Faster Unto Thee

How to Botch an Altar Call

I found this yesterday on The Way of the Master website. This evangelistic ministry is led by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. While those who do not hold to penal substitution will not like this list, those of us who do will find it helps with clarity of thought.

-------------------------------------------------------------

(A few keys for those who don't want people saved in their altar calls)

1. Present an unbalanced message. Only let them see the heart-warming part of God’s character. Preach God’s love but leave out His holiness and justice. That way they’ll think He’ll let them into heaven no matter what.
2. Don’t mention repentance until they’re repeating a “sinner’s prayer.” Just get them to say, “I repent of all my sins” while they’re echoing you. They won’t know what they’re saying and they won’t count the cost.
   
3. Above all else, be dignified. Don’t get heart to heart with the people. They would get something out of what you said.
   
4. Skim over the gospel and push the prayer. Pretend the lost naturally understand what Christ has done for them.
   
5. Preach Jesus as a life enhancer not a life rescuer. Tell them how Jesus can improve their life but don’t show them Jesus as the only One who can save them from Hell. People will think if they reject Him they’re only losing out on a spiritual high.
   
6. Try to please the people instead of convert them. Tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
   
7. Compromise the message to speed up the process. The Christians who have heard it a hundred times before will be pleased with that. The quicker they get out the quicker they can get to the restaurant.
   
8. Give them the impression that God is so good He won’t send anyone to hell. Don’t present the whole counsel of God or they might realize He is so good that He’ll see to it that justice is served and that all unrepentant sinners will be punished in the fire that is not quenched.
   
9. Speak to sinners as though they were saints. They’ll think they’re God’s children instead of the enemies of God they’ve made themselves into because of their sin. You’ll give them false assurance and mislead them.
   
10. Don’t mention sin or man’s guilt. Resist the urge to explain what Christ came to deliver us from. Don’t show them their need for the Savior. Otherwise it may all make sense.
    
11. Don’t look to the Bible for the substance of your altar call. Only mimic other preachers with large congregations.
    
12. Tell the lost not to feel bad about their sins. That way you will work against the Holy Spirit who’s convicting them
    
13. Whatever you do, never mention Judgment Day. Your audience might take spiritual matters seriously.
    
14. Tell them Jesus is the only way to heaven but don’t explain why. They may think it’s nothing more than fear tactics and leave offended instead of enlightened.
    
15. Confuse the call. This is a great way to botch up an altar call. Don’t let people know you’re asking them to commit their life to Christ. Be vague and general in what you’re saying. Neglect to mention following Christ in your evangelistic altar calls and say things like, “If you don’t feel you’re as close to God as possible raise your hand,” “If you feel lonely come to the front for prayer,” “If you want more of God this is your time,” and, “If you have struggles and need the answer come down.” Just get them to raise a hand. That way no one will be able to count the cost and you’ll even get saints to respond to salvation altar calls, making the results look more successful.
    
16. Only give them half the story. Tell them Jesus died to forgive everyone but overlook the fact that they must personally receive Him to partake of that forgiveness.
    
17. Present the truth as though it isn’t. Be so funny when you share Christ that you belittle the seriousness of the matter.
    
18. Preach forgiveness without repentance. That way no one will know how to be forgiven.
    
19. Be unbiblical. Present repentance and faith as an offer instead of how God does as a command (Acts 17:30).
    
20. Let them think next Sunday is the day of salvation. Don’t make them feel it’s urgent to respond today.
    
21. Never warn of hell. Dangle heaven in front of their nose but rarely mention hell, certainly not as much as Jesus did.
    
22. Only do altar calls inside the church. Never take the gospel where sinners congregate. The lost might get saved.
    
23. Use churchy terms. Use words like, “saved,” “repent,” and “born again,” without any explanation. That way your hearers won’t comprehend what you’re saying. If they can’t understand it, it’s probable they won’t be changed by it.
    
24. Give false assurance of salvation to unsaved Christians. Assure church folk that they are saved even if they bear no fruit. So that you don’t offend the unsaved pew warmers never quote 2 Corinthians 13:5: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith.” You could lose some financial supporters and have to depend on God.
    
25. Never mention the wrath of God. If you mention it, people might be awakened to flee to Jesus who “saves us from the wrath to come.” ( 1 Thess. 1:10)
    
26. Study how the apostles preached and witnessed and do the opposite. Don’t explain Jesus’ suffering death on the cross. Otherwise they may think of running to Him for forgiveness. Don’t speak of His burial or resurrection or they might realize He is God. Refrain from commenting about the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. That way they can go on thinking He’s a fairy tale. Overlook talk of the messianic prophecies Jesus fulfilled or they might realize that the Bible is true. If they see it’s the truth they may see that following Christ is the logical decision. And whatever you do, avoid what the apostles did when it came time to call people to obey the gospel. Don’t tell them to trust Christ and live for Him. That is too accurate. If they know how to get saved your altar call will be a success.
    
27. Put more emphasis on the “sinner’s prayer” then on repentance and faith. Satan will smile over your departure from Biblical instruction. We are never taught to use a ‘sinner’s prayer’ throughout the entire Bible. If you decide to use it and put more emphasis on the technique than on what we’re commanded to preach: faith and repentance you’ll certainly botch things up. A ‘sinner’s prayer’ doesn’t equal salvation, only faith in Christ and repentance toward God do.
    
28. Let Christians think you’re the only one who can do it right. Always leave the impression that they should only invite friends to church and never actually witness themselves. It will keep you in business and the lost unsaved.
    
29. Don’t let the lost know they are. Disregard subjects like Judgment Day, God’s holiness, man’s sinfulness and justice. That way the lost can continue to think they’re “good enough” to get into heaven.
    
30. Rely upon psychological techniques to manipulate people into responding to the altar call. Don’t rely upon the Holy Spirit or they may actually get saved.
    
31. Make sure you’re the main attraction. Remember the goal in botching up an altar call is for people to leave and say, “What a wonderful preacher,” instead of, “What a wonderful Savior.” Draw all possible attention to how great a speaker and person you are. Otherwise people might see Christ in your preaching and get saved.
    
32. Don’t focus upon Jesus. Finally, the best way to botch up an altar call is not to preach the gospel. Just get people to lift up a hand and pray a prayer with you. Resist the urge to speak of the only One who could save them.

Sometimes the best way to get a point across is to put it in a different light. You now know a few ways to botch up an altar call. Please do not employ them. Do the opposite. You may already do some of them. Don’t let pride keep you from changing and doing things in a Biblical fashion. The bottom line is how true we are to Christ and His word. Effectively reaching the lost is our purpose. Let nothing hold you back from that agenda. May God bless you as you seek to win people to Christ in Bible clubs, churches, conferences, on the street witnessing encounters, at your school, and at your workplace.

Adapted from Becoming an Emissary for God by Allen Atzbi

Vanhoozer's 10 Theses

The difference between an evangelical approach to systematic theology and a liberal one is striking. Read articles by liberal systematic theologians and you will often find sophisticated philosophical arguments and reflections on the implications of their ideas, but little grounding in actual exegesis nor an effort to stay within the theological boundaries set by the Bible. Kevin Vanhoozer, who recently left Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for Wheaton College Graduate School, has recently presented a paper that reveals the heart of an evangelical systematic theologian who wishes to stay firmly within the bounds of Scripture and orthodoxy.

The following is verbatim from NT scholar Michael Bird's blog:

I am fortunate enough to have a copy of Kevin Vanhoozer's paper on "Systematic Theology: The State of the Evangelical (Dis)union" delivered at Gordon-Conwell. It includes these 10 theses on theological interpretation:

1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.

2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.

3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.

4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.

5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.

6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.

7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.

8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.

9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.

10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.

I really liked this quote from Vanhoozer towards the end of the paper:

"Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture."

Your Library up in Flames

Lovers of books and learning, how would you react?

I am a fan of Thomas O. Summers, late Methodist theologian whose systematic theology text is nearly impossible to find for purchase. Today I stumbled across a paper by Charles M. Wood. that contains an entry from Summers' journal:

Nashville, February 15, 1872.—On going to the Publishing House this morning I found my office, library, papers, etc., in ashes. About midnight a fire broke out in the bindery, and burned it, my office, the composition and stereotype rooms. My journal, which I had kept for forty years, manuscript works on Retribution, Hymnology, the Church, notes on Scripture, sermons, commonplace-books,autograph letters of the Wesleys, Coke, Asbury, Watson, and other distinguishedmen, and my library worth thousands of dollars, were all consumed.

Summers concluded the entry thus:

The Lord would not have permitted so great a calamity to happen to me, if he had not intended to overrule it for good; so I submit without murmuring. I take out a new lease of life, and begin the world anew; yet I feel the stroke so keenly.

Wood cites this quote from O.P. Fitzgerald, Dr. Summers: A Life-Study (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1884), p. 270.

Adam as a Real Historical Person

Over at Analogical Thoughts, there is an interesting post, "Was Adam a  Real Historical Individual?" This issue interests me for several reasons. First, much of theology hinges on whether Adam was a real historical person or not. The Apostle Paul understands the entrance of sin and then redemption into the human race to depend upon the First and Second Adam (Romans 5). Second, for my students it is always an issue. Check out the post and leave the author a comment.

Christians and Animal Rights

In his school's blog, Professor Stephen Vantassal of the King's Evangelical Divinity School provides a link to an interesting article of his on why Christians cannot support animal rights. This article piqued my interest as I continue to ponder the Image of God and Speciesism.

Roger E. Olson on John Calvin

Theological blogs have gone crazy this year with the 500th anniversary of John Calvin, Reformer and author the mighty Institutes of the Christian Religion, a text that is still essential reading for any theologian. While I admire much about Calvin and find great help in his works, I still cannot reconcile his views of predestination and election with the Scriptural presentation of God.

Roger E. Olson recently posted a short essay on the Society of Evangelical Arminians website, which I found over at the marvelous Arminian Perspectives. Here is the essay. After you read it, offer your reaction to the essay in the comments section of this post. I want to know where you agree or disagree with Olson! As you may know, Olson is the author of the essential book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.

------------------------

My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism

Roger E. Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University

Above all I want to make clear that I admire and respect my Calvinist friends and colleagues. We disagree strongly about some points of theology, but I hold them in high esteem for their commitment to the authority of God's Word and their obvious love for Jesus Christ and his church as well as for evangelism.

However, I do not admire or respect John Calvin. I have been told that he should not be held responsible for the burning of the heretic Servetus because, after all, he warned the Spanish doctor and theologian not to come to Geneva and he urged the city council to behead him rather than burn him. And, after all, Calvin was a child of his times and everyone was doing the same. Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal.

Furthermore, I find Calvin's doctrine of God repulsive. It elevates God's sovereignty over his love, leaving God's reputation in question. What I mean is that Calvin's all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.

Much to the chagrin of some contemporary Calvinists, Calvin clearly taught that God foreordained the fall and rendered it certain. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXIII.8) He also affirmed double predestination (III:XXI.5) and displayed callous disregard for the reprobate who he admitted God compelled to obedience (disobedience). (I:XVIII.2) Calvin distinguished between two modes of God's will-what later Calvinists have called God's decretive and preceptive wills. (III:XXIV.17) God decrees that the sinner shall sin while at the same time commanding him not to sin and condemning him for doing what he was determined by God to do. To Calvin this all lies in the secret purposes of God into which we should not peer too deeply, but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone who regards God as above all love.

John Wesley commented on the Calvinists' claim that God loves even the reprobate in some way. As one contemporary Calvinist put it, "God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways." Wesley said that this is a love such as makes the blood run cold.

Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, commented that those who find themselves suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there for the greater glory of God. To paraphrase Wesley, that is a glory such as sends chills down the spine. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism. (Institutes III:XXII.11)

I have been heavily criticized by some of my Calvinist friends for saying that my biggest problem with Calvinism (by which I mean consistent divine determinism) is that it makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between God and the devil. (I am not saying Calvinists worship the devil!)

For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history. God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said "The glory of God is man fully alive." The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God's instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative.

Rerun of an old post: Help Me Find This Book By Thomas O. Summers

This is an old post from last March.

----------------------------------------------------------

I have been searching online for a copy of Systematic Theology: A Complete Body of Wesleyan Arminian Divinity by Thomas O. Summers but have not found one. The book was published in 1888 by the Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in Nashville. The picture you see is of vol. 1 of a two volume set that I obtained through inter library loan. The title on the spine and the title page do not match for some reason. The name "Tigert" on the spine refers to The Rev. Jno. J. Tigert of Vanderbilt who arranged Summers' theology lectures and added some material to turn it into a full textbook.

If you know where I can purchase a copy, or at least view a digital one online, please let me know!

Image of God and Speciesism

The relevance of the classical Christian doctrine of the Image of God in humankind has always been seen in relation to the abortion and euthanasia issues, but it is also relevant to current discussions of the relationships between species on planet earth.

On the first two issues of abortion and euthanasia, the fact that humans bear the Image of God (Genesis 1:27) speaks of the uniqueness and high value of human beings given by God himself, thus the obvious sin of aborting children in the womb or terminating people who are miserable, old, or "useless" to society. The full horror is seen when one realizes that it is one image bearer killing another image bearer in the act of abortion or euthanasia.

On the issue of species, recent news stories have brought to the American public an "ism" that formerly kept itself in the halls of our universities: "speciesism" This term was made popular by Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, but coined in the 70's by Psychologist and Philosopher Richard D. Ryder. Just as a racist believes his or her race is superior to others, so a speciesist thinks his or her species is superior to others and puts his or her species' interests above others. Speciesism is "'the widespread discrimination...practiced by man against other species'" (see "Not One Sparrow" in Christianity Today, July 2009, page 19). Working with this line of thinking, when President Obama recently swatted a fly that had been tormenting him and said, "I got the sucker!", the PETA people jumped at the opportunity to scold the President for thinking and acting like his own species had the right to kill another based on the belief that human beings are more important than flys. 

This is where our society is going as it moves further and further away from a biblical worldview. Once the basic idea that human beings are the pinnacle of creation due to the Image of God they bear and from the divine mandate to rule over creation, along with the truth that animals do not bear the Image of God, are dropped, all manner of devaluing of human life and of raising other forms of life to the same level as people occurs. The Image of God is a crucial doctrine that we must teach our children if they are to keep animals in their proper place and humans at the top of creation with a deep responsibility to care for it. If we lose this truth completely, no one will be safe.

So, how do we define the Image of God and explain it? Defining it begins with two questions. First, since the Genesis 1:27 speaks of the Image of God in humankind, it makes sense to consider in what limited ways humankind is like God. Second, since animals are not said to bear the Image of God, it makes sense to contrast humans and animals, carefully defining how they are different.

I very much like Wayne Grudem's summary of the aspects of the Image of God in his Systematic Theology. Here is my summary of Grudem's points from pages 445-449:

1. There is the moral aspect - human beings are moral creatures. Animals are not.

     a. humans are accountable to God

     b. humans have a moral sense of right and wrong

     c. humans are able to express holiness with God's help

2. There is the spiritual aspect - human beings can personally relate to God.

     a. humans have capacity to know and relate to God

     b. humans have (or are) and immortal soul

3. There is the mental aspect

     a. humans have the ability to reason and think logically

     b. humans can have complex, abstract thoughts

     c. humans are aware of time – distant future, past

     d. humans are creative - we see it in art, design, problem-solving, etc.

     e. humans have deep and complext emotions

4. There is the relational aspect

     a. humans are capable of deep relationships – marriage, family, etc.

     b. humans have a mandate and responsibility to rule over creation

Grudem sums it up well:

“Yet we must remember that even fallen, sinful man has the status of being in God's image ... Every single human being, no matter how much the image of God is marred by sin, or illness, or weakness, or age, or any other disability, still has the status of being in God's image and therefore must be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to God's image-bearer. This has profound implications for our conduct toward others. It means that people of every race deserve equal dignity and rights. It means that elderly people, those seriously ill, the mentally retarded, and children yet unborn, deserve full protection and honor as human beings. If we ever deny our unique status in creation as God's only image-bearers, we will soon begin to depreciate the value of human life, will tend to see humans as merely a higher form of animal, and will begin to treat others as such. We will also lose much of our sense of meaning in life.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pages 449-450.

Watson on Grown Atheism and Doubting

I have not read much of Thomas Watson (to my shame), but as my Wednesday night Bible study works through the Beatitudes, one source I consult after my own exegesis and work with exegetical commentaries is Thomas Watson's The Beatitudes.

Yesterday I came across a paragraph on page 31 that struck me as having some parallels with today's situation:

We live in times wherein many are grown atheists. They have run through all opinions, an now of professors they are turned epicures; they have drunk in so much of the poison of error that they are quite intoxicated and fallen asleep, and begin to dream there is no such state of blessedness after this life; and this opinion is to them above the Bible. When men have the spiritual staggers, it sadly presages they will die. Oh, it is a dangerous thing to hesitate and waver about fundamentals; like Pythagoras, who doubted whether there was a God or no; so, whether there be a blessedness or no. Doubting of principles is the next way to the denying of principles. Let it be a maxim with every good Christian, there is a blessedness in reversion. 'There remains a rest for the people of God' (Hebrews 4:9).

The parallel that jumps out at me is the idea of "grown atheists." Today, students in universities and people in other places are fed pluralism in such a way that all religions are leveled in their minds, leading to the conclusion that none is better than the others, and/or that all are wrong or simply have their origin in the imagination of man. This leads to the practice of never giving their heart to any firm religious conviction except that there ought to be none. This "presages they will die"; but in a sense they are dead already and don't even know it.

The other parallel I see speaks to Christians who live without deep conviction of the truths of the Bible. Certainly, to be a genuine Christian one must believe the gospel message of the Bible, but some do not operate their spiritual lives from the position that every word, concept, promise, etc., is really true, no matter what other prevailing philosophies say. The pluralism and relativism of our day has greatly infected the church (I see it all the time in the listless worship, dead devotional lives, lack of holiness among believers) so that the great promises of the Bible regarding the deeper life are not clung to. The promises of the Beatitudes, for example, require death to self, as becoming "poor in spirit," "meek", "hungering and thirsting after righteousness", etc., all require a rejection of the thinking of this world and a deep humbling before God. But so many believers will not give up all to take on these traits and thus forfeit their corresponding promises of inheriting the kingdom, earth, and spiritual satisfaction. It is as though, like the atheists Watson mentions, they are "doubting the principles" and, in effect, "denying the principles." This is all driven by a lack of surrender and a lack of conviction that the Bible really is true in all its details and promises and truly lays out the path of the best life, and does not offer merely general spiritual truths.

Sermon Synopsis: Whenever the Doors Are Open

Here is another sermon synopsis, minus, as always, illustrations, transitions, introduction, conclusion, applications, and more.

Sunday I preached a sermon entitled, "Whenever the Doors Are Open." It addressed the common conception that a person can separate their relationship with the Lord from a relationship with His Church. This notion is prevalent as people today separate "spirituality" from "organized religion," an idea that may young Christians buy into.  I argued that one cannot do this for four reasons.

1. True spirituality obeys God's commands. God commands that we assemble for worship and edification (Hebrews 10:24-25) and we see the assembling of believers in Scripture as an assumed norm for Christian life (Acts 2, I Cor. 12, 14). The point I made here is that if God requires us to assemble for worship and edification and we do not, then we are living in disobedience, and that puts us out of fellowship with God. Spirituality has the legs cut out from under it if disobedience is the norm.

2. True spirituality employs spiritual gifts. God gives spiritual gifts to be used (1 Cor. 12, 14). They are given to a believer for that believer to minister with. To do this best, assembly with other believers is necessary. When I skip church for no good reason, I rob other believers of the benefit of my God-given spiritual gifts. Also when I skip, I rob other believers of the opportunity to exercise their gifts for my benefit. In the end, skipping can be a violation of the love command, not merely a sin of omission in regard to using gifts as God intends. Spirituality that refuses to employ gifts in community and thus be accountable to a community of believers is not biblical spirituality at all.

3. True spirituality fosters a longing for corporate worship (Psalm 84, Acts 2:48). The Bible holds up as spiritual models people who love to be among God's people in worship. There is a craving for God's presence as especially experienced among the assembly of believers and a true recognition that one's spiritual life is dependent upon, to a great degree, relationships with other believers. If that desire to be in the assembly is not there, neither is biblical spirituality. True believers long for the courts of the Lord and love to be among his people.

4. True spirituality persuades the world (John 13:35). True spirituality persuades the world that we belong to Jesus. Jesus said that the love the disciples were to have for one another (modeled for them as Jesus washed their feet) would be the chief identifying mark of a disciple of Jesus. Wow. That tells me that if I am reluctant to be a faithful part of a church community, I am bereft of a key marker of belonging to Jesus. Unbelievers will be far more persuaded of my belonging to Jesus if I am in relationship with other believers and demonstrate love to those other believers. So disconnecting my spirituality from church involvement undercuts my identity with Christ and lessens my impact on unbelievers.

Horton on Joel Osteen

Joel Osteen is a new type of prosperity teacher, one who has taken the hokey antics of a former generation of the Word-Faith movement, stripped them away, and taken his message mainstream. Because of this approach, normally discerning evangelicals have let his program come into their homes and thinking because at first glance it does not appear to be the same thing as the old Word-Faith teaching. Some of my own parishioners regularly watch him on TV, seemingly unaware that the God he preaches is not the one of the Bible or classic Christianity. Michael S. Horton has written a helpful article that demonstrates key problems in Osteen's theology. Check it out.

Thomas O. Summers on Propitiation and the Divine Attributes

Methodist theologian Thomas O. Summers argued passionately for the penal theory of the atonement contra theologian John Miley, who rejected it. Here is an interesting quote of Summers on propitiation and the divine attributes:

Indeed, every perfection of his nature demands that he shall enforce the sanctions of his law; consequently, no attribute of the Deity will allow God to pardon sin without due satisfaction. His wisdom must be vindicated in creating moral beings, and putting them under law. His power must be vindicated in the enforcement of the penalty, as impunity would argue weakness on the part of the Sovereign, and induce contempt on the part of the subject. His truth, comprehending both veracity and faithfulness, must be vindicated, as it requires the execution of the threat, and would be outraged were it set aside in the exercise of an unconditional prerogative of pardoning mercy. His justice must be vindicated. The integrity of his nature will not allow him to swerve a hair's breath from the strictest equity. It would not be vindicated, but rather outraged, if he were not to render the sinner the just deserts of his sin, unless an equivalent for his punishment be paid, that pardon might be granted; and so God might be just while he justifies - that is, absolves the sinner. His goodness must be vindicated. It revolts from sin, while it would befriend the sinner. Sin is the curse and calamity of the universe. It is only evil continually. In its own nature, as well as from the positive infliction of divine vengeance, it results in the ruin of the sinner. It makes him a moral wreck, helpless and hopeless. It requires no argument to show that goodness can allow nothing to be done which in the slightest degrees connives at sin.

    - from Systematic Theology: A Complete Body of Wesleyan Arminian Divinity, Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888. Page 266.