The Wonderful Hope Of Resurrection

In the churchyard at Williamsburg is a tombstone to the memory of Ann Burges, wife of Rev. Henry John Burges, of Isle of Wight, who died Dec. 25, 1771, in giving birth to an infant daughter. The inscription reads:

“Here sleeps in Jesus united to Him by faith and the Grace of a Christian life, all that was mortal of Mrs. Ann Burges, once the tender and affectionate wife of the Rev. Henry John Burges, of the Isle of Wight: She died 25 December 1771 in giving birth to an infant daughter who rests in her arms. She here waits the transporting moment when the trump of God shall call her forth to glory, honor, and immortality. Oh death where is thy sting? Oh grave where is thy victory?”

This family understood the hope of resurrection as did reformers William Tyndale and his good friend John Frith. These men suffered for their Biblical faith and were both burned at the stake for teaching the true gospel. But their answers to their opponents defending the true nature of death and the hope of resurrection remain unanswerable by those who believe death is really life in another place. Death is not being “with Jesus,” or being “present with the Lord,” or being “promoted to glory,” as if heaven is currently being defiled (Numbers 19) by contact with dead people. Death always has been and always will be an enemy. Death isn’t life in any way, shape, or form. This is why our gospel is about resurrection. Many are asking the wrong question, “Where will you go when you die?” The right question is, as Job asked it, “If a man die, shall he live again?” Ask the right question and you are on your way to truth which sets us free.

“The true faith putteth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the souls did ever live. And the pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the Spirit and the flesh do in a Christian man. And because the fleshly-minded pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scripture to stablish it.” William Tyndale

“And when he (i.e. Thomas More) proveth that the saints be in heaven in glory with Christ already, saying, ‘If God be their God, they be in heaven, for he is not the God of the dead;’ there he stealeth away Christ’s argument, wherewith he proveth the resurrection: that Abraham and all saints should rise again, and not that their souls were in heaven; which doctrine was not yet in the world. And with that doctrine he taketh away the resurrection quite, and maketh Christ’s argument of none effect.” William Tyndale

“Nay, Paul, thou art unlearned; go to Master More, and learn a new way. We be not most miserable, though we rise not again; for our souls go to heaven as soon as we be dead, and are there in as great joy as Christ that is risen again.” And I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine, if he had wist it, that the souls of their dead had been in joy; as he did with the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, shew me what cause should be of the resurrection.” William Tyndale

“Notwithstanding, let me grant it him that some are already in hell and some in heaven, which thing he shall never be able to prove by the Scriptures, yea, and which plainly destroy the resurrection, and taketh away the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul do prove that we shall rise;… and as touching this point where they rest, I dare be bold to say that they are in the hand of God.” John Frith

Those are great words from these faithful reformers. Resurrection is assured to everyone, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Notice Paul does not say people are “kept alive,” they are made alive because the dead aren’t alive. The Bible does not talk about the resurrection of the body, as the Platonic infected orthodoxy does, but it does talk about the resurrection of the dead.

The greatest problem humanity faces is death. Our gospel provides the solution – life! Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.”

Cling to this most precious and happy truth.

Our Marvelously Preserved Scriptures…

Our Marvelously Preserved Scriptures…

I came to understand the true nature of both God and man through the study of the Scriptures. I can truly sing these words with great joy:

How firm a foundation, ye Saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word!
What more can he say than to you he hath said,
Who unto the Savior for refuge have fled?

God has preserved His Word through three conduits.

“The provision,” writes John Burgon, “which the Divine Author of Scripture is found to have made for the preservation in its integrity of His written Word, is of a peculiarly varied and highly complex description.”

“First,—By causing that a vast multiplication of COPIES should be required all down the ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of Printing,—He provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud.”

“Next, VERSIONS. The necessity of translating the Scriptures into divers languages for the use of different branches of the early Church, procured that many an authentic record has been preserved of the New Testament as it existed in the first few centuries of the Christian era.”

“Lastly…every famous Doctor of the Church in turn has quoted more or less largely from the sacred writings, and thus has borne testimony to the contents of the codices with which he was individually familiar. PATRISTIC CITATIONS accordingly are a third mighty safeguard of the integrity of the deposit.”

“And, first of all, the reader has need to be apprised (with reference to the first-named class of evidence) that most of our extant copies of the N. T. Scriptures are comparatively of recent date, ranging from the 10th to the 12th century of our era. That these are in every instance copies of yet older manuscripts, is self-evident; and that in the main they represent faithfully the sacred autographs themselves, no reasonable person doubts. Still, it is undeniable that they are thus separated by about a thousand years from their inspired archetypes. Readers are reminded, in passing, that the little handful of copies on which we rely for the texts of Herodotus and Thucydides, of Æschylus and Sophocles, are removed from their originals by full 500 years more: and that, instead of a thousand, or half a thousand copies, we are dependent for the text of certain of these authors on as many copies as may be counted on the fingers of one hand. In truth, the security which the Text of the New Testament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary.”

“To specify one single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of attention it deserves,—“Lectionaries” abound, which establish the Text which has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from at least a.d. 400 until the time of the invention of printing.”

Having read about these wonderful provisions our God has made let us sing together:

How firm a foundation, ye Saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word!
What more can he say than to you he hath said,
Who unto the Savior for refuge have fled?


In this speech from 1899, Teddy Roosevelt tells Chicagoans how they contributed to “Making America Great.” Are you doing your part? TR’s vision was much deeper than a partisan and shallow campaign slogan. I hope you take the time to read this very short exhortation. #MAGA

“THE STRENUOUS LIFE” ―Theodore Roosevelt 10th April, 1899. Speech at Hamilton Club, Chicago

“A life of ignoble ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive after great things, is as little worthy of a nation as of an individual… Who among you would teach your boys that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration in their eyes – to be the ultimate goal after which they strive? You men of Chicago have made this city great, you men of Illinois have done your share, and more than your share, in making America great, because you neither preach nor practice such a doctrine. You work yourselves, and you bring up your sons to work. If you are rich and are worth your salt, you will teach your sons that though they may have leisure, it is not to be spent in idleness; for wisely used leisure merely means that those who possess it, being free from the necessity of working for their livelihood, are all the more bound to carry on some kind of non-remunerative work in science, in letters, in art, in exploration, in historical research-work of the type we most need in this country, the successful carrying out of which reflects most honor upon the nation…Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

An Indian Observes What The White Man Learns In Church

The following narrative, written by Benjamin Franklin in 1784, is an Indian’s observation of what the white man learns in Church.

Conrad (says the Indian), you have lived long among the white People and know something of their Customs. I have been sometimes at Albany, and have observed that once in Seven Days they shut up their Shops, and assemble all in the great House; tell me, what is it for? what do they do there?—

They meet there, says Conrad, to hear and learn good Things.

I do not doubt says the Indian, that they tell you so: They have told me the same; But I doubt the Truth of what they say, and I will tell you my Reasons. I was lately to Albany to sell my Skins, buy Blankets, Knives, Powder, and Rum. You know I us’d generally to deal with Hans Hanson, but I was a little inclin’d this time to try some other Merchant; however, I call’d first upon Hans, and ask’d him what he would give for Beaver. He said he could not give more than four Shillings a Pound; but says he I cannot talk on Business now; this is the Day when we meet together to learn good Things, and I am going to the Meeting. So I thought to my self, since we cannot do any Business to day, I may as well go to the Meeting too; and I went with him.

There stood up a man in black, and began to talk to the people very angrily. I did not understand what he said; but perceiving that he look’d much at me, and at Hanson, I imagin’d he was angry at seeing me there, so I went out, sat down near the House, struck Fire and lit my Pipe, waiting till the Meeting should break up. I thought too that the Man had mention’d something of Beaver, and I suspected it might be the Subject of their Making. So when they came out, I accosted my Merchant,

Well, Hans, says I, I hope you have agreed to give more than four Shillings a Pound. No, says he, I cannot give so much; I cannot give more than three shillings and sixpence. I then spoke to several other Dealers, but they all sung the same Song. Three and sixpence, Three and sixpence. This made it clear to me that my Suspicion was right; and that whatever they pretended of meeting to learn Good Things, the real purpose was to consult how to cheat Indians on the Price of Beaver.

Consider but a little, Conrad, and you must be of my Opinion. If they met so often to learn Good Things, they would certainly have learnt some before this time. But they are still ignorant. You know our Practice. If a white Man in travelling thro’ our Country, enters one of our Cabins, we all treat him as I treat you; we dry him if he is wet, we warm him if he is cold, we give him Meat and Drinks that he may allay his Thirst and Hunger, and spread soft Furs for him to rest and sleep on: We demand nothing in return. But if I go into a white Man’s House at Albany, and ask for Victuals and Drink, they say, where is your Money? and if I have none; they say, Get out you Indian Dog. You see they have not yet learnt those little Good Things, that we need no Meetings to be instructed in, because our Mothers taught them to us when we were Children: And therefore, it is impossible their Meeting, Should be as they say, for any such purpose, or have any such Effect. They are only to contrive the Cheating of Indians in the Price of Beaver.

By Reading Ye Understand…

“Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand…” Paul.

We are Biblical Universalists. Many sincere truth-seekers ask my advice about how they can learn more about God. I reply by saying read, read, and read. God will never teach one who won’t read. God has communicated Himself through words, and he put these words in the collection of writings we know as Holy Scripture. The Spirit of God teaches us through reading what God wrote. If a person departs from the Scriptures all he is left with is his imagination, “intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” (Col. 2:18). There are no shortcuts to maturity.

Many call the Bible “The Book.” I love that designation. THE Book! Even those who don’t read it recognize there’s somethings special about it. Bible means “book.” We call it “THE” Book because of its preeminence. It’s not just any book, it’s The Book. It sheds light on all the other books.

My Bible says “Holy Bible” on the cover. That’s because it’s written by holy men. The word “holy” means “consecrated or set apart to a sacred use.” These men, with different backgrounds and from different times, were set apart for the task of contributing portions of a Book. The finished work is perfect in its parts and consistent as a whole, a book set apart from all other books. These “holy men” were normal men; shepherds, kings, fruit gatherers, businessmen, fathers, husbands, boyfriends, fishermen, tent makers, and priests. They weren’t supermen, they were people like us, and their product, The Book, isn’t other-worldly, it’s for this world. It’s a Book for normal people living a normal life. It’s practical. It’s written in human language, not mystical language.

Within the covers of “The Book” are the Old and New Testaments. A “testament” is a “covenant.” These covenants teach us about God and His ways with mankind. They are distinguished by the Adjectives “Old” and “New” to describe their relationship to each other. The Old and New Testaments are equally true, holy, just, and good. The “New” Testament builds on the “Old” Testament and brings it to fulfillment and perfection. The “Old” promised a Savior, the “New” reveals Him. The “Old” Testament is glorious, but the “New” Testament exceeds in glory – 2 Corinthians 3:9.

The Old Testament historically documents how sin and death entered the world while the New Testament reports how they are abolished. The Old Testament reveals the law of God and the New Testament reveals the grace of God in the gospel. The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in the gospel – Romans 3:31, 8:4.

Let’s thank God for The Book. It’s God’s revelation of Himself. Let’s pray:

“Lord, open our eyes that we may behold wondrous things out of Thy law and Thy gospel.”

Here’s more info on “THE BOOK.”

The King James Bible And The All Inclusive Christmas Message

The Kings James Gets The All Inclusive Christmas Message Right, The Others Not So Much…Luke 2:14 Examined.
Many people love to fault the KJV. But if you take out “hell” and “for ever,” it is actually a very good translation. I want to defend the KJV as it, Young’s, and as many as follow the traditional Greek text, acknowledge the universal salvation Christmas message in Luke 2:14. In other words, Linus was wise for choosing the KJV!
The King James in Luke 2:14 reads, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Believe it or not, the other versions destroy the truth here by altering “good will toward men.” One person recently objected to an article I wrote on Luke 2:14 by quoting the ESV which reads, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” In other words, this person argued, God is only pleased with certain people while the rest burn. The “all people” of verse 10 are only a select few in verse 14 because the “critical” Greek text limits God’s love to only a select portion of the human race.
But the versions which follow the “critical” text, the one which Wescott and Hort SECRETLY smuggled into the Revised Version committee, change the truth of God into a lie in Luke 2:14. The following words are from Dean Burgon, a true textual critic, who defends the KJV reading – the HAPPY KJV reading which is supported by the texts and history. Enjoy!
A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of S. Luke 2:14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“peace among men in whom he is well pleased”) “can be arrived at” (as one of themselves has justly remarked) “only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.” More than that: the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one. Singular to relate, the addition of a single final letter (ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion. From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made, (for the Latin copies all read “pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis,”) the preposition ἐν was evidently away,—absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists no Greek copy of the Gospels which omits the ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it.89 To return however to the genuine clause,—“Good-will towards men” (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία).
Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched for by every known copy of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only א a b d: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (a) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive “Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of S. Luke 2:Uni14), the correct reading of the place is found. d’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin. In the meantime the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Æthiopic, Slavonic and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text. It therefore comes to this:—We are invited to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels,—every known Lectionary,—and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning,—on the one hand: and the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake, on the other. Will any one hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?
Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of Patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:—
In the second century,—we have the testimony of (1) Irenæus.
In the third,—that of (2) Origen in 3 places,—and of (3) the Apostolical Constitutions in 2.
In the fourth—(4) Eusebius,—(5) Aphraates the Persian,—(6) Titus of Bostra, each twice;—(7) Didymus in 3 places;—(8) Gregory of Nazianzus,—(9) Cyril of Jerusalem,—(10) Epiphanius twice;—(11) Gregory of Nyssa 4 times,—(12) Ephraem Syrus,—(13) Philo bishop of Carpasus,—(14) Chrysostom, in 9 places,—and (15) a nameless preacher at Antioch,—all these, contemporaries (be it remembered) of b and א, are found to bear concurrent testimony in favour of the commonly received text.
In the fifth century,—(16) Cyril of Alexandria, on no less than 14 occasions, vouches for it also;—(17) Theodoret on 4;—(18) Theodotus of Ancyra on 5 (once in a homily preached before the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, a.d. 431);—(19) Proclus archbishop of Constantinople;—(20) Paulus bishop of Emesa (in a sermon preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day, a.d. 431);—(21) the Eastern bishops at Ephesus collectively, a.d. 431 (an unusually weighty piece of evidence);—and lastly, (22) Basil of Seleucia. Now, let it be remarked that these were contemporaries of codex a.
In the sixth century,—the Patristic witnesses are (23) Cosmas, the voyager, 5 times,—(24) Anastasius Sinaita,—(25) Eulogius archbishop of Alexandria: contemporaries, be it remembered, of codex d.
In the seventh,—(26) Andreas of Crete twice.
And in the eighth,—(27) Cosmas bishop of Maiuma near Gaza,—and his pupil (28) John Damascene,—and (29) Germanus archbishop of Constantinople.
To these 29 illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but all of considerable antiquity; and some are proved by internal evidence to belong to the fourth or fifth century…and it will be perceived that 18 ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of S. Luke 2. 14 at the time when a b א d were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves.For our present purpose they are Codices of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. In this way then, far more than forty-seven ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of S. Luke 2:14 is the true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is a fabrication and a blunder. Will any one be found to maintain that the authority of b and א is appreciable, when confronted by the first 15 contemporary Ecclesiastical Writers above enumerated? or that a can stand against the 7 which follow?
This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that, besides 1 name from Gaul,—at least 2 stand for Constantinople,—while 5 are dotted over Asia Minor:—10 at least represent Antioch; and—6, other parts of Syria:—3 stand for Palestine, and 12 for other Churches of the East:—at least 5 are Alexandrian,—2 are men of Cyprus, and—1 is from Crete. If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message,—if this be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us,—What amount of evidence will men accept as final? It is high time that this were known…. The plain truth is, that a case has been established against א a b d and the Latin version, which amounts to proof that those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this:—It emerges into notice in the second century; and in the fifth disappears from sight entirely.

Gregory of Nyssa, The Suppressed “Fathers,” and our Historic Faith

Gregory of Nyssa, The Suppressed “Fathers,” and our Historic Faith – By Daniel Sheridan

It gives me so much joy to know that we have both the Biblical and Historical arguments for our faith. Many orthodox teachers have suppressed the Universalist “Fathers” so as to be able to claim the historic argument for their “orthodox” hell. I heard one hell-fire man take up the same ole’ false accusation that “Origen castrated himself” in order to make his congregation think Origen was a kook so as to discredit that Father’s universalism. You have to be very insecure to have to resort to these kinds of slanders in order to keep your congregation.

I love the fact that universalism was never the product of controversy or violence; “it belongs,” says Thomas Allin, “to the pre-controversial age, it is the spontaneous expression of the earliest Christian thought; its spirit long remained un-affected by the many struggles of rival churches and schools on the battleground of the Trinitarian (and similar) dogmas.” Many doctrines require excommunications, violence, state-support, and slander to maintain themselves, not so universalism.

It is true, that Alexandria and Antioch had their rivalries, their jealousies (such is human nature), and their contrasted theories of exegesis, but, as Thomas Allin has pointed out, “Origen is not a more decided Universalist than the distinguished (and I may add most unfairly depreciated) Theodore of Mopsuestia, head of the Antiochene school. To these original thickers are due the two great systems of theology which Hellenism has bequeathed to the Church, which by divergent paths reach the same goal and echo with confidence the same views as to human destiny, as to the extent and the universal success finally of the Divine plan of redemption.” We too, though many of us diverge in some areas of doctrine, we all agree on the goal – all humanity at one with each other and God.

Allin, quoting Doederlin, said, “In proportion to the eminence of any Christian teacher was the conviction with which he asserted the termination of penalties at some time in the future.” Allin then goes on to say this about Gregory of Nyssa.

“…it is right to point out that such views are, as a rule, stated without fear or reticence, without the least notion of any unsoundness, but rather as part of the Faith. Thus Gregory of Nyssa proclaims them aloud, not in one treatise but in many; and Gregory died not alone in the odour of sanctity, but as probably the foremost thinker and divine of the Church of his day.”

“This is the end of our hope,” proclaimed Gregory, “that nothing shall be left contrary to the good, but that the divine life, penetrating all things, shall absolutely destroy death from existing things, sin having been previously destroyed…For it is evident that God will in truth be in all when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with itself, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body. Now the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity.”

Happy Hellenism (Christian Universalism) vs. Broken-Down Carthaginianism (Augustinian Theology)

Another way to look at the Christmas story…
Happy Hellenism (Christian Universalism) vs. Broken-Down Carthaginianism (Augustinian Theology)
Christians from the earliest days had a conception of God as the Responsible Parent-source, immanent in the Universe. They regarded the Incarnation, not as an expedient to remedy a marred plan, but as the climax of God’s eonian purpose. These weren’t bound by the narrow and depressing limits of Augustinian theology, but they joyfully soared with the depth and optimism of the noble thoughts of those early promoters of the benevolent God.
Hellenistic thought and vocabulary saw the whole creation moving gradually toward the elimination of all discord and evil. Holy Scripture plainly declares the salvation of all mankind and the restitution of all things. This Larger Hope, this infallible truth, is “the good tidings of great joy,” the Gospel promise which is “to all people.”
The trustee in this process is Immanuel, the Logos manifested in the flesh, made man for us and for our salvation. But as the universe is really One, the work of the Logos cannot be limited. The grace of God knows no limits. The incarnation is thus the expression of God’s universal purpose of unification, education, and restoration. This plan may be traced in all God’s dealings with us. His wrath and vengeance are really the expressions of His endless love. God’s judgments are but moments in the great redemptive process. The Resurrection is its climax.
In early Christian and Hellenistic vocabulary, Western ideas inherent in their doctrines of imputation, satisfaction, and substitution are non-existent; sin, however awful, is always curable. That’s because sin resides in the will, and not, according to Augustinian theology, penetrating to the nature of man. While the ties of heredity are recognized, yet infant innocence is firmly held. The Church, if not technically, is yet potentially and vitally a synonym for the whole human family.  
The crude absolutism which has always characterized the Latin ideal of God, and which is reflected in the claims of the Pope, as God’s vicegerent, is also wanting in Hellenistic theology. This indeed recognized the Divine sovereignty, but it is the supremacy of a reasonable and loving Creator and Parent.
To man a special interest and dignity is assigned, stamped as he is indelibly with the Divine image, a child of the Father of all mankind, a pupil whom the Heavenly Tutor is educating. But man is more than this. He is the microcosm or mirror of the universe, God’s representative and vicegerent, a common bond and center uniting the universe.
These doctrines contrast profoundly with our traditional Western Creed. They require a new philosophy (which is yet the oldest) of God and man. They involve a new diagnosis of sin and a new estimate of redemption.
I hope many will reconsider their adherence to that theology still largely current among us, which, historically viewed, is little better than a broken-down Carthaginianism — an Augustinianism largely disintegrated, and disguised with a motley array of patches; I hope they may come to see the “Glad Tidings” which Latinism has never really believed.
Western divines have, and no doubt sincerely, professed to teach the Gospel, but their genuine message has been the deliverance of only a portion of the human family from a hell that doesn’t even exist, and a final dualism where sin, and pain, and woe, are forever triumphant.
The preceding article is based on a series of reflections from correspondence between 19th century Anglican Priest Basil Wilberforce and Thomas Whittemore. Daniel Sheridan of edited some of the 19th century language and added a few of his own words to make it a complete article.

Tyndale and Luther on Love and Good Works

“Now love does not receive his mercy, but faith only; out of which faith love springs, by which love I pour out again upon my neighbor that goodness that I have received of God by faith…we make good works fruits, by which our neighbor is the better, and by which God is honored…by which we know that our faith is no trick of imagination and dead opinion…but a living thing produced by the Holy Spirit.” — William Tyndale

“We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us.
Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.” — Martin Luther 

The Gospel and International Relations

The Gospel and International Relations: All Mankind 
The Gospel not only changes the individual, it influences international relations by breaking down the partition walls of prejudice and hatred among the different nations and races. It unites in brotherly fellowship and harmony those who once were bitterly separate and hostile. The spirit of Christianity is truly universal rising above all national distinctions promoting a unity described as being of “one heart and of one soul.”
The poor Gentile Christians in Greece, in what may be the very first international aid effort, sent their charities to the poor Jewish Christians in Palestine, and thus proved their gratitude for the gospel and its fellowship which originated among the Jews. Christians of all nationalities felt themselves to be “brethren,” were constantly impressed with their common origin and their common destiny, and considered it their sacred duty to “keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.”
While the Greeks despised all barbarians as only half men, and the Romans, with all their might and policy, could only bring their conquered nations into a mere mechanical conglomeration, a giant body without a soul, Christianity, by purely moral means, not force, but love, founded a universal spiritual empire and a communion of saints, which stands unshaken to this day, and will spread till it embraces all the nations of the earth as its living members, and reconciles all to God.
Christians didn’t despise non-Christians or people from other cultures. They loved them. They believed that God is the Savior of All Mankind.
The Apostle Paul taught believers to:
Live At Peace With ALL MANKIND: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Romans 13:18
Love ALL MANKIND: “And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you…” 1 Thessalonians 3:12
Provide For the Needs of ALL MANKIND: “…they glorify God for your…subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men…” 2 Corinthans 9:13
Work For The Good Of ALL MANKIND: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Galatians 6:10
Be Patient With ALL MANKIND: “…be patient toward all men.” 1 Thessalonians 3:12.