How to Argue

This is frequently what it is like to "debate" on the internet.

Bad Grounds for Rejecting Baptistic Convictions

My friend Trey Austin has posted on why he is no longer a Baptist. His post is why I reject paedobaptist convictions and Reformed ecclesiology. Do you find those grounds for my rejection ridiculous? Then you should find his grounds for rejecting Baptistic convictions just as bad.

As I remarked in his comment section, I could see an atheist posting this picture and stating that it is why he is no longer a Christian. The reasoning/reaction is just as bad and snobbish.

Here's another example. The following pictures show why I am not Reformed :-)

I could also try to find a picture of the Truly Reformed giving Felix Manz, a so called "anabaptist," his "third baptism" (i.e. drowning him), but that would be bad grounds for not being Reformed, right?

There may be good reasons for rejecting Baptistic views (not that I have found any yet), but what Trey has posted does not supply any. Nevertheless, he has stated that it is "Why He is No Longer A Baptist," and apparently "This needs no explanation." No doubt he will want to explain now :-)

That's Not Enough!

I heard an interesting story while on vacation a few weeks ago. My Dad and stepmother told me a story about a child of one of her relatives. This child recently graduated from high school and was sent graduation gifts. One of the gifts was a check that may have been (I don't recall the exact amount) written for $100. This child actually sent the check back to the relative and said, "That's not enough!" It was sort of funny to see my Dad's disgusted facial expression after relaying a story about such ingratitude and pride. One cannot help but feel a sense of disgust over the response of that spoiled individual. I did my share of rotten things as a child, but I don't recall responding to my Dad with that sort of ingratitude. He has done so much for me that I am well beyond "deserving" anything else. In fact, he did enough for me merely by adopting me into his family as one of his own. I would feel as though I had reached the heights of depravity if I ever told him after receiving a gift, "That's not enough!"

When he finished telling me that story about the high school graduate, I could not help but think that we do that to God all the time. God has given us so much, especially in the United States, but we are unthankful. We do not give ourselves to love him with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength. He gives us rain and beautiful weather, but "that's not enough!" He gives us health and mental well-being, but "that's not enough!" I am sitting in an air-conditioned room on a soft leather seat in front of a nice computer, but "that's not enough!" We may as well return a generous check to his face and say "that's not enough!" It's no different from the spoiled child and their human relative, except that it is infinitely worse in our case with God.

We are evil and deserve eternal wrath for our sin. We are unthankful, even though God's word says:

NKJ 1 Thessalonians 5:18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

These passages accurately describe our natural condition:

NKJ Romans 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

NKJ 2 Timothy 3:2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Notice how ingratitude is underlined over and over in scripture. The greatest ingratitude is to turn our backs on God's greatest gift to mankind, which is the gift of His Son. Some are, in effect, saying:

"You say you gave your Son to die for me, but that's not enough! Proof of your love is all around me, but it's not enough. Send and give more, and then maybe I will cease from my procrastinations and come to your Son for grace and mercy. You gave me your precious word that prophets, Apostles and other godly men died to preserve, but that's not enough. I will put off the study of the gospel until I please. Hold on a moment while I change the TV channel and seek diversions, because your word is not enough! I will come to you at my leisure, so long as you keep the goodies coming. So far it's not enough to persuade me to come to you. Let me indulge in various pleasures a bit longer and then, perhaps, I will come."

Or perhaps some are saying something like this:

"God, I know you gave your Son to die for me as my only remedy and ground for acceptance with you, but I must add to what he did. What He did is not enough. I must add my sacramental obedience to His good works as basis for divine acceptance. What he did was necessary and good, but it's not enough! While you call my good works filthy rags and a stench in your nostrils, Lord, I must still add my good works to the seamless garment of Christ's righteousness in order to be appropriately clothed by Him. My baptism, my charitable good gifts to others, my frequent church attendance, my tithing, my sincere prayers and such need to be added to what Christ did, because what he did is not enough."

In both of these cases, we have the same ingratitude of the arrogant child in the story. If we are so angry with the unthankful and spoiled child who sent back the check and said "That's not enough!," what do you suppose God will do to those who despise the suffering of His Son for the sake of our salvation? God gave his only Son to suffer and to fulfill all righteousness for our sake in order that we might be credited with His obedience as a basis for divine acceptance. Shall we insult God by telling him that it's not enough?! Shall we add our perversity to the righteousness of the Son as a ground for our justification? That's no different from sending back a check to God and telling him "That's not enough!" God will rightly punish the ungrateful who do not turn to His Son in faith for a gracious acceptance in Him. What he did and is doing is surely enough. Let us rest in Him and cease from the selfish ingratitude that tells God, in one way or another, "That's not enough!"

THE Greatest Sin

While I was on vacation recently, I was watching television with my Dad and we watched recent news about murder and abortion. What was being reported was extremely evil. This prompted me to ask him what he thought was THE greatest evil in the world. I wanted to know what evil thoroughly disgusted him. As I suspected, he brought up the evil of murder. He spoke about a particular murderer who was also given to eating his victims. That is absolutely monstrous and he thought that was THE greatest evil. I told him he was wrong. That is not the greatest evil in the world. How could I be so sure?

If I asked some Christians, they would probably bring up similar issues, but others would no doubt bring up the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Since it will never be forgiven, they would reason that it must be the greatest sin. However, the text does not say that it cannot be forgiven, but that it will not be forgiven. I do not think that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is THE greatest sin, even though it is, according to scripture, a very great evil.

I would argue that, according to Christianity, failure to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength is THE greatest evil. Since loving God with all that we are is the greatest commandment according to Jesus, I think that sinning against that commandment is the greatest evil. Notice what Jesus says:

NKJ Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the first and great commandment. 39 "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

NKJ Mark 12:28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" 29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. 31 "And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. 33 "And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." But after that no one dared question Him.

Jesus grants the view that some commandments are greater than others, and then points to love of God as the greatest. If that's true (and it must be), then I would argue that the violation of that commandment is the greatest sin. How radically different is that from what people think is the most evil in our culture today? Are we just as disgusted by our failure to love God as we are by murder and other horrible sins? We should be, according to scripture. Failure to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength is the greatest sin. Away with all self-flattery that we can somehow please God and fail to do that constantly and perfectly. Whoever expects to stand before God must either love him perfectly from the day of their birth, or flee to Christ for mercy and grace in order to escape the consequences of committing THE most evil sin in the world.

p.s. I vaguely remember reading that Martin Luther thought the same thing as I do about the greatest sin, but I cannot find the reference. If my readers know where I might find his comments in that regard, please let me know. Thanks.

A Just Weight

As I mention in my profile, I work at UPS (United Parcel Service). I have done so for 17 years now. I only sort packages on a box line that receives packages that are coming to my local area. Anyway, I work very close to a person in Revenue Recovery that picks packages off of a belt to check their weight, size, etc. I received a package on my slide last week that indicated a weight of 65 pounds. When I lifted it up, I immediately knew that it was false. I carried it over to the lady that works in Revenue Recovery and put it on her scale. It actually weighed about 155 pounds. I was told this week that the business that sent it ended up paying an additional $50+ for delivering that one package. The lady's supervisor in Revenue Recovery also told me that UPS recovered over $90,000 in one week by checking packages that had false weights. That week was not out of the ordinary.

Some businesses are producing labels that indicate false weights so that they won't have to pay as much for shipping. UPS had to hire people (Revenue Recovery) to pull packages off of an unload belt in order to check for false information. Some people are even using the same label for multiple packages so that they can only pay for the cost of sending a single package.

Keep in mind that over $90,000 was recovered at our UPS hub a few weeks ago. That's just one week in one location, and not all packages can be checked. That's also just one shipping company. There's no doubt that this kind of massive fraud is going on with those that use FedEx and other shipping companies. Can you imagine how much fraud is happening on a state or even national level?!

Given the existence of modern shipping circumstances, this verse has never been more relevant:

NKJ Proverbs 11:1 Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.

For related passages, check Lev. 19:35-36; Deut. 25:13-16; Prov. 16:11; 20:20, 23; Amos 8:5-6; Mic. 6:10-11. I would strongly encourage the reader to check Matthew Henry's comments on all of these passages. They are quite good, but I will only include one brief comment below.

Matthew Henry insightfully says:

"A balance cheats, under pretence of doing right most exactly, and therefore is the greater abomination to God."

Charles Bridges comments:

"A very grievous thing it is to think of the several kinds of frauds and deceits, wherein men are grown wondrously expert, and so shameless, that they think it rather a credit to them, as an argument of their perfect understanding in their many mysteries and particular professions, than any blemish on their Christian profession. What a fearful exposure will be made on that great day, to the disgrace and everlasting contempt" of the dishonest and ungodly merchant!" Charles Bridges, The Book of Proverbs (Mott Media, 1978), p. 408.

"The need for this particular teaching is most understandable because of the evil that prevails throughout our business world; cheating and all dishonesty in business (the differing weights) are declared to be an abomination to God, yet how often are they excused, as something that happens all the time, perhaps even of necessity! But the short measure will fill up a full measure of guilt, and the light weights bring upon the soul heavy weight of judgment. If Job, was fearful, lest his "land cries out" against him, let the businessman beware, lest his weights and scale bear witness against him. Certainly there is a cause for watchfulness! What's the meaning of this massive and costly government with all its checks and counter checks, its endless numbers of laws, and penalties, if not, that man cannot trust his fellowman? But in all this, let me not forget, that of all this deceit my heart is the native soil; that nothing but the culture of divine principle keeps down these poisonous weeds, and, supplies in their place, "the fruit of righteousness...to the glory and praise of God." Ibid., p. 423.

Two Quotes from a Dr. Daniel Sermon

I have been listening to Dr. Curt Daniel's series through the Gospel of John, and I heard him read the following two quotes in his sermon on The Funeral of Jesus (Streaming, Download):

“One Joseph was appointed by God to be guardian of Christ’s body in the virgin womb, and another Joseph was the guardian of his body in the virgin tomb; and each Joseph is called a ‘just man’ in Holy Scripture”. Christopher Wordsworth

“Among clothing that belongs to us, Christ put on even the grave-clothes, to make them easy to us, and to enable us to call them our wedding-clothes.” Matthew Henry

This particular sermon is packed with interesting information for meditation.

Baptism Debate Promo

Gene "Credo" Cook (from Unchained Radio) is scheduled to debate Paul "Paedo" Manata (a contributor to Triablogue) on the issue of the proper subjects for baptism on August 19th in Murietta, Ca.

Click below in order to go hear the funny promo:

Debate Promo with Paul "Paedo" Manata

McNeill on Edwards

"Edwards (d. 1758) must be regarded as the most eminent of American Calvinists. As a boy he was gifted with remarkable powers of observation and experienced mystical states. ‘We are to conceive of the divine excellence as infinite, general love,’ he wrote at the age of sixteen, and at seventeen, ‘Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God.’ At twenty, he resolved ‘diligently to look into our old divines concerning conversion.’ These are typical themes of his preaching. Having graduated from Yale at seventeen, he briefly served a Presbyterian church in New York, was for two years a tutor at Yale, and became the colleague and successor of his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, in Northampton, Massachusetts. He preached the wrath as well as the love of God, and his tall, almost motionless form and pale, grave face lent impressiveness to his clear message. In his theology and in his treatment of the emotions he added humane elements to Calvinism, but in his preaching he elaborated the theme of hell as John Calvin never did. For Calvin, hell was alienation from God; for Edwards it was endless physical torment pictured in realistic detail. Yet he never lost his deep sense of the essentially loving nature of God. Even his lurid warnings were uttered in compassion, and his object in all preaching was to lead sinners to grace."

John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford Univeristy Press, 1954), p. 362.

I saw the above quote referenced in Dr. Glenn Kreider's excellent article, "Sinners in the Hands of a Gracious God." Dr. Kreider wrote his doctoral dissertation on Jonathan Edwards' Interpretation of Revelation 4:1-8:1.

Back From Vacation

I just had two consecutive weeks of vacation from UPS. I spent the second week (last week) up in Iowa visiting with my Dad and we played golf almost every day. I helped to install his new web cam so that my brother and his kids can have video chats with him over the Internet. I managed to snap a picture of myself while I was talking to my brother on a cell phone.

My HUGE forehead is sort of crispy from the sun. Before I went up there, I was whiter than this font color that you're reading now (or the shirt in the pic), so I was easily cooked, despite using my Dad's sunblock. It also appears like I have a weird look in my eyes, as if I am reading some ridiculous comments by an Internet clown (some know who I am referencing), but I wasn't. Anyway, Mike M., aka macoman, was inquiring about a picture of me that he could manipulate, so let's see what he can do with the above :-)

I will get back to regular posting asap.

How To Hyper-Link

These instructions are for those in the blogosphere who keep forgetting how to create hyper-links to their blog posts (you know who you are). So, for the sake of that forgetful Australian, here are some directions for him to bookmark.

HTML uses the < > (anchor) tag to create a link to another document.

An anchor can point to any resource on the Web: an HTML page, an image, a sound file, a movie, etc.

The syntax of creating an anchor:

The < > tag is used to create an anchor to link from, the href attribute is used to address the document to link to, and the words between the open and close of the anchor tag will be displayed as a hyperlink.

This anchor defines a link to my blog:

The line above will look like this in a browser:

Theological Meditations

These instructions will work when you are commenting on someone else's blog and want to leave a link for those who wish to do further research.

My Stereograms

Click on each image to see the full size Stereogram. Then relax your eyes to see a 3D image of a cross emerge. Which one do you like best?

I made this with the Matrix code. You should see my name "Tony" in 3D.

This is what can happen when you have too much time on your hands :-)

Free Course Audio from Reformed Theological Seminary at iTunes U

Click below to open up iTunes.RTS.edu:

iTunes.RTS.edu (press "Click to Launch iTunes")

One can find a 36 track series by Dr. John Frame on the History of Philosophy and Christian Thought, 42 tracks on Pastoral and Social Ethics, as well as his 26 tracks on Christian Apologetics. Hundreds of other lectures are there as well.

(HT: Jacob Hantla, Tim Challies and Camden Bucey)

Unlimited Expiation Implies an Imperfect Redeemer?

"Prop. LIX Those that dare say, that Christ is an imperfect Redeemer if he do not procure Faith itself for every Man that he Dies for, (which is their Master Argument) may as well say, that God is an imperfect Creator, because he maketh not Worms to be Men; or that he is an imperfect Conservator because he preserved not man from Mortality, Damnation and Antecedent Calamities; especially from Sin: Or that he is imperfectly Merciful, because he permits Men to sin; and Condemns them: Or that Christ is an Imperfect Redeemer of the Elect, because he suffers them after his Redemption to Sin, Suffer and Die: Or, that the Holy Ghost is an imperfect Sanctifier and Caller, because many wicked Men are Sanctified and Believe imperfectly (so as will not suffice to Salvation) and because http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifthey resist and quench the Spirit, and fall from that Faith and Sanctification which they had. Or that the Spirit is an imperfect Comforter; because so many Saints Live and Die in such uncomformitable sadness: Or that Scripture is an imperfect means, because the Effect is so imperfect. In a word, they may as well say, that where God doth not overcome mens wicked dispositions, he is an imperfect God to them in regard of his Mercies: All which beseem not the Tongue of a Christian."

Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (London, 1694), pp. 65-66.

Screwtape on Noise

"Music and silence--how I detest them both! How thankful we should be that ever since our Father entered Hell--though longer ago than humans, reckoning in light years, could express--no square inch of infernal space and no moment of infernal time has been surrendered to either of those abominable forces, but all has been occupied by Noise--Noise, the grand dynamism, the audible expression of all that is exultant, ruthless, and virile--Noise which alone defends us from silly qualms, desparing scruples, and impossible desires. We will make the whole universe a noise in the end. We have already made great strides in this direction as regards the Earth. The melodies and silences of Heaven will be shouted down in the end. But I admit we are not yet loud enough, or anything like it. Research is in progress."

C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter XXII (Collier Books, 1982), 102-103.

Sproul/MacArthur Baptism Debate

As a result of the recent interviews of Gregg Strawbridge (this link will eventually work) and Tom Schreiner in the Converse With Scholars (both audio sessions can be downloaded at the bottom of this page) section of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, listeners may also be interested to know that Dr. R. C. Sproul and Dr. John MacArthur also had a debate/discussion on the subject. The tapes/mp3s are available at Ligonier Ministries. They write:

"From Ligonier Ministries' 1998 National Conference, Drs. John MacArthur Jr. and R.C. Sproul discuss their views on the Biblical meaning and mode of Christian baptism. Dr. MacArthur presents the credo-baptist position and Dr. Sproul presents the historic paedo(infant)-baptist position."

I've spoken with many people who didn't know about this Sproul/MacArthur dialogue, so it deserves to be highlighted here.

p.s. Any effort to debate this subject in the comment section of this post will be deleted quicker than an Owenist can convert "the whole world" into "the elect" :-)

Update on 5-11-10: A commenter has posted two links where one can hear and read both MacArthur's and Sproul's presentations for free. For MacArthur, see here [click]. For Sproul, see here [click].

Disunity in the Godhead?

I've quoted this before on my blog as a side note, but it deserves an exclusive post for future reference since the issue keeps coming up.

“Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally, then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement is strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards Arminianism – the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit.”

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Good Books, 2003), 371.

Baxter on Faith as a Fruit of Christ's Death

"Prop. XL. Faith is a fruit of the Death of Christ, (and so is all the good which we do enjoy): But not directly as it is a Satisfaction to justice; but only Remotely, as it proceeds from that jus Dominii which Christ has received, to send the Spirit in what measure and to whom he will, and to succeed it accordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the further ends of his Death, in the certain gathering and saving of the Elect. So that most directly it floweth from the good pleasure of God and the Redeemer, which we call Predestination. So that is is an unmeet Speech (and such as Scripture never uses) to say, that [Christ died to purchase us Faith] though it be a Fruit of his Purchase. As if a Prince should Ransom or Buy a condemned Malefactor, agreeing and resolving that yet he shall not be saved, if he will spit in his Redeemers Face and refuse him and his kindness. And if it be known that this Malefactor is so desperately wicked, that he will thus reject and abuse his Redeemer and refuse his kindness, except the Prince send a bosom Friend to persuade him, who is the most powerful and unresistable Orator in the World: If the Prince because he is resolved neither to lose the Man, nor his Price of Ransom, doth send this Orator with a Charge that he shall take no denial, nor cease till he have procured the Malefactors consent; is it a convenient Speech to say, that he gave his Ransom Money to purchase the Malefactors consent to be delivered? Or to cure his wicked nature? No: Yet it is true that his Price was a ground-work and Preparative to this effect; so is it in our present Case."

Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (London, 1694), 42-43.

Carson on Christ's Sufficiency and God's Love

“I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the sense developed in the first chapter). Further all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).”

D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), p. 77.

"This approach, I contend, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?... From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted God loves them.” Ibid., 77-78.

James White on Amyraldianism

The following comments occur between minutes 54:19 - 56:34 on The Dividing Line broadcast last Thursday, May 31st. In the context of the discussion, James White is talking to a caller about some people (self-described "four pointers") who claim to have an issue with limited atonement, but most likely have an issue with the other points as well, particularly with unconditional election. James says that these self-described "four pointers" are usually ignorant about Amyraut and what he actually believed. In other words, they're not really Amyraldians. James says:

"And that's why folks who run around calling themselves four pointers who do not know who Amyraut was and cannot exactly tell you what Amyraut actually believed. That's "Amyraldianism" and that's not actually four pointism, by the way. Some people think it is, but... (Caller speaks for a moment)...Amyraldianism is not technically four pointism. There's different takes and I think Amyraldians need to be a little bit more honest in their recognition that Amyraut was not the easiest person to read, and there are different takes even on his particular understanding. But they make a concerted effort--let's give the Amyraldians this much credit--they make a concerted effort to continue to believe in unconditional election while taking a different understanding of the relationship of that decree to the sacrifice of Christ. And, you know, I don't have any problem with discussions about the fact that the sacrifice of Christ has impact outside of just the redemption of the elect. There is a cosmic sense in which God's justice is demonstrated in the sacrifice of Christ. There's no question about that, but that's not actually addressing the real issue, which is: What was the intention of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in the sacrifice of Christ in reference to the redemption of mankind? Who was united to him in his death? Where is the wrath of God propitiated? Is it propitiated in the death of the Son...ALONE? Which, I would argue, eventually leads, rather inevitably, to universalism in many forms. Or is it that Christ suffers wrath AND all unbelievers will likewise suffer wrath for the same sins that allegedly he already atoned for? That's where the issue comes in. I recognize that there are other aspects that we can talk about, but until we get that one down, I'm really not sure that we've addressed the important subject, and certainly important in regards to the perversion of those things by Roman Catholicism and the Mass and all these other things, which is why it's so very important that we really do have a solid understanding of the cross."

William Farel Quote

"Let all therefore, whether priests or preachers, have respect to the great shepherd Jesus Christ, who gave his body and his blood for the poor people. Let us prefer to be nothing, if only the poor sheep, gone so far astray, may find the right way, may come to Jesus and give themselves to God. That will be better than if we should gain all the world and lose those for whom Jesus died. If any man will exalt himself against Jesus, if any man will fight against the faith, it would be better for him if he had never been born. Let us not despise our neighbor. Let us not mock him. Let us not shut the door of the kingdom of heaven and take away the key of knowledge. Let us be free from all hatred and rancour. Let us love all men, pray for all men, do good to all men. Let us visit the poor and the afflicted, that is the true pilgrimage. Those little ones are the images of God, and it is to those images that we ought to resort, to them that we should carry food and candles... My dear brethren, when you hear the bell ring, present yourselves here, in God´s name, in peace and unity, without disturbance or murmuring."

Cited from J.H. Merle d'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, (Sprinkle Publications, 2000), vol 6, book 11, chapter 2, pp., 238-239.