dr. Oldham said, picking up his bag. “God didn’t ask me to interpret it for you. God just told me to give you the message.” At that point, he offered a brief prayer for me and my family, and he left.

It should be mentioned that Sam Hines never left the ministry.

(Hines, Samuel G. and Joe Allison. Experience the Power.Anderson, IN: Warner Press, 1993), 76-7

When Max Gaulke Wrote to Me

2019-07-15T10:11:00.004-04:00

During my time at Mid-America Bible College (now Mid-America Christian University) I wrote a small article for the January 1991 edition of the Reformation Witness. I was surprised (read: "shocked") when Dr. Max R. Gaulke, the founder of my alma mater, wrote me an encouraging note after he read my article.

I still have the note; here is a scan of it:

The Scriptural reference Gaulke included is as follows...

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. (Colossians 3:23-24 ESV)

Boyce W. Blackwelder on Justification by Faith

2019-07-15T10:10:00.001-04:00

The late Reverend Doctor Boyce Watson Blackwelder (1913—1976) of Concord, North Carolina, remains one of the greatest scholars the Church of God (Anderson) has ever known. Blackwelder wrote the influential Light from the Greek New Testament and translated the Letters of Paul. He wrote a book on the apostle, himself, entitled, Toward Understanding Paul as well as Pauline commentaries. He also penned The Four Gospels: An Exegetical Translation. Blackwelder was responsible for translating Colossians for the New King James Version and served as an adviser on other passages of the NKJV.

In his work, Toward Understanding Romans, Blackwelder translates Romans 3.21-25a, 26b:

But now God's kind of righteousness stands manifested apart from law [of any kind], although it is attested by the Law and the Prophets. Indeed God's kind of righteousness is through faith in Jesus Christ. It is effective for all who are trusting [in him]. There is no distinction, for the whole race has sinned, and [man] continues to fall short of God's standard. The permanent principle of justification operates freely by the gift of his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God openly set forth as the means of expiation by his blood, to be appropriated through faith...even while declaring righteous the person who places trust in Jesus.

You will never be declared "Not Guilty" of sins based on how good you are. You aren't good at all compared to God's holiness. Rather, you are declared "Not Guilty" by trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Bless Your Church Property

2019-07-15T10:08:00.004-04:00

Have you ever blessed your church property, the land dedicated to the worship of God?

In the name of Jesus...

I bless this place with the manifest Presence of the Holy Spirit.

I bless this place with grace and freedom from legalism.

I bless this place with the Holy Spirit's love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith/faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

I bless this place with unity and a feeling of goodwill and caring.

I bless this place with the fear and knowledge of Yahweh.

I bless this place with irresistible human drawing-power where people seek God's Face.

I bless this place with holy signs, wonders and healings.

I bless this place to be the area where people have their deepest needs met.

I bless this place with freedom in Christ, free from the evil one and his unclean servants with their devices, schemes & assignments.

Maurice Berquist, a late minister in the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) wrote a book called The Miracle and Power of Blessing. I don't agree with all of Berk's views or theological framework but it is a provocative read. You can download a .pdf version here.

Maurice Berquist and The Miracle and Power of Blessing

2019-07-15T10:06:00.005-04:00

Have you ever blessed someone in Jesus' name? Yes, you've probably heard that a Christian is supposed to be a blessing to others. But have you ever intentionally, consciously blessed someone? Blessed his health? His finances? His spiritual state? His family?

To bless means to give a gift. In verbally blessing another you are connecting him to the power of God. To bless a person is to use your Christian authority in Jesus' name (that is to say, you are under Jesus' authority and, so, you are authorized to use his authority) and direct the grace of God to him. You can bless a congregation, even an inanimate object like a building or an abstraction like your job.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. (Romans 12:14 ESV)

And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? And his name--by faith in his name--has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. (Acts 3:12,16 ESV)

The late Church of God minister, Maurice Berquist (1923—1993), wrote a fascinating book entitled The Miracle and Power of Blessing. You can download a free .pdf of this book by going to this link. You don't have to agree with all of the points, illustrations or conclusions of Berk to, well, be blessed by the book.

I bless you in the name of Jesus in order that you might bless others.

I'd love to build up a great church based on blessing! Love! Joy! Peace! The presence of the Holy Spirit! Salvation! Sanctification! Healing! Blessing!

Demons are Real

2019-07-12T23:03:00.002-04:00

Yes, I believe in their existence. I'm writing this short post because not long ago I came across a fascinating account concerning demonic activity and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, one of the premiere biblical manuscript authorities alive today. What makes it even more interesting to me is where he teaches; Dallas Theological Seminary hardly could be called a hotbed for continualist thought. Consider this:

Several years ago, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (’74) — a Biola graduate and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary — was asked to perform a house exorcism. The wealthy Christian homeowner reported poltergeist phenomena that began when his father moved in. As Wallace and a colleague prayed through the rooms, objects began to move, according to Wallace.

“It was small objects, like magnets on the refrigerator flying clear across the room. It was really remarkable,” said Wallace, who once doubted that demonic activity occurs today. He’s now writing a book arguing that many evangelicals have become unbiblically antisupernatural.

I wish I could find a more complete account of this exorcism. You may wish to read his article, "Who's Afraid of the Holy Spirit?" He also helped compile a book of the same title.

Wallace isn't the only Dallas teacher to delve into the demonic realm. Dr. Merrill Unger was a published writer on the subject. I just found this snippet fascinating, having come from the noted koine Greek expert.

John Wesley on Christian Perfection

2019-07-12T22:58:00.006-04:00

In his Journal for June 1769 John Wesley succinctly explains what his doctrine of Christian perfection (entire sanctification) entails:

By Christian perfection, I mean 1) loving God with all our heart. Do you object to this? I mean 2) a heart and life all devoted to God. Do you desire less? I mean 3) regaining the whole image of God. What objection to this? I mean 4) having all the mind that was in Christ. Is this going too far? I mean 5) walking uniformly as Christ walked. And this surely no Christian will object to. If anyone means anything more or anything else by perfection, I have no concern with it. But if this is wrong, yet what need of this heat about it, this violence, I had almost said, fury of opposition, carried so far as even not to lay out anything with this man, or that woman, who professes it?

This really isn't so radical when one considers that John Wesley, an Anglican priest, simply took at face value a prayer at the beginning of the Mass from his own Book of Common Prayer. From Thomas Cranmer's 1549 original:

ALMIGHTIE God, unto whom all hartes bee open, and all desyres knowen, and from whom no secretes are hid: clense the thoughtes of our hartes, by the inspiracion of thy holy spirite: that we may perfectly love thee, and worthely magnifie thy holy name: through Christ our Lorde. Amen.

This, to Wesley, surely was reasonable and rational—nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.

James Arminius on Romans 9

2019-07-12T22:49:00.002-04:00

Since the early days of the Protestant Reformation, the protesters at times protested themselves. John Calvin was but one of the Protestants but a person may be excused if he believes all where "Calvinists." They were not. The Dutch scholar and professor, Jakob Hermanszoon (latinized to Jacobus Arminius), became an early challenger to the notion of what we now call "the doctrines of grace," or the acronym TULIP for short.

Obviously one who challenges the notions of TULIP must deal with Romans 9-11, a Pauline pericope heavy with implications for the understanding of the biblical doctrines of predestination and election. Below are the thoughts of the Dutch Reformer:

ANALYSIS OF THE NINTH CHAPTER OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

By Jacobus (James) Arminius

This Analysis was prepared by ARMINIUS in 1593, and was sent to Gellius SNECANUS, a Minister in West Friesland, who entertained views of Christian doctrine similar to those of Arminius. It was published in the Latin editions of the works of Arminius, as an appendix to the foregoing treatise, as illustrative of many points therein discussed.

TO THE DISTINGUISHED MAN OF GOD, GELLIUS SNECANUS, MY FELLOW MINISTER, MOST BELOVED IN CHRIST, JAMES ARMINIUS WISHES HEALTH AND SUCCESS THROUGH CHRIST

I can not easily describe, most excellent sir, with how much delight I was affected by reading and seriously considering your commentary on the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. For when I saw that your idea of the scope of the Apostle, and of the use of his principle arguments, was the same, as I had recently presented to my congregation, in explaining the same chapter, I was greatly confirmed in that opinion, both because I have great confidence in your judgment, and because I found proofs in the arguments, which you advanced. I could not, therefore, do less than to write, in return, to you to present my thanks, and to inform you how I have proceeded in explaining this chapter, and what impelled me to take this course; not to prove our mutual agreement only, but to confirm it as much as is in my power. I candidly confess that this chapter has always seemed to me to be involved in the greatest obscurity, and its explanation has appeared most difficult, until light, introduced in this way, dispelled the shades, and placed the subject, illustrated by its own clearness, before my mind, so as to be plainly understood.

I come to the subject itself. In the first place, the scope of the chapter is the same with that of the whole epistle: That the Gospel, not the law, is the power of God unto salvation, not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth, since, in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested in the obtainment of salvation by faith in Christ. This chapter performs its part, and indeed is peculiarly engaged in the support of that proposition. It defends the proposition against the objections of the Jews, who, with all their power endeavor to overturn it as hostile and destructive to their own views, and so defends it as to confirm its truth more and more, and, by refuting those objections, adds strength and stability to the foundation already laid, in that very divine word and purpose, which the Jews were strenuously wresting, in their own favor, to the overthrow of Paul's doctrine.

That such is the design of the chapter, the connection shows, the relation of which may be sought, partly from this antecedent proposition. Many of the Jews are cast off, which is included, also, in the introduction of this chapter — "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren," partly from the negation contained in the 6th verse — "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect." Both of which, being embraced in one enunciation, may be suitably rendered thus — Though most of the Jews are rejected, yet the word of God does not therefore fail.

Hence it appears, most clearly, that the Jews had made an assertion, against Paul, opposed to this negation, that, by the interposition of that antecedent, (which was, immediately, deduced from the doctrine of Paul) they might convict that doctrine, from which a consequence so absurd might be deduced, of falsity, and refute it as absurd, in this manner: — "If most of the Jews are rejected, the word of God must fail; — But it can not be that the word of God should fail; — Therefore, most of the Jews are not rejected." How does this operate against the apostle? He had proposed a doctrine, which necessarily included the rejection of the Jews to a very considerable extent, namely, righteousness and salvation are to be obtained by faith in Christ, not by the works of the law. It was easy for the Jews to deduce from this, — "If righteousness and salvation consist in faith in Christ, whom Paul preaches, it follows that the Jews, for the most part, are rejected from the covenant." The reason of this conclusion is this.

"Because most of the Jews do not believe in Christ." But it is false that most of the Jews are rejected by God; for then the word of God would fail.

Therefore, the doctrine of the apostle Paul, from which that consequence is deduced, is absurd. The apostle considered that it was necessary for them to refute this objection, which threatened overthrow and destruction to his doctrine, by showing that the undoubted principle, which the Jews used as the prop of their objection, was not only not injurious to his cause, but even very favorable to it.

It is necessary to properly settle the state of the question in controversy between the apostle and the Jews. For this will be of great importance to the whole matter. It is not — "are most of the Jews rejected?" or — "Is the word of God of none effect?" For the apostle confesses that it would be impious even to admit the latter thought. The former he will afterwards prove by the clear testimony of the Scripture. But the question embraces both these; — "Will the word of God fail, even if most of the Jews are rejected?" Even this is not sufficient. The answer of this question does not settle the whole dispute, or exhaust all the difficulties. For, if the apostle, by the force of his arguments, should gain this point, that some, and indeed most of the Jews, are rejected, and yet the word of God remains sure, would not this question remain: "Does not the word of God fail, if those of the Jews are rejected, who, with the greatest zeal, seek the righteousness of the Law?" That question must still remain, as it would be easy for the Jews to make an exception to the solution of that question — "Though the word of God may remain sure, if many of the Jews are rejected, yet we can not be included in the number, else the word of God would fail." This element, therefore, having been added, will complete the entire statement of the question, thus:

"Does not the word God become of none effect, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God."

This question is suited to his design; the solution of this finishes the discussion, and exhausts all the difficulties; of this the apostle treats, as is evident from his arguments, which all bear upon its solution. Nor indeed is that, which gave rise to the question, to be separated from the question, and to refute which that principle having reference to the certainty of the word of God, was adduced by the Jews, and which the apostle also endeavored, as strongly as possible, to assert against them. In this question, therefore, this is to be chiefly attended to, — "would the word of the covenant, entered into with the Jews, be in vain, if the doctrine of the apostle in reference to the attainment of righteousness and salvation by faith alone in Christ, not by the law, or the works of the law, should find a place, and should be regarded as the fundamental principle of salvation?" How much difference exists between those two conditions of the question, and of how much importance that difference is, you readily see. For the question, proposed in this mode, "would not the word of God be vain, if most of the Jews are rejected?" could be answered in this way. "God indeed, in the word of promise, invited all the Jews and called them to a participation of the covenant, but yet, by His eternal decree and purpose, He determined in fact to make only some of the Jews partakers, passing by the rest, and leaving them in their former state." Some indeed say that this is the sum of the answer of the apostle to the proposed question.

But the question, proposed in this last manner, — "Would not the word of God fail, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God?" — can only be answered in this way. "God, in His word, and in the declaration of His promise, signified that He considered, in the relation of children, only, those of the Jews, who should seek righteousness and salvation by faith, but in the relation of foreigners, those who should seek the same by the law." But the two answers are very different. In the former, the decree of Predestination is defined according to the sentiment of Beza and others; in the latter, according to your sentiment. Far be it from me, however, to make a statement such as to confirm your view or my own concerning the decree of Predestination by the answer, which I see to be alone adapted to the question so stated.

The passage itself will, indeed, declare, if examined, that the state of the question is that, which I have presented, if a right judgment can really be formed, concerning the state of the question, from the. arguments adduced in its discussion, and from the conclusion arrived at, which no one will deny, who has ever saluted the threshold of knowledge.

Let us, then, consider these points, in the answer of the apostle. First, he denies that the consequence — "the word of God fails" — can, in any way, be deduced from the antecedent, which the Jews proposed: in these words — "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect." Then he subjoins the reason of the denial, and the Scriptural proof, interwoven with the reason by means of allegories, dictated by God, and explained by the apostle. The reason consists in the distinction of the Jews, and their twofold classification, in respect to this divine word and purpose, or from the twofold seed of Abraham, of which only one was comprehended in that word and purpose. "For," he says, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel: Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children:" but there are, among them, some "children of the flesh" and others "children of the promise;" whence it is concluded — If the word of God does not embrace all the Israelites in one character, it does not fail, even if some, from their number, may be rejected; and much less, if they are rejected of whom it is evident, from the word itself, that they never were comprehended in it. This indeed ought altogether to be added, or the question can in no way be satisfied. It was, indeed, added, as is apparent from the apostle. Nor, indeed, does he only say that not all are comprehended under that word, but he describes those, who are considered as children by God, and who are not included in that term. For the children of the flesh are considered, by the apostle, alien from the covenant, and the children of the promise are considered partakers of the covenant. Hence this argument, refuting Jewish objection, may be constructed. If the word of God comprehends only the children of the promise, to the exclusion of the children of the flesh, then it follows that the word of God does not fail, even if the children of the flesh are rejected: it, indeed, would fail if they should be received, who are excluded by the very condition of the covenant; — But the word of God comprehends only the children of the promise, to the exclusion of the children of the flesh; — Therefore, the word of God does not fail, even if the children of the flesh are rejected.

By consequence, also; — The word of God does not fail, even if most of the Jews are rejected, provided they are embraced in the number of the children of the flesh, and that they are so included is evident from the description of the children of the flesh.

The children of the flesh are said, in this place, by the apostle, to be those who, by the works of the law, follow after righteousness and salvation. In this way, also, the consequent is sustained, being deduced from his doctrine concerning justification and salvation by faith in Christ. For it does not follow from this, that some of the Jews are rejected, unless by this distinguishing mark, namely, that they do not believe in Christ, but follow after the righteousness of the law. But the children of the promise are they, who seek righteousness and salvation by faith in Christ. This description of the children of the flesh and of the promise is so plain from the Scriptures, as not to need further argument. But the foundations of the proofs can be sought from the 4th, 9th, and 10th chapters of this epistle, and from the 3d and 4th chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, as you have observed, and as I presented to my congregation, when I treated this subject.

From this discussion of the question it is evident, that it must be proposed in the second manner, with reference to the character of those rejected. We must now, indeed, consider the proof of that reason, which is assumed in the refutatory syllogism. For the consequence, deduced from it, is, in itself, clear and manifest. The apostle, then, proves that the word of the promise and covenant comprehends only the children of the promise, to the exclusion of the children of the flesh, and this by a twofold type, one, taken from the family of Abraham, and the other from the family of Isaac.

But two things are to be presupposed to the argument in both cases, both supported by the authority of the apostle, which ought to be held sacred by us. One, that Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types in those passages, which he presents. The other, that they are types of the children of the flesh and of the promise.

The apostle proves neither, but assumes both and correctly. For it is most certain, from an inspection of the passages themselves, that this is so, for the apostle says, in Galatians 4:24, "which things are an allegory," and that the first sense, which God wished to give in those passages, is not literal, but allegorical. These things being presupposed, the force of the apostle's argument consists in the agreement between the types and antitypes, which is as great as is the immutability and constancy of Him, who willed that these should be the types, corresponding to those antitypes. But it is to be observed that this agreement consists, not in their exact resemblance, but in their mutual connection and relation, the proper difference of type and antitype being preserved. I give this admonition that no one may think it necessary that he, who represents the children of the flesh, should himself be a child of the flesh, by the mode of the same definition.

Now, to the particular cases. The proof from the first type depends on these two passages of Scripture (verses 7 and 9). "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and "at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." From which this argument is deduced, that agreement being presupposed; — In the seed, reference is made to Isaac; — But Isaac is the type of all the children of the promise; — Therefore, all the children of the promise are regarded in the seed. The Major is embraced in these words — "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." The Minor, partly in these words — "For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son;" partly in that agreement, of which mention was made.

But not only may we infer that all the children of the promise are reckoned in the seed, but that they alone are so reckoned. For those things, which are spoken of Isaac, are effectual to the exclusion of Ishmael, as the apostle signifies by the adversative particle "but" (7th verse), joined to the member of the sentence, opposed to the former negations, "but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called;" from which this conclusion is deduced; — Ishmael is not reckoned in the seed; — But Ishmael is the type of all the children of the flesh; — Therefore, none of the children of the flesh are reckoned in the seed. I know that in that figure, the conclusion is deduced only in a particular case, but the strength of the conclusion depends on the agreement, which subsists between the type, and that which is adumbrated by the type, in accordance with the immutable will of God. We know, also, that a conclusion may be drawn from the necessity of the subject, which can not be drawn from the particular form of the syllogism.

Here we might say many things concerning the consequent mode of the mutual relation of Ishmael and the children of the flesh, and of Isaac, and the children of the promise; and how this was aptly signified by the birth of each, as the apostle declares was prefigured by that type. But I think that it is unnecessary to repeat those things, because they serve only to explain that sentiment, not to confirm it, as it is sufficiently proved to us by the authority of the apostle, namely, that the children of the flesh are signified by Ishmael, but the children of the promise, by Isaac.

Now another type is introduced, taken from the family of Isaac, in which the apostle affirms that the same thing is declared, as in the former, when he says (10th verse) "and not only this, but when Rebecca, also, etc." That passage, therefore, adduced for the same purpose, is to be explained in accordance with the same design. But three things are to be considered here, in order. First — some circumstances, peculiar to this type, which add much weight to the proof of the apostle, and by which the apostle anticipates whatever he foresees can be brought forward by the Jews against the former type in opposition to his cause. Secondly — the word of God, which was addressed to Rebecca, which the typical argument embraces, is illustrated from another passage, taken from one of the prophets. Thirdly — the explanation which Paul, the divinely inspired, gives of the object and scope of that divine declaration.

As to the first, the Jews could object against the former type, that it is not wonderful that Ishmael, being rejected, Isaac should be adopted as a son by God, both because Ishmael was the child of a bond woman, and Isaac of the free woman, and because, before God announced the word of promise to Sarah, Ishmael was born and could have perpetrated those things which made him unworthy of that honor and felicity. The apostle meets these objections, and replies to the first, that, in the case of Esau and Jacob, the circumstances were entirely different, as they had both the same father and the same mother, and were born at the same birth. In reply to the second objection, he refers to the words, addressed to Rebecca, when she was yet carrying the twins in her womb, and therefore, the children were not yet born, and could not have done any good or evil, by which one deserved to be rejected and the other adopted. By these circumstances, the Jews were deprived of any objection, which they could make against the previous type, namely, that they, being born of the free woman, and seeking their salvation from the law, could, in no way whatever, be reckoned among those who were rejected. Those words, addressed to Rebecca, are to be considered, which were briefly these: "The elder shall serve the younger."

They are explained by a passage from Malachi 1:2, 3. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," and this is said, that it may be evident that the servitude of the elder is united with the divine hatred, and the dominion of the younger with the divine love.

Here we must repeat what was said before, as a general remark, that Esau and Jacob are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, and so that which is attributed to them, is to be accommodated to the antitypes, or rather to the things signified. Hence, also, the antitypes are to be considered, before a conclusion, similar to the former, can be deduced from them, to the refutation of the sentiment of the Jews and to the confirmation of that of the apostle. But what those antitypes are, may be gathered from the end or design which the apostle has added, in these words: "that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth." That is, God, in those words, "the elder shall serve the younger," addressed to Rebecca, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," designed to indicate nothing else than that He had formed, in His own mind, from eternity, a purpose to communicate righteousness and salvation, not one which should embrace all the posterity of Abraham universally, but which should be according to election, by which He would distinguish between these and those, not considered simply in their own nature, as pure or corrupt, but in respect to the condition, by which righteousness and salvation were to be applied, as the apostle shows in the following words — that this purpose, according to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calleth, in which words is contained a description of the antitypes, which had before been given in the phrases "children of the flesh" and "children of the promise." Here it is more clear, for the children of the flesh and those of the promise are, such, by their own peculiarity, defined by the apostle, in this passage, since the former are "of works," the latter of faith, by which obedience is rendered unto God, who "calleth." Therefore, the apostle says that the purpose of God, which is according to election, has reference to those who have faith in God who calleth, and who trust in Christ, not to those who seek salvation by the works of the law. The conclusion can be drawn from these things against the objection of the Jews in favor of the doctrine of the apostle concerning justification by faith, in this way: "If the word of God and His purpose is according to election, by which the former is rejected, and the latter accepted, then it follows, even if some of the Jews are rejected, yet that word and purpose is not in vain; rather indeed, if that purpose, which is according to election, should be said to embrace all without any election, it would be in vain; — But this word and purpose is according to election; Therefore, even if some of the Jews should be rejected, yet that word and purpose does not, on that account, fail; it is, indeed, rather confirmed from that fact, because it is its nature to exclude some, as it is according to election, by which one is rejected and another accepted."

An indefinite proof of this kind, however, is not sufficient for this subject: for it remains to be proved that those same persons are excluded by the purpose according to election, who are properly considered to be excluded and rejected, according to the doctrine of the apostle concerning justification by faith, namely, those who sought to obtain righteousness and salvation, not from faith in Christ, but from the works of the law.

This, therefore, the apostle adds. Hence to exhaust the whole objection, the conclusion is drawn thus: If the purpose, according to election, stands, not of works, but of Him that calleth, then it follows that they, who seek after righteousness and salvation from the works of the law, and by the law, are not included in that purpose, but they, only, who by faith obey God, who promiseth and calleth; — But the purpose, according to election, stands, not of works, but of Him that calleth; — Therefore, in that purpose, they are not embraced, who are of the law, but only they who are of the faith of Jesus Christ. The Major is, in itself, plain from its phraseology, if rightly understood, which signifies that the firmness of the purpose, which is according to election, depends, not on works, but on Him that calleth. Therefore, to them who are of the works of the law, this purpose can not be firm and sure, but to those who are of faith.

From this idea, I seem to myself to perceive the reason that God placed the condition of the covenant of grace, not in a perfect obedience to the law, as previously, but in faith in Christ. The minor depends on the declaration "the elder shall serve the younger," and on the agreement of the type and antitype, which consists in this — that what is presignified by the type should correspond to the antitype. But, by the type of Esau and Jacob, is presignified, first, that the purpose of God is according to election; then, that this purpose stands, not of works, but of Him that calleth. The former, indeed, because one was loved and the other hated; one was preferred to and placed over the other, which is a sign of "the purpose according to election;" the latter, because Esau, the elder, was hated and made subject, and Jacob, the younger, was loved, and placed over him, which is a sign that this purpose stands, "not of works, but of Him that calleth;" that is, that God loves them, who seek righteousness, and salvation by faith in Christ, but hates them who seek the same by the works of the law. It follows that they are not embraced in that purpose, who are of the works of the law, but only they who are of the faith of Jesus Christ, and consequently that those of the Jews are rejected, who followed the righteousness of the law, and they are elected and loved, who sought participation in righteousness by faith in Christ. Therefore, so far from the truth is it that this doctrine of justification by faith is overthrown by the word of the covenant and the divine purpose, that, by this, alone, it is established.

At this point, I have also explained to many, how the Jews were signified by Esau, the elder, who were seeking, in their zeal for the law, justification and life by the law, and that, by Jacob, the younger, they were signified, who sought the same things by faith in Christ. It is not necessary to repeat these things here; the authority of the apostle is sufficient, who thus explains those types, and who, briefly, from the agreement of the type and antitype, or that which is signified by the type, deduces this argument.

Esau, the elder, was condemned to be the servant of his brother, by God, and was hated by him; — But Esau, the elder, is the type of all those who seek justification and salvation by the works of the law; — Therefore, all they who seek salvation by the works of the law, are condemned to servitude, and are hated by God. Again; — Jacob, the younger, obtained dominion over his brother, and was loved by God; — Jacob, the younger, is the type of all those who, according to the grace of vocation, by faith seek justification. Therefore, they who, according to the grace of vocation, by faith seek justification, obtain dominion, and are loved by God. Both Majors are included in the declarations "The elder shall serve the younger" and "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" The Minors are contained in these words, "that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth," and depend on the authority of the apostle, who thus explains those types.

Hence it is apparent that the question referred not only to the rejection of some and the acceptance of others, but to the rejection or acceptance of those of certain characters, that is, those distinguished by certain qualities.

Therefore the apostle, here, treats not of the decree or the divine purpose, by which some are elected and others are reprobated, considered absolutely in their own nature, whether pure or corrupt; but of a purpose such as includes that description of elect and reprobate, which is here clearly observed in that purpose by the apostle: in which consists, in fact, the controversy between Beza with his followers, who strenuously defend the former and yourself, who urge a purpose of salvation such as to embrace the characters of those, who are to be saved and those who are to be damned.

But they will say that it is indeed true that Ishmael and Esau, Isaac and Jacob are to be considered typically, that is, the former, in each case, representing the character of the children of the flesh, and of those who ale of the works of the law, and the latter, the children of the promise, and those who are of faith, but that they also, for themselves, belong, in the same manner, to those classes, which they typify, and this of the eternal purpose of God, by which He determined to make Isaac and Jacob children of the promise, and to bestow on them faith in Christ, but to leave Ishmael and Esau in the carnal nature, in which they were born.

They affirm that we must go further back and inquire why one is the child of the flesh, another of the promise, why one should believe in Christ, and another should not believe, but seek salvation of the works of the law. I answer — It can not be proved from this passage that they, who are types, pertain to the antitypes: and if it may, perhaps, be true that Ishmael and Esau belong to the children of the flesh, as thus described, yet that they are such, of any divine purpose, is not taught in this place. In this purpose, as we have explained it, something is determined concerning the children of the flesh and of the promise, but with the explanation which they prefer, something is determined concerning individuals, that these should be children of the flesh, those of the promise. They can not, therefore, be the same purposes, the subject of one being changed into the attribute of the other. Concerning the adequate subject, there is not, as yet, harmony even among the Coryphaei of that view. And since the question — "why do some believe and others not?" has the same change of subject and attribute, I affirm that it is not here discussed by the apostle, nor has it even the least connection with his design. They must therefore, consult other passages of Scripture and see whether they can, from them, obtain proof for that decree. It is sufficient for us that, here, the purpose is described, by which our justification and salvation through grace, may be self consistent, and by which we can be made more certain, in ourselves, concerning the same things. But this purpose is that which God determined, after the former condition added to the legal covenant had not been performed, and man had by the fall been made unable to perform it, to enter into a covenant of grace with us through Christ; and of grace to change the condition of the former covenant into faith in Christ, by which we, believing in Christ, might obtain the same thing as we should have previously obtained by plenary obedience to the law, rendered by ourselves. On this purpose, as it appears, depends the certainty of our salvation, and at the same time the assurance of it in ourselves. For we inter that assurance from this Enthymene, "I am a believer," or "I believe in Christ; — therefore I shall be saved," or "I am elect." The strength of which depends on this proposition: "God has immutably determined from eternity to save those, who believe Christ;" in which words is contained the sum of that purpose.

If any one should inquire, "Why did God wish that Ishmael and Esau should be the types of the children of the flesh, but Isaac and Jacob the types of the children of the promise?" I answer — Because it was suitable for the sake of significancy, and of agreement between the type and the antitype; in relation to the former type that he who was born of the bond woman and of the flesh should be the type of the children of the flesh, but that he, who was born of the free woman, and of the promise, when the flesh had now become unfruitful, should be the type of the children of the promise; but in relation to the latter type, that he, who was born first, should prefigure the children of the flesh, and he, who was born last, the children of the promise. The reason will be manifest to those who consider the agreement of types and antitypes.

It may be asked further, "Why did God will that Ishmael should be born of the bond woman and of the flesh, and that Esau should be born first; but that Isaac should be born of the free woman, and of the promise, and Jacob last?" I reply that the same question would be asked, if Isaac and Jacob had been substituted for Ishmael and Esau. In this matter, the Divine freedom is complete, circumscribed by no necessity of the Divine attributes, or of His revealed will. This will be seen of the attributes of the divine nature and His own revealed will are subject to God, in the determination of that purpose, for which your opponents contend.

Let us, now, come to another objection, which is of this character: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God." The nature of this question, and of this objection is manifest, but it is not equally clear, what the antecedent is from which that objection is deduced. Some state it thus: — "If God, without any respect of works, regards Ishmael and Esau with hatred and excludes them from the number of His children, but loves Isaac and Jacob, and considers them as His children, is He not unjust? It seems to be a kind of injustice not to bestow the same things on those of the same character." It is true that, if the apostle was considering them in themselves, and not as types of certain characters — as has been remarked — there would be an occasion for such an objection. For it is certain that from those antecedents arises an occasion for the objection. Such, however, was not the antecedent of the apostle, but this: "God in the word of the covenant, and in the purpose, which is according to election, embraced only those, who might be the children of the promise, who should believe in Christ, to the exclusion of the children of the flesh and of those who sought the righteousness of the law." Whence it followed "that those of the Jews were rejected who, in their zeal for the righteousness of the law, did not believe in Christ, and, moreover, those of the Gentiles, who sought a participation in justification and salvation by faith in Christ, were received into the covenant." There is besides another antecedent of that objection, namely, this: "If God hates the children of the flesh, and excludes them from the covenant, but loves the children of the promise, and reckons them in the seed, embraced in the covenant, and this, indeed, of His mere purpose, without respect to works, then it follows that He is unjust;" or this: "If God rejects the Jews, and accepts the Gentiles in their place, then He is unjust." But these two amount to almost the same thing.

I think that the reasoning of the former is the more conclusive. The reasoning of this objection seems sufficient to prove injustice in the Deity, because He made this decree of the mere good pleasure of His will, without any reference to merit.

Let us, however, examine the answer of the apostle. He first denies the inference. Then he gives the reason for his denial. He denies the inference, when He says, "God forbid," that is, we ought by no means to admit the thought that there is injustice in God, who is just in Himself, and, indeed, is essential justice, and does nothing, and can do nothing, unless it most perfectly agrees with His nature.

The reason of this denial of the inference is twofold; first, from the liberty of the divine mercy; secondly, from the due illustration of the divine power and glory. That, which is inferred from the liberty of the divine mercy, is comprehended in these words, "For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (15th verse). In these words is expressed, according to the Hebrew idiom, this idea: "In the choice and liberty of my will is placed the power of having mercy on whom I will:" as is also indicated by the deduction, "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy" (verse 18th). But in what way this answer is effectual to the overthrow of that inference, the word Mercy declares, which word embraces in itself the whole weight of the refutation. For the only sufficient reason for charging injustice on God on account of that purpose was this: that God could not, without injustice, make of none effect "His purpose of creation, by which He made justification and life dependent on obedience to the law, but condemnation and death in the transgression of the same law; especially so far as to exclude, from justification and life, those, who should endeavor, by the law, to attain to justification and life, but to make others, who should not indeed do this, but should believe in Christ, partakers of justification and life." This charge of injustice can be removed from the Deity, only by the word mercy, here used, which, as it presupposes misery and sin, by this very fact indicates that a change of the purpose is not made with any blame on God, but because the condition of that purpose had been violated by a transgression of the law, and, thus, an inability to keep the law had been brought upon man. Hence we see that, by the fault of man, the covenant, entered into at the creation, was made void, and therefore God, free from its obligation, could have either punished man according to his demerit, or instituted another purpose in His own mind. That this might be for the good of man, it was necessary that mercy should intervene, which should remit sin, and arrange a condition, which He might, by the aid of mercy itself, be able to perform.

The apostle affirms that God formed within Himself a purpose of this character, and this indeed of His mere mercy, which was free (yet under the guidance of justice) to determine on whom He might will to have mercy, and on whom He might will not to have mercy; whom He might will to make partakers of justification and life, and whom to exclude from the same blessing. Whence it follows that God, on account of a decree of this kind, and a purpose according to election, by which He determined to receive the children of the promise into the covenant, and exclude from it the children of the flesh, and which He purposed should stand "not of works, but of Him that calleth," can not be charged with injustice; because, moved by mercy alone, He made this decree in His own mind. God would, therefore, be unjust, if He should deprive any one of justification and life, or should require a condition contrary to the covenant entered into at the creation: but when, on account of the violation of the condition, and of inability to perform it, it was either for mercy to make a covenant of grace with man, or for severity to punish man without hope of pardon; it is apparent that God was not less free, that indeed He was much more free, to arrange whatever conditions might seem good to Him, in that covenant, than in the covenant of creation. Consequently He could not be charged with injustice in one case more than in the other.

This whole matter may be treated syllogistically: — If the purpose of God according to election to reject the children of the flesh, but to consider as seed, the children of the promise has for its cause the mercy and compassion of God alone; then it follows that God can, by no means, on this account be charged with injustice; — But the cause of that purpose is the mercy of God alone; — Therefore God can not, on account of it, be charged with injustice. That this is the meaning of the answer of the apostle is evident from the subjoined inferential answer — "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God, that showeth mercy," (verse 16) supply here "the purpose according to election," which is effectual so far as he had before said — "that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth," and "the children of the promise are counted for seed," the children of the flesh being excluded. For, when the will and the course of men are opposed to the mercy of God, it is certain that the reference is to the effort and the course of a man, by which he hopes that he will obtain justification and salvation apart from the mercy of God. Such, however, is the effort and the course of those, who seek justification and salvation by the works of the law. When, also, mercy is, on the other hand, placed in opposition to the will and course of men, it is evident that the condition of justification and life, which is most nearly related to mercy, namely, faith in Christ, the Mediator, is ordained, the other being opposed to mercy.

The other reason of the denial of the inference consists in the just illustration of the divine power and glory, in those, on whom He wills not to have mercy: which, also, is set forth, in the particular example of Pharaoh. It is comprehended in these words: "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared in all the earth" (verse 17.) From which passage, the apostle answers that part of the objection, in which God was charged with injustice because He rejected and regarded with hatred the children of the flesh, of His purpose according to election, in an argument, susceptible of the following form: — If God is free, for the just declaration of His own power and the illustration of His own name, to raise up, harden and punish Pharaoh, then injustice can not be attributed to God, because, in His purpose according to election, He decrees to illustrate His own power and glory in the just hardening and punishment of the children of the flesh; — But God was free to do the former, as is apparent from this passage; — Therefore also He is free to do the latter, and hence He can not, on this account, be accused of injustice. The argument of the Major is valid. For, either God will be free, in no case, to illustrate the power and glory of His name in the just punishment of any person, or He will be, also, free to decree to do this, according to any purpose, in the condemnation of those, by whose just condemnation He may will to declare His own power and the glory of His name.

It is, also, true that to take away the right and power from God of making a decree, which is according to election, is nothing else than to be unwilling that He should exhibit His own power, and the glory of His own name, in the just hardening and punishment of some men. For these things are conjoined, to punish any man and to decree that the same man is obnoxious to punishment. Punishment can be, with justice, inflicted on no one, unless the same thing was destined for him by a just purpose or decree. How God was free to raise up and harden Pharaoh, etc., will be shown hereafter, in the refutation of a subsequent objection. That this is the whole meaning of the answer of the apostle appears from the conclusion, subjoined to the whole answer —

"Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth" (verse 18).

For, by that conclusion, the whole objection of the Jews is most fully refuted in this way: — If God can have mercy on whom He will, and harden whom He will, then He is also free to form a purpose according to election, by which He may determine to have mercy on the children of the promise, but to harden and punish the children of the flesh; — But God can have mercy on whom He will, and harden whom He will; — Therefore He is free to make a decree, according to election, by which He may determine to have mercy on the children of the promise, but to harden and punish the children of the flesh. By consequence, also, if He should do this which He is free to do, He can not be, at all deservedly, accused of injustice. Thus the justice of God, in that purpose according to election, is sustained and proved by the apostle by the strongest testimonies from the Mosaic Scriptures.

Another objection of the Jews is next presented (19th verse), arising from the latter part of the conclusion immediately preceding; in the refutation of which, they who contend for that absolute decree of God to save certain particular individuals and to damn others, think that they have strong support for their cause. On which account, also, we must diligently examine both the objection and its refutation, that we may not, by negligence, pass over it, as though it were unseen: for it is, to them, the club of Hercules, for conquering all the monsters of objection, or rather the sword of Alexander, to cut any knot which can not be untied. The objection is this: "Why doeth he yet find fault?" The reason of this objection is added: "for who hath resisted his will?" Which things, proposed in the form of an interrogation, may be stated thus: "Therefore, He can not justly find fault, since no one can resist His will." The objection will be filled up, by the addition of the antecedent, from which this consequent is deduced: "God hardeneth whom He will." Therefore, He can not justly find fault with those, who are hardened. The connective reason between these two is this: "Since no one has resisted His will."

Hence, exists a continual proposition of this kind — If no one can resist the will of God, then He can not justly find fault with those, whom He hardeneth according to that will.

Let this conditional proposition be converted into a simple or categorical statement, "God can not justly find fault with those who are hardened by His own omnipotent will." Such is the objection. Let us now consider what force it has; that from the examination, it may be evident how it can be refuted, and the way for its suitable refutation, may be prepared. These two things, then, are to be considered. First, "God can not justly find fault with the hardened." Second, "Because He has hardened them by His omnipotent will, which can not be resisted." The examination of the former consists in the discussion of this question. "Who are they with whom God can justly find fault?" The examination of the second consists in the discussion of this: "Whether and in what manner, they, who are hardened by the omnipotent will of God, may be exempted from the number of those with whom God can justly find fault?" The former question will be solved, if it may be explained, what that is, on account of which God can justly find fault, that is, what is the proper cause of the divine anger. The proper cause of the divine anger, and that, on account of which God can justly find fault with any one, is sin. But sin is the transgression of a law, that is, of one which is just, for, if a law be not just, it is not a law, and therefore, its transgression is not a sin. That a law may be just, it necessarily requires these two conditions, that it be enacted by him who has authority to command, and that it be enacted for him who has the power or rather ability to obey, not only dunamei but, that is, has ability of such a character as is hindered by no intervening decree, from doing that which he can do. Whence it is apparent that "sin is a voluntary transgression of the law," which the sinner, since he could avoid it (I speak now of the act), commits, of his own fault. On account of sin of this kind, and with a sinner of this kind, God can justly find fault. This condition being removed, God can not justly find fault with a man on account of sin, and, indeed, the man can not commit sin. I say this, for the sake of those, who think, though erroneously, that God can justly be angry with transgressors of the law, even if they can not, on account of an intervening decree, really obey it. An act, which is inevitable on account of the determination of any decree, does not deserve the name of sin. I doubt not that this is most certain; it shall be proved, when it is necessary. From this, therefore, it is clear who they are "with whom God can justly find fault." Now let us consider whether and how they, who are hardened by the omnipotent will of God, may be exempted from that number; that is, whether the omnipotent will of God, hardening a person, may remove the cause of just accusation, complaint and wrath. But let us premise what that means, "For who hath resisted his will?" Here omnipotence is attributed to the will of God, universally able to subject all things to itself, and actually subjecting them, when the will accompanies it, and it accompanies the will. But omnipotence does not accompany the will, considered in every respect, for God wills that His law should be obeyed by all, which is not always done. Nor yet are there, in God, two wills mutually contrary, one of which wills that His law should be obeyed by all, the other, that it should not be obeyed; for in that case, it would not be wonderful that the law should not be obeyed by many, when the latter will, armed by omnipotence, prevents obedience to it. But some, when they endeavor to explain how it may be possible that those wills should not be contrary, say that the will of God is to be considered, in a twofold relation, as secret and revealed. The revealed will has reference to those things which are pleasing or displeasing to God, the secret to those things which he simply and absolutely wills should be done, or not done; and that it is entirely consistent that, in His revealed will, He should will that one and the same action should be done, and, in His secret will, that it should not be done, since He wills, in a different mode, in the two cases. But there may be dispute whether a secret will can be supposed in God, by which He might will, absolutely, that a thing should be done or not done, which, by His revealed will, He might will should be done or not done. Others say that this will of God is that of good-pleasure, or that of sign, which amounts to the same thing. But is not the will of God, in relation to His good-pleasure, signified in the word? It is also said that the divine will is, in one respect, efficacious, in another, not efficacious. But this is the same thing as to say — one is resisted, the other can not be resisted. It is wonderful in what labyrinths they involve themselves, being blinded either by unskillfulness or prejudice, or by both. To those who rightly consider the subject, the will of God will appear to be one and the same thing in itself — distinct in its objects.

What then? "Is not the will a faculty, free according to reason, or at least the appearance of reason, extended to the act of doing or having?" So, also, in God. We may be permitted, in our obscure phraseology, to delineate those things, which exist in that clearest light. He wills to do, and He wills to have. The former wills something from Himself, the latter wills something from us; by the former He wills that something should be done by Himself, and invokes omnipotence, which always accompanies it. By the latter, He wills that something should be done by us agreeably to justice, the pattern of which He presents us, in His own law. But it is necessary that He should reveal unto us, and indeed command that, which He wills from us, that he may obtain from us that which He wills. He does not, however, always disclose to us that which He wills to be done by Himself, or that which He wills to do, but only sometimes as He judges may tend to His own glory, and to our salvation.

You ask whether the subject of discussion is any secret will of God, and you, indeed, add your opinion that such is not the subject. You, already know my sentiments in reference to the secret will of God. I think, with you, that the subject of discussion, here, is not that secret will, in whatever way it may be taken. Let them say what that secret will is. Is it that God can not be resisted, so that He should not harden those whom He wills to harden? The truth of this is manifest, from the declaration itself. Is it secret who they are whom God wills to harden? By no means. Nothing is more plain in the Scripture, than that sinners, persevering in their sins against the long suffering of God, who invites them to repentance, are those whom God wills to harden. It is, however, not evident, but hidden, who those sinners are. This is true; but what relation has it to the will, that it should, therefore, be called hidden. The knowledge of God in this place, will rather be called hidden from us. Of many such sinners, God wills to harden this one and not that one, and it is hidden from us which He wills to harden rather than others. I do not, now, discuss that point; but I affirm that this is not discussed in this passage. Therefore, since it will not be discussed in this place what that object of the will is, which is considered hidden by us, neither is the secret will of God in any way treated of in this place. But to return; that omnipotent will removes the cause of just anger, if, by it, a man may be moved to the commission of sin, and by that power which ye can not resist, and so the hardened will be, by that will, excluded from the number of those with whom God can be justly angry, if they did that, on account of which they are hardened, being moved by that omnipotent will, which no one can resist. I do not speak, here, concerning compulsion. For "God can not compel, nor can the will be compelled," but it is sufficient to excuse the man, and to exempt him from the just wrath of God, if there exist any force of divine impulse, which is followed by the inevitable necessity of doing that to which he is moved. If, indeed, the man commits that which deserves hardening of free-will, he is subjected to blame, and is worthy of wrath, even if he may be hardened by that will, which can not be resisted. For resisting and that freely, the divine will, revealed in the word, which can be resisted, he is brought into that necessity of the divine decree, also revealed in the word, which can not be resisted, and so the will of God is done in reference to him, by whom the will of God is not done.

From these things, I think that a solution to that question can easily be formed.

But let us examine the answer of the apostle, and with that diligence, which the gravity and difficulty of the subject deserves, yet according to our measure. At the outset, however, it is not to be supposed that the apostle sought evasions, when he could not refute the objection itself, nor did he involve the subject in difficulties, that he might coerce and restrain the objector, terrified by the difficulty of the subject, but he most aptly and effectually refuted the whole objection. I would dare to affirm that no objection in the whole Scripture is more sufficiently refuted.

Let this objection be placed before the eyes, with all its fundamental principles contracted into a small space, that it may be inspected, as it were, in a single moment, in the following form — "Can God be justly angry with those, who are hardened by his irresistible will?" We may be permitted to use that form of expression for the sake of compendious significance. The answer of the apostle is twofold. In one part, reproving the objector on account of his own unworthiness, and that of the objection; in the other, refuting the objection. That which has the nature of reproof has three parts, the reproof, its reason, and the proof of its reason.

The reproof is proposed in the form of an interrogation in these words: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" That is, Consider, O man, who thou art and who God is, and thou wilt understand that thou art unworthy to answer God in that manner. To slander so excellent a doctrine in a manner such as to charge unjust wrath upon God, and to wholly exculpate man, was resistance of God to His very face, and the most direct opposition to Him. Hence it is not wonderful that the apostle, excited by the indignity of the thing, should have determined sternly to reprehend the man, who should make an objection.

The reason consists in a comparison of man and God, in the like unworthy answer, adapted to that comparison. For as there are three things contained in that proposition, The man replying, God to whom the reply is made, and the reply itself. The reason of that proposition refers to those three things, in these words, "Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Here man is compared to "the thing formed," God to "Him that formed it," and the reply to this, "why hast thou made me thus?" In this comparison the apostle gives the reason why it is not suitable for man, as "the thing formed," to reply thus to God, as "to Him that formed it," as if he should say, "as it is not permitted to the thing formed to say to Him that formed it, 'Why hast thou made me thus?' so also, it is not permitted to thee, O man, to reply to God in this way.

For thou art nothing else than clay and a worm of the earth, a thing made by God, but God is He who made and formed thee."

We considered next what is the answer to this reply, which is reproved in the thing formed, though we must, first, examine the third part of the reproof; that is, the proof of the reason. That is deduced from the right and power, or from a comparison of the right and power, which the potter has over the clay, to the right and power, which God has over that which He has formed, or rather over that from which He formed it. The right and power of the potter goes to prove the unworthiness of that objection and therefore to its refutation.

The comparison, also, has the effect of demonstrating that God has the same right over His own creature, which the potter has over that, which he makes. In the first place, the conclusion is like this — "If the potter hath power, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor, it is not for thee, the thing formed, to say to Him that formed thee, 'Why hast thou made me thus?' — But the potter hath that power; — Therefore, etc." In the second place: "If the potter hath that power over the clay, then also God hath the same over men, or rather over that from which He was about to form or make men; — But the former is true; — Therefore, the latter, also, is true." Therefore, also, "it is not for man to reply against God, 'Why hast thou made me thus?'" or to make this objection, on account of which the apostle reproves and rebukes the objector. Thus much in reference to the arrangement and the sum of the objurgatory answer, in which, also, it is shown how that can tend to the refutation of the objection itself, if, indeed, an addition, suitable to the comparison, had been made. We must now treat, in a right and legitimate manner, of the application of the things compared. This will consist, wholly, in an explanation of the right and power of God over the man, either already created or to be created. First, in reference to the comparison used in the reason, "shall the thing formed say to Him, that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" The explanation of this will be, according to the comparison, — "so it is not lawful for a man to answer God, as you do in that objection." In any case, it is necessary that the objection of the man should have congruity with this of "the thing formed." But the former was this: "if thou hardened a man by thy irresistible will, there is no reason that thou shouldst find fault with him:" This objection, harmonized with that of "the thing formed" will be like this, "Why hast thou made me, to be hardened by thy irresistible will?" What Beza says, here, of the mutability of human condition, seems to me to have little adaptation to the purpose.

If, likewise, we should consider the argument from the power of the potter, it will be apparent that some such application of that comparison was to be made. For what resemblance has the power of making to honor or to dishonor to the power of making something changeable. But it has much resemblance to the power of making a person, to be hardened or to receive mercy. Let us now see what is the explanation of the comparison which is used in that argument. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor?" The explanation, strictly set forth, will be thus, "thus God hath power from the same lump to make some men to honor, others to dishonor; or some to wrath, others to mercy," in a manner adapted to the subject of discussion, as appears from the following verses: from which the conclusion is deduced. "If God hath power, from the same mass of the human race, to make one vessel to wrath, and another to mercy, then man can not, justly, reply against Him, Why hast thou by thy irresistible will, made me to be hardened, that is, a vessel to wrath?" He adds, however, in reference to the vessels to honor and mercy, though the question was only in reference to the hardened, since the subject of discussion is the power of God which has reference to both. You will observe that I have presented these things, most rigidly, according to the sense of my opponents, because I wish to concede to them whatever can, in any way, be accommodated to the scope of the apostle.

We must now see how those things are to be understood which we attribute to God in those applications; namely, that "He hath power, from the mass of the human race, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor, one man to obtain mercy, and another to be hardened by His irresistible will." The word "power" used here signifies not ability but right and authority. It is ejxousi and not dunamiv. The subject, therefore, in this passage, is not that absolute power by which He is able to do any thing, but the right by which it is lawful that He should do any thing. In the word "lump," Beza understands the reference to be to "the human race, as not yet created, and not yet corrupt." We know that Augustine was of a different opinion, and that he considered the "lump" as referring to the fallen human race; if any one wishes to deny the latter view, the argument, which Beza presents, will not be sufficient, namely, that "the apostle must, then, have said that God left some vessels in dishonor, and transferred others from that state to honor." But I am willing to concede this to him, that unformed matter is signified by the word "lump." For it does not seem to me to be sufficiently safe, to say that God hath not power from one lump to make one vessel to wrath, and another vessel to mercy, — to make one man to be hardened by his irresistible will, and another to obtain mercy. When we see daily that God makes vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath, and that He hardens some men, and has mercy on others, it is indeed apparent that He hath the right to do that which He really does. But I add that He hath the right to do this, in the same mode, in which He does it, and to determine to do it for the same reasons, in view of which He really does it. The subject, indeed, would be plain in itself, if it had not been involved in difficulties, by a preposterous mode of explanation. This I will not here disprove, lest I may be too prolix: for I have not designed to do this now, but only to show that this chapter, by which, as by a firm foundation, they say that their theory is supported, is not in their favor.

I will, however, endeavor to throw some light on this subject. When God is said to make vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy, to harden a man or to have mercy on him, then necessarily three things are to be considered, two explicitly, one implicitly, being interposed between the other two as a medium or means. First it is necessary that a man should exist, and be a vessel. Secondly, it is necessary that before he can be a vessel of wrath or of mercy, he should be a vessel of sin, that is, a sinner. Thirdly, that he should be a vessel of wrath or of mercy.

Let us now consider what is the work of God in this matter. First, then, it is the work of God by which He makes man, that he may exist, not only that he may exist, but that he may exist to a certain end, which is signified in the term "vessel," which is equivalent to "instrument." But an instrument is made to some end. The Scripture declares that this end is the glory of God. Therefore, God made man for His own glory, that is, not that He should receive glory from man, but that He might illustrate His own glory in a much more distinguished manner, by man than by His other creatures. But the glory of God is illustrated, by a manifestation of His own natural attributes, especially of those which are considered as being of secondary importance, such as goodness, justice, wisdom and power.

There are others which belong more intimately to His essence, as simplicity, infinity, eternity, immutability, etc.

It is now to be considered what the attributes are, in the manifestation of which the glory of God was, first of all, to be displayed. I affirm, that they were His goodness, justice, wisdom and power. It belonged to goodness that He should communicate Himself; to justice, to prescribe the rule of that communication; to wisdom, to know how it might suitably and possibly be done; to power, that He should be able, in fact to communicate Himself. Goodness, therefore, impelled God, to make not only other things, but man also, that is, to so communicate Himself to Nothing, by His own image, that out of Nothing and that communication there should exist that being, which is man. Justice prescribed the mode, in which it was suitable that this communication should be made: for it is the arbitrator of goodness, or as Tertullian says, the arbitrator of the works of God.

Wisdom knew how it might be proper that God should communicate Himself to that which was to be made man, and how God could do this.

Power, the instrument of the others, was at hand to perform. God could communicate His own image to Nothing. But man was made, only, that he might be a vessel of that goodness, justice, wisdom and power, and thus He was a vessel to illustrate the divine glory. It must, however, be also considered in what manner he should be a vessel to illustrate the glory of God.

This is indeed true. — God did not make man, that he might only be that which he was made, but that he might tend to greater perfection. Nor did God think that His own goodness was satisfied, when He had once communicated Himself to man, as his creator, but his own glorified, but He wished to communicate Himself further to man, as also "the glorifier of man;" and that this might be possible He endowed him, not only with natural, but also with supernatural gifts. But justice prescribed the rule and measure of this communication, namely, that it ought to be made only on the condition that man should live, in accordance with the divine image, in obedience to the commands of God, and, since he could be exalted, he could also be cast down, — and nothing was more just than that he should be cast down, if he should abuse the gifts, by the right use of which he could be exalted to the highest dignity. Man was, therefore, in that respect, a vessel to illustrate the just goodness and wrath of God, by which God might declare His own great goodness in blessing him, if he should live righteously, and His severe wrath in punishing him, if he should transgress the command. Thus God made man originally, and in him the rest of mankind, vessels to illustrate His just goodness and wrath, that is, instruments fit for this. But He did not, in fact, do this, without the intervention of that, which is here considered in the second place. — Man, originally placed in this condition, by the Deity, by transgressing the command, made himself an evil vessel, that is, a sinner: with the concurrence of no co-operation of the Deity to this result, except such as was suitable to His goodness, justice, wisdom, and indeed to His constancy, by which nothing was taken away from the freedom of man or the actual mode of freewill would be restrained or would be impelled in this or that direction.

Man, existing in this state, with all his posterity, whom God had determined to produce, of his blood, by the ordinary means, was worthy to receive, in view of his demerits, punishment and wrath, that is, to be made, in fact, a vessel of wrath. That same goodness (which I may be allowed here to call the source mercy), did not however permit this, and this is true even of the justice of God, the arbitrator of goodness and mercy. The wisdom of God indeed knew that punishment was due to that cause — sin, and justice wished that what was due to that cause should be rendered to it; but the former also knew that still more was due to goodness, and the latter according to its nature, that what was due to goodness should also be rendered to it, namely, that highest demonstration of itself, and its advancement to the place of mercy, which is the inclination of goodness towards the wretched, and the ill-deserving. It was suitable that the goodness of God should communicate itself, not only to the non-existing, and those existing without any merit, and to the well-deserving (if they had obeyed the commandment), but also to the ill-deserving, and to the transgressors of the law, that He might give to him who had not, give again and with addition to him that had, and spare him that abused his gifts; thus being victorious over sin by its own remission, as triumphant over Nothing, by the act of creation. Therefore, wisdom discovered a mode by which what was due to the cause might be rendered to it, and what was due to goodness might be rendered to it, namely, Jesus Christ the Mediator, on whom the cause of the human race might be laid, to be borne and carried through before the tribunal of justice by whom man might become a vessel to illustrate the divine justice and goodness, in the highest and most excellent way.

Here also justice interposed itself, mindful of its duty, and showed that such a communication of goodness, by means of mercy, could not be made without a condition in this case more suitably than in the former; but it was just that a condition should be fixed upon, in accordance with which that good should be communicated, of mercy, or not communicated at all, and, instead of it, the contrary evil should be inflicted. Hence, also, it was determined to make some men vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy, that is, fitted to wrath or to mercy; of mercy, those who should perform the condition; of wrath, those who should violate it and not cease to violate it; and this irrevocably and of necessity, so that those who should have violated the condition, persisting in that violation, should be made, by that act, vessels of wrath, and they, who should perform the same, should be made, by that act, vessels of mercy: which same mercy, nevertheless, bestowed the power of obedience in that mode in which it is suitable that mercy, mingled with justice, should bestow it. Briefly, God makes man a vessel; Man makes himself an evil vessel, or a sinner; God determines to make man, according to conditions, satisfactory to himself, a vessel of wrath or of mercy, and this He in fact does, when the condition is either fulfilled, or perseveringly neglected.

From this it is apparent what is the true sense of those things, which are here proposed by the apostle, namely, that God has the power to make men from unformed matter, and to establish a decree concerning them, of the pure choice and pleasure of His will, sanctioned by certain conditions, according to which He makes some vessels to dishonor, other vessels to honor; and therefore man has no just reason for replying against God because He has, by His irresistible will, made him to be hardened, since obstinacy in sin intervenes between that determination of the will and the actual hardening; on account of which obstinacy God wills according to the same pleasure of His will, to harden the man by His irresistible will. If any one shall say that God has power absolutely or unconditionally to make a man a vessel to dishonor and wrath, he will do the greatest injustice to the Deity, and will contradict the plain declaration of Scripture. Therefore, Beza himself does not dare absolutely to affirm this, but he affirms that the decree is to be so understood, that its execution does not take place until after man, having become sinful, has made himself worthy of wrath.

But he so subjoins the execution of the decree as to make the proximate cause of its execution depend on the decree itself, which is equivalent to the absolute statement, that God determined to make some men vessels to honor, others to dishonor; some vessels of wrath, others vessels of mercy; and that he might be able to do this, to make all, in the first place, sinners, that afterwards He might make, of His justice, some, vessels of wrath and to dishonor, and, of His mercy, others, vessels of mercy and to honor.

Whatever absurdity can be deduced from that comparison of the apostle, by introducing a wrong interpretation, it may be detected only by the distinction, which exists between men and the vessels of the potter, when that distinction is rightly understood.

I have thus treated these matters; not as if there could be no other explanation of that comparison, but that, conceding their own explanation to our opponents, I might show that even it, when rightly understood according to the analogy of faith, does not favor any purpose, such as they wished to conclude from it, but indeed agrees, most fully, with the other view, which you describe. But what if I should say, and I surely have this right, that the true explanation is not that, which they give, but what the apostle presents in the next two verses — "What if God, willing to, etc."

— and that he uses the reference to the power of the potter over the clay both to confirm the reason of the reproof, and to refute the objection.

These very things are also of a kindred nature. For to demonstrate the unworthiness of an objection is, in some measure, to refute it, as we also see in the former cases. I do not see, in what respect, this explanation may not be fitly accommodated to that proposition: "For, as the potter hath power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor, so God has power, and indeed with much greater justice, to endure with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and to prepare the vessels of mercy into glory." This justice is illustrated by the ends, which God has proposed to Himself in both cases.

It will be said "there is want of agreement between the expressions, 'to make vessels to dishonor,' and 'to endure with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction' that is 'to dishonor;' but that, with the former, this expression is more in agreement 'to fit the vessels of wrath to destruction;' as, 'to prepare the vessels of mercy unto glory' is in agreement with 'to make vessels to honor."' But who shall prescribe to the apostle the mode of applying his own comparison? Is it not allowable for him to show the purity of the divine power in that, which God really does in reference to the vessels of wrath and of mercy, although it may be less than what the potter does concerning the vessels unto honor and dishonor, that in this way the force of the argument may be stronger, from the less to the greater, than from an equal to an equal? There is, however, something wanting to that application of the apostle, and it is clear that it is of this character. "Shall He not then have power to do this?" or "shall He not therefore be able to find fault justly with the hardened?" Let us, now, consider, finally, how fully the objection is refuted by those words, in whatever sense they may be taken, whether as an explanation of the comparison, or absolutely and in their simple meaning. I said, and still say, that no objection, in the whole Scripture, seems to me more thoroughly refuted, and that no answer more sufficiently exhausts all the difficulties of any objection. The objection had three parts, The antecedent "God hardeneth when he will;" The consequent, which contains the chief force of the objection, "Therefore he can not justly find fault with the hardened;" The proof of this conclusion from an adjunct of the divine will, "because the will of God can not be resisted. The antecedent, and the argument of the conclusion or consequence, may be connected thus — "God hardens, when he wills, by His irresistible will." The consequent is added thus, "With them God can not justly find fault." Four simple ideas are contained in that objection. The divine wrath, the persons hardened, irresistible will, deservedly or unreservedly, which fourth I would prefer to call "the mode of composition by affirmation or of division by negation."

The relation between these is proposed by the objector thus, — "The wrath of God is an attribute, by which God deals with the hardened, who therefore constitute the object of wrath, and, in this case, also its cause; as frequently objects have the relation of cause to certain attributes, not in the essential nature of the attributes themselves, but so far as they are exercised with those objects, that is not in the primary, but in a secondary act. The hardened, and the irresistible will of God are placed as cause and effect. The hardening is the effect of the irresistible will of God. Now it is inquired whether, that relation being supposed to exist between the hardening and the irresistible will, there is the same relation between the divine wrath and the hardened, that is, whether God can be angry with those thus hardened, which is signified by the expression deservedly and undeservedly. To these things, thus explained, the answer of the apostle may be applied.

First, the apostle declares that such a relation does not subsist between the wrath of God and the hardened, but rather the opposite relation. For the hardened are the object of the divine wrath, nor is their hardening the cause of that wrath, but the divine wrath is rather the cause of their hardening.

God also, in the act of hardening is occupied with those, with whom He is already angry, that is with those, who are already, in fact, vessels of wrath.

This the apostle signifies when he declares that God hardeneth "the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction." There is then in those arguments not only the fallacy of causa non causa, subjecto non subjecto, but also that of the inversion of cause and effect, of subject and adjunct, hence their refutation is most complete. So far from the truth is it that God can not find fault with those, whom He has hardened, that, on the contrary, He may not harden them, unless they have already, by their own fault, been made vessels of the most just wrath of God. The whole Scripture teaches that hardening is the effect and the sign of the divine wrath. Hence the question "Can God be angry with the hardened?" is a foolish one. It should be inquired "Can God harden those with whom He is angry?" In the second place, the apostle replies to the relation between "hardening and irresistible will," in these words "endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath;" in which He signifies that the mode of hardening is "patience and mildness" not the omnipotent action of the will which can not be resisted. Therefore, there is here also the fallacy of causa non causa.

It will, however, be asked, "Does not the decree, by which God determined to harden the vessels of wrath, pertain to the will, which can not be resisted?" This is indeed true. But it is one thing for God to use the omnipotent act of His own will to effect hardening, and another thing for Him to determine by that will that He will harden the vessels of wrath. For in that case, the exercise of the will is attributed to the decree of hardening not to the act; between which the difference is so great that it is possible that God should, by His irresistible will, make a decree in reference to hardening the vessels of wrath by His patience and long suffering. If it shall be said that "this hardening will nevertheless, more surely follow by means of that patience, on account of the decree by which He not only determined to use patience, but also to use it for the purpose of hardening, and that this is equivalent to that omnipotent act of the will which can not be resisted," I shall deny that it is equivalent. But to the proof of this denial many things pertain, which it would be tedious to present here; I will, on that account, omit any reply, because this objection does not militate against my design. For should we concede that the vessels of wrath are hardened by the force of the omnipotent will, would this take away even the least particle from the justice of the divine wrath, when they have themselves merited hardening, while it is for God to decide to inflict the punishment, in whatever way may seem good to Him? The third part of the reply refers to the equity of that divine act, which the apostle now explains, deduced from its design. What then; is it not just that God should in some way, demonstrate His wrath and power? Most just. But against whom, if not against "the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction" which God "endured with much long suffering?" Either it is just that God should declare His power and wrath against persons of this character, or He will, in no case, be free to do it, and thus it will be in vain that God is armed with power and wrath, since He can never exercise them, in whatever way He may be provoked. From this, it is manifest, that this is here set forth by the apostle, more clearly than the refutation of that objection demanded. For whatever could be presented, not only as apology, but also as defense, and even as declaration of the divine wrath against the hardened, is here presented; and thus they are described in whom God would show His wrath and power that they all might together embrace, in themselves the just causes of the divine wrath. For He is not angry with them, unless they have already become vessels of wrath; nor does He, when, by their own merit, they have been fitted for destruction, immediately, in accordance with His own right, carry out His wrath in their destruction, but He endures them, with much long-suffering and patience, inviting them to penitence and waiting for their repentance; but when, with a heart, hardened and knowing not how to repent, they contemn the long suffering and patience of God, it is not wonderful that even the most merciful goodness of God should not be able to restrain Him from the exercise of His wrath, lest, when that anger is demanding that justice should render to it its own highest right, He should seem to give it no place.

We shall, however, set forth the answer with greater conciseness, if we adapt it to the several parts of the syllogism in the objection. The syllogism was as follows — "He, who hardens by His own irresistible will, can not justly 'find fault' with those, who are hardened; — But God hardens by His own irresistible will; — Therefore, He can not justly find fault with those hardened." The apostle replies to the Major by denial; both because it is absolutely false, since they, whom God hardens, have merited that hardening, and God is free to inflict upon them, according to their merits, in whatever way it may seem good to Him; and because a false cause of anger is alleged, namely, hardening, while they, even before they are hardened, were vessels of wrath, and, therefore, the cause of the hardening. The Major, then, should be corrected thus: "He, who, by His own irresistible will, hardens those who, because they are vessels of wrath, have deserved hardening, can moreover 'find fault' with those justly hardened." To the Minor, the apostle replies, by proposing another mode of hardening, by which is removed that mode, which is assumed in the Minor; for He "endured, with much long suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Why should any imputation be made against God, if they have been hardened on account of their own wickedness. The Minor, then, should also be corrected; "But God, using patience and long suffering towards the vessels of wrath, hardens them." The Major also must then be further amended, by introducing this mode of hardening, which will greatly favor its truth and equity. From this it follows that the conclusion is false; its contrary follows of necessity from the correction made in its antecedents, and it is most fully true, not only on account of the antecedent truth, but also on account of the just design of the divine hardening, which is the illustration and exhibition of the wrath and power of God. What pertains to that phrase, "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction," can be easily understood from the preceding remarks. As to what is said in addition in reference to "the vessels of mercy," it has been explained for what purpose the apostle did this. As there is no dispute on this point, I will omit further explanation.

In this discussion, I seem to myself to have demonstrated that this passage, from the Apostle, does not serve to confirm that doctrine, which may think to be built on this chapter as a foundation. I have not, however, thought proper to treat the subjects themselves, embraced in this chapter, more extendly, because this will be done more fitly at another time, when we consider them, abstractly, and not as depending on the authority of this or that passage.

If any one will show me that these things are not in accordance with the sentiment of Paul, I will be ready to yield the point; and, if any one will prove that they are inconsistent with the analogy of faith, I will be prompt to acknowledge the fault and forsake the error.

Initials in the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana)

2019-07-12T22:46:00.002-04:00

In the early days of the Church of God reformation movement we knew our preachers/leaders by their initials. From A. F. Gray to D. S. Warner their initials were burned in our minds. However, from a historical standpoint their actual names can be lost to history if we don't preserve them. Here is my short list of full names on various men. I don't know all of their full names; if you can supply info then zip me a short email and help a brother out!

WF Chappel, John Chapel & Boyce Blackwelder

Boyce Watson Blackwelder
Charles Ewing Brown
Andrew Linnaeus Byers
Enoch Edwin Byrum
Russell Raymond Byrum
William Fielden Chappel
Albert Frederick Gray
Kenneth Effner Jones
Otto Fernand Linn
Charles Wesley Naylor
William Dale Oldham
Eugene Alonzo Reardon
Herbert McClellan Riggle
Frederick George Smith
Russell Eugene Sterner
Daniel Otis Teasley
Daniel Sidney Warner
Barney Elliott Warren

I need your help with these men:

Noah Holmes (?) Byrum
(and anyone else you can think of to provide me)

Jack Lawrence, His Call to Ministry, and Miracles

2019-07-12T11:42:00.003-04:00

[I originally posted this testimony on February 19, 2013. Jack wrote it before having open-heart bypass surgery. Jack went to be with the Lord on January 7, 2018.]

A Testimony of Faith - My Call to Be A Pastor.

I have shared this with the churches that I have been blessed to Pastor over the near 40 years that I have been in Pastoral ministry. This a a long post but perhaps a blessing to someone who takes time to read it. This is for God's glory and not my own because I still marvel that he would call "such a worm as I."

The path for my conversion from sin to a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ was unusual. I was an avowed militant atheist in my 20's. At age 17, I left High School and joined the Air Force. After my tour of duty, I worked at several jobs, including Union Carbide Chemical, but being restless I began to travel the country as, what was called in those days, a hobo. I would go to the next town, find a menial temporary job and work long enough to get me on the road again.

I returned to West Virginia for a stay with my parents, and while there, I met a beautiful young lady who later became my wife. Linda and I had 3 children in the first 5 years of our marriage. I had not graduated from High School and so my "Career path" was very limited. After 6 years of marriage, I determined to go to college. I took the GED test and after passing was accepted by West Virginia State College (now West Virginia State University). in 4 years I obtained a BA Degree with a double major in History and Political Science and a minor in Philosophy. My intentions were to seek a degree and a career in Law. (I worked 40 hours a week in a K-Mart Sports department while attending college)

I was required to take 8 hours of Biology at State and during the study of the single cell in the Lab, because of the complexity and division of labor within the cell I became a believer in God; for this single cell was not an accident or evolutionary - the single cell was by design. At first I was just a Deist, but the path led to a faith in Jesus Christ.

I began attending my wife's church and "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me..." "Jesus called me "O're the Tumult." 3 years later, (I was then 35 years old) with my wife and children settling into our accustomed pew and the Organist playing the prelude "Be Still, My Soul" (Finlandia); in that moment I heard a voice speak to my heart "You will be a Pastor."

Now the interesting thing about this call is that it was the farthest thing from my mind (or heart.) Had anyone mentioned it as a possibility before going into worship that day I would have laughed out loud; "Preposterous and silly" I would have replied and so would have my family and friends who knew me well. And one other interesting part to this call; I was being considered by the Chrysler Corp. (Dodge Division) for position as a Regional Sales Manager for Large Truck Division with a lucrative salary.

GOD CONFIRMS HIS CALL ON MY LIFE.

After the services that morning I related my experience with God calling me to Pastoral ministry to my wife. She began to cry, not for joy, but with upset and fear. I then told our Pastor about my call and he said I needed to go somewhere and study and pray. He said that he had just accepted the call to be the President of a small Bible College in Houston, Texas [Gulf-Coast Bible College] and that I might consider at least 2 years of study in Bible and Theology in that setting.

Linda reluctantly accepted that my call was valid and agreed to our move to Houston. (There is a lot of story that I must leave out here due to the limited space for writing in this venue, so I will relate the way God confirmed His call.)

While in school in Houston, I was asked to help plant a new church 45 miles south of Houston. Our financial situation was dire. Linda worked as a secretary in the YMCA and I worked as a salesmen of industrial tools and machinery; neither of us made much money. Our 3 children were in 3 different schools, our oldest son was a freshman in High School and son #2 was in Junior High and baby daughter was in elementary school.

Right before Christmas, my wife came to pick me up from work because we only had one car and it was an old, tired automobile that had seen its best days. I had to tell my wife that evening that I had been laid off from work, due to a seasonal slump. She began to weep as she was driving and a siren and blue light caused her to pull over. A police officer said that she was speeding 5 miles over the speed limit. He proceeded to write her 3 tickets, she all the time shedding buckets of tears. The tickets were for speeding, improper registration and no Texas hard plate license (We had been there for 6 months and needed to change from our West Virginia License.) Linda and I stayed up that night praying - I guess you could call it praying - it was more wrestling with God and being angry with Him. We reasoned that He had called us to Houston and now look at this fine mess. No job, No money, my second semester tuition was due the following week and Linda possibly facing jail time because we could not pay any fines.

Sunday, numb and frightened as we were, we drove to the new church plant that we were helping with. That evening on our drive back to Houston the car began to make loud noises. It got us back to our apartment and we parked it in the stall provided and it never started again. Now what! If you are familiar with Houston you know that it is one spread out town. I went to school in one area, Linda worked in a different part and the children went to school in yet a totally different section.

The next morning we managed to get to our destinations. I went to my mailbox that I had on Campus. A notice in the mailbox said that an anonymous donor had paid my next semester tuition. A lady that Linda worked with and who knew nothing about our problems, came to Linda's desk and said "I don't want to offend you, but my husband and I just purchased a new car and we would like to give you our old car." The next day we went to court and the judge informed the Police officer who had written the tickets that Texas and West Virginia had an agreement that students from those states did not have to change their license and registration. Go figure! He dismissed the charges and we did not have to pay anything.

One other point to confirmation: Our oldest son became very ill and running a very high temperature [104°]. We had no insurance and thought we would take him to the emergency room to see if we could find him treatment anyway. Before we left, Linda and I decided to anoint and pray for Michael. As we placed our hand on him and prayed, his temperature fell to normal!

In all of this, I believe God confirmed His call upon my life and, further, He was telling me that during the course of the ministry that He was calling me to, that I could say with confidence, not based not theory or guess, that God is there and that He will save, heal and keep those who are His. I say this from experience not study or theory.

I am blessed to call Jack a friend. Let me share another story he told me. When Jack was a student at Gulf-Coast Bible College (now Mid-America Christian University) he was working at Uncle Ben's Rice Mill at night and attending class during the day. He developed a severe case of arthritis that gnarled and closed up his hands. This was bad news beyond the physical discomfort; the machinery he needed to work was strong but delicate and gnarled hands wouldn't keep him in gainful employment. Around 2-3 AM one morning during "lunch" Jack was crossing the railroad tracks of the mill and prayed. A warmth came over his hands, they became ungnarled and he hasn't had arthritis in his hands ever since.

God Still Speaks Today

2019-07-12T11:24:00.002-04:00

[This article was written on January 19, 2011. It has been amended.]

After church this evening at Abney Street Church of God, John King told me a wonderful story that I want to share with you. Forgive the limitations of my memory; the account went something like this:

John was a layperson and one of several people who volunteered his time to spend a weekend with a congregation. This group's premise, Live Ministries, was simple yet profound. They simply shared their testimonies of how God worked in their lives and they looked to the Holy Spirit to move among the church—to do anything he wanted to accomplish. Naturally, very weekend was unique and open-ended. No team member knew what would happen. They just trusted that something would.

John was seated in the sanctuary during a service; nothing seemed to be happening. He looked at his watch and thought he would go and dismiss the congregation. At that point a voice behind him said, "Someone in this church is carrying a burden and they shouldn't leave the building until they've dealt with it."

John turned around in his seat, thinking it was one of his ministry partners.

No one was there.

He got up and told the congregation that he was impressed that somebody was carrying a burden but they could get rid of it if they came to the altar and left it there. He then said he was going to pray for this person. John bowed at the altar and prayed. When he opened his eyes the altar was filled with praying people and folks were starting to kneel at the front pew.

He sat back down. The same voice came to him, saying, "There are four young men in the back of the church. Go and get them."

Again, no one was there.

John took another person with him and went to find the young men. He heard from someone that they went outside. He found them in front of the church. All four gave their hearts to Christ that night.

John shared with me his surprise at hearing the voice and the need to obey it quickly when heard.

I believe this story; I have no reason not to believe it and I am familiar with enough Wesleyan stories to convince me that God still speaks today. He guides those who serve him in ministry.

2014-07-07T14:43:00.000-04:00

"I won't let you go unless you bless me." (Genesis 32:26b)

Years ago a Kentucky pastor named William C. Neace was returning to his Lexington church after hospital visitation. A red light (that had always been green previously) stopped him at an intersection. Bill saw an old building, set off from the road, that he had never noticed before. Above the door of the aged structure was a sign with fairly large letters:

THERE IS NO PLACE
ANYWHERE NEAR THIS PLACE
LIKE THIS PLACE
SO THIS MUST BE THE PLACE

The saying stuck in Bill's mind as he drove back to Eastland Parkway Church of God. He thought:

It reminded me of this text of Scripture [in Acts 4:31] where it says, "And when they had prayed the place was shaken"—shaken by God's power. And I began to wonder what it would be like if all our people in the congregation there would determine that there would be no place anywhere near our place like our place, and that people all around would come to know that our place was the place of God's blessing.

2012-08-22T12:33:00.000-04:00

Years ago a Kentucky pastor named Bill Neace was returning to his church after hospital visitation. He was stopped at an intersection in Lexington. Neace saw an old building, set off from the road, that he had never noticed before. Above the door of the aged structure a sign with fairly large letters announced:

It stuck in Neace's mind as he drove back to Eastland Parkway Church of God. He thought,

It reminded me of this text of Scripture [in Acts 4:31] where it says, "And when they had prayed the place was shaken"—shaken by God's power. And I began to wonder what it would be like if all of our people in the congregation there would determine that there would be no place anywhere near our place like our place, and that people all around would come to know that our place was the place of God's blessing.

We here at Green Valley Church of God don't believe we are better than other churches. We aren't in competition with anyone. We just want to be known as a place where people can experience God directly and be blessed by his presence immediately. We believe every church should have this desire.

Please give us the opportunity to introduce you personally to God.

And welcome home!

Pastor