Article for Charles Seet to read in 2022

Courting Trouble

To understand 1 Corinthians 6 it is necessary to understand some basic characteristics of the judicial process in a Roman colony. It appears that by the mid-first century a.d. trial by jury was reserved mainly for criminal proceedings, and even then there might be exceptions.¹ Trials would be handled by some sort of judge, perhaps one of the colony’s duoviri, but it is possible that an aedile like Erastus might handle a case that arose out of some conflict or problem in the macellum (the meat market) or the marketplace.² The earliest and most famous of Roman courts was the “extortion” court, “the need for which became acute as Roman governors … discovered the possibilities of enriching themselves at the expense of the provincials.… Many of the great cases of the late republic and early empire were heard before this court.”³

There was a three-stage judicial process for civil cases. First, the plaintiff would appear before one of the city’s magistrates requesting a suit. If the magistrate agreed that there were grounds for a suit the defendant would be summoned by the plaintiff to court. The factual details of the case would be discussed and debated and a formula (statement of the factual details that both parties agreed on) arrived at. The trial would be based on what was in the formula. Second, the magistrate would then asssign a judge, agreeable to both parties, to the case and pass along to him the formula. Finally, the case would be heard by the judge and the sentence passed, but it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to see that the judgment was carried out by the defendant. This process could drag on for some time and could be aborted at various points, for example if the defendant refused to come to court in the first place and the magistrate was not inclined to use force. Going to court could be a very expensive proposition. Tacitus tells us that a lawyer in a.d. 47 could command a fee of as much as 10,000 sesterces (Ann. 11.5–7). The annual salary for a duovir’s clerk in a Roman colony in Spain was only 1200 sesterces.⁴

A number of forces in Roman society affected the adminstration of justice.⁵ Social status and rank vis-à-vis one’s opponent were major determining factors. While “the situation of the weaker plaintiff improved with the end of the Republic and the coming of the Empire,” the system remained heavily weighted in favor of people of higher status.⁶ From at least the time of Augustus certain people—fathers, patrons, magistrates, and men of standing—were basically immune from prosecution for fraud by some kinds of other people—children, freedmen, private citizens, and men of low rank. Only if a lower status person had a powerful patron was there a likelihood that he or she could bring a successful suit against someone higher up the social ladder.⁷

Another factor in civil cases was the lawyer. If he was a good rhetorician, highly skilled in forensic rhetoric, one had a chance, even if social standing stacked the odds otherwise. In courts the art of persuasion became much more than a mere exercise in public oratory. People packed many trials to hear the great orators of the day.

Nevertheless, the Roman judicial system was pervaded by “improper influences” and this “made equality before the law unattainable” or virtually so.⁸ Citizens were less likely to be arrested, beaten, and imprisoned than foreigners. “The principal criterion of legal privilege in the eyes of the Romans was dignitas or honor derived from power, style of life, and wealth.”⁹ To the wealthy, well-born, and well-connected went the chief rewards of the legal system, along with many of the other benefits available in society. There was a strongly aristocratic bias to the whole culture. Justice during the empire was far from blind and was often looking over its shoulder.

The importance of this for 1 Corinthians 6 is that at the very least one or both of the Christians going to court were probably well-to-do and hoping to exploit the judicial system to their advantage.¹⁰ As in ch. 5 we find further hints here that Paul’s chief troubles in Corinth were caused by well-to-do members of the ekklēsia.

Chapter 6 has been traditionally divided into two parts, the first on a case in a pagan court involving differences between two Christians (vv. 1–11) and the second on another case of sexual immorality (after the one in ch. 5), in this instance a man going to prostitutes (vv. 12–20). It is often doubted that the case in 6:1–11 is directly connected to the incest case addressed in ch. 5, since it has to do with fraud (v. 7) and thus is likely a property matter. But since marriage often was a property matter, there may be a close connection.

There are close links between 6:12–20 and what follows in ch. 7. Paul is trying to establish both a Christian view of the importance of the human body in the order of redemption and the practical implications of an eschatological worldview for present sexual conduct. He continues to address his audience’s view of human sexuality and their aberrant theology of salvation in ch. 7.¹¹

Both cases discussed in ch. 6 deal with a serious breach of community and an ensuing bad witness to the world. Paul argues that by taking disputes to a pagan court and by fulfilling one’s sexual drives outside the body of Christ one is violating Christian community and Christian witness. He uses several sarcastic rhetorical questions, not detailed arguments, to express himself here. Especially sarcastic is the question whether there is not one sophos (wise person) among the Corinthian Christians who could judge the matter (v. 5), in view of their claims about being wise. All these rhetorical questions are meant to shame the Corinthians into seeing their real moral condition and to deflate their unwarranted pride. This letter would be read before the whole congregation and would be a humiliating public shaming.

The point in v. 1 could be that Gentile courts are inherently unrighteous. Dio Chrysostom, commenting on Roman Corinth about a.d. 100, says that there were “lawyers innumerable perverting justice” there, and refers to young men declaiming forensic pieces in the courtyard next to the Temple of Poseidon during the Isthmian games, hoping to drum up business (8.9).¹² K. Wengst has stressed that in view of the experiences listed in his tribulation catalogs (1 Cor. 4:9ff.; 2 Cor. 11:23ff.), Paul had little reason to trust Roman justice and that this passage should be read in that light.¹³

But Paul’s sweeping dismissal of the practice of law does not amount to an attack on the law as such, and his statement that it would be better to suffer wrong (v. 7) “presupposes the recognition of law.” “Going to law here is itself regarded as doing injustice and robbing one’s adversary. That injustice and robbery thus appear in the garb of law … makes it clear why Paul can describe the judges as unjust.”¹⁴ Paul believes that Christians, like Jews before them, should settle all disputes among themselves on their own. He does not deal here with the case of a Christian and a non-Christian entangled in legal matters.

In both this and the next case, Paul provides the wider Christian perspective by bringing in eschatological matters. In the first case, he brings in the fact that on judgment day believers will judge the outside world and even angels (vv. 2f.); in the second case, he refers to the future resurrection, which shows the value that God has placed on human bodies (v. 14). The Corinthians’ problems arose not just from bad ethics or bad social values but from bad theology, which affected all worldly affairs and matters including sexual and legal matters. They had an inadequate if not non-existent future eschatology, or at least future eschatology was not shaping their values and decision making. Paul’s point in vv. 2f. is that if they are going to go on and judge the world, then surely they can handle an ordinary mundane matter now on their own.

Some have identified “the despised” (or “the least esteemed”) in v. 4 as Christians,¹⁵ in which case Paul is showing his contempt for the litigators, or possibly he wants to invert the secular pyramid by putting the least esteemed of the congregation on top as judges. But if the word in question really means “despised,” then this view seems unlikely. It is more likely that the ekklēsia in this verse is the secular assembly, not the Christian congregation.¹⁶ Men oun (“no, rather,” “therefore”) in the first clause must be given its due weight, so that v. 4 answers to v. 3.¹⁷ In v. 4, then, Paul asks rhetorically whether resorting to a pagan court does not amount to appointing outsiders ill-suited to the task to judge among Christians.

Paul is clear in v. 7 that going to pagan court already amounts to moral failure. He asks the plaintiff, in words probably drawing on the Jesus tradition, would it not be better to be defrauded? In v. 8 he addresses the one who did the defrauding and reminds him that people who behave in this manner will not inherit God’s dominion when it finally comes.^[1]

 

---

¹ Jesus’ case might have been such an exception since Pilate, not the Sanhedrin, was in the end the one who decided it.

² Cf. J. K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), p. 80.

³ G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 b.c. to a.d. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1972), pp. 11f.

Ann Annales

⁴ Cf. Chow, Patronage and Power, p. 76.

⁵ See P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), pp. 183ff.

⁶ Ibid., p. 192, cf. p. 217: “The possibility of suits brought by men of comparatively humble origin and position against men of rank cannot be ruled out; but they are unlikely to have been a frequent occurrence.”

⁷ It is better to speak of social status or level and not social class, since the modern notion of class does not really suit the situation in the Roman Empire. There was nothing quite equivalent to our middle class. The three basic distinctions were between citizen and foreigner, honestiores and humiliores, and freeborn and slave. Depending on which distinction was being used, one could be higher or lower. For example, a freeborn person could be poor, whereas a freedman or freedwoman could be rich, and this was of great importance in a city in which one bought one’s way into society, public office, and sometimes even justice. Furthermore, some honestiores did not have citizenship while some humiliores did. See A. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth (dissertation, Cambridge, 1991), pp. 26ff.

⁸ Garnsey, Social Status, p. 207.

⁹ Ibid., p. 279.

¹⁰ Cicero (Pro Caecina 73) complains that three things hinder justice from being done in the provinces east of Rome: gratia, potentia, and pecunia, that is, “excessive favor,” power or great resources, and money, that is, bribery.

¹¹ Many Corinthian Christians apparently thought that salvation did not involve the body.

¹² If one also considers the analogy with Jesus’ parable in Luke 18, it is believable that Paul may have been referring to judges in Corinth. Unlike B. W. Winter, “Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth and the Church,” NTS 37 (1991), pp. 559–72, I doubt that Paul’s reference is to juries, since small civil claims did not usually call for a jury. The plural “the unrighteous ones” does not require a reference to a jury, since Paul is generalizing here.

¹³ K. Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 76f.

¹⁴ Ibid. This assessment does not conflict with what Paul says in Romans 13 since there he speaks of the divinely ordained and intended function of government, not of some particular practice of it, and he is not referring to Christians making use of the judicial system but of actions initiated by the authorities.

¹⁵ Winter, “Civil Litigation,” p. 570.

¹⁶ It is possible that en tȩ̄ ekklēsia̧ means “of the assembly” so that Paul’s complaint is about making pagans judges of the Christian ekklēsia. In any case, if Paul could call secular judges “unrighteous” (v. 1), he could equally well call them “despised.”

¹⁷ J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of Saint Paul (Winona Lake: Alpha, reprint), p. 213.

^[1] Witherington, Ben, III. 1995. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Ecclesiastes 12:12

 Ecclesiastes 12:12

Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

12:12 This verse in the NIV appears to warn the reader against the study of any teachings beyond the true (canonical?) wisdom, but this would be reading too much into the Hebrew text. A more probable translation is: “Beyond all this, my son, be advised: Of making many books there is no end.” The contrast is not between the study of canonical versus noncanonical wisdom but between failure to appreciate wisdom on the one hand and excessive zeal for study on the other.

Garrett, Duane A. 1993. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Vol. 14. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PS: If you would keep looking for answers in many other books, you would wear yourself out. STAY AWAY FROM BOOKS WRITTEN BY FALSE TEACHERS!

Ecclesiastes 12

 12 Remember^b your Creator

in the days of your youth,

before the days of trouble^c come

and the years approach when you will say,

“I find no pleasure in them”—

² before the sun and the light

and the moon and the stars grow dark,

and the clouds return after the rain;

³ when the keepers of the house tremble,

and the strong men stoop,

when the grinders cease because they are few,

and those looking through the windows grow dim;

⁴ when the doors to the street are closed

and the sound of grinding fades;

when people rise up at the sound of birds,

but all their songs grow faint;^d

⁵ when people are afraid of heights

and of dangers in the streets;

when the almond tree blossoms

and the grasshopper drags itself along

and desire no longer is stirred.

Then people go to their eternal home^e

and mourners^f go about the streets.

⁶ Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,

and the golden bowl is broken;

before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,

and the wheel broken at the well,

⁷ and the dust returns^g to the ground it came from,

and the spirit returns to God^h who gave it.ⁱ

⁸ “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher.^a j

“Everything is meaningless!^k”

The Conclusion of the Matter

⁹ Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs.^{l 10} The Teacher^m searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true.ⁿ

¹¹ The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails^o—given by one shepherd.^{b 12} Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.

Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.^p

¹³ Now all has been heard;

here is the conclusion of the matter:

Fear God^q and keep his commandments,^r

for this is the duty of all mankind.^s

¹⁴ For God will bring every deed into judgment,^t

including every hidden thing,^u

whether it is good or evil. ^[1]

 

---

^b Ecc 11:8

^c See 2 Sa 19:35

^d Jer 25:10

^e See Job 10:21

^f Jer 9:17; Am 5:16

^g See Ge 2:7; See Ps 146:4

^h Ecc 3:21

ⁱ See Job 20:8

^a Or the leader of the assembly; also in verses 9 and 10

^j Ecc 1:1

^k See Ecc 1:2

^l 1 Ki 4:32

^m See Ecc 1:1

ⁿ Pr 22:20–21

^o See Ezr 9:8; See Job 6:25

^b Or Shepherd

^p See Ecc 1:18

^q See Ex 20:20; See 1 Sa 12:24; See Job 23:15; See Ps 19:9

^r See Dt 4:2

^s See Dt 4:6; See Job 37:24

^t See Job 19:29; See Ecc 3:17

^u See Job 34:21; See Ps 19:12; Jer 16:17; 23:24

^[1] The New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Txxe Life Bible Presbyterian Church's Christmas Joy

We have a super-joy this Christmas Day.

We have joy because we have found a perfect Bible in the end. HOHOHO...

We have the perfect Word of God in our hands.

We are rejoicing because we have the Perfect Greek Bible underlying the English King James Bible.

We have joy because we are separatists, separated from the unfaithful brothers and sisters in Christ.

We have joy because we are faithful to the end. 

We have “WOW...WOW...WOW” in our lives because we are born again. Once save always saved.

We have joy because we are better in Greek and Hebrew. Shalom.

We have joy because we are wiser than others. We stick to the KJV, not NIV. HOHOHO...

We have a lot of joy to share with the dark worldwide.

We have such wonderful joy this Christmas Day.

Merry Christmas

To all brethren who preach Christ,

Christmas Greetings.

A new year's wish. Stop the war among ourselves, start the war on the evil dark world, there is a dark world within us. We are at war with our own lusts and pride. We are fighting our old self. We have to crucify our old self to the cross, then we will be resurrected with Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Spirit remain in us.

No one knows everything.

No one knows everything, except God.

No one has all the answers, except God.

We have to learn from one another.

Fundamentalist an angry man?

Christian Fundamentalism makes a lot of angry men and women.

A lot of Christian Fundamentalists are angry men.

Why?

They fight with Roman Catholics, then they fight with Reformed theologians, then they fight with Charismatics, they fight with Evangelical, they fight with Pentecostal churches, they fight with Liberals and modernist, they fight with their wives, they fight with brothers in Christ, they fight with their sons and daughters, they fight among fundamentalists, they fight among themselves, they fight day in day out, they called themselves the spiritual militants, 21st. Century Reformers, in the end, too fight with Lord Jesus Christ.

That is why a lot of Christian Fundamentalists are angry men. They are fighters without peace.

One of them whom I knew, hung his son upside down, and bitten him with his belt! His son did not forgive this old fundamentalist forever! And the old man died in regrets. A lot of people said he is a good old fundamentalist. 

Many of these fundamentalists are cruel and cold blood! What they want is to win an argument!

How the Gospel Takes Root in ‘Crazy Rich’ Singapore

 Raman: On the surface, Singapore looks like a nation that is well “Christianized,” with more than 800 churches in a small island (278 square miles) of 5.8 million people. But while Christianity here can appear robust and strong—with several high-profile megachurches that have gained international fame and recognition—much of it is theologically weak and shallow. Many churches preach heavily moralistic sermons or, on the other hand, proclaim “hyper-grace,” subtly (if not overtly) proclaiming the prosperity gospel. There is a great need in Singapore for more theological depth.

The whole article can be seen at:gospel-takes-root-crazy-rich-singapore/

Fallacy of once saved always saved.

Some theologians taught their students in their Bible Colleges, once saved always saved. 

This is the right doctrine of salvation.

But there is a fallacy about this doctrine.

Since they thought that they are saved with eternal security. It is not wrong to sin.

What kind of sin?

Attacking brethren in Christ. Attacking, persecuting brethren in Christ until they are frustrated, is okay because they will not lose their salvation. If they lose their salvation, they are not chosen in the beginning. They have the tendency to test and tempt people to fall away from their faith. This is the fallacy.

It is okay to fight among themselves. The division in the church is not a sin. Since we are saved, so it is not wrong to create false doctrines. They are saved once so will always be saved. It is all right to sue one another in civil court. It is all right to bear false witness to their neighbors. It is okay to attack churches, it is okay to become extremist, it is okay to become militants, it is okay to become heretics since once saved always saved. 

They have this fallacy, since we are saved, it is all right to be cruel and cold blood to brethren and sisters. They are thinking that those who are saved are all strong like iron and steel, so they push the limit until some weaker brethren stumble by their cruel evil-doing and until these weaker brethren fell down. This is the fallacy of once saved always saved. They said it is not their fault, it is because those who fell away were not saved at all from the beginning. So, it is okay to create questions and doubt in those who are reading NIV. Attacking evangelical churches is okay.

These theologians are still thinking they are born-again Christians. 

I am amazed by this so-called once saved always saved fallacy, in giving license to these theologians to persecute Christians. 

They said those who are saved are always saved, they will stand to the end, those who fail, they are not born again, they are not been chosen by God from the beginning.

John Sung was a “charismatic”

 John Sung’s ministry demonstrates the power of the Holy Spirit to bring physical healing and deliverance from evil spirits. In that sense, Sung was a “charismatic,” though he did not accept Pentecostal theology or an emphasis on spiritual gifts and supernatural events. On the contrary, Sung taught that true conversion will lead to a life filled by the Holy Spirit, who will gradually conform Christians into the moral likeness of Christ. Though God worked countless miracles through John Sung, Sung always emphasized love more than power, holiness more than miracles. Copied from https://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/the-life-and-ministry-of-john-sung

One thing we must take note, John Sung did not want to see us overemphasize Charismatic gifts or on rites. 

Copied from his daily: The Diary of John Sung

The Ordination Service of Vernon Quek

 

Ordination Service of Pastor David Weng

 

DAVID WENG 

PASTOR

David received his Bachelor’s degree from Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore (Bachelor of Theology, 2000) and two Masters degrees from Pensacola Theological Seminary, Florida, USA (Master of Arts in Bible Exposition, 2004 and Master of Divinity, 2006).

God has given him a wonderful helpmeet and three beautiful children, Elizabeth, Joshua, and Caleb. We welcome you to worship with us this Sunday. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. pastor@providencebpchurch.org 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=624118695674480

http://providencebpchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-12-19-Providence-Bible-Presbyterian-Church-Bulletin-English.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1WPR8WSP0Lr0fC_7aryDPYy3PdPRhYWAtc7rP_gTYG32nIYkZVQlPh7vs

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2021 AT 12:30 PM – 2:30 PM UTC+08

Ordination Service of Pastor David Weng

My appeal to the false teachers

Friends, I have written many letters to those false teachers, they are not happy with all these letters. They hated me.

I appeal to you, false teachers, to stop provoking young people to hate fellow Christian. Stop all attacks on Christian Churches. Stop instigating young people to follow your wrong way of doing things. 

Stop all attacks in your Journal, Bulletin, Sunday Sermon, Bible Study, talks, and Bible College lectures.

After all, this is your choice. You have to decide. If you want to continue to become false teachers, go ahead. There are consequences ahead of you. In 13 years, I have given my time to warn you, I have seen dangers coming ahead of you, I appeal to you to turn away from the wrong path, repent, return to the flock, unite, and not separate from one another. 

I encourage you, the false teachers, to bend your knees while you are reading the Bible, asking God to forgive you, peradventure God may open your eyes to see the suffering Christ. May God have mercy unto you.

Encouragement from these false teachers

These false teachers in FEBC and some Bible Presbyterian Churches like to provoke young people. They are good at encouraging young men and women!

What did they provoke and encourage?

They provoke young people to attack pastors and leaders in the same denomination, in Bible Presbyterian Church. 

Young people were instigated to attack.

The false teachers instigated these young people to attack Christian who is reading NIV, attacking those churches which are using drums in their worship, attacking fellows believers who do not agree with these false teachers. Attacking Christians who are not Reformed and Fundamental. 

These false teachers are wolves in sheep clothing encouraging and provoking their students to think critically against other Christians.

These false teachers in another time and another place, in the Sunday Worship, when they are at the pulpit, will preach publicly that they are provoking and encouraging others to love and unto good work. They are king cobra with double tongues.

Surely these false teachers and false pastors' mouths are full of rubbish. One of the false teachers is Clement "the leper living in the tabernacle." Surely God is at the doorstep, may he have the fear of the Lord and stop instigating young people to sin.

English Bible Translations in the Twentieth Century

English Bible Translations in the Twentieth Century. At the turn of the century, Adolf Deissmann, using study of the papyri from Egypt, persuaded scholars that the NT was in the common language (the Koine) of the first century, giving impetus to an effort to present the Bible in the language of the twentieth century. Accompanying this development was the rise of archaeological discovery that gave new manuscripts of both the OT and NT. The Cairo Genizah collection of Hebrew manuscripts was found at the end of the last century, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Perhaps 25 Greek manuscripts of the NT could have been used in 1611. Now over 5,400 are known. More of the Uncial manuscripts (309) were available to 20th century translators. The papyrus manuscripts (115), most found in 20th twentieth century, are the oldest extant sources for the NT text. Wider knowledge of the nature of the biblical and related languages has been gained, making for more accurate definitions. New scholarly grammars, dictionaries, and anthologies of texts grew out of these developments. Besides these matters is the simple fact that the English language continually changes so that what is understandable at one period becomes less so at a later one.

Translation theory became a factor in Bible translation in the last half of the 20th century. The extremes are paraphrase and a “wooden” word-for-word literalism. Between the extremes, one choice is “formal equivalence,” where the objective is to find a formal equivalent for the words of the text being translated. Supporters of this method suggest that it is necessary in order for the reader to know what Scripture says, and some see theological implications that, if the words of Scripture are the words of God, they should not be modified in translation more than is unavoidable. All translations may involve some interpretation, but interpretation is not the work of the translator. Another choice is “dynamic equivalence,” where the priority is to communicate effectively the thoughts of the text being translated. Supporters of this view suggest that translation should communicate with the reader as effectively as the original did with its readers, and that translating “meaning for meaning” is necessary to accomplish this. Most of the previous translations were formal equivalence, including the King James, American Standard, and Revised Standard. Several recent translations fall into each category. Notably, the New English Bible (NEB, 1961) and its revision, the Revised English Bible (REB, 1989), the New International Version (NIV, 1978), the Good News Bible (GNB, 1976), the Jerusalem Bible (JB, 1966), and its thorough revision, the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB, 1985), and the New Living Translation (NLT, 1996) are dynamic equivalence. The New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1971) and its significant revision, the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition (NASU, 1995), the King James II (KJ II, 1971), the New King James Version (NKJV, 1982), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) are formal equivalence.

The first half of the 20th century saw a spate of translations which abandoned the effort to revise the KJV and attempted to reflect new trends, each from its own viewpoint. They had a limited vogue in some circles while being criticized in others. Some were works of groups while others were prepared by one person; none seriously threatened the dominance of the KJV.

The Revised Standard Version, with its NT ready in 1946 and the complete Bible in 1952, bore the brunt of criticism of modern translations because it was the first serious challenge after 1901 to the long dominance of the KJV. It retained the Old English forms in liturgical and poetic passages, as well as using Old English pronouns when deity is addressed. Eventually an edition was issued with modifications to make it acceptable for use by Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics which is called the “Common Bible.”

The New Revised Standard Version appeared in 1989. Chaired by Bruce Metzger, the translators sought to preserve all that is best in the English Bible and to make the language as accurate and clear as possible. Significantly different from the RSV, the NRSV removed archaic pronouns and is both dignified and lucid. It is sanctioned for public and private reading by the National Council of Churches.

The British have prepared the New English Bible (1970) which represents certain trends in British biblical scholarship. The American reader will see differences between British English and American English. A revision, the Revised English Bible (1989), is strongly oriented to dynamic equivalence in translation and retains many British colloquialisms, as did its predecessor.

Roman Catholics issued the Jerusalem Bible, which with its notes is used both in and out of Catholic circles. In 1985, a thorough revision, the New Jerusalem Bible, was published. Even more fluid and readable than its predecessor, it is widely used. Of more widespread influence is the New American Bible (1970) which was used in preparing the English version of the liturgy of the Roman church. While making some concessions, its notes support Catholic doctrine.

The Jewish community has produced the New Jewish Publication Society translation Tanakh (1962–1982). This translation follows the Masoretic Text for the most part, is very readable, and is among the best translations of the Hebrew Bible.

The Living Bible (1971, LB), by Kenneth N. Taylor, is a paraphrase of the Bible, based on the American Standard Version (1901, ASV). Extremely popular in its early years, but of uneven quality, it has been much criticized. Dr. Taylor freely admits that it is not a substitute for Bible translations. Its successor is a dynamic equivalence translation from the original languages, The New Living Translation (1996, NLT), with a dual goal of reliability and readability. The NLT is the product of a large group of transdenominational scholars and leans toward inclusive language.

Those who prefer literal translation found their representatives in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) prepared by the Lockman Foundation (1971). An attempt to give the ASV new life, this effort removes many archaisms from the ASV; it reflects different judgments on textual questions from the ASV, and it places words not represented in the original text but added by the translators for clarity in italics, as did the King James Version. The NASB was significantly revised in the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition (1995, NASU). Archaic pronouns are removed and readability is greatly enhanced without sacrificing accuracy. The NASU removes many of the common objections to the NASB and is without competitors as the most accurate English translation of the Bible. An effort to preserve as much of the old as possible is the New King James Bible (1982). This is a “halfway house” for those who know that something needs to replace the KJV but who are not willing to have a translation which represents the current state of knowledge and uses current language.

An effort to meet the needs of those who have English as a second language or those who have a limited knowledge of English is Today’s English Version (TEV), also known as the Good News Bible (1976). Recasting of language, consolidation of statements, and paraphrasing have all been employed in the effort to make the message simple enough to be grasped by the reader.

The New International Version was issued in 1978 by the International Bible Society from a cooperative project in which more than 110 scholars representing 34 religious groups participated. Abandoning any effort to revise the KJV line of Bibles, the NIV is a new translation aiming at accuracy, clarity, and dignity. It attempts to steer a middle course between literalness and paraphrase while attaining a contemporary style for the English reader but does not always succeed, leaning heavily toward dynamic equivalence and containing many colloquialisms.

The NT of a new translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, was published in 2000. The OT is due in 2004. This translation strives for “optimal equivalence,” using formal equivalence except when a formal equivalent cannot be easily understood, in those cases leaning toward a dynamic equivalent. Translated from the critical texts of the OT and NT, it is lucid, dignified, faithful to God’s word, and accurate. Wide distribution indicates it is quite popular. The HCSB answers many of the common objections to formal equivalence translations.

The ESV, English Standard Version, is essentially a literal translation published in 2001. It emphasizes “word-for-word correspondence” but also readability. It is designed for personal reading and in-depth study as well as Scripture memorization and public worship.

Eugene Peterson has completed his translation of The Message (2002). It is a contemporary language paraphrase designed to express a personal message to the reader. It is an outgrowth of his work as a pastor. It is not designed to replace the more literal translations but is for the new believer and those who need a more modern slant to enhance their understanding.

Jack P. Lewis and Charles W. Draper

Charles W. Draper with Lewis Jack P., “Bible Translations,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 214–216.

The Bible’s Preservation

A ninth reason for believing the Bible to be the Word of God is its extraordinary preservation down through the centuries of Old Testament and church history. Today, after the Bible has been translated in part or whole into hundreds of languages, some with multiple versions, and after millions of copies of the sacred text have been printed and distributed, it would be a nearly impossible feat to destroy the Bible. But these conditions did not always prevail.

Until the time of the Reformation the biblical text was preserved by the laborious and time-consuming process of copying it over and over again by hand, at first onto papyrus sheets and then onto parchments. Throughout much of this time the Bible was an object of extreme hatred by many in authority. They tried to stamp it out. In the early days of the church, Celsus, Porphyry and Lucian tried to destroy it by arguments. Later the emperors Diocletian and Julian tried to destroy it by force. At several points it was actually a capital offense to possess a copy of parts of Holy Writ. Yet the text survived.

If the Bible had been only the thoughts and work of human beings, it would have been eliminated long ago in the face of such opposition, as other books have been. But it has endured, fulfilling the words of Jesus, who said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mt. 24:35).

James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 63–64.

The Text of the Bible

The Text of the Bible. A comparison of an English Bible in the Revised Version with one in the Authorised Version reveals at once many changes. Some are due to the progress of the English language, but many others are due to what scholars call various readings in the text. The text is the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the original Greek of the New Testament. Formerly an idea largely prevailed that this text was an unchanging, unchangeable thing, preserved miraculously from ancient times. The preservation of the Bible is certainly one of the greatest miracles. When we reflect that the Bible had existed for a thousand years before printing was invented in Europe, that all copies had to be made laboriously by hand, and that thousands of copyists must have been employed, the wonder is not that there are various readings of the text, but that these are comparatively few and unimportant. The text of the Bible was preserved by human hands, working under human limitations, but the hand of God is in it too.

J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936), xiv.

What is a Bible Presbyterian Church

Bible Presbyterian Church. A small Presbyterian denomination born out of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. In 1936 The Presbyterian Church of America (later Orthodox Presbyterian Church) was founded by a small group of pastors and elders who left the Presbyterian Church-U.S.A. The immediate cause for this exodus was the suspension of J. Gresham Machen and J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., from the Presbyterian ministry due to their support of an independent mission board that sought to insure biblical teaching on Presbyterian mission fields. The newly formed denomination was soon drawn into internal conflict. Genuine differences in doctrine, ethics and church government, coupled with suspicions and disagreements, led Buswell, Carl McIntire, Allan MacRae and others to separate and form the Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC) in 1937.

At its first synod the BPC amended the Westminster standards to teach premillennialism. A piety which included alcoholic abstinence was enjoined, and a church government allowing greater freedom to the local church and both independent and church-controlled agencies was established. The chief characteristic was a self-conscious denominational “testimony” for the Bible and Jesus Christ, which issued in separatist stance calling for separation from apostasy as well as from those having fellowship with apostates. This ultimately isolated the BPC and hindered evangelistic efforts.

The BPC was originally supportive of the American and International Councils of Christian Churches (ACCC; ICCC) presided over by Carl McIntire. Disagreement during the 1950s over the denomination’s association with the ACCC and ICCC and the autonomy of BPC agencies led to the withdrawal of McIntire and others at the 1956 General Assembly to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, Collingswood Synod. The majority continued as the Bible Presbyterian Church, Columbus Synod, until 1961, when the denomination changed its name to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). In 1965 the EPC then merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, General Synod, to form the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.    G. P. Hutchinson, The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (1974); The Constitution of the Bible Presbyterian Church (1946).

Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).

OF THE CHURCH

 SERMON 74*

OF THE CHURCH

  “I beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

  Ephesians 4:1–6.

1. How much do we almost continually hear about the Church! With many it is matter of daily conversation. And yet how few understand what they talk of! how few know what the term means! A more ambiguous word than this, the Church, is scarce to be found in the English language. It is sometimes taken for a building, set apart for public worship: sometimes for a congregation, or body of people, united together in the service of God. It is only in the latter sense that it is taken in the ensuing discourse.

2. It may be taken indifferently for any number of people, how small or great soever. As, “where two or three are met together in his name,” there is Christ; so, (to speak with St. Cyprian,) “where two or three believers are met together, there is a Church.” Thus it is that St. Paul, writing to Philemon, mentions “the Church which is in his house;” plainly signifying, that even a Christian family may be termed a Church.

3. Several of those whom God hath called out of the world, (so the original word properly signifies,) uniting together in one congregation, formed a larger Church; as the Church at Jerusalem; that is, all those in Jerusalem whom God had so called. But considering how swiftly these were multiplied, after the day of Pentecost, it cannot be supposed that they could continue to assemble in one place; especially as they had not then any large place, neither would they have been permitted to build one. In consequence, they must have divided themselves, even at Jerusalem, into several distinct congregations. In like manner, when St. Paul, several years after, wrote to the Church in Rome, (directing his letter, “To all that are in Rome, called to be saints,”) it cannot be supposed that they had any one building capable of containing them all; but they were divided into several congregations, assembling in several parts of the city.

4. The first time that the Apostle uses the word Church is in his preface to the former Epistle to the Corinthians: “Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth.” The meaning of which expression is fixed by the following words: “To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus; with all that, in every place,” (not Corinth only; so it was a kind of circular letter,) “call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” In the inscription of his second letter to the Corinthians, he speaks still more explicitly: “Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in all Achaia.” Here he plainly includes all the Churches, or Christian congregations, which were in the whole province.

5. He frequently uses the word in the plural number. So, Gal. 1:2,“Paul an apostle,—unto the Churches of Galatia;” that is, the Christian congregations dispersed throughout that country. In all these places, (and abundantly more might be cited,) the word Church or Churches means, not the buildings where the Christians assembled, (as it frequently does in the English tongue,) but the people that used to assemble there, one or more Christian congregations. But sometimes the word Church is taken in Scripture in a still more extensive meaning, as including all the Christian congregations that are upon the face of the earth. And in this sense we understand it in our Liturgy, when we say, “Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here on earth.” In this sense it is unquestionably taken by St. Paul, in his exhortation to the elders of Ephesus: (Acts 20:28:) “Take heed to the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.” The Church here, undoubtedly, means the catholic or universal Church; that is, all the Christians under heaven.

6. Who those are that are properly “the Church of God,” the Apostle shows at large, and that in the clearest and most decisive manner, in the passage above cited; wherein he likewise instructs all the members of the Church, how to “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called.”

7. Let us consider, First, who are properly the Church of God? What is the true meaning of that term? “The Church at Ephesus,” as the Apostle himself explains it, means, “the saints,” the holy persons, “that are in Ephesus,” and there assemble themselves together to worship God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ; whether they did this in one or (as we may probably suppose) in several places. But it is the Church in general, the catholic or universal Church, which the Apostle here considers as one body: Comprehending not only the Christians in the house of Philemon, or any one family; not only the Christians of one congregation, of one city, of one province, or nation; but all the persons upon the face of the earth, who answer the character here given. The several particulars contained therein, we may now more distinctly consider.

8. “There is one Spirit” who animates all these, all the living members of the Church of God. Some understand hereby the Holy Spirit himself, the Fountain of all spiritual life; and it is certain, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Others understand it of those spiritual gifts and holy dispositions which are afterwards mentioned.

9. “There is,” in all those that have received this Spirit, “one hope;” a hope full of immortality. They know, to die is not to be lost: Their prospect extends beyond the grave. They can cheerfully say, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.”

10. “There is one Lord,” who has now dominion over them, who has set up his kingdom in their hearts, and reigns over all those that are partakers of this hope. To obey him, to run the way of his commandments, is their glory and joy. And while they are doing this with a willing mind they, as it were, “sit in heavenly places with Christ Jesus.”

11. “There is one faith;” which is the free gift of God, and is the ground of their hope. This is not barely the faith of a Heathen; Namely, a belief that “there is a God,” and that he is gracious and just, and, consequently, “a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Neither is it barely the faith of a devil; though this goes much farther than the former. For the devil believes, and cannot but believe, all that is written both in the Old and New Testament to be true. But it is the faith of St. Thomas, teaching him to say with holy boldness, “My Lord, and my God!” It is the faith which enables every true Christian believer to testify with St. Paul, “The life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

12. “There is one baptism;” which is the outward sign our one Lord has been pleased to appoint, of all that inward and spiritual grace which he is continually bestowing upon his Church. It is likewise a precious means, whereby this faith and hope are given to those that diligently seek him. Some, indeed, have been inclined to interpret this in a figurative sense; as if it referred to that baptism of the Holy Ghost which the Apostles received at the day of Pentecost, and which, in a lower degree, is given to all believers: But it is a stated rule in interpreting Scripture, never to depart from the plain, literal sense, unless it implies an absurdity. And beside, if we thus understood it, it would be a needless repetition, as being included in, “There is one Spirit.”

13. “There is one God and Father of all” that have the Spirit of adoption, which “crieth in their hearts, Abba, Father;” which “witnesseth” continually “with their spirits,” that they are the children of God: “Who is above all,”—the Most High, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Governor of the whole universe: “And through all,”—pervading all space; filling heaven and earth:

    Totam

    Mens agitans molem, et magno se corpore miscens:—

[The following is Wharton’s translation of this quotation from Virgil:—

    “The general soul

    Lives in the parts, and agitates the whole.”—Edit.]

“And in you all,”—in a peculiar manner living in you, that are one body, by one spirit:

    Making your souls his loved abode,

    The temples of indwelling God.

14. Here, then, is a clear unexceptionable answer to that question, “What is the Church?” The catholic or universal Church is, all the persons in the universe whom God hath so called out of the world as to entitle them to the preceding character; as to be “one body,” united by “one spirit;” having “one faith, one hope, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in them all.”

15. That part of this great body, of the universal Church, which inhabits any one kingdom or nation, we may properly term a National Church; as, the Church of France, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland. A smaller part of the universal Church are the Christians that inhabit one city or town; as the Church of Ephesus, and the rest of the seven Churches mentioned in the Revelation. Two or three Christian believers united together are a Church in the narrowest sense of the word. Such was the Church in the house of Philemon, and that in the house of Nymphas, mentioned Col. 4:15. A particular Church may, therefore, consist of any number of members, whether two or three, or two or three millions. But still, whether they be larger or smaller, the same idea is to be preserved. They are one body, and have one Spirit, one Lord, one hope, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

16. This account is exactly agreeable to the nineteenth Article of our Church, the Church of England: (Only the Article includes a little more than the Apostle has expressed:)

“OF THE CHURCH.

“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered.”

It may be observed, that at the same time our thirty-nine Articles were compiled and published, a Latin translation of them was published by the same authority. In this the words were coetus credentium; “a congregation of believers;” plainly showing that by faithful men, the compilers meant, men endued with living faith. This brings the Article to a still nearer agreement to the account given by the Apostle.

But it may be doubted whether the Article speaks of a particular Church, or of the Church universal. The title, “Of the Church,” seems to have reference to the catholic Church; but the second clause of the Article mentions the particular Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Perhaps it was intended to take in both; so to define the universal Church as to keep in view the several particular Churches of which it is composed.

17. These things being considered, it is easy to answer that question, “What is the Church of England?” It is that part, those members, of the Universal Church who are inhabitants of England. The Church of England is, that body of men in England, in whom “there is one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith;” which have “one baptism,” and “one God and Father of all.” This and this alone is the Church of England, according to the doctrine of the Apostle.

18. But the definition of a Church, laid down in the Article, includes not only this, but much more, by that remarkable addition: “In which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered.” According to this definition, those congregations in which the pure Word of God (a strong expression) is not preached are no parts either of the Church of England, or the Church catholic; as neither are those in which the sacraments are not duly administered.

19. I will not undertake to defend the accuracy of this definition. I dare not exclude from the Church catholic all those congregations in which any unscriptural doctrines, which cannot be affirmed to be “the pure word of God,” are sometimes, yea, frequently preached; neither all those congregations, in which the sacraments are not “duly administered.” Certainly if these things are so, the Church of Rome is not so much as a part of the catholic Church; seeing therein neither is “the pure word of God” preached, nor the sacraments “duly administered.” Whoever they are that have “one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all,” I can easily bear with their holding wrong opinions, yea, and superstitious modes of worship: Nor would I, on these accounts, scruple still to include them within the pale of the catholic Church; neither would I have any objection to receive them, if they desired it, as members of the Church of England.

II. 20. We proceed now to the second point. What is it to “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called?”

It should always be remembered that the word walk, in the language of the Apostle, is of a very extensive signification. It includes all our inward and outward motions; all our thoughts, and words, and actions. It takes in, not only everything we do, but everything we either speak or think. It is, therefore, no small thing “to walk,” in this sense of the word, “worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called;” to think, speak, and act, in every instance in a manner worthy of our Christian calling.

21. We are called to walk, First, “with all lowliness:” to have that mind in us which was also in Christ Jesus; not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think; to be little, and poor, and mean, and vile in our own eyes; to know ourselves as also we are known by Him to whom all hearts are open; to be deeply sensible of our own unworthiness, of the universal depravity of our nature, (in which dwelleth no good thing,)—prone to all evil, averse to all good; insomuch that we are not only sick, but dead in trespasses and sins, till God breathes upon the dry bones, and creates life by the fruit of his lips. And suppose this is done,—suppose he has now quickened us, infusing life into our dead souls; yet how much of the carnal mind remains! How prone is our heart still to depart from the living God! What a tendency to sin remains in our heart, although we know our past sins are forgiven! And how much sin, in spite of all our endeavours, cleaves both to our words and actions! Who can be duly sensible how much remains in him of his natural enmity to God, or how far he is still alienated from God by the ignorance that is in him?

22. Yea, suppose God has now thoroughly cleansed our heart, and scattered the last remains of sin; yet how can we be sensible enough of our own helplessness, our utter inability to all good, unless we are every hour, yea, every moment, endued with power from on high? Who is able to think one good thought, or to form one good desire, unless by that Almighty power which worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure? We have need even in this state of grace, to be thoroughly and continually penetrated with a sense of this. Otherwise we shall be in perpetual danger of robbing God of his honour, by glorying in something we have received, as though we had not received it.

23. When our inmost soul is thoroughly tinctured therewith, it remains that we “be clothed with humility.” The word used by St. Peter seems to imply that we be covered with it as with a surtout; that we be all humility, both within and without; tincturing all we think, speak, and do. Let all our actions spring from this fountain; let all our words breathe this spirit; that all men may know we have been with Jesus, and have learned of him to be lowly in heart.

24. And being taught of Him who was meek as well as lowly in heart, we shall then be enabled to “walk with all meekness;” being taught of Him who teacheth as never man taught, to be meek as well as lowly in heart. This implies not only a power over anger, but over all violent and turbulent passions. It implies the having all our passions in due proportion; none of them either too strong or too weak; but all duly balanced with each other; all subordinate to reason; and reason directed by the Spirit of God. Let this equanimity govern your whole souls; that your thoughts may all flow in an even stream, and the uniform tenor of your words and actions be suitable thereto. In this “patience” you will then “possess your souls;” which are not our own while we are tossed by unruly passions. And by this all men may know that we are indeed followers of the meek and lowly Jesus.

25. Walk with all “longsuffering.” This is nearly related to meekness, but implies something more. It carries on the victory already gained over all your turbulent passions; notwithstanding all the powers of darkness, all the assaults of evil men or evil spirits. It is patiently triumphant over all opposition, and unmoved though all the waves and storms thereof go over you. Though provoked ever so often, it is still the same,—quiet and unshaken; never being “overcome of evil,” but overcoming evil with good.

26. The “forbearing one another in love” seems to mean, not only the not resenting anything, and the not avenging yourselves; not only the not injuring, hurting, or grieving each other, either by word or deed; but also the bearing one another’s burdens; yea, and lessening them by every means in our power. It implies the sympathizing with them in their sorrows, afflictions, and infirmities; the bearing them up when, without our help, they would be liable to sink under their burdens; the endeavouring to lift their sinking heads, and to strengthen their feeble knees.

27. Lastly: the true members of the Church of Christ “endeavour,” with all possible diligence, with all care and pains, with unwearied patience, (and all will be little enough,) to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;” to preserve inviolate the same spirit of lowliness and meekness, of longsuffering, mutual forbearance, and love; and all these cemented and knit together by that sacred tie,—the peace of God filling the heart. Thus only can we be and continue living members of that Church which is the body of Christ.

28. Does it not clearly appear from this whole account, why, in the ancient Creed, commonly called the Apostles’, we term it the universal or catholic Church,—“the holy catholic Church?” How many wonderful reasons have been found out for giving it this appellation! One learned man informs us, “The Church is called holy, because Christ, the Head of it, is holy.” Another eminent author affirms, “It is so called because all its ordinances are designed to promote holiness;” and yet another,—“because our Lord intended that all the members of the Church should be holy.” Nay, the shortest and the plainest reason that can be given, and the only true one, is,—The Church is called holy, because it is holy, because every member thereof is holy, though in different degrees, as He that called them is holy. How clear is this! If the Church, as to the very essence of it, is a body of believers, no man that is not a Christian believer can be a member of it. If this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling; then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of this body. It follows, that not only no common swearer, no Sabbath-breaker, no drunkard, no whoremonger, no thief, no liar, none that lives in any outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of his Church.

29. Can anything then be more absurd, than for men to cry out, “The Church! The Church!” and to pretend to be very zealous for it, and violent defenders of it, while they themselves have neither part nor lot therein, nor indeed know what the Church is? And yet the hand of God is in this very thing! Even in this his wonderful wisdom appears, directing their mistake to his own glory, and causing “the earth to help the woman.” [Rev. 12:16] Imagining that they are members of it themselves, the men of the world frequently defend the Church: Otherwise the wolves that surround the little flock on every side would in a short time tear them in pieces. And for this very reason, it is not wise to provoke them more than is unavoidable. Even on this ground, let us, if it be possible, as much as lieth in us, “live peaceably with all men.” Especially as we know not how soon God may call them too out of the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of his dear Son.

30. In the mean time, let all those who are real members of the Church, see that they walk holy and unblamable in all things. “Ye are the light of the world!” Ye are “a city set upon a hill,” and “cannot be hid.” O “let your light shine before men!” Show them your faith by your works. Let them see, by the whole tenor of your conversation, that your hope is all laid up above! Let all your words and actions evidence the spirit whereby you are animated! Above all things, let your love abound. Let it extend to every child of man: Let it overflow to every child of God. By this let all men know whose disciples ye are, because you “love one another.”

John Wesley, Sermons, on Several Occasions