Thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis

The Eclipse of the “Documentary Hypothesis,” Sometimes Called the “Graf-Wellhausen’s Theory”

by Donald Philip Veitch (no copyright claimed whatsoever)

When discussing the Documentary Hypothesis, sometimes called the “Graf-Wellhausen Theory,” one refers to a composition-theory of the first five books of the Bible. This composition-theory deals with the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The scope of these books cover Israel’s story: Creation, Flood, Patriarchal narratives, Exodus, Wilderness Wanderings, and closes with Moses’ death (Dt. 34). The argument of the centuries, Jewish as well as Christian, has held that Moses was the key author of all five books, including possibly a school of scribes under his direction. In conflict with this view, however, a 19th-20th century view emerged in Germany called the “Documentary Hypothesis” or Graf-Wellhausen’s Theory.” This 100-year old theory held dominance in many scholarly circles but, at the present, it shows signs of extinction. Professor Tulloch, a tentative documentarian himself, gives the gentle, telling, but undeveloped eulogy: “A marked shift in emphasis has occurred in Old Testament studies in recent years. There has been a movement away from examining the pieces that make up the literature to examining the finished product” (Tulloch 15). Why the passing? Three reasons are suggested for the extinction: a history of chaos and confusion, a history of unanswered and dubious assumptions, and a significant credulity in the face of sustained and credible opposition.

Before looking at these three factors of extinction or scholarly retreat, what is this theory called the “Documentary Hypothesis” or “Graf-Wellhausian” theory? The thumbnail answer is that at least four writer/editors wrote Israel’s history centuries after Moses (1446-1406 B.C.E.) and, for some scholars, one century after Israel’s Babylonian exile (609 B.C.E.-520 B.C.E.) of date 450 B.C.E. In short, the first five books of the Bible are redacted (created) histories over a 1000 year period. The theory claims to have discovered four writers or sources called J, E, D, and P. Rather than the “Documentary Hypothesis,” it is sometimes calls the JEDP-Theory. Here is why.

• The “J” writer or source is dated 950 B.C.E. This writer allegedly wrote during Solomon’s reign (970-930 BCE), five hundred years after Moses. This source distinctively uses the OT name of Jehovah, יְהוָה, sometimes spelled YWHW or Jahwist. Hence, the term “J.”

• “E”, shorthand for an “Elohist” writer or document, was a redactor/redaction of “J” hailing from 750 B.C.E., seven hundred years after Moses. The distinctive name, Elohim or אֱלֹהִים, characterizes this source.

• “D” is a “Deuteronomist” redactor/document, a source from 550 B.C.E., nine hundred years after Moses. This writer/document is informed by the “rediscovery” of the Book of Deuteronomy during King Josiah’s reign in 621 B.C.E. and reflects legal concerns.

• “P” is shorthand for a “Priestly” document/redactor, dated 500-450 B.C.E. This was “a history written by the priests around 450 B.C.E, adding legal materials related to worship and genealogical lists” (Tulloch 14). This is 1000 years after Moses.

With circularity and gratuity, this compositional theory claims that the final product was “creatively pieced together” shortly after the Babylonian Exile (Sproul, 1). Other assertions are made about these four sources: different distribution of the divine names, repetitive stories (Abraham’s wife and Isaac’s wife), repetitive laws (e.g. Passover, Ex.12.1-20, 21-23; Dt. 16.1-8), different geographical names (e.g. Mt. Horeb and Mount Sinai) and differing theologies. The “JEDP Theory,” or the Documentary Theory,” was “an assured result of scholarly research,” a dominant claim by Documentarians. But one documentarian, Dr. Tulloch, granted —in a serious concession—that the theory suffered “from an exaggerated sense of certainty about the historical framework based upon little evidence” (Tulloch, 14). While this is a refreshing concession by Dr. Tulloch, an elaboration on this theory would have shown much more, namely, a history of chaos and confusion, a history of dubious assumptions, and a significant credulity amongst their own advocates.

History of Chaos and Confusion. The first issue is that the Graf-Welhausen’s theory
suffers from a history of chaos, confusion, contradiction, and reversal amongst its advocates. In the literature, the scholars disagree amongst themselves as to the criteria and dates of J, E, D, and P—for starters. This has made the theory difficult to comprehend and defend. To fully argue this point, one would need to review the key players, their publications and their own disagreements and disavowals: Astruc, DeWette, Hupfeld, Eichorn, Kuenan, Eissfelt, and others. That alone, a history, would merit a doctoral level dissertation. “One scholar’s `J’ is
another’s `E.’” These disagreements are not occasional in the literature, but are distributive and dominant . Dr. Gleason Archer, a modern OT scholar in the old Princetonian school, sarcastically summarized the issue: “Observe the contradictions and reversals of this documentary theory” (Archer 90). Chaos and confusion has prevailed.

To illustrate this chaos, a photo may help. A fuller picture would have J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 and more J’s, indexed to any given scholar, with the photo to the left having many more
connecting lines in the diagram. One scholar has his list of biblical texts that reflect the “J” source. We can call that a J1 scholar. Another scholar disagrees and offers his unique list of biblical texts that are truly a J-source. We can call that second scholar a J2 scholar with his unique list contradicting the J1 scholar. Multiply the scholars who have differing and conflicting lists of biblical texts that are alleged J-sources. We again note Dr. Archer’s dictum: “Observe the contradictions and reversals of this documentary theory” (Archer 90). Illustratively, the argument can be extended to the E-sources indexed to variant views of scholars with conflicting lists of biblical texts. By way of argument, let this be the E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 and more E’s, indexed to any given scholar, with more lines for the above diagram. There are also some scholars who feel that J and E have the same author, e.g. Dr. Hupfeld (Archer, 90). But then again, there are scholars who think there is no J, E, or D, just a P. There are earlier E’s and later E’s according to varied scholars. (Archer, 90). The argument is applied to variant and conflicting views about texts for D. There are D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and more D-lists, indexed to varying scholars. There are P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and more P’s. Some P’s precede the J’s. (Archer, 90). Unsatisfied with JEDP, other scholars advocate for a “K” or Kenite” source, “L,”, “S,” “R” and more. Hence, the photo used above can be filled in and new lines drawn—the result is chaos, confusion and reversals. One might say that “one needs a scorecard to keep them straight.” While we have offered a quick photo, it is fair to say that this paragraph
summarizes the history of confusion and chaos. Such a multi-mutant theory is not for the “faint- hearted” as one scholar gently and quite charitably reminds us:

"No longer can a biblical scholar begin a sentence with the word J and presume that another scholar will listen to the rest—or that the other scholar will mean more or less the same thing even if she is willing to use that term. The verities enshrined in older introductions have disappeared, and in their place scholars are confronted by competing theories which are discouragingly numerous, exceedingly complex, and often couched in an expository style that is (to quote John van Seter's description of one seminal work) `not for the faint-hearted.'" (Sommer 1)

Indeed, Graf-Wellhausen’s theory is not for the “faint-hearted” with its permutations that are “discouragingly numerous.” This theory is a theory that has died due to a history of reversals and contradictions. It has also died because of dubious assumptions and its excessive credulity by its adherents.

Dubious Assumptions. In addition to the conflicted theory of chaos, the second argument proposed for the extinction of this theory is its history of problematic and dubious assumptions. We can only trace of few of these problems with a few suggested rebuttals.

For example, one dubious assumption concerns the criteria of names, e.g. Jehovah and Elohim, as a reference-point to date two sources, J and E. But this begs the question and argues in a vicious, but not virtuous, circle. The argument runs this way: (1) This set of biblical texts use Jehovah’s name. (2) Only a “Jehovist” redactor writes this way in 950 B.C.E. (3) Therefore, these texts are written by a “J” or “Jehovist” redactor in 950 B.C.E. The assumption in premise one is that Moses could not and did not use the name “Jehovah.” But who granted that assumption, other than Dr. Graf and Dr. Wellhausen? And why was this assumption granted, other than with circulatory and selective evidence? Further, by what criteria is 950 B.C.E. adopted except by a scholarly assumption and assertion without evidence. By what stretch of the imagination is Moses unable to use two names of God? One is never told insofar as this scribe can see. There are many more than two names throughout the Old Testament, e.g. Jehovah- Nissi, Jehovah-Tskekenuh, El-Shaddai, El-Elyon, El-Olam, Adonai, as well as others. Furthermore, one third of the 150 Psalms, eleventh century B.C.E. documents, use both names, Jehovah and Elohim. Where does 950 and 750 B.C.E. arise? By parallel, Dr. D. James Kennedy , examined President George Washington’s dairies—which had many religious references—and found about eighty different permutations of divine names in the diaries, e.g. God Almighty, God the Father, Most Merciful God, Eternal God, Fountain of all goodness, Holy One, Most blessed and most merciful God, etc. By parallel, were there eighty authors of George Washington’s diaries? Without substantial answers, one gets the preliminary whiff of regal and imperial assumptions, a theory in search of non-supporting facts.

A second dubious assumption is offered concerning “P,” the Priestly Source of 450 B.C.E. The assumption is that Israel in Moses’ time could not have known about priestly and tabernacle issues, e.g. Ex.25-40 and Leviticus. On this assumption, it was not possible for Moses to write about priests, sacrifices and a religious center. The assumption, like the one above, suffers from severe question-begging and circularity. The argument runs likes this. (1) Moses did not know of priestly, sacrificial, or religious rituals. (2) Redactors in 450 B.C.E. did know about these matters. (3) Therefore, what Moses couldn’t do, this “P” redactor did. Premise one is assumed without warrant. The conclusion simply repeats the premise. Were there no priestly and religious rituals in the surrounding ancient near eastern religions during Moses’ day of the 15th century B.C.E.? Cultures having priests and religious rituals, e.g. the Hittite culture of the 15th-14th century? By parallel, even if one granted a 7th-8th century provenance to Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, why must a “Priestly” redactor be assumed for a 450 B.C.E. date? Greek religion teems with references to “sacrifices to the gods” centuries before 450 B.C.E. Can that not occur with the Israelites? One could compile a long list of priestly and religious texts from the 13th-9th century B.C.E. rebutting this assumption of 450 B.C.E. Professor William Henry Green of Princeton Seminary did exactly that--offering at least 300 such references written in the 13th-9th centuries and referring to Moses’ writings…long before 450 B.C.E. (Green 34ff.) In fact, Green buried this dubious assumption in 1895 and 1896 C.E.

A third gratuitous assumption—heard less and less these days—was that Moses and associates were not literate. While we do not have authoritative sources immediately at hand, this scribe has heard it in years past. Also, Professor William F. Albright, America’s premier “Father and Dean of Archaeology” at John Hopkins University, the doctoral mentor of my Professor of Hebrew, Dr. Milton Fisher, insisted that the Graf-Wellhausians were dominated by their assumptions, rigidity and intransigent defiance to abundant archaeological data. According to Dr. Fisher, Professor Albright constantly complained about Graf-Wellhausians “sweeping the evidence under the rug” in the interests of a theory and philosophy. Just on the assumption of divine names alone as a criterion, Professor Albright said this was “completely absurd” (Albright 29). When related to Moses’ literacy, surrounding nations had literate scribes. Why must one assume that Moses was not literate? For example, the ancient Sumerians (3000 B.C.E.) and Akkadians had scribes who wrote wisdom proverbs as a means of teaching both wisdom, but also as a method to learning a second language (Tulloch 330). The 15th-14th century Hittites, Babylonians and Egyptians had “polyglot” dictionaries in “parallel” columns for reasons of international diplomacy and translation of treatises. Under-privileged Semitic miners at the turquoise mines in the Sinai Peninsula “were scrawling their alphabetic inscriptions as early as 1500 B.C., if not earlier” (Archer 96). The Egyptian scribes, c. 1000 B.C.E., were trained in Pharaoh’s court (as was Moses) and used the “Instruction of Amen-em-opet,” a manual to teach youth morals (Tulloch 330). Many surrounding cultures had literate scribes, so why would one gratuitously assume illiteracy, ignoring “the cumulative evidence that the Hebrews were a highly literate people from the times of Moses onwards”? (Archer 96) These are a few examples of objections to another dubious assumption.

A fourth assumption will be dispatched quickly, namely, that allegedly differing styles characterize the four alleged sources. This is more circular reasoning and question begging. Here is how the argument runs. (1) Genesis contains narrative and not legal materials. (2) Leviticus contains legal and religious materials but little narrative. (3) Ergo, given these differences, there are two sources. The scholar gets what he wants—confirmation of his assumption by repeating it with a conclusion. We offer one rebuttal, although more have been crafted. John Milton, the 17th century English poet and polemicist, wrote a cheerful poem entitled, L’Allegro. He wrote the Paradise Lost, a serious epic poem whose subject and style differed from L’Allegro. He also wrote the Aeropagita, a work full of prose essays. All three had different subjects and styles. By parallel reasoning, were there three different Miltons? M1, M2, and M3? On Graf-Wellhausian assumptions, there would need to be several Miltons. This fourth assumption, dubious as it is, is dispatched quickly without further ado.

Excessive Credulity. Graf-Wellhausen has suffered from excessive credulity—to the
point that its own adherents are dismissing or re-working it. Several quotes will be listed from
critics who find the theory “extravagant,” a theory for the “credulous, and a theory full of
circular reasons and question begging. Unlike the 100-year past with the frequent, if not
triumphalist, assurances that JEDP was “an assured result of scholarship,” one writer speaks of the modern relinquishment of the earlier claims to scientific methodology:

"The mid-1980s and the early 1990s witnessed a resurgence of biblical scholars challenging, revising, and even rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis. First and foremost, scholars relinquished claims to a scientific methodology." (Stern 182)

The same writer, Dr. Stern, quotes another scholar, Dr. Tigay, regarding the “notorious subjectivity” of Graf-Wellhausen, what we term “excessive credulity” without warrant or evidence. He says,

"In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Jeffery Tigay insists that "The degree of subjectivity which such hypothetical [source critical] procedures permit is notorious." In fact, he characterizes these procedures as `reading between the lines.'" (Stern 182)

We repeat Dr. Tulloch’s gentle, but unexplained, concession-speech about Graf-Wellhausen— credulity. This scribe views credulity as the unspoken subtext Dr. Tulloch’s comment. We might employ the metaphor of historic beach erosion over time for the disappearance of Graf-Wellhausen, although Dr. Tulloch is kinder when he says:

“A marked shift in emphasis has occurred in Old Testament studies in recent years. There has been a movement away from examining the pieces that make up the literature to examining the finished product” (Tulloch 15).

Another OT scholar offers this unflattering description of Graf-Wellhausen:

"This review of the activity in the field of Old Testament criticism during the last quarter-century has revealed a chaos of conflicting trends, ending in contradictory results, which create an impression of ineffectiveness in this type of research. The conclusion seems unavoidable that the higher criticism has long since passed the age of constructive achievement.” (Hahn, 41)
Dr. Gleason Archer offers this excoriating summary of Graf-Wellhausen (AKA “Credulity Theory of 100 Years”) when he says:

“Almost every supporting pillar has been shaken and shattered by a generation of scholars who were brought up on the Graf-Wellhausen system and yet have found it inadequate to explain the data of the Pentateuch…They have undermined the defenses and torn down the bastion which buttressed the documentary hypothesis, but they have gravitated quite definitely into an even more implausible position than that occupied by their predecessors…the Hebrews never got around to inscripturating the records of their faith until 500 B.C. or later. It requires a tremendous willingness to believe the unlikely for an investigator to come up with a conclusion like that" (Archer 104).

In short, Graf-Wellhausen has disappeared because the credulity of its earlier chieftains and advocates has been explored and exposed.

A Few Objections. First, given the dominance of this theory over the last 100 years, upon what grounds is it dismissed? Answer: the onus probandi rests with the defenders of Graf-Wellhausen and this theory has suffered a chaotic history with dubious assumptions and with credible scholars debunking the credulity. It’s own advocates have abandoned the theory, or at least, have reworked it with further problems. Second objection: Medical Doctors need an M.D. and a state license. Airline pilots require training. Lawyers are required to pass a bar exam. By what stroke do you think you— without a doctorate in OT—think you can deconstruct Graf-Wellhausen. Answer: we concur with the objection, although serious doctors in the OT have taken up the attacks, including adherents of Graf-Wellhausen. Conceding this objection, the studies must continue. Third objection, how to you account for the widespread dominance of Graf-Wellhausen? Answer: This a a commendable, if not difficult, objection. Although we lack graduate and doctoral credentials in sociology, e.g. "elite theory," and social psychology, we post that perhaps 100 elites in Germany and England--pre-internet days--were able to dominate influential instititutions. While the objection has force, we still are left with a gaggle of OT scholars abandoning the theory over the last generation. Pray tell, why? Having noted these three suggested objections, the onus of proof still rests with the Documentarians—and from what we have seen, they have been abandoning the hypothesis for the last thirty years. A reasonable person asks “Why?” Three reasons have been posited.

Confused like Rowan in Canterbury?

Rowan is consistently confused with Hegelian tensions between his accomodating ears, so we look for no help from him. The shocked eyes and fly-away eyebrows best represents CANTAUR's confused responses to Graf-Wellhausen (and many other issues). We view Rowan as our mascot of perennial confusion.

Although not an Old Testament scholar myself, the frequent hints, one-liners (without explanation), isolated paragraphs here and there, and other concessions raised the question. What has become of the Documentary or Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis? Why has it all but disappeared? The impetus to this argument was to collect some of the reasons for the death, disappearance and/or retreat of this theory. Upon review, the situation is worse than previously imagined, although few celebrate the history of chaos and confusion, the history of dubious assumptions, and the evident credulity. In fact, documentarians appear to have presided at the funeral and have uttered, “Requiescat in pace,” or, “Rest in peace.” The Graf-Wellhausen Theory is full of historic, special pleading with chaos as the common theme. It possesses numerous assumptions that are begged and circular in nature. The theory operates with questionable deductions from those assumptions. An excessive credulity has existed as 19th-20th century scholars, living more than 3400 years after Moses, have assumed that they can reliably reconstruct the 15th century B.C.E.—they assume they can do that better than even the redactors themselves who, on Documentary terms, lived 500 to 1000 years after Moses. Dr. William Green of old Princeton summarized it: “…extravagant theorizing…revolutionary conclusions…a dubious scientific respectability.” (Green v.)

Doctors Graf and Wellhausen, your Documentarian children have buried you both saying: “Requiescant in pace.” The theory still demands more reasons to explain its demise—this represents but a mere beginning.

Works Cited

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1977. Print.

Albright, William. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1968. Print.

Green, William Henry. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York: Charles Scribners and Sons, 1895. Print.

Hahn, H.F. The Old Testament in Modern Research. Norwick, UK: S.C.M. Press, 1956. Print.

Sommer, Benjamin, review of Benjamin Sommer, review of Ernest Nicholson’s “The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen,” Review of Biblical
Literature, 30 September 2000. Web. 2 Dec. 2010.

Stern, David. "RECENT TRENDS IN BIBLICAL SOURCE CRITICISM. (Cover story)."
Jewish Bible Quarterly 36.3 (2008): 182-186. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.
9 Dec. 2010.

Sproul, R.C., ed. The New Geneva Study Bible. London: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995. Print.

Tulloch, John H, and Mark McEntire. The Old Testament Story. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson-
Prentiss Hall, 2009. Print.

Necessary Doctrine - The Anglo-Reformed Movement

We continue to be pleasantly pleased with the posts at Anglo-Reformed. A fellow-voice in this forlorn Babylonian Captivity. We recommend High Church Anglicans (= High Theology)to line with Anglo-Reformed.

Necessary Doctrine - The Anglo-Reformed Movement

Necessary Doctrine

by Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)




To know how we obtain our justification, it is expedient to consider, first, how naughty and sinful we are all, that be of Adam's kindred; and contrariwise, what mercifulness is in God, which to all faithful and penitent sinners pardoneth all their offences for Christ's sake. Of these two things no man is lightly ignorant that ever hath heard of the fall of Adam, which was to the infection of all his posterity; and again, of the inexplicable mercy of our heavenly Father, which sent his only begotten Son to suffer his most grievous passion for us, and shed his most precious blood, the price of our redemption. But it is greatly to be wished and desired, that as all Christian men do know the same, so that every man might acknowledge and undoubtedly believe the same to be true and verified, even upon himself; so that both he may humble himself to God and knowledge himself a miserable sinner not worthy to be called his son; and yet surely trust, that to him being repentant God's mercy is ready to forgive. And he that seeth not these two things verified in himself, can take no manner of emolument and profit by acknowledging and believing these things to be verified in others. But we cannot satisfy our minds or settle our conscience that these things are true, saving that we do evidently see that God's word so teacheth us.

The commandments of God lay our faults before our eyes, which putteth us in fear and dread, and maketh us see the wrath of God against our sins, as St. Paul saith, Per legem agnitio peccati, et, Lex iram operatur, and maketh us sorry and repentant, that ever we should come into the displeasure of God, and the captivity of the Devil. The gracious promises of God by the mediation of Christ showeth us, (and that to our great relief and comfort,) whensoever we be repentant...we have forgiveness of our sins, [are] reconciled to God, and accepted, and reputed just and righteous in his sight, only by his grace and mercy, which he doth grant and give unto us for his dearly beloved Son's sake, Jesus Christ; who paid a sufficient ransom for our sins; whose blood doth wash away the same; whose bitter and grievous passion is the only pacifying oblation, that putteth away from us the wrath of God his Father; whose sanctified body offered on the cross is the only sacrifice of sweet and pleasant savour, as St. Paul saith: that is to say, of such sweetness and pleasantness to the Father, that for the same he accepteth and reputeth of like sweetness all them that the same offering doth serve for.

These benefits of God with innumerable other, whosoever expendeth, and well pondereth in his heart, and thereby conceiveth a firm trust and feeling of God's mercy, whereof springeth in his heart a warm love and fervent heat of zeal towards God, it is not possible but that he shall fall to work, and be ready to the performance of all such works as he knoweth to be acceptable unto God. And these works only which follow our justification, do please God; for so much as they proceed from an heart endued with pure faith and love to God. But the works which we do before our justification, be not allowed and accepted before God, although they appear never so good and glorious in the sight of man. For after our justification only begin we to work as the law of God requireth. Then we shall do all good works willingly, although not so exactly as the law requireth by mean of infirmity of the flesh. Nevertheless, by the merit and benefit of Christ, we being sorry that we cannot do all things no more exquisitely and duly, all our works shall be accepted and taken of God, as most exquisite, pure, and perfect.

Now they that think they may come to justification by performance of the law, by their own deeds and merits, or by any other mean than is above rehearsed, they go from Christ, they renounce his grace: Evacuati estis a Christo, saith St. Paul, Gal. v.,quicunque, in lege, judificamini, a gratia excidistis. They be not partakers of the justice, that he hath procured, or the merciful benefits that be given by him. For St. Paul saith a general rule for all them that will seek such by-paths to obtain justification; those, saith he, which will not knowledge the justness or righteousness which cometh by God, but go about to advance their own righteousness, shall never come to that righteousness which we have by God (Rom. 10:1-4); which is the righteousness of Christ: by whom only all the saints in heaven, and all other that have been saved, have been reputed righteous, and justified. So that to Christ our only Saviour and Redeemer, on whose righteousness both their and our justification doth depend, is to be transcribed all the glory thereof.

What does it mean to be a “Reformed” Christian? (Part I) « Awakening Grace

By an Anglican? How very odd, although am thankful.

What does it mean to be a “Reformed” Christian? (Part I) « Awakening Grace

2011 Westminster Seminary Conference: Christianity and Liberalism Revisited « Heidelblog

2011 Westminster Seminary Conference: Christianity and Liberalism Revisited « Heidelblog

This year’s speakers and topics:

•Mike Horton, “Christianity and Liberalism Today”
•Darryl Hart, “The Perennial Machen”
•Joel Kim, “Machen and the Bible”
•John Fesko, “Machen and the Gospel”
•David VanDrunen, “Machen and Ethics”
•Bob Godfrey, “Machen, Christianity, and the Church”

Letter from a Calvinistic Anglican, Whitefield, to Mr. Wesley, the Arminian Loon and Proud Rebel to His Majesty

Reformation Files

Bethesda in Georgia, Dec. 24, 1740

Reverend and very dear Brother,

God only knows what unspeakable sorrow of heart I have felt on your account since I left England last. Whether it be my infirmity or not, I frankly confess, that Jonah could not go with more reluctance against Nineveh, than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had rather die than do it; and yet if I am faithful to God, and to my own and others' souls, I must not stand neutral any longer. I am very apprehensive that our common adversaries will rejoice to see us differing among ourselves. But what can I say? The children of God are in danger of falling into error. Nay, numbers have been misled, whom God has been pleased to work upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling aloud upon me to show also my opinion. I must then show that I know no man after the flesh, and that I have no respect to persons, any further than is consistent with my duty to my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

This letter, no doubt, will lose me many friends: and for this cause perhaps God has laid this difficult task upon me, even to see whether I am willing to forsake all for him, or not. From such considerations as these, I think it my duty to bear an humble testimony, and earnestly to plead for the truths which, I am convinced, are clearly revealed in the Word of God. In the defence whereof I must use great plainness of speech, and treat my dearest friends upon earth with the greatest simplicity, faithfulness, and freedom, leaving the consequences of all to God.

For some time before, and especially since my last departure from England, both in public and private, by preaching and printing, you have been propagating the doctrine of universal redemption. And when I remember how Paul reproved Peter for his dissimulation, I fear I have been sinfully silent too long. O then be not angry with me, dear and honoured Sir, if now I deliver my soul, by telling you that I think in this you greatly err.

'Tis not my design to enter into a long debate on God's decrees. I refer you to Dr. Edwards his Veritas Redux, which, I think is unanswerable—except in a certain point, concerning a middle sort between elect and reprobate, which he himself in effect afterwards condemns.

I shall only make a few remarks upon your sermon, entitled Free Grace. And before I enter upon the discourse itself, give me leave to take a little notice of what in your Preface you term an indispensable obligation to make it public to all the world. I must own, that I always thought you were quite mistaken upon that head.

The case (you know) stands thus: When you were at Bristol, I think you received a letter from a private hand, charging you with not preaching the gospel, because you did not preach up election. Upon this you drew a lot: the answer was "preach and print." I have often questioned, as I do now, whether in so doing, you did not tempt the Lord. A due exercise of religious prudence, without [the drawing of] a lot, would have directed you in that matter. Besides, I never heard that you enquired of God, whether or not election was a gospel doctrine.

But, I fear, taking it for granted [that election was not a biblical truth], you only enquired whether you should be silent or preach and print against it.

However this be, the lot came out "preach and print"; accordingly you preached and printed against election. At my desire, you suppressed the publishing of the sermon whilst I was in England; but you soon sent it into the world after my departure. O that you had kept it in! However, if that sermon was printed in answer to a lot, I am apt to think, one reason why God should so suffer you to be deceived, was, that hereby a special obligation might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the Scripture doctrine of election, that thus the Lord might give me a fresh opportunity of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be true to his cause or not; as you could not but grant, he did once before, by giving you such another lot at Deal.

The morning I sailed from Deal for Gibraltar [2 February 1738], you arrived from Georgia. Instead of giving me an opportunity to converse with you, though the ship was not far off the shore, you drew a lot, and immediately set forward to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect: "When I saw [that] God, by the wind which was carrying you out, brought me in, I asked counsel of God. His answer you have enclosed." This was a piece of paper, in which were written these words, "Let him return to London."

When I received this, I was somewhat surprised. Here was a good man telling me he had cast a lot, and that God would have me return to London. On the other hand, I knew my call was to Georgia, and that I had taken leave of London, and could not justly go from the soldiers, who were committed to my charge. I betook myself with a friend to prayer. That passage in 1 Kings 13 was powerfully impressed upon my soul, where we are told that the Prophet was slain by a lion when he was tempted to go back (contrary to God's express order) upon another Prophet's telling him God would have him do so. I wrote you word that I could not return to London. We sailed immediately.

Some months after, I received a letter from you at Georgia, wherein you wrote words to this effect: "Though God never before gave me a wrong lot, yet, perhaps, he suffered me to have such a lot at that time, to try what was in your heart." I should never have published this private transaction to the world, did not the glory of God call me to it. It is plain you had a wrong lot given you here, and justly, because you tempted God in drawing one. And thus I believe it is in the present case. And if so, let not the children of God who are mine and your intimate friends, and also advocates for universal redemption, think that doctrine true—because you preached it up in compliance with a lot given out from God.

This, I think, may serve as an answer to that part of the Preface to your printed sermon, wherein you say, "Nothing but the strongest conviction, not only that what is here advanced is the truth as it is in Jesus, but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare this truth to all the world." That you believe what you have written to be truth, and that you honestly aim at God's glory in writing, I do not in the least doubt. But then, honoured Sir, I cannot but think you have been much mistaken in imagining that your tempting God, by casting a lot in the manner you did could lay you under an indispensable obligation to any action, much less to publish your sermon against the doctrine of predestination to life.

I must next observe, that as you have been unhappy in printing at all upon such an imaginary warrant, so you have been as unhappy in the choice of your text. Honoured Sir, how could it enter into your heart to choose a text to disprove the doctrine of election out of Romans 8, where this doctrine is so plainly asserted? Once I spoke with a Quaker upon this subject, and he had no other way of evading the force of the Apostle's assertion than by saying, "I believe Paul was in the wrong." And another friend lately, who was once highly prejudiced against election, ingenuously confessed that he used to think St. Paul himself was mistaken, or that he was not truly translated.

Indeed, honoured Sir, it is plain beyond all contradiction that St. Paul, through the whole of Romans 8, is speaking of the privileges of those only who are really in Christ. And let any unprejudiced person read what goes before and what follows your text, and he must confess the word "all" only signifies those that are in Christ. And the latter part of the text plainly proves, what, I find, dear Mr. Wesley will, by no means, grant. I mean the final perseverance of the children of God: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, [i.e., all Saints] how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32). [He shall give us] grace, in particular, to enable us to persevere, and every thing else necessary to carry us home to our Father's heavenly kingdom.

Had any one a mind to prove the doctrine of election, as well as of final perseverance, he could hardly wish for a text more fit for his purpose than that which you have chosen to disprove it! One who did not know you would suspect that you were aware of this, for after the first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have mentioned [the text] so much as once through your whole sermon.

But your discourse, in my opinion, is as little to the purpose as your text, and instead of warping, does but more and more confirm me in the belief of the doctrine of God's eternal election.

I shall not mention how illogically you have proceeded. Had you written clearly, you should first, honoured Sir, have proved your proposition: "God's grace is free to all." And then by way of inference [you might have] exclaimed against what you call the horrible decree. But you knew that people (because Arminianism, of late, has so much abounded among us) were generally prejudiced against the doctrine of reprobation, and therefore thought if you kept up their dislike of that, you could overthrow the doctrine of election entirely. For, without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together.

But passing by this, as also your equivocal definition of the word grace, and your false definition of the word free, and that I may be as short as possible, I frankly acknowledge: I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages.

This is the established doctrine of Scripture, and acknowledged as such in the 17th article of the Church of England, as Bishop Burnet himself confesses. Yet dear Mr. Wesley absolutely denies it.

But the most important objections you have urged against this doctrine as reasons why you reject it, being seriously considered, and faithfully tried by the Word of God, will appear to be of no force at all. Let the matter be humbly and calmly reviewed, as to the following heads:

First, you say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9.

O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning—or rather sophistry—is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?

Second, you say that the doctrine of election and reprobation directly tends to destroy holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances of God. For (says the dear mistaken Mr. Wesley) "it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture. The hope of future reward, and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven, and the fear of hell, et cetera."

I thought that one who carries perfection to such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, would know that a true lover of the Lord Jesus Christ would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy, and work for Christ out of love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, dear Sir, what Scougal says, "Love's a more powerful motive that does them move." But passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a Christian may be honestly stirred up to act for God, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and cause them to persevere in working for Jesus Christ? And how does the doctrine of election destroy holiness? Who ever preached any other election than what the Apostle preached, when he said, "Chosen . . . through sanctification of the Spirit?" (2 Thess. 2:13). Nay, is not holiness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how then can the doctrine of election destroy holiness?

The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. For you say, "If a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable to take any physic at all." Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Were you ever sick in your life? If so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was unalterably fixed that you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know but that very physic might be the means God intended to recover you by?

Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed (one may say) that I must be damned or saved; but since I know not which for a certainty, why should I not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means God has intended to bless, in order to bring me into a state of grace?

Dear Sir, consider these things. Make an impartial application, and then judge what little reason you had to conclude the 10th paragraph, page 12, with these words: "So directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat."

"As directly," you say, "does the doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, et cetera." I shall say little, dear Sir, in answer to this paragraph. Dear Mr. Wesley perhaps has been disputing with some warm narrow-spirited men that held election, and then he infers that their warmth and narrowness of spirit was owing to their principles? But does not dear Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God, who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender- hearted, kind, of a catholic spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And why? because they know God saved themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those who now seem to be the most abandoned.

But, dear Sir, we must not judge of the truth of principles in general, nor of this of election in particular, entirely from the practice of some that profess to hold them. If so, I am sure much might be said against your own. For I appeal to your own heart, whether or not you have not felt in yourself, or observed in others, a narrow-spiritedness, and some disunion of soul respecting those that hold universal redemption. If so, then according to your own rule, universal redemption is wrong, because it destroys several branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, et cetera. But not to insist upon this, I beg you would observe that your inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle's argument, and the language which he expressly uses in Colossians 3:12-13: "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."

Here we see that the Apostle exhorts them to put on bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, et cetera, upon this consideration: namely, because they were elect of God. And all who have experientially felt this doctrine in their hearts feel that these graces are the genuine effects of their being elected of God.

But perhaps dear Mr. Wesley may be mistaken in this point, and call that passion which is only zeal for God's truths. You know, dear Sir, the Apostle exhorts us to "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Therefore you must not condemn all that appear zealous for the doctrine of election as narrow-spirited, or persecutors, just because they think it their duty to oppose you. I am sure, I love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, and think I could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear Sir, I cannot help strenuously opposing your errors upon this important subject, because I think you warmly, though not designedly, oppose the truth, as it is in Jesus. May the Lord remove the scales of prejudice from off the eyes of your mind and give you a zeal according to true Christian knowledge!

Third, says your sermon, "This doctrine tends to destroy the comforts of religion, the happiness of Christianity, et cetera."

But how does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed election? I believe they who have experienced it will agree with our 17th article, that "the godly consideration of predestination, and election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing their minds to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God," et cetera.

This plainly shows that our godly reformers did not think election destroyed holiness or the comforts of religion. As for my own part, this doctrine is my daily support. I should utterly sink under a dread of my impending trials, were I not firmly persuaded that God has chosen me in Christ from before the foundation of the world, and that now being effectually called, he will allow no one to pluck me out of his almighty hand.

You proceed thus: "This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobate, or only suspect or fear it; all the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort."

In answer to this, let me observe that none living, especially none who are desirous of salvation, can know that they are not of the number of God's elect. None but the unconverted, can have any just reason so much as to fear it. And would dear Mr. Wesley give comfort, or dare you apply the precious promises of the gospel, being children's bread, to men in a natural state, while they continue so? God forbid! What if the doctrine of election and reprobation does put some upon doubting? So does that of regeneration. But, is not this doubting a good means to put them upon searching and striving; and that striving, a good means to make their calling and their election sure?

This is one reason among many others why I admire the doctrine of election and am convinced that it should have a place in gospel ministrations and should be insisted on with faithfulness and care. It has a natural tendency to rouse the soul out of its carnal security. And therefore many carnal men cry out against it. Whereas universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul in its lethargic sleepy condition, and therefore so many natural men admire and applaud it.

Your 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs come next to be considered. "The witness of the Spirit," you say, "experience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine."

But, dear Sir, whose experience? Not your own; for in your journal, from your embarking for Georgia, to your return to London, you seem to acknowledge that you have it not, and therefore you are no competent judge in this matter. You must mean then the experience of others. For you say in the same paragraph, "Even in those who have tasted of that good gift, who yet have soon lost it again," (I suppose you mean lost the sense of it again) "and fallen back into doubts and fears and darkness, even horrible darkness that might be felt, et cetera." Now, as to the darkness of desertion, was not this the case of Jesus Christ himself, after he had received an unmeasurable unction of the Holy Ghost? Was not his soul exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, in the garden? And was he not surrounded with an horrible darkness, even a darkness that might be felt, when on the cross he cried out, "My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?"

And that all his followers are liable to the same, is it not evident from Scripture? For, says the Apostle, "He was tempted in all things like as we are" (Heb 4:15) so that he himself might be able to succour those that are tempted (Heb. 2:18). And is not their liableness thereunto consistent with that conformity to him in suffering, which his members are to bear (Phil. 3:10)? Why then should persons falling into darkness, after they have received the witness of the Spirit, be any argument against the doctrine of election?

"Yet," you say, "many, very many of those that hold it not, in all parts of the earth, have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of the Spirit, the continual light of God's countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many months or years, to this very day." But how does dear Mr. Wesley know this? Has he consulted the experience of many, very many in all parts of the earth? Or could he be sure of what he hath advanced without sufficient grounds, would it follow that their being kept in this light is owing to their not believing the doctrine of election? No, this [doctrine], according to the sentiments of our church, "greatly confirms and establishes a true Christian's faith of eternal salvation through Christ," and is an anchor of hope, both sure and steadfast, when he walks in darkness and sees no light; as certainly he may, even after he hath received the witness of the Spirit, whatever you or others may unadvisedly assert to the contrary.

Then, to have respect to God's everlasting covenant, and to throw himself upon the free distinguishing love of that God who changeth not, will make him lift up the hands that hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.

But without the belief of the doctrine of election, and the immutability of the free love of God, I cannot see how it is possible that any should have a comfortable assurance of eternal salvation. What could it signify to a man whose conscience is thoroughly awakened, and who is warned in good earnest to seek deliverance from the wrath to come, though he should be assured that all his past sins be forgiven, and that he is now a child of God; if notwithstanding this, he may hereafter become a child of the devil, and be cast into hell at last? Could such an assurance yield any solid, lasting comfort to a person convinced of the corruption and treachery of his own heart, and of the malice, subtlety, and power of Satan? No! That which alone deserves the name of a full assurance of faith is such an assurance as emboldens the believer, under the sense of his interest in distinguishing love, to give the challenge to all his adversaries, whether men or devils, and that with regard to all their future, as well as present, attempts to destroy—saying with the Apostle,

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:33-39).

This, dear Sir, is the triumphant language of every soul that has attained a full assurance of faith. And this assurance can only arise from a belief of God's electing everlasting love. That many have an assurance they are in Christ today, but take no thought for, or are not assured they shall be in him tomorrow—nay to all eternity—is rather their imperfection and unhappiness than their privilege. I pray God to bring all such to a sense of his eternal love, that they may no longer build upon their own faithfulness, but on the unchangeableness of that God whose gifts and callings are without repentance. For those whom God has once justified, he also will glorify.

I observed before, dear Sir, it is not always a safe rule to judge of the truth of principles from people's practice. And therefore, supposing that all who hold universal redemption in your way of explaining it, after they received faith, enjoyed the continual uninterrupted sight of God's countenance, it does not follow that this is a fruit of their principle. For that I am sure has a natural tendency to keep the soul in darkness for ever, because the creature thereby is taught that his being kept in a state of salvation is owing to his own free will. And what a sandy foundation is that for a poor creature to build his hopes of perseverance upon? Every relapse into sin, every surprise by temptation, must throw him "into doubts and fears, into horrible darkness, even darkness that may be felt."

Hence it is that the letters which have been lately sent me by those who hold universal redemption are dead and lifeless, dry and inconsistent, in comparison of those I receive from persons on the contrary side. Those who settle in the universal scheme, though they might begin in the Spirit, (whatever they may say to the contrary) are ending in the flesh, and building up a righteousness founded on their own free will: whilst the others triumph in hope of the glory of God, and build upon God's never-failing promise and unchangeable love, even when his sensible presence is withdrawn from them.

But I would not judge of the truth of election by the experience of any particular persons: if I did (O bear with me in this foolishness of boasting) I think I myself might glory in election. For these five or six years I have received the witness of God's Spirit; since that, blessed be God, I have not doubted a quarter of an hour of a saving interest in Jesus Christ: but with grief and humble shame I do acknowledge, I have fallen into sin often since that. Though I do not—dare not—allow of any one transgression, yet hitherto I have not been (nor do I expect that while I am in this present world I ever shall be) able to live one day perfectly free from all defects and sin. And since the Scriptures declare that there is not a just man upon earth (no, not among those of the highest attainments in grace) that doeth good and sinneth not (Eccl. 7:20), we are sure that this will be the case of all the children of God.

The universal experience and acknowledgement of this among the godly in every age is abundantly sufficient to confute the error of those who hold in an absolute sense that after a man is born again he cannot commit sin. Especially since the Holy Spirit condemns the persons who say they have no sin as deceiving themselves, as being destitute of the truth, and as making God a liar (1 Jn. 1:8, 10). I have been also in heaviness through manifold temptations, and expect to be often so before I die. Thus were the Apostles and primitive Christians themselves. Thus was Luther, that man of God, who, as far as I can find, did not peremptorily, at least, hold election; and the great John Arndt was in the utmost perplexity, but a quarter of an hour before he died, and yet he was no predestinarian.

And if I must speak freely, I believe your fighting so strenuously against the doctrine of election and pleading so vehemently for a sinless perfection are among the reasons or culpable causes, why you are kept out of the liberties of the gospel, and from that full assurance of faith which they enjoy, who have experimentally tasted, and daily feed upon God's electing, everlasting love.

But perhaps you may say, that Luther and Arndt were no Christians, at least very weak ones. I know you think meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend of God: and, I believe, also of David, the man after God's own heart. No wonder, therefore, that in a letter you sent me not long since, you should tell me that no Baptist or Presbyterian writer whom you have read knew anything of the liberties of Christ. What? Neither Bunyan, Henry, Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England and Scots divines? See, dear Sir, what narrow-spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles, and then do not cry out against election any more on account of its being "destructive of meekness and love."

Fourth, I shall now proceed to another head. Says the dear Mr. Wesley, "How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings?"

But who ever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings? Do not they who believe God's dooming men to everlasting burnings, also believe, that God looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the decree which ordained the punishment first regarded the crime by which it was deserved? How then are they doomed without any preceding fault? Surely Mr. Wesley will own God's justice in imputing Adam's sin to his posterity. And also, after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, God might justly have passed them all by, without sending his own Son to be a saviour for any one. Unless you heartily agree to both these points, you do not believe original sin aright. If you do own them, then you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reprobation to be highly just and reasonable. For if God might justly impute Adam's sin to all, and afterwards have passed by all, then he might justly pass by some. Turn on the right hand, or on the left; you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma. And, if you would be consistent, you must either give up the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin, or receive the amiable doctrine of election, with a holy and righteous reprobation as its consequent. For whether you can believe it or not, the Word of God abides faithful: "The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7).

Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass over. What has been said on the 9th and 10th paragraphs, with a little alteration, will answer it. I shall only say, it is the doctrine of election that most presses me to abound in good works. I am willing to suffer all things for the elect's sake. This makes me to preach with comfort, because I know salvation does not depend on man's free will, but the Lord makes willing in the day of his power, and can make use of me to bring some of his elect home, when and where he pleases.

But, Fifth, you say, "This doctrine has a direct manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian religion. For," say you, "supposing that eternal, unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian revelation were not in being."

But, dear Sir, how does that follow? Since it is only by the Christian revelation that we are acquainted with God's design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is settled in the everlasting covenant that this salvation shall be applied to the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. As the prophet says in Isaiah 53:11, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." How then has the doctrine of election a direct tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation? Who ever thought that God's declaration to Noah, that seed-time and harvest should never cease, could afford an argument for the neglect of plowing or sowing? Or that the unchangeable purpose of God, that harvest should not fail, rendered the heat of the sun, or the influence of the heavenly bodies unnecessary to produce it? No more does God's absolute purpose of saving his chosen preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through which he has determined the decree shall take effect. Nor will the right understanding, or the reverent belief of God's decree, ever allow or suffer a Christian in any case to separate the means from the end, or the end from the means.

And since we are taught by the revelation itself that this was intended and given by God as a means of bringing home his elect, we therefore receive it with joy, prize it highly, use it in faith, and endeavour to spread it through all the world, in the full assurance, that wherever God sends it, sooner or later, it shall be savingly useful to all the elect within its call.

How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join with modern unbelievers in making the Christian revelation unnecessary? No, dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Deists, Arians, and Socinians arraign God's sovereignty and stand up for universal redemption. I pray God that dear Mr. Wesley's sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of God's children, may not also strengthen the hands of many of his most avowed enemies!

Here I could almost lie down and weep. "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph" (2 Sam. 1:20).

Further, you say, "This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance, say you, "The assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that God, in a literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!" And, when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not objects of his hatred? And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show mercy to Jacob and the elect—and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, "God is love." And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same mercy to all?

Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, "They infer from that text, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,' that God is merciful only to some men, viz the elect; and that he has mercy for those only, flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, 'The Lord is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works.'"

And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good. But you say, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). No! For every one, whether Jew or Gentile, that believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. "But he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16). For God is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so. But as the sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of Scripture, where he says, "Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15, Exod. 33:19).

Further, from the text, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her [Rebekah], The elder shall serve the younger" (Rom. 9:11-12)—you represent us as inferring that our predestination to life in no way depends on the foreknowledge of God.

But who infers this, dear Sir? For if foreknowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of Scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on God's foreknowledge. But if by God's foreknowledge you understand God's fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of choosing them and therefore electing them, then we say that in this sense predestination does not any way depend on God's foreknowledge.

But I referred you, at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards's Veritas Redux, which I recommended to you also in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty. Be pleased to read these, and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper of Boston in New England (which I also sent you) and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered. Though I would observe, that after all our reading on both sides the question, we shall never in this life be able to search out God's decrees to perfection. No, we must humbly adore what we cannot comprehend, and with the great Apostle at the end of our enquiries cry out, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:33-34)—or with our Lord, when he was admiring God's sovereignty, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Matt. 11:26).

However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, "The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9) and "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11)—and such like—be taken in their strictest sense, then no one will be damned.

But here's the distinction. God taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed, that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve.

I would hint further, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as you do, "Christ not only died for those that are saved, but also for those that perish."

The text you have misapplied to gloss over this, see explained by Ridgely, Edwards, Henry; and I purposely omit answering your texts myself so that you may be brought to read such treatises, which, under God, would show you your error. You cannot make good the assertion that Christ died for them that perish without holding (as Peter Bohler, one of the Moravian brethren, in order to make out universal redemption, lately frankly confessed in a letter) that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell. I cannot think Mr. Wesley is thus minded. And yet unless this can be proved, universal redemption, taken in a literal sense, falls entirely to the ground. For how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?

Dear Sir, for Jesus Christ's sake, consider how you dishonour God by denying election. You plainly make salvation depend not on God's free grace, but on man's free-will. And if thus, it is more than probable, Jesus Christ would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be vain, and all invitations for people to believe in him would also be in vain.

But, blessed be God, our Lord knew for whom he died. There was an eternal compact between the Father and the Son. A certain number was then given him as the purchase and reward of his obedience and death. For these he prayed (Jn. 17:9), and not for the world. For these elect ones, and these only, he is now interceding, and with their salvation he will be fully satisfied.

I purposely omit making any further particular remarks on the several last pages of your sermon. Indeed had not your name, dear Sir, been prefixed to the sermon, I could not have been so uncharitable as to think you were the author of such sophistry. You beg the question, in saying that God has declared, (notwithstanding you own, I suppose, some will be damned) that he will save all— i.e., every individual person. You take it for granted (for solid proof you have none) that God is unjust, if he passes by any, and then you exclaim against the "horrible decree": and yet, as I before hinted, in holding the doctrine of original sin, you profess to believe that he might justly have passed by all.

Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ's sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man's salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it "Free Grace Indeed." Free, not because free to all; but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.

Till you do this, I must doubt whether or not you know yourself. In the meanwhile, I cannot but blame you for censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself by your principles, positively deny the 9th, 10th and 17th.

Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. God knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul.

There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.

But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the Lord should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,

Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ,

GEORGE WHITEFIELD

2K or Not 2K? That is the Question: A Review of David VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms by Keith Mathison | Ligonier Ministries Blog

2K or Not 2K? That is the Question: A Review of David VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms by Keith Mathison | Ligonier Ministries Blog

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Radio Times Advent message

The Archbishop of Canterbury - Radio Times Advent message

Radio Times Advent message
Tuesday 07 December 2010

The Archbishop has written an Advent message for Radio Times magazine

The full text of the message is below:

Travelling as Archbishop brings some pretty surreal moments at times; and the most surreal in my recent memory is from a trip to India in October. I was invited to give my solemn blessing to the kitchen staff of a hotel on the occasion of their starting to mix the batter for the Christmas cake. Along with a venerable Indian bishop, I dutifully poured honey into a trough of mixed fruit about the size of a snooker table, said prayers, shook hands and walked out into the tropical heat accompanied by a deafening blast of 'Jingle Bells' over the loudspeakers.

Christmas is one of the great European exports. You'll meet Santa Claus and his reindeer in Shanghai and Dar-es-Salaam; a long way from the North Pole. More seriously and less commercially, the story of the Nativity is loved even in non-Christian contexts (I discovered that one of the best and most sensitive recent film re-tellings of the story was one made by an Iranian Muslim company). The weary annual attempts by right-thinking people in Britain to ban or discourage Nativity plays or public carol-singing out of sensitivity to the supposed tender consciences of other religions fail to notice that most people of other religions and cultures both love the story and respect the message.

It isn't difficult to see why. For a start, the story is a compelling and dramatic one. A long journey through a land under military occupation; a difficult birth in improvised accommodation. And alongside these harsh realities, the skies torn open, and blazing angelic voices summoning a random assortment of farm labourers to go and worship in the outhouse; or a mysterious constellation in the heavens triggering a pilgrimage by exotic oriental gurus to come and kneel where the farm labourers have knelt.

The story says that something is happening that will break boundaries and cross frontiers, so that the most unlikely people will find they are looking for the same thing and recognise each other instead of fearing each other. There is something here that draws strangers together. It's what some of the old carols mean by talking about the 'desire of all nations' –as if what human beings really wanted was not revenge, endless cycles of miserable scoring off each other, but being able to stand together in shared astonishment and gratitude – held together not by plans and negotiations but by something quite outside the usual repertoire of human events. By something just inviting us to recognise we're loved – if we could only stop and see it.

The clutching hand of the baby is, for most of us, something we can't resist. The Christmas story outrageously suggests that putting our hand into the clutch of a baby may be the most important thing we can ever do as human beings – a real letting-go of aggression and fear and wanting to make an impression and whatever else is going on in us that keeps us tied up in our struggle and violence.

Even more outrageously, the story suggests that this particular baby, the one born in the outhouse, the one who is rescued at the last moment from a village massacre like the ones that happen so regularly in forgotten civil wars today in Congo or Sudan – this baby is the place where the power of the creator of the universe is completely present. And what on earth might it mean to say that the ultimate power in the universe is more like a baby clutching at us in blind trust than it's like the President's bullet-proof motorcade?

Well, all that is to go a bit beyond the story itself, of course. Christians believe it and not everyone else does. But it still ought to make us think. The fact that this story of defenceless love - even when it's wrapped up in all the bizarre fancy-dress of Christmas as it's developed over the centuries - touches something universal is at the very least a fact that should make us think twice about giving up on the human heart's capacity for goodness and faith, however deeply buried. One-horse open sleighs in South India may be surreal all right; but surreal things can connect us with some surprising realities.

Choral Evensong: Canterbury Cathedral (1 Dec 2010)

Original BBC link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w68h6

From Canterbury Cathedral (Approximately 1 hr, 10 mins). Delightful and familiar Anglican chant. Yet, where is that good old 1662 BCP? And, pray tell, no exposition of His Majesty's Word? And we are High Churchmen here, but this service needs work.



Introit: Drop down, ye heavens, from above (Richard Lloyd)
Responses: Sanders
Psalms: 6, 7, 8 (Stanford, Martin, Harris)
First Lesson: Isaiah 65 v17 - 66 v2
Hymn: The heavenly Word, proceeding forth (Verbum supernum prodiens)
Canticles: St Phillip's Canticles (Léon Charles)
Second Lesson: Matthew 24 vv1-14
Anthem: Vigilate (Byrd)
Hymn: Lo, he comes with clouds descending (Helmsley)
Organ Voluntary: Allegro from Symphony for Organ No 2 in E minor Op 20 (Vierne)
David Flood (Organist and Master of the Choristers)
Simon Lawford (Acting Assistant Organist).

Pearl Harbor Day (7 Dec 1941) WWII - Ep. 4 Act 1 - Japan Bombs Pearl Harbor

Lest we forget, this is Pearl Harbor Day. 7 Dec 1941, the "day of infamy."

Why Do We Confess “He Descended Into Hell”? « Heidelblog

Any sensible Churchman must routinely follow Dr. Clark's blog. It's a must for the discerning.

Why Do We Confess “He Descended Into Hell”? « Heidelblog

Arms of the angel Fallen hero's tribute

Review: Charles F. Raven, Shadow Gospel - Reformation21

This was a book review by Carl Trueman, WTS Philadelphia, who is quite good---when he sticks to his field of expertise, 17th century Puritans and general church history.

Review: Charles F. Raven, Shadow Gospel - Reformation21

Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis (Latimer Trust, 2010)

The Latimer Trust (www.latimertrust.org) has a long history of publishing some fine booklets on the history and theology of Reformed Anglicanism. Many of us outside the Anglican fold are grateful, both for the good literature it produces, and for the insights it gives us into how Reformed Anglicans are addressing the current issues which face their church.

The newest book to emerge from LT is Charles F. Raven, Shadow Gospel: Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis. In this work, Raven presents an account of the last decade or so of Anglican history, and weaves his narrative by connecting the theology of Rowan Williams to the policies he has pursued as Archbishop of Canterbury. He locates the central dynamic in this story as being the tension between pre-Canterbury Williams, the man who gave the pro-gay Anglican lobby its intellectual rationale and ballast, and Canterbury Williams, the man who has appeared (to his critics - both liberal and conservative) to have tried to follow something of a vacillating middle path in an attempt to hold the church together. Around this central narrative, Raven also offers insights into the growing numerical power of the conservative Anglican churches of the southern hemisphere, the massive financial power of the liberal ECUSA (now TEC), and the practical and structural realignments that are taking place within the Anglican church as a result of the inevitable struggles which such imbalances bring in their wake. At the end of the book, one is left with a picture of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a somewhat impotent and lonely figure, overtaken by events. I hate to feel pity for someone - it always seems so patronizing - but it is hard not to feel sorry for Williams the man by the end of this sorry tale. After all, he had the great misfortune to come to power just as the whole thing was starting to go south - both metaphorically and, in the case of Anglicanism, literally as well. Indeed, one can imagine him being asked by a reporter `You were big once, weren't you?' and him responding, in true Norma Desmond style `I am big! It's the parts that got small.'

The book is excellent and well worth reading for a number of reasons. First, Raven's account is fascinating in the way it connects Williams's theology to his policies as Archbishop, casting him not so much as a classic liberal as a neo-Hegelian, for whom the very process of institutional discussion, with the synthetic resolution of antithetical positions, is the hallmark of what it is to be orthodox. This is the `shadow gospel' of the title: a philosophy expressed using the language of orthodoxy, but which has no real gospel substance to it.

According to Raven, this is why Williams is able to distance his public action (highly equivocal, as in the case of Jeffrey John) on homosexuality from his private convictions (the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is legitimate). This is a fascinating thesis, but I did wonder at points if this was not an over-reading of Williams's actions.In a position of leadership in an institution that is racked by controversy and cracking at the seams, Williams has acted like the inexperienced politician-administrator that he is; and it might be pure crisis management pragmatism that has driven his policies. To lead is to choose; but Williams, according to this account, has seemed unwilling to do so at key moments. As far as the Hegelianism goes - we have no need of that hypothesis; bumbling pragmatics serve just as well.

Second, as an outsider to the Anglican church, I found the book enlightening in the remarkable way that Raven brought home the depth of the crisis which she faces. My Norma Desmond reference was entirely appropriate: Canterbury is slowly but surely losing control, being marginalized by a wealthy American church dominated by liberals, and southern hemisphere churches dominated by conservatives. Williams can soldier on, pretending that he carries weight in his denomination, but it is increasingly clear that neither left nor right either respect him or look to him for reliable leadership.

The book also provoked a number of questions in my mind. First, why is homosexuality the big issue? As Raven points out at several junctures, it is the issue around which the current crisis has coalesced; and homosexuality is in this context symptomatic of a much deeper crisis in the authority of scripture and its relationship to ecclesiology. Yet, as an outsider, it would seem that the ordination to office of men who deny cardinal doctrines of the faith, and even their consecration as bishops, would also represent precisely the same crises; and these have been happening for years, with no disciplinary action being taken. What makes homosexuality so special?

This then raises a second point: antipathy towards homosexuality is certainly consonant with biblical teaching; but just because something is consonant with biblical teaching does not mean that the reasons or motives which lie behind it are necessarily biblical. I went to a rugby-playing all-boys grammar school in England in the late 70s/early 80s. Anti-homosexual sentiment was rampant; but neither myself nor my friends were motivated by biblical ethics, merely by the anti-gay attitudes of the broader culture. The same kind of anti-homosexual sentiment is not uncommon in African cultures today (witness Mugabe's Zimbabwe; and recent events in Kenya). My question, then relates to the reasons why homosexuality has become the point of conflict in the Anglican communion, when, say, denial of the resurrection by office-bearers was not such. Is it really because it flies in the face of biblical teaching? Or is it because it is culturally distasteful, even as the idiom for expressing such distaste looks quite biblical? The agitation of the African bishops over this issue is clear from Raven's narrative, and we should be grateful that this has finally strengthened the resolve of British Anglicans to make a stand; but the one unexpected result of reading the book was that I was left wondering how truly biblical in motivation and content some of the conservatism from the southern hemisphere is. That, by the way, is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question.

Raven's book goes some way to answering the question as to why homosexuality is the watershed: clearly he and others regard this current debate as a decisive point because there are earnest attempts being made to change church law relative to this matter. In other words, the formal identity of the church as an institution is set to change. I have some sympathy with this argument; but I am still left wondering whether a church that has long since stopped prosecuting ministers for publicly rejecting the teaching of the 39 Articles, and has even promoted them to the highest positions of authority, has not functionally so reinterpreted its own laws as to have arguably changed a long, long time ago. If such is the case, then the debates on homosexuality are dangerously vulnerable to accusations of being motivated by selective orthodoxy and homophobia.

All in all, this book should be read by every thoughtful Christian who wants an intelligent insider account of what is happening in Anglicanism at this crucial time. As one with many friends inside the Anglican communion, I think that I now have a better understanding of what they are facing; and, even as I disagree with them on a host of important fronts, I am better equipped to pray more intelligently for them in the coming struggles.

For those who want a further critical handle on Rowan William's theology, you should obtain two other booklets from Latimer Trust: Garry Williams [no relation], The Theology of Rowan Williams; and Mark D. Thompson, Too Big for Words: The Transcendence of God and Finite Human Speech. We owe the Latimer Trust a great debt for making such consistently excellent material available.

KJB - The Book That Changed The World

KJB - The Book That Changed The World

The extraordinary story behind the most extraordinary of books.

Acclaimed actor John Rhys-Davies (Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones) leads us back into a darker time to discover this fascinating tale of saints and sinners, power and passion.

The greatest translation of the Bible emerged into a world and culture that would never be quite the same again.

King James Bible

THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE PART 1



THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE PART 2



THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE PART 3

King James Bible - The Indestructible Book part 2

King James Bible - The Indestructible Book part 1

KJB - The Book That Changed The World

Articles | The Sovereignty Of God | Phillip Jensen

Articles The Sovereignty Of God Phillip Jensen

The Sovereignty Of God

Adapted from the School of Christian Ministry.

Originally Published:
7th December 2010

Sovereignty = Kingship

Sovereignty is a word for kingship. God is King.

a. But what kind of King?

But what kind of King is God?To what extent is God the king in control of what happens? Is he a true king with absolute (total) power and authority over all that exists; dictating the events and course of history to and for his own purposes and ends? Or, is he a ruler like Queen Elizabeth II - a figurehead, a power and authority in name only, at the beck and call of all subjects, allowed only limited rights according to what the subjects allow? Or perhaps not quite as powerless as Queen Elizabeth II, more like a political leader - still a ruler but one who is often taken by surprise by the actions of his subjects and whose work therefore consists of making responses appropriate to decisions taken by people? Or, again, following another line of thought, is God a king who, having made certain decisions about the universe, is now an impassive, uninvolved observer of what goes on? There are other possibilities but those are sufficient to begin to spell out the issues involved concerning the nature/character of God's kingship.

b. Our view affects life.

How we view God's sovereignty will affect every aspect of our lives –

it will affect the way in which we relate to God;

our confidence in relationship to him;

our perspectives on life;

our understanding of purpose and whether all that is happening is to a plan;

how we pray;

our security;

our expectations of this world;

more importantly it reveals the extent to which we have come to grips with the God of the Bible.

Therefore, what view of the character of God's rule (sovereignty) does the Bible present?

Obviously this is no ‘Mickey Mouse’ topic that can be completely dealt with in the limits of this paper. However, there are some aspects of God's sovereignty that can be reasonably noted, as follows.

1. God is in complete control

a. Creator with purpose

The Bible sees God not just as the creator (Genesis 1, 2; Hebrews 11:3) but as the one who created with plan and purpose (I Peter 1:18-21; Colossians 1:15-20) and with the power and ability to implement His purposes (Isaiah 46:8-11).

b. Ruler of the nations

He is seen as being in control of the activities of nations (Deuteronomy 7:22-24; 9:4-5; Joshua 2:8-15; Isaiah 10:5-19) and even where people live (Acts 17:26, 27).

c. Jesus

The clearest evidence the Bible gives of God's control is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus comes as the fulfilment and completion of all that was promised in the Old Testament (Hebrews 1:1-3). The events of his life are frequently linked to the words of the prophets (Matthew 1:22; 2:5, 6, 14, 17; 3:3 ...); his arrest, trial and execution appear to bring the triumph of man and his plans. Yet Jesus is aware of God's control throughout (Matthew 26:3-5; 26:14-16; 26:20-24; 26:47-54; 27:41-44; Acts 4:25-30). His resurrection is a vindication of all his claims and a declaration of God's sovereignty. Everything has happened according to God's foreknowledge and control (Acts 2:22-24; 32-36) and it points to and gives notice of a day when God will end all things and require an account of all people (Acts 17:31; Heb 4:13).

2. God is involved in His creation.

a. Controlling the created order

The Bible regards God as the source of all good so that the joy and happiness we experience are from God (Psalm. 107; Acts 14:15-17); the food and clothing we have are God given (Matthew 6:25-32); and the rain that comes is from God. He is a Father who gives good gifts (Luke 11:11-13).

The Bible also sees God as withholding these benefits in order to cause people to question and change the way in which they are living - various plagues were sent upon the Egyptians to cause Pharaoh to set free the people of Israel (Exodus 7:1-5; 11:1; 13:14,15); drought and famine were the experience of the Northern kingdom of Israel when God called them to alter their ways and to return to Him as their Lord (Amos 4:6-10).

b. Jesus

Again, Jesus is the ultimate example of God's involvement - 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself ...... that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself...”. He came to give his life a ransom for many (Mk 10: 45) and Ephesians 2: 8, 9 declares that even our salvation has been totally the result of God's work - "by grace", "not from yourselves", "a gift", "not by anything we could do (works)", "we are God's workmanship".

3. God is working to a plan

a. Not haphazard

There is nothing haphazard about the events of this world; they are all under God's control. The world will end when God's plan is completed; our lives will end when God's plan for them is completed (Acts 13:36-41). This is not a world of chance and accident. It is a world of plan, purpose and order (Job 42:2; Psalm 135:6-7; Psalm 139:1 6; Psalm 147:4; 1 John 3:20; Ephesians 1:7-10; ICorinthians 15:20-26)

b. Not arbitrary

God’s exercise of rule isn’t arbitrary or fickle - his rule is good and just (Romans 2:2-11 and I Peter 1:17). God doesn't have favourites - all people irrespective of background, race, wrongdoing, are accepted by him if they turn to him.

c. Including the sinful human will

God’s plan includes the sinful human will. Though we rebel against God his plan expects, anticipates, includes and utilizes our sinful decisions. So the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord to turn it whatever way he pleases (Proverbs 21:1). This was seen in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21;7:3,13,22; 8:15,32; 9:12, 34-35: 10:1;14:8), in the crucifixion of Christ by sinful men (Acts 2:23, note use of ‘must’ and ‘will in Mark 8:31f; 9:31; 10:32-34; Luke 24:44-47) and in peoples’ response to the gospel (John 6:35-37,43-45; 2Thessalonians 2:9-12). Indeed it is God who ordains to eternal life (Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-7), opens the heart (Acts 16:14) to receive the gospel in repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18) and even faith as well as suffering (Philippians 1:29).

d. Including the supernatural realm

God's power and plans even extend into the supernatural realm where he is also sovereign. So while Ephesians 6:12 speaks of a supernatural battle there is little doubt as to who shall win (Luke 10:19; Romans 16:20; Revelation 12:7-11; 20:7-10). Even now Satan’s power is under God’s sovereignty (Job 2:1-6; Luke 4:5, 6; 1 Corinthians 10:13) and God uses Satan’s attacks to bring about his good purposes (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 12:7). Everything now is being subjected to Christ by God the Father, as the Son will ultimately place all things in subjection to his Father (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).

“Sweet, pleasant and unspeakable comfort”

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Anglicanism describe one aspect of the sovereignty of God viz. ‘Of Predestination and Election” as ‘full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort”. The view of God presented by the Bible takes from our lives uncertainty and insecurity, for he who is in control of all things is our loving father who works all things for our good. This God who controls everything from the stars (Psalm 147:4) to the sparrow (Matthew 10:29) and whose knowledge is pictured as so detailed that even the hairs on our heads are numbered (Matthew 10:30, 31) is a God upon whom we can learn to rely and in whom we can have complete confidence. There is no detail of our lives too small for his sovereignty; no want too large. It is by coming to know these things about God that we are able to relax in our relationship with him and to serve him without fear. Nowhere is this seen more than in the cross of our Lord and saviour – for if he is for us who can be against us (Romans 8:31-39).

Some helpful references are:

R.A. Finlayson: "God" article in New Bible Dictionar, I.V.P.

B. Milne: Know the Truth I.V.P.

J.I. Packer: Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, I.V.P.

J.I. Packer: Knowing God, Hodder & Stoughton

Even though I'm a Catholic, I'm celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible – Telegraph Blogs

Even though I'm a Catholic, I'm celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible – Telegraph Blogs

Celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible : News : King James Bible Trust

Celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible : News : King James Bible Trust

Phil's Treehouse: Minting the Word

Phil's Treehouse: Minting the Word

Owen - A Display of Arminianism

Owen - A Display of Arminianism

Online book for those who are "High Churchmen." (= "High Theology," not Anglo-Catholic, evangelical, charismatic, non-Confessional, non-liturgical and liberal "Low Churchmen.") Owen possesses the "high ground" on this issue.

8 Dec 1869- 18 July 1870: Vatican One

8 December 1869- 18 July 1870: Vatican One
Donald Philip Veitch

Vatican One began deliberations on 8 Dec 1869. On their view, Peter alone occupied the supreme and governing apostolic office. The apostolic foundation of the Church was laid for all time to come and the gates of Hell has not, cannot, and will not prevail against it--as founded in one superior apostle.

The New Testament is the infallible voice notwithstanding the Roman war dance to the contrary. There is not one example of the exercise of jurisdiction of Peter over other Apostles. Rather, we see the reverse.

Peter, himself, disowns and prophetically warns his fellow-presbyters against the hierarchical spirit. It is a defacement of the church when they become Lords and Tyrants. Surely, Rome is the loudest exhibit alongside Pat Robertson and his Pentecostal associates, e.g. TBN. Evangelical amnesiacs have forgotten these things.

Peter exhorts them to be examples his flock (1 Pet. 5.1-4).

Paul and John acted independently of him, as the Acts and Epistles prove. The Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians and Romans, from this perspective, are devastating. Paul did not consult the other apostles. Even Ratzinger has noted this re: Galatians 1 and 2, to wit, that Paul openly rebuked Peter at Antioch. (Unfortunately, this has been noted by True Catholics, e.g. Confessional Protestants.) Benedict XVI wondered aloud—in one of his books—why Protestants did not make more of this. Some have noted, from the Roman side, this was the mere loving admonition, quietly offered, given by an inferior to a superior. This charlatan and false teacher in Rome needs another St. Paul to rebuke him face-to-face.

At the Council of Jerusalem, James presided. A compromise was involved. All were involved and not just the apostles. They acted as brethren, not Lords; the Apostles, elders, and brethren acted synodically (so much for the Congregationalists, Independents, and Baptists while we are at it).

Lest we forget.

Contra Mundum: Ness On Predestination 1

We do not see what all the hubbub is about, although most American evangelicals deny the Scriptures here, like other semi-Pelagians: Rome, Orthodoxy, and Anglo-Catholics. (Never mind the Protestant liberals.) Predestination is simple, biblical fiat. So, what's the problem here? Pride and rebellion is the problem, put simply.

Andy notes:

"Predestination is the decree of God, by which (according to the counsel of His own will) He fore-ordained some of mankind to eternal life, and refused or passed by others; for the praise of His glorious mercy and justice. Some are vessels of mercy, others are vessels of wrath. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; And that he might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:21-23).

In a great house are various vessels both for use and ornament; vessels of honour, and vessels of dishonour, (2Ti 2:20); and the master of the house hath a right to, and can wisely use, all his vessels, even as he shall think proper. God hath His use even of Pharaoh and of the church's greatest enemies; if it be but scullion work, to brighten vessels of mercy by them. God hath appointed the Elect unto Glory; and He hath by the eternal and most free purpose of His will fore-ordained all the means thereunto; such as redemption by Christ, regeneration by the Holy Ghost, effectual calling and conversion, justification in the court of conscience by saving faith in Jesus' merits, sanctification in the heart by the Spirit, producing holy living and holy walking with God and man. And these blessed participators are "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation" (1Pe 1:5). "Whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them he also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things?" (Romans 8:30,31). We will say with the apostle, "God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation" (1Th 5:9)."


For more, see:
Contra Mundum: Ness On Predestination 1

The Anglican View of Rome

THE ANGLICAN POSITION TOWARDS
ROME AND THE PAPACY
Church Association Tract 429

The question of re-union with Rome having now been brought to the front by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s belated disclosure of the secret confabulations at Malines, there seems good reason for stating a strong argument against such rapprochement. If the English Reformers are to be believed, and the official language of the Church of England for a couple of generations at least after the Reformation is to be accepted, the Church of Rome is the Apocalyptic “Babylon the Great,” and the Pope that “Man of Sin” delineated by the Apostle, as one of the manifestations of Anti-Christ.

The Archbishop desired that the Anglican position “as set forward by the great theologians of the XVI. and XVII. centuries” should be “unmistakeably set forward” (the emphatic repetition is used by his Grace) at the conferences with the Romanists. Is it fair to ask whether the judgment of the Church of England concerning the Church of Rome, as recorded in the Homilies and attested by all the Reformers and by the first half-dozen Archbishops of Canterbury after the Reformation, was even hinted at, not to say “set forward” at the Malines confabulations?

Whether this interpretation of Prophecy is correct is of course open to legitimate question, and since the XVII century many good and sincere Protestants have been led to accept the varying
expositions which the Jesuits for the most part devised in order to exculpate Rome from this fearful charge. Yet it is to be doubted whether anything that has been written on the subject has really refuted the main contention of such men as Joseph Mede, Robert Fleming, Richard Hurd, and George Stanley Faber, to say nothing of such later writers as Professor Birks, E. B. Elliott, Dr. Grattan Guinness and Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, the last great leader of the historic High Church party.

However this may be, we think that even staunch Protestants often are hardly aware of how deeply our Reformed Church is committed to this indictment of Rome and the Papacy. Thus Bishop Harold Browne, commenting on Article XIX. says that “Some might expect the Article to have denounced the Church of Rome, not as a Church in error, but as the synagogue of Anti-christian assembly, not an erring Church. No doubt at times such is the language of the
Reformers, who in their strong opposition to Romanist errors, often use the most severe terms in denouncing them. But in their most sober and guarded language, not only our own, but Luther, Calvin, and other Continental Reformers speak of the Church of Rome as a Church, though a fallen and corrupt Church.” (Exposition, p. 455; sixth edition.)

The Reformers would have been surprised at the ingenuity which could find any contradiction of their unvarying assertion of the proper Antichristian of Popery in their concurrent insistence that Rome is in a sense a Christian Church. In their mind the utterly damning circumstance in the guilt of Rome consists precisely in this, that she is outwardly a Christian Church, which insults and blasphemes the God she pretends to serve, and compasses the ruin of the souls of men whom she professes to save. The idolatry and superstition of the heathen who have never known God are venial in comparison to the wilful apostacy of a Church having the Gospel of God, professing all the articles of the Christian Faith, and retaining the Sacraments though woefully perverted.

For the full article, see:
www.churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT429_Anglican-Rome.pdf

The Royal Oath: "The Protestant Reformed Religion" of the Church of England

www.churchsociety.org/publications/documents/CAT297_ProtestantDeclaration.pdf

PLAIN WORDS ON THE PROTESTANT DECLARATION
MADE BY THE KING OF ENGLAND
Church Association Tract 297
BY J. P. WATTS
(Rector of St Peterʼs, Thetford)

It is only a very brief while since the Crown of England passed over from our late Sovereign, whose memory we still hold dear, to that of her Royal son, whom we welcome as King Edward VII. This event has brought to the front the terms and conditions on which the English Crown is held, and these terms have stirred up a great deal of controversy among a certain portion of the Kingʼs subjects, a controversy which is far reaching in its nature and importance.

The Reformation of 350 years ago made this country and nation a Protestant one among the
nations of the world; but it was not at first made sufficiently clear that the Crown of England could only be held by a Protestant. Experience taught our forefathers that if this country was to retain its Protestant character, and to remain true to the principles of the Reformation, it must be made impossible by Statute for a Romanist to sit upon the throne. Before the passing of the Act that settled the succession to the Crown, at the beginning of the reign of William and Mary in 1688, the Throne of England had been occupied by three Sovereigns who had been more or less under Papal influence, and had imperilled the national safety. Charles I. was married to a Romanist, and had a Romish Chaplain at court, and was accordingly under Papal influence throughout his reign.

His son Charles II. who came to the throne after the Commonwealth was really a Papist in disguise though pretending to be a Protestant. On his death-bed it is recorded that he admitted this, and received “absolution” from a priest. James II., his successor, was an avowed Papist. On his accession he gave a pledge to preserve the laws inviolate, and to protect the Church. This pledge was welcomed by the whole country with enthusiasm. But his subjects soon learned to their dismay that the word of a Catholic king, surrounded by Papal advisers, was not to be relied on.

The King claimed the right to dispense his subjects from obeying Acts of Parliament, and filled the bishoprics, deaneries and colleges with avowed Papists. Judges and officers in the Army were chosen on the same grounds, and Father Petre, the Kingʼs confessor, was the “power behind the throne.” So exasperated did the Nation become at the Kingʼs perfidy that they invited over William, Prince of Orange, with his wife Mary, to defend the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom. On their arrival the Constitution was re-established upon the basis of a Protestant occupying the throne, who should not marry a Papist, nor in any way hold communion with the Church of Rome. In any of these events, his subjects would be absolved from their allegiance, and the Crown would be forfeited and would pass on to the next in succession “being Protestant.”

This condition has all along been held to be so important, that every Sovereign, since the
Revolution in 1688, has been called upon as a primary duty to make an open and honest avowal of Protestant principles and a repudiation of the Romish tenets and practices which had been secretly held by Charles II., and had caused such incalculable misery and strife and bloodshed in the following reign. This was essentially a precautionary measure for securing the Liberties of the Nation. It thence-forth became a title-deed to the Crown.

When therefore King Edward VII. met his first Parliament in the House of Lords, he was required to make and afterwards subscribe the Royal Statutory Declaration against leading dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, including Mariolatry, Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and also against “any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever,” which a Dispensation from the Pope might be presumed to authorise. This oath was administered to the King by the Lord Chancellor. The words of this important Statutory Declaration, as made and signed by King Edward on February 14th, 1901, at the opening of Parliament, are as follows:–

“I EDWARD, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lordʼs Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any Evasion, Equivocation, or mental Reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or
persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.”

Now this Royal Declaration against Popery is said to be offensive to the Kingʼs subjects who
belong to the Romish Church. Cardinal Vaughan, the head of the Romish Church in this country, alleged in a circular to every Roman Catholic chapel in his diocese, that “Roman Catholics have been made unhappy and their heart has been pierced in its most cherished convictions by the recent renewal of what Cardinal Wiseman described as the National Act of Apostasy repeated at the accession of each succeeding Sovereign during the last two hundred years.”

In this circular we are told that language like that of the Declaration is an “anachronism” and the Cardinal speaks of it as “a blasphemous formulary” and of the making it “as an outrage committed against our Lord Jesus Christ,” and His “Immaculate” Mother; “an injury committed against His Divine Majesty,” and a “gratuitous insult” to all Roman Catholic subjects. One of the Irish Members of Parliament spoke of it as the “foulest insult ever designed against the creed of millions of His Majestyʼs subjects.” A formidable and deliberate attempt is now being made to so far alter and tone down the words as to remove the very barrier which they were designed to set up, viz., to exclude a Romanist from the English Throne. In the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury has even consented to concede to the Papal
party a Joint Committee of the Two Houses of Parliament, to consider what alteration could be
made in the text of the Accession Declaration of the Sovereign against the idolatrous and
superstitious Sacrifice of the Mass. There is, therefore, grave danger less we lose our dearly
bought Protestant liberties. It is high time that all who believe that our National prestige and
temporal prosperity are bound up with our distinctive Protestant character, which history
conclusively proves, should bestir themselves at this juncture in such a manner that our
representatives in Parliament, and the Members of His Majestyʼs Government, may feel that they must hold their “hands off” from any attempt to upset the Protestantism of the Throne.
If Protestants are in a Roman Catholic country, are they not required to submit to the laws and
regulations of that country? They may not like some of the enactments of the Vatican, but how
absurd would the position be considered, if e.g., those who belong to the Reformed Church in
Spain were to cause a stir upon the expression of his personal faith by the Sovereign, and to
demand that its requirement should be erased from the Statute book. In what country in the world is a Roman Catholic allowed more freedom for the enjoyment of his religion than in this Protestant country? And if Protestants chose to point to the language of Roman Catholics not as expressed by private individuals, but in their authorised standards, it could easily be shewn that the language used in the Declaration is mild compared to the anathemas hurled against all who differ from their own creed. One is inclined to say to the Romish objector, that he had better sweep his own doorstep clean before he attempts to find fault with ours.

What other language could be proposed that would be agreeable to Romanists, so long as the
substance and kernel of the offence remain. The real offence is that a Romanist may not wear
Englandʼs Crown. Further, apart from the Declaration, there is a requirement that the Sovereign, before Coronation, should solemnly swear to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion in this country. That too must go, if we concede the fitness of a Roman Catholic to become Sovereign of this realm.

There are those who in the name of “charity” would wish us to overlook past facts of history when our country was under the heel of Rome. The dark past has gone, they say, and we do the
Romanists of the present day a great wrong in maintaining a suspicious attitude towards them.
When Rome repents of and forsakes her evil ways, then but not till then, can we afford to forget the past. The Church Times, the organ of the extreme High Church party, describes the Protestant Oath taken by the King at the opening of Parliament as belonging “to a period when the anti-papal spirit was aroused by the events of the times,” and says that “it is now become obsolete, and no one outside the ranks of fanaticism desires to see it revived.”

The Editor of the Life of Faith very tersely says that “the events of the times” is “a fine euphemism for the cruel wrongs and persecutions inflicted by Rome on our Protestant forefathers.” A leading article in a recent number of The English Churchman very forcibly says “the extreme gravity of the position into which the powers of the Vatican have driven His Majestyʼs Government will, it is to be hoped, be speedily realized by loyal Protestants throughout the Kingdom. The concession made to the Papacy at the outset of the new reign is pregnant with evil portent. If Roman Catholic sensibilities are to dominate the policy of the responsible advisers of the Crown, free-born Englishmen must demand to know the reason why; for they treasure beyond all price the civil and religious liberties won for them by the very men who drew up the Bill of Rights, the Declaration, and the Coronation Oath; and they must refuse to place those liberties in jeopardy, to propitiate–even for an hour–the implacable enemies of the land of the Reformation and the Revolution.”