1 John 5:13–15 Assurance of salvation and answered prayers.

One of the evidence of salvation (this is a promise) is that if we (i.e. believers) ask anything according to His will, He hears us and we will receive the requests that we asked from him.

 

13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence that we have before him: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked from him.

1 John 5:13–15

Is there such a thing as common grace?

An excerpt from Vincent Cheung’s Grace for his own. For further reading, see: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10/16/grace-for-his-own/

When a non-Christian rescues a drowning man, it appears that he performs a good work. And when a non-Christian could rob a bank but does not, he appears to abide by the law and contributes to order in society. Thus it is said that God extends a kind of “grace” that is common to all, that restrains sin in the non-Christians and enables them to perform natural righteousness, although not spiritual good. This is a naïve conclusion. Oh, theologians, are you all but stupid children?

Paul wrote that when those who do not acknowledge God’s law nevertheless attempt to live by a moral standard, they betray an awareness of good and evil, although their standard is not accurate. And when they fail to live up to even their own standard of good and evil, they show themselves to be sinners, and worthy of death. What we are talking about is a manifestation of Paul’s teaching. It is an exercise that exponentially increases God’s wrath against the non-Christians. They show that they are aware of such a thing as good and such a thing as evil, but at the same time they refuse to accept God’s definition of what is good and what is evil, and they fail to live up to even their own false moral standard.

God is certainly the one who decrees and causes non-Christian works, order in society, and the restraint of sin, but he also certainly knows that this results in an increase of condemnation, and has designed it this way…

What happened? Theologians practice lazy humility by calling attention to their finite minds. In this case, and this is a charitable interpretation (we will say more about this in a moment), their minds are so finite that they focus only on the man’s perspective in receiving a million dollars. So they say it looks very good. But the whole thing, including the initial donation, is designed to bring the man to utter ruin. What if I give a hungry man a poisonous roast chicken? It takes care of his hunger, but then it kills him, and I know this would happen and intend for it to happen. Is this grace? It could be called charity only from the hungry man’s ignorant perspective, and only for a few minutes before the chicken melts his stomach and kills him. Is it not more proper to include my knowledge and intention in deciding what to call the scenario?

When it comes to theology, theologians take the wicked man’s perspective and ignore everything else…

If we are asking whether something is God’s grace, then we must answer it from God’s perspective – what does he intend? Of course, as we will soon consider, God may intend more than one thing when he does something. The same thing can be good for one and bad for another. Right now we are asking what he intends relative to the non-Christians. And we must answer that it is not grace, but a most deliberate, prolonged, and frightening display of wrath, only in preparation for an even more intense and permanent punishment…

Now the rest should become even more straightforward. God gives food and water, prosperity, and long life to the wicked. Food and water should remind all men of the God of creation and providence, and stimulate praise and thanksgiving…

But it is not grace if God deliberately sends them to non-Christians, knowing and intending that every drop of water they drink would become another nail in their spiritual coffins…

As for prosperity and long life, Psalm 73 states that God sends these things to the wicked in order to slip them up, and so that they would be destroyed. It can be called “grace” only from the wicked man’s false and ignorant perspective, who for now enjoys all these things and is unaware of why they come to him. For a reprobate person, long life does not mean more time to repent, since God has determined that he will never repent; rather, it means more time to sin, and to increase the measure of divine judgment against him. God knows that this is what happens with each additional moment of life that he gives a reprobate person, and there is no disparity between what God knows and what God intends. Therefore, because he knows that each natural benefit increases the reprobate’s condemnation, he also intends it, and if he intends it, it is not grace in any sense of the term. If God does something with the intention to condemn, then by definition, it is not done out of grace…

Should a major doctrine be invented, defined, and formulated chiefly, if not solely, from the perspective of wicked men, rather than from the perspective of God and eternity?…

Their doctrine, in fact, alleges that God shows a truly favorable disposition toward the reprobates, although not in a sense that produces salvation or any spiritual good in them. However, the Bible teaches that God knows all things and wills all things. This means that he always knows and intends the final effects of this natural benevolence, that it would stimulate thanksgiving in the elect, but increase condemnation in the reprobates.

So the theologians must either deny that God knows and wills all things, or they must assume that God is schizophrenic…

 It is better just to renounce the false doctrine…

The true answer is that the good news is considered so only from the perspective of God and his people. It is certainly not good news to Satan. And it is very bad news for the reprobates. Paul wrote that the gospel is a stench of death to some people (2 Corinthians 2:16). A stench of death, in case anyone wonders, is not good news. But to those who would believe, it is a fragrance of life…

 

The Author

Here is an excellent commentary on 1 Kings 22 by Oshea Davis.

NLT 1 Kings 22:19-23,

“I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the armies of heaven around him, on his right and on his left. And the LORD said, ‘Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so that he can be killed there?’ There were many suggestions, until finally a spirit approached the LORD and said, ‘I can do it!’ ” ‘How will you do this?’ the LORD asked. “And the spirit replied, ‘I will go out and inspire all Ahab’s prophets to speak lies.'” ‘You will succeed,’ said the LORD. ‘Go ahead and do it.’ “So you see, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of your prophets. For the LORD has determined disaster for you.”

This passage shows that God did hold a meeting with some demons, (among the other host of Heaven) enticed them, picked one particular convincing lying spirit and gave it His divine pronouncement of success. God did not allow this, because it was God who first voiced up with the idea of wanting Ahab to sin by going to war when God told Ahab not to: “’Who can entice Ahab to go into battle so that he can be killed.” In this light, with demons who love to harm people and lie, God “enticed” them by telling them of His plan of destroying Ahab: but demons love to destroy people! If there was ever a situation where the definition of enticed belonged, it is here. It was not a demon who first said, let us help Ahab sin by going to war so that God will have even more reason to kill him: this was God’s initiative. God merely picked out one particularly zealous demon after enticing it with His original idea. “All that God does is just.” –by definition.

Again, these so-called secondary causes (like lying spirits) are created by God, first enticed by God, are sustained by God, directed by God and even have their own hearts and feet secretly directed by God, for all things in creation move live and have their being in God. This means that the popular phrase “secondary causes” is an inferior phrase, for this reason; the objects in question are not “secondary” in relation to God, and his direct and absolute control of them, even their minds and thoughts. They are only secondary in relation to first party that God is acting upon in the since the actual physical or spiritual object is not directly God; however, we already know that God is not what he creates. This is an obvious and elementary doctrine. Thus, in relation to God who directly and sovereignty controls all things, there is no such thing as “secondary.” Therefore, the term secondary cause is a false category if applied to its relation to God’s sovereignty. And so, it is not in man or demons to direct their steps, God does; with or without them knowing it. In the since of metaphysical(causality) and orchestrating God is the author of evil. When the scripture do go behind the scenes and show what is happening, it always shows God in this level of absolute sovereign control. This is the Sovereign God of Scripture, anything less is paganism.

Because God is the author of evil in the sense of initiating, and orchestrating and being in control of the metaphysical, it was not said that the LORD allowed a lying Spirit to be in the mouth, but that “the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth.”

Oshea Davis. Fackbook post 2016 as a summary from His book, “The Divine Decrees,” 2nd edition. 2012. pg. 267-269

On why both God’s nature of love and wrath necessitates the fall of Adam

This post is an expanded version of my previous post dated April 24th, 2014, where I explain how the nature of God as Love necessitates the entrance of sin in the world. This post repeats much of what was stated before, and discusses God’s nature of wrath. Here, we see that both God’s nature of love and wrath necessitates the entrance of sin in the world.

---

Question: The Bible tells us that God knows everything. So God would have known that when faced with the temptation of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam would have fallen into sin. God could have made the world such that Adam would not have chosen to sin, or perhaps God could have given Adam another temptation which he knows Adam have obeyed God. Since God would have known which temptation would succeed in causing the fall of Adam and which would not have succeeded, why then did God choose to make a world where sin would enter the world? Is the entrance of sin into the world really necessary to bring about a greater good? How do you know this? Is there any biblical passage that teaches this?

Reply:

Dear (undisclosed name),

Your question is in many ways similar to what Gordon Clark wrote about why free will does not solve the problem of evil. Please refer to my post on Clark’s lifeguard analogy. It is insufficient to say that God merely allowed the fall to happen. If God knows how everything would turn out, and yet chose to make the world the way it is, then God did not just permit the creation of the world and its fall into sin. The entrance of Sin is his will. But why? Because the entrance of sin in the world allows for a greater glorification of God through the display of his attributes.

The Latin phrase, Felix Culpa, meaning, the “Fortunate fall”, is often used to describe Augustine’s understanding of why Adam chose to sin. In his book, Enchiridon: On Faith, Hope and Love, Augustine wrote that all things happen only because God wills it to happen. Augustine taught that God is not evil for willing the existence of evil because “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.”[1]

Thus, by appealing to a greater good as the ultimate purpose for the existence of sin, Augustine seek to acquit God from the charge of evil. Augustine explained that Adam’s fall into sin was indeed God’s will, but God purposed that the fall would bring about greater glory for God than if Adam had not sin. During the reformation period, almost all of the reformers adopted Augustine’s view of Felix Culpa, in some form or another. It was always an appeal to a greater good in the purposes of God, for allowing sin in the world. Unfortunately, Augustine was not very effective in solving the problem of evil, nor did he develop this concept of Felix Culpa in much depth. Nevertheless, the understanding that the fall would bring about the greater glorification of God is indeed biblical. Here, I will develop Augustine’s theme further to show that the display of both God’s nature of love and wrath requires the initial entrance of sin in the world.

Psalm 135:6: “Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.” (ESV).

As you have correctly pointed out, if God is all powerful, and all knowing, then the only way Adam could have fallen into sin is if God had knowingly willed for Adam to fall into sin. Mere permission doesn’t make sense in light of divine omniscience. Augustine’s Felix Culpa is a concept rooted in the understanding that God in his sovereignty, always does all that he desires. The fall of Adam happens not just because God gave permission for it to happen. It happened because God willed it. The fall of Adam is not a problem since it was purposed by God to bring about an even greater good, than if Adam had not fallen.

Let us consider the nature of God. The bible presents God as love (1 John 4:8)—the standard or epitome of love. But if God is the ultimate being of love, then consistent with this nature, it would be consistent for God to demonstrate the greatest act of love before his creation. What is the greatest act of love? John 15:13 tells us that the greatest act of love is for someone to lay down his life for his friends. So if God is the very epitome of love, it makes sense to say that God would display this attribute of love by laying down his life for a friend in redemption. Yet for someone to be in need of redemption, someone has to first fall into sin before he can be redeemed. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, for God to express His nature of love and redemption, there must first be the entrance of sin in the world. It thus follows that Adam (or at least someone), has to first fall into sin if God is to be glorified through the acts of redemption—remember: redemption is defined in the Bible as the greatest act of love. Thus, consistent with Felix Culpa, God in his eternal omniscience and love, purposed that through the fall of Adam, God would bring about a greater good through the act of redemption. Because God is love, sin exists.

The fall of Adam would not have taken an omniscient God by surprise. God in his omniscience would have known the ends from the beginning, and all of history would pan out as God has purposed. In fact, in Revelation 17:8, we are told that the names of those who would be saved were already written in the book of life before the foundation of the world was laid.  But just because God has predestined and willed all of history, does not mean that Adam’s actions were not evil. God gave a strict commandment to Adam, and Adam deliberately chose to sin; and thus, Adam was guilty. Just because God in his omniscience purposed to bring about an even greater good through the means of the fall, does not in any way absolve Adam from the culpability of sin.

Also consider Romans 9:22-23, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”

Here, we are told why God endures vessels of wrath who are prepared for destruction. These vessels of wrath prepared for destruction allow God to display certain attributes of His glory—that is, the display of His attributes towards vessels of mercy is understood in the context of Romans 9:22-23 as a greater good.

Just as God displayed his attributes of love through redemption (which would first require the entrance of sin in the world), here in the context of Romans 9:22-23, we have the display of God’s attribute of wrath before vessels of mercy. Apart from vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, God’s attributes of wrath can never be displayed to vessels of mercy—an attribute which in Romans 9:22-23, fall under the category of “the riches of his glory”. But this display of God’s wrath also first requires the entrance of sin in the world, or there would have not been anything to be wrathful about.

Thus, in this way, we see that a display of both God’s attributes of love and wrath, require the entrance of sin in the world. While Sin is contrary to the nature of God, God in his omniscience willed Adam’s fall into sin because it would eventually bring about a greater good.

Summary: Both the attributes of Love and Wrath of God require the entrance of sin in the world.

I hope that helps,
David Tay

[1]Augustine, “Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love (English Translation),” Perkins School of Theology, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm.

Why did Jesus preach in parables?

Question: Why did Jesus teach in parables? Was it to help people understand the gospel better? Or was it to prevent them from believing in the gospel?

Answer: Jesus spoke in parables so that some of his listeners would not understand the truth… lest they repent and God would have to save them!

Matthew 13:13-15 (ESV)

13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Some of the parables cannot be interpreted without additional information. So Jesus, after preaching, would at times teach his disciples privately explaining what the parables meant in plain language. To his disciples, Jesus said:

Mark 4:11 – And he said to them, To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,

And this is also the reason why after Jesus explained the parables plainly to his disciples, his disciples would begin to understand, and in so doing, they believe the gospel (in contrast to those the reprobates Jesus did not want to come to faith).

John 16:29-30
His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.

There is no such thing as two contradictory wills of God.

The term will is ambiguous. The Ten commandments are God’s preceptive will. They command men to do this and to refrain from that. They state what ought to be done; but they neither state nor cause what is done. God’s decretive will, however, as contrasted with his precepts, causes every event. It would be conductive to clarity if the term will were not applied to the precepts. Call the requirements of morality commands, precepts, or laws; and reserve the term will for the divine decree. These are two different things, and what looks like an opposition between them is not a self-contradiction. The Jews ought not to have demanded Christ’s crucifixion. It was contrary to the moral law. But God had decreed Christ’s death from the foundation of the world.
— God and Evil: The Problem Solved

Clark’s quotation(above) shows that he does not believe that there are two contradictory wills of God. There is only one will of God, and the word “Will” should ONLY be used to describe the predestined will of God. The commandments are to be simply called “commandments”. It is redundant to speak of the preceptive “will” and the decretive “will”, since this involves the use of two equivocal definitions of the word “will”.

Do this and the so-called cloud of paradox between the two wills of God dissipates. The so-called paradox is only one of man’s making. The bible is very clear that there is no such thing as “two contradicting” wills of God. There is only one “Will” and that is a reference to whatever God desires and will bring to pass: decretive will. God’s commandments on the other hand can simply be understood as what God commands man to obey and what he will judge man by.

God does not desire two contradicting things at the same time as many inconsistent Calvinism/Amyraldians/Arminians teach. God cannot both “desire the salvation of all reprobates”, and NOT-“desire the salvation of all reprobates” at the same time and in the same aspect. Such a notion is completely unbiblical and illogical. God’s love is only for his elect, and all that the Father gives to him will come to him, and none will ever be lost (c.f. John 10).

Compatibilism and Free will.

The term free will has been defined in so many ways in theological circles that unless a standard definition is given, theologians would continue talking pass one another when we discuss the problem of evil. After all, a “word” is nothing more than a set of propositions defined by its users. A popular school of thought in some Calvinistic circles is that of Compatibilism. Compatibilism is the teaching that free will and predestination are complimentary concepts and that it is possible to embrace both concepts without being inconsistent. For example, a compatibilist Calvinist, in contrast to hard determinists who deny human free will, would argue that while God has predestined all things from eternity past apart from man’s choices, man still has the free will to make choices and therefore, man is considered free. Compatibilists, often define free will as the teaching that man is free to choose according to his nature. An unregenerate man, according to Calvinism, would always freely be able to choose within the boundaries of his sinful nature, and a regenerate man who has been given a new nature, would have the ability to freely choose to not-sin in accordance to his regenerate nature. By this definition, all man are thought to have a kind of free will that is limited by their God-directed nature/will. Compatibilist offer appeal to this limited definition fo free will because there is an implicit belief that human responsibility is in some form or fashion, dependent on man’s free will. That is, it is assumed that if man’s choices are not free, man is not really responsible for his actions. Other scholars would define free will as the ability to choose to do what is right. So by this definition, all unbelievers do not have free will as a result of the doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity is the teaching that mankind, dead in their sins, are not able to believe God until God has first change the nature of man so that man is now a new creation, and is able to choose and believe God. Under this definition, only regenerate believers have free will. Both definitions are inadequate. With both definitions used by Calvinistic Compatibilists, most would mostly agree that whatever a man chooses, he is limited by what God has already first fore-ordained for him to choose. This is true even if the Calvinist holds to the idea of mere permission where evil is concerned. I disagree that such a limited definition of freedom is a true freedom. In other words, in the ultimate metaphysical sense, the Calvinist must affirm that man is not really free to act independently without compulsion—at least in relation to the decrees of God. God decrees unconditionally (according to Calvinism) and does not based his decrees on any merit he sees in man. At the same time, the compatibilist point out that man is still responsible because he chooses to sin. So he is back to the same problem he begin with: if man is not ultimately free (in relation to God), how can he be held responsible even if the choices he makes that are already determined for him to do? In other words, once compatibilist freedom is defined and examined from a metaphysical perspective, it is shown to be insufficient as a solution to the problem of evil. Compatibilists such as D A Carson have recognized this problem, and they often call this a mystery, or a paradox. (c.f. D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility : Biblical Perspectives in Tension (London Grand Rapids, Mich.: Marshall Pickering ; Baker Books, 1994). But why this would be a paradox rather than a contradiction is never explained. If we insist on linking human’s responsibility to the concept of human free will, and if in the Calvinistic scheme of things, man is metaphysically not really free in relation to God, then how can man be responsible? Yet in spite of this, compatibilists insist of affirming at the same time that man is still responsible. Unable to explain this seeming contradiction, an appeal to paradox is often made. Would it not be easier to look for a solution that demonstrates that man’s freedom is irrelevant to the problem of evil? Indeed, rather than holding on to compatibilism, there more consistent ways to answer the problem of evil from a Calvinistic perspective when we deal with reasons why God cannot be charged with evil. It is my contention that Free Will is much better defined as freedom in relation to God since when metaphysical causation is taken to its ultimate end, in Calvinism, it is God, rather than man, who directs the choices of man through his eternal decrees–from eternity past–independent of man, and before man has even come into existence. Under this definition, no man is really free because no one acts independently from what God has decreed him to do in this primary decretive sense. To avoid confusion, we should be careful not to confuse this with unregenerate man’s inability to come to faith on his own. Man’s inability is better defined as “inability to choose God” rather than “no free will”. This is to avoid confusion with the equivocal use of the term free will: a term best defined as man’s freedom in relation to God. Compatibilism is a logical contradiction. It does not provide a possible solution to the problem of evil. Rather, we establish that man is not free, only God is.   [1]D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility : Biblical Perspectives in Tension (London Grand Rapids, Mich.: Marshall Pickering ; Baker Books, 1994).

Through the eyes of Samuel Rutherford: Is the Westminster Confession of Faith Supralapsarian?

There is a trend in some reformed circles to teach that the reformed creeds are hostile to Supralapsarianism, and that only Infralapsarianism is truly reformed. These same people often appeal to various reformed confessions including the Westminster Confession of Faith. Is this really the case? At first glance, it appears as if the Westminster Confession of Faith is written using Infralapsarian language. However, it should be noted that the confession does not actually rule out Supralapsarianism.

Samuel Rutherford, one of the primary writers of the confession was strongly Supralapsarian. This is especially clear in his writing on Ephesians 1:4. It does not make sense to say that Rutherford was Supralapsarian but then proceeded to agree in the Westminster Confession of Faith that Infralapsarian was correct. Rather, it is much better to say that without ruling out Supralapsarianism, the Westminster Confession of faith was worded the way it does so as to give leeway towards those who hold to an infralapsarian understanding. Understood this way, the arguments used by those who insist that the reformed confessions are anti-Supralapsarian cannot be sustained.

Those interested in reading more in this area are encouraged to check out Guy Richard’s contribution entitled, “Samuel Rutherford’s Supralapsarianism Revealed: A key to the Lapsarian Position of the Westminster Confession of Faith?” (Published: The Confessional Presbyterian, Volume 4, 2008)

 

Rom 9 (Hardening of the Nations) vs. Rom 11 (Hardening of Israel): The purpose — God’s glory

Rom 11:
1) The partial hardening (Rom 11:25) of Israel (Rom 11:7), that results in Israel disobedience (Rom 11:30-32) and unbelief (11:20),

2) is initiated by God (Rom 11:7-10),

3) and this is part of God’s plan (Rom 11:28).

4) Paul explains that on account of Israel’s stumbling, salvation has been extended to the nations (Rom 11:1), so that all Israel will be saved (Rom 11:25b-26a).

5) The reason given for the hardening of Israel is “mercy” (Rom 11:32).

6) For this reason, Paul glorifies God for his wisdom and unsearchable ways (Rom 11:33-36). To him (i.e. God) be glory forever (Rom 11:36)

Compare this with Paul’s writing in Chapter 9 of Romans.

Rom 9:
1) Pharaoh’s hardening (Rom 9:17),

2) was initiated by God (Rom 9:16-17),

3) and is part of God’s plan (Rom 9:11; 23).

4) Paul explains that on account of Pharaoh’s stumbling, salvation has been, by extension, become available to vessels of mercy – not only the Jews, but also Gentiles. (Rom 9:23-24).

5) The reason given for the hardening of Pharaoh and vessels of wrath is “mercy” (Rom 9:18; 23) in order that

6) he could make known the riches of His glory (Rom 9:23a)

Theodore Beza on God’s greater glory in willing the fall of Adam.

“That God saved His own by the gracious redemption of His own Son Christ, is to His own exceedingly great glory, which otherwise [if men had not sinned] would not have shone forth. But man would not have required redemption from sin and death, unless sin and death existed. Therefore, in respect to the ordinance of God, it was good that sin and death enter into the world; and yet this sin is and remains sin so much by its own nature, that it could not be expiated for except by a very terrible penalty. Again, we receive far more in Christ than we lost in Adam. Therefore, it was best and most useful for us that Adam fell, in respect to God, who prepares a kingdom of eternal glory for us by this wonderful means. And nevertheless, this Fall is so evil by its own nature, that even those who are justified and believe, experience many miseries and calamities from it, even to death. Also, this is the great glory of God, that He shows Himself to be a most severe punisher of sin. But if sin had not existed, no opening would be made for this judgement. Therefore, it was good, in respect to the ordinance of God, that sin exist, and afterwards be spread abroad, which is damned in the demons and all those who are outside of Christ, with eternal punishment. Likewise, this also is the will of God (Peter said), that is, His decree, that all who do right, are affected by evils. But he who does well, is not able to be hurt apart from sin. It is good therefore, in respect to God’s will (that is, His ordinance) that there be persecutors of the church, whom, notwithstanding, He most severely punishes, justly, as sinners against His will, that is, against that which He approves of them doing. Therefore, by the express words of the apostles, that which is against God’s will or decree (that is, against that which He approves and commands), does not come to pass; on the other hand, it cannot be said that God is contrary to Himself, or that he wills iniquity, as Augustine rightly concluded from the Word of God against Julian.”

Theodore Beza, Quæstionum Et Responsionum Christianarum Libellus (1570). Question 190.