Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Mark Quayle]

1. John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day
To reject Christ you have to have been offered him, the only way to be offered Christ is through The Holy Spirit, Joe Bloggs cannot offer Christ to anyone? So. these people who will be judged on the last day did indeed exercise their choice and said no to The Holy Spirit. So. not an irresistible approach for them after all. most definitely a choice? Your comments?

Romans 1. In a sense they are offered Christ, in the fact that they know God from nature and from the fact of existence, wherefore they are without excuse. Their evil hearts have rejected him and pushed their knowledge of God aside. The Gospel is entirely within God's nature. The understanding of it, intellectually, is not the only understanding of it. We may not see it in nature and in existence in the same way as WE take the intellectual principles of the Gospel. But we have rejected the gospel nonetheless, in a sense, when we do as Romans 1 describes.

Is there enough of the Gospel in what they DO know, to call it The Gospel? I don't know. It is nevertheless obvious that even if they do repress what they do know, they can still be saved subsequently by hearing the Gospel preached and God working it in their hearts.

Rom 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified
Going into more detail: Using what seems to be Calvinist definitions.'This text seems to be about what God does for those that 'love him and are called according to his purpose' (foreknow being a subgroup of or the same as this?) ie for those who said yes- the saved A kind of God's promised to do list. The previous text in the chapter just mainly talks about what God does for the saved with some comparison to the unsaved There is no mention that God did not predestinate something for the non saved or non called or not foreknown too. From this chapter you cannot say what God does for the non saved with regard to predestination, He may predestine them to something also? He may not. we just do not know from this chapter? Do you agree?

I do not agree with your narrative, because it seems backwards. God does not do his 'promised to-do list' as a response to our stimulus upon him —he does what he had planned all along, which includes his sure promises. The proposition is true, that "IF" we do this that he will then do that. But it is not "BECAUSE we did this", except from our point-of-view. One might say we step into his promise by our choice to do so, and it is true enough. But that doesn't mean it was activated by us. We stepped into it because he did it —not because we fulfilled our part of an agreement.

I also do think that we can draw the conclusion from this chapter (Romans 9, still) that God does predestine the non-'elect' to condemnation, as he mentions something very like it in his having made vessels for the two purposes, and in his love for Jacob and not for Esau, and so on. But, no, I would not build the doctrine on this chapter alone.

The diagnostic conclusion that we are mere puppets if we are judged on not only what is an intellectual and consciously willed action, to me is bogus. Not only is there a lot more to us than our conscious will and intellect, but God is not obligated to operate according to our understanding.

predestinate- called- justified- glorified
I suggest verses 28-30 are just dealing with what God does- man might do something along the way, he may not we do not know form this text- the text is about God's role.
I suggest with the whole of verses 28-30 is dealing with just the saved as described in verse 28 , people who have said 'yes', There mat be a whole range of other people who did not say yes, He may have predestined them to something too -like a choice. You cannot infer that God's approach is irresistible because He is only referencing people who have said yes. Do you agree?

Verses 28-30 are not stand-alone. But to your description, yes, they deal with what God does. I would not say that they deal with "God's role" as though we have a role that he does not.

There are several things you say, here —ways you put things— that (to me) demonstrate that you don't understand what you mean to argue against. Nobody says "God's approach is irresistible", nor even that, "God's grace is irresistible". We only say that the one particular grace of regeneration is irresistible.

 

[jameslouise]

Romans 1. In a sense they are offered Christ, in the fact that they know God from nature and from the fact of existence, wherefore they are without excuse. Their evil hearts have rejected him and pushed their knowledge of God aside. The Gospel is entirely within God's nature. The understanding of it, intellectually, is not the only understanding of it. We may not see it in nature and in existence in the same way as WE take the intellectual principles of the Gospel. But we have rejected the gospel nonetheless, in a sense, when we do as Romans 1 describes.

Is there enough of the Gospel in what they DO know, to call it The Gospel? I don't know. It is nevertheless obvious that even if they do repress what they do know, they can still be saved subsequently by hearing the Gospel preached and God working it in their hearts.



I do not agree with your narrative, because it seems backwards. God does not do his 'promised to-do list' as a response to our stimulus upon him —he does what he had planned all along, which includes his sure promises. The proposition is true, that "IF" we do this that he will then do that. But it is not "BECAUSE we did this", except from our point-of-view. One might say we step into his promise by our choice to do so, and it is true enough. But that doesn't mean it was activated by us. We stepped into it because he did it —not because we fulfilled our part of an agreement.

I also do think that we can draw the conclusion from this chapter (Romans 9, still) that God does predestine the non-'elect' to condemnation, as he mentions something very like it in his having made vessels for the two purposes, and in his love for Jacob and not for Esau, and so on. But, no, I would not build the doctrine on this chapter alone.

The diagnostic conclusion that we are mere puppets if we are judged on not only what is an intellectual and consciously willed action, to me is bogus. Not only is there a lot more to us than our conscious will and intellect, but God is not obligated to operate according to our understanding.



Verses 28-30 are not stand-alone. But to your description, yes, they deal with what God does. I would not say that they deal with "God's role" as though we have a role that he does not.

There are several things you say, here —ways you put things— that (to me) demonstrate that you don't understand what you mean to argue against. Nobody says "God's approach is irresistible", nor even that, "God's grace is irresistible". We only say that the one particular grace of regeneration is irresistible.

Hi Mark thanks for the reply but you miss my point. My position is that everyone is predestined to be saved-to get back to Heaven but everyone has to make a choice to do so somewhere along that way. God loves everyone because He is our Father and we were His offspring. God wants all men saved, To say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of Him.
Romans 8 is just a description of what God does for those who have chosen him and it describes His works both before and after that choice.
The people who reject Christ in John 12:48 have had exactly the same 'level' of pro-action from The Holy Spirit to be saved as those who received Him. You can call it regeneration, made willing to believe, no resistance to divine grace, authored by God, pervasive influence or any other name you like (that seem to just try to avoid the word choice). After this work from The Holy Spirit comes a choice. A choice from man's will-wholly, solely and completely from man's individual and freewill. I have seen no scripture from you to tell me otherwise yet?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hi Mark thanks for the reply but you miss my point. My position is that everyone is predestined to be saved-to get back to Heaven but everyone has to make a choice to do so somewhere along that way. God loves everyone because He is our Father and we were His offspring. God wants all men saved, To say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of Him.
Romans 8 is just a description of what God does for those who have chosen him and it describes His works both before and after that choice.
The people who reject Christ in John 12:48 have had exactly the same 'level' of pro-action from The Holy Spirit to be saved as those who received Him. You can call it regeneration, made willing to believe, no resistance to divine grace, authored by God, pervasive influence or any other name you like (that seem to just try to avoid the word choice). After this work from The Holy Spirit comes a choice. A choice from man's will-wholly, solely and completely from man's individual and freewill. I have seen no scripture from you to tell me otherwise yet?

Do you think that there are no particular members of the Body of Christ? The Bride of Christ? The Dwelling Place of God?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you think that there are no particular members of the Body of Christ? The Bride of Christ? The Dwelling Place of God?

I am curious, the questions you ask, what have they to do with making choices - the theme of the post to which you replied - or with the notion that Calvinism teaches some things, especially double predestination and limited atonement, which are seen as serious errors by many.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

@DialecticSkeptic

I recall you raised a question about my grasp of history, I am no historian but have read well in the subject.

Regarding Calvinism specifically I give you this brief comment on the "reformed" tradition - a very high altitude summary as it were.

Calvinism emerged in the Low Countries during the 16th century as part of the wider Protestant Reformation movement. Its roots can be traced back to the writings and teachings of John Calvin, a French theologian. The first Calvinist congregation in the Low Countries was founded in Emden, Netherlands, in 1544, and quickly gained popularity among the Dutch-speaking population.

The development of Calvinism in the Low Countries was characterized by a strong emphasis on biblical authority and individual piety. This strict adherence to doctrine resulted in the production of key Reformed confessions of faith, specifically, the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Canons of Dort (1618-19), which established the core beliefs of Dutch Calvinism.

The Belgic Confession, also known as the "Belgic Confession of Faith," outlines the central tenets of Reformed theology, including the doctrine of the Trinity, the inspiration and authority of the scriptures, and the principles of predestination and justification by faith. The Canons of Dort, also known as the Canons of the "Synod of Dort," were a response to the Arminian controversy and sought to clarify and defend the doctrine of predestination in the Reformed tradition.

Additionally, the Low Countries Calvinist community also developed the "Three Forms of Unity," which consisted of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. These three documents served as a standard for the Reformed churches in the Netherlands and provided a clear statement of faith for Calvinists.

In the 17th century, Calvinism became the dominant religion in the Low Countries, playing a major role in shaping Dutch society, culture, and politics. Its impact can still be seen in contemporary Netherlands and Belgium, where Reformed Protestantism continues to be a significant religious tradition.

Overall, the rise and development of Calvinism in the Low Countries represents an important chapter in the history of Reformed Protestantism and the wider European Reformation movement. Through its strict adherence to biblical authority and the production of key Reformed confessions of faith, the Dutch-speaking Calvinist community made a significant contribution to the development of Reformed theology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@jameslouise said:
Hi Mark thanks for the reply but you miss my point. My position is that everyone is predestined to be saved-to get back to Heaven but everyone has to make a choice to do so somewhere along that way. God loves everyone because He is our Father and we were His offspring. God wants all men saved, To say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of Him.
Romans 8 is just a description of what God does for those who have chosen him and it describes His works both before and after that choice.
The people who reject Christ in John 12:48 have had exactly the same 'level' of pro-action from The Holy Spirit to be saved as those who received Him. You can call it regeneration, made willing to believe, no resistance to divine grace, authored by God, pervasive influence or any other name you like (that seem to just try to avoid the word choice). After this work from The Holy Spirit comes a choice. A choice from man's will-wholly, solely and completely from man's individual and freewill. I have seen no scripture from you to tell me otherwise yet?

Mark Quayle said:
Do you think that there are no particular members of the Body of Christ? The Bride of Christ? The Dwelling Place of God?

I am curious, the questions you ask, what have they to do with making choices - the theme of the post to which you replied - or with the notion that Calvinism teaches some things, especially double predestination and limited atonement, which are seen as serious errors by many.

Besides differing widely with jameslouise here, concerning Romans 8, and concerning the notion that everyone is predestined to be saved and the other things he said along that line, I also disagree with the implications of what he is saying. If God has nobody in particular in mind, then the conglomeration of members that comprise the Bride of Christ, and God's Dwelling Place, doesn't sound particularly special (to say the least).

In other words, if those members are only there by the random choice of the members, and not by the very particular and exact, precise, will of God in creating those particular members, then it is a haphazard construction.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In other words, if those members are only there by the random choice of the members, and not by the very particular and exact, precise, will of God in creating those particular members, then it is a haphazard construction.

Thanks for you post, it was informative.

I almost believe your post is from a native Latin writer

I write that because in Latin the compilation of superlative adjectives is a common method of giving emphasis to an idea. While in English the beauty of brevity and vocabulary with "more" and "Very" or a few prefixes (such as hyper or super or in recent decades mega) is the way to give emphasis. "the very particular and exact, precise," made me chuckle. I enjoyed it, I have seen such writing before and back then it made me chuckle too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks for you post, it was informative.

I almost believe your post is from a native Latin writer

I write that because in Latin the compilation of superlative adjectives is a common method of giving emphasis to an idea. While in English the beauty of brevity and vocabulary with "more" and "Very" or a few prefixes (such as hyper or super or in recent decades mega) is the way to give emphasis. "the very particular and exact, precise," made me chuckle. I enjoyed it, I have seen such writing before and back then it made me chuckle too.

Thanks. But I intended "very" as it is used, for example, in, "my very being", or, "Christ is very God of very God." Spanish is my second language, though. And I studied Latin in High School.

 

[jameslouise]

In other words, if those members are only there by the random choice of the members, and not by the very particular and exact, precise, will of God in creating those particular members, then it is a haphazard construction

Here we have again the introduction of a God who is picky and and choosy(not in the Bible)
Almost an antithesis of God the Father who wants all to be saved because He loves us as we are is offspring.(in the Bible) Acts 17:28 and 1 Tim 2:4
The God you portray is not much of a Father to these offspring-the 'lights' Jam 1:17.

Do you think that there are no particular members of the Body of Christ? The Bride of Christ? The Dwelling Place of God

A strange use of 'particular' and it sounds like a euphemism to avoid 'God chooses' to me
The concept of particular is again not in the Bible

If God has nobody in particular in mind, then the conglomeration of members that comprise the Bride of Christ, and God's Dwelling Place, doesn't sound particularly special (to say the least)

Again all of this not in the Bible. We differ, I think those who give their life entirely to Christ-daily and accept Him as a saviour are special in the eyes of God.
@Mark Quayle I note you did not answer my questions fully.
1. does the end of Romans deal with just the saved, so logically you cannot deduce what God does for the unsaved for this passage alone? You say the passage'can not be taken on its own'. I say, well taking on it's own is my stance logical.
2. I say those who rejected Christ in Joh 12:48 must have been offered Him by the Holy Spirit. Mark Quayle says Romans 1. In a sense they are offered Christ, in the fact that they know God from nature and from the fact of existence, I say this does not constitute an offer of Christ as the John 12:48 passage also says 'they also reject His words'. So not just from nature then. The only way to Christ is through The Holy Spirit, to have been legitimately offered Christ it must have been by The Holy Spirit. why didn't The Holt Spirit regenerate their wills too while doing this?
3. How do I recognize a regenerate will, how does it differ from a non regenerate one?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

@jameslouise

Mark is settled in his theology, there is no significant chance of a change by means of argument. If any change is to come it will be by other means.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here we have again the introduction of a God who is picky and and choosy(not in the Bible)
Almost an antithesis of God the Father who wants all to be saved because He loves us as we are is offspring.(in the Bible) Acts 17:28 and 1 Tim 2:4
The God you portray is not much of a Father to these offspring-the 'lights' Jam 1:17.

A strange use of 'particular' and it sounds like a euphemism to avoid 'God chooses' to me
The concept of particular is again not in the Bible

Again all of this not in the Bible. We differ, I think those who give their life entirely to Christ-daily and accept Him as a saviour are special in the eyes of God.
@Mark Quayle I note you did not answer my questions fully.
1. does the end of Romans deal with just the saved, so logically you cannot deduce what God does for the unsaved for this passage alone? You say the passage'can not be taken on its own'. I say, well taking on it's own is my stance logical.
2. I say those who rejected Christ in Joh 12:48 must have been offered Him by the Holy Spirit. Mark Quayle says Romans 1. In a sense they are offered Christ, in the fact that they know God from nature and from the fact of existence, I say this does not constitute an offer of Christ as the John 12:48 passage also says 'they also reject His words'. So not just from nature then. The only way to Christ is through The Holy Spirit, to have been legitimately offered Christ it must have been by The Holy Spirit. why didn't The Holt Spirit regenerate their wills too while doing this?
3. How do I recognize a regenerate will, how does it differ from a non regenerate one?

Here we have again the introduction of a God who is picky and and choosy(not in the Bible)

I have no desire to get into all your other questions. If your theology bases on what you say concerning God not being particular, then there is no progress in answering the other questions.

Nobody yet has proven that God is not particular. Nor does it make sense to say that God is not particular. And the Bible shows a VERY particular God. Do you think he chose Israel because they merited his choice? It says he chose between Jacob and Esau before they had done anything good or bad. You honestly believe that what comes to pass does so by accident, or just as ridiculous, it comes to pass by the will of humans? I could go on and on concerning the absurdity of the narratives of 'arminianistic' thinking.

None of the verses you, and those who think like you, use, in support of your thesis, can be proven to mean what you take them to mean.

There is more to say about this subject alone than I care to spend time on, than to get into all the other points that you mistake or ignore. 'Nuff said.

 

[jameslouise]

@jameslouise

Mark is settled in his theology, there is no significant chance of a change by means of argument. If any change is to come it will be by other means.

Hi Xeno. i think you maybe right, but the whole is fascinating to me. I am no match for Mark theologically and also probably intellectually, but I have one huge advantage over him, I listen to all who claim to be prophets and revelators and I search the scripture to see if what they say is true. I can thus, stand on their shoulders. There are indeed false prophets and I have been fooled by them before but this new lot are different- they predict the future and appear to be accurate. They illuminate scripture.
They appear to me to be tying up all the loose ends that fragment Christians, here is some of what they have said
Gap Theory is correct.
Men choose to be chosen
Jesus suffering was a certain 'amount' but that amount is enough to cover any sin that could ever be committed.
We existed as our base spirit inside God the Father before our arrival on Earth to be knitted to our bodies in our mothers womb. The lights of James 1:17
The spirit of Every child who dies before an age of accountability and every miscarried baby, aborted baby and every human zygote that has had that 'unexplained spark of light event' is taken to Heaven by their guardian angel and matured if needed and are offered Christ there. Heart warming.

I find it easy to refute Mark's stances with this knowledge and I find him bamboozled and evasive when I quote plain and clear biblical revelations. Quotes of quotes.
I also believe that we are soon entering the age of Hab 2:14 and I also believe that knowledge of the Bible is included in Dan 12:4 which is also, I believe, soon to be upon us. I believe those who do not like/embrace this present time-the prayed for in the Lords Prayer- kingdom age-will greatly miss out.

 

[jameslouise]

I have no desire to get into all your other questions. If your theology bases on what you say concerning God not being particular, then there is no progress in answering the other questions.

Nobody yet has proven that God is not particular. Nor does it make sense to say that God is not particular. And the Bible shows a VERY particular God. Do you think he chose Israel because they merited his choice? It says he chose between Jacob and Esau before they had done anything good or bad. You honestly believe that what comes to pass does so by accident, or just as ridiculous, it comes to pass by the will of humans? I could go on and on concerning the absurdity of the narratives of 'arminianistic' thinking.

None of the verses you, and those who think like you, use, in support of your thesis, can be proven to mean what you take them to mean.

There is more to say about this subject alone than I care to spend time on, than to get into all the other points that you mistake or ignore. 'Nuff said.

So, God choose Israel, so therefor, He will choose who is saved and who is not?
I do not follow that logic
Likewise because he chose Jacob over Esau?
Does particular mean that?
You seem to assume that because he chooses someone/something he does nothing for people he has not chosen?
You also seem to assume that God cannot be in control and still let people have free will and choice, I do not think that is the case. Why cant both be true?

 

[jameslouise]

DialecticSkeptic
Sometimes you just have to take it off the hook, throw it back in, and try again for a different one

I wont throw you back in dialecticskeptic.-we differ again

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, God choose Israel, so therefor, He will choose who is saved and who is not?
I do not follow that logic
Likewise because he chose Jacob over Esau?
Does particular mean that?
You seem to assume that because he chooses someone/something he does nothing for people he has not chosen?
You also seem to assume that God cannot be in control and still let people have free will and choice, I do not think that is the case. Why cant both be true?

That isn't my thinking. You said that God is not particular. I showed that he is. Simply that. Thus, your argument that he is not particular does not advance your point.

a) You say, "You seem to assume that because he chooses someone/something he does nothing for people he has not chosen?" Hardly! He made each person ever born for the precise purpose to which he has subjected them —for his use. b) But if by that, you meant, "because he chooses some as special to whom to have mercy, that he doesn't show any mercy or kindness to the rest?" He does show them incredible kindness and forebearance, but that is hardly of relevance to the issue we are batting about. c) But if, by that, you meant, "his choosing of some for salvation does not mean he chose all for salvation", yep you got that right.

You also say, "You also seem to assume that God cannot be in control and still let people have free will and choice, I do not think that is the case. Why cant both be true?" Both are true —unless by 'free will' you mean that we can do anything uncaused. God is in full control, and we do have real choice, with real, even eternal, consequences. Also, God does not force us to choose against our will. We always are 'free', as @Clare73 puts it, to choose according to our inclinations.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[God] made each person ever born for the precise purpose to which he has subjected them—for his use.

While technically correct, I think there is a better expression than "for his use," which can have a dehumanizing connotation. Our confessions use the word "end" to imply a teleological purpose, so I would offer the suggestion of saying that he made each person ever born "for his ends," some being vessels of wrath fitted for destruction and others being vessels of mercy fitted for glory.

Both are true ... God is in full control, and we do have real choice ...

I wonder if James sees the whole thing as a kind of a zero-sum game, wherein the freedom of the human will is proportional to the amount of control God exercises—and literally can't recognize a perspective that doesn't treat it as a zero-sum game.

 

[Mark Quayle]

While technically correct, I think there is a better expression than "for his use," which can have a dehumanizing connotation. Our confessions use the word "end" to imply a teleological purpose, so I would offer the suggestion of saying that he made each person ever born "for his ends," some being vessels of wrath fitted for destruction and others being vessels of mercy fitted for glory.

You're probably right. I personally prefer 'for his use', because to me it is not just an intellectual consideration, but a satisfaction and a joy to be used for God's purposes. I want the difference between the two mindsets "in their face", as to who is the one running this show and for whom it is being run. But I guess it's not really my job to decide to be offensive. (Now, see what you've done?? You've got me thinking about working up a Latin phrase for "in their face", so people will think I know what I'm talking about, and I can laugh in front of their back!)

In the context of double-predestination, I also have used "for his use" to avoid the mind-tangling pun that some readers might extract from "to his ends", though it sounds more erudite and restrained.

I wonder if James sees the whole thing as a kind of a zero-sum game, wherein the freedom of the human will is proportional to the amount of control God exercises—and literally can't recognize a perspective that doesn't treat it as a zero-sum game.

Hadn't thought of it that way. You've got a point, though I bet they (arminianistic believers, not just Jameslouise) would say it the other way around— that human will is inversely proportional to the amount of control God exercises. At least, that's that sound of their argument, as though the more strongly God predestines something, the less human will has to say about it. But in the final analysis, I think you are right. They do see the two wills ontologically in competition, so zero sum.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

(Now, see what you've done?? You've got me thinking about working up a Latin phrase for "in their face", so people will think I know what I'm talking about, and I can laugh in front of their back!)

Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

Hadn't thought of it that way. You've got a point, though I bet they ... would say it the other way around—that human will is inversely proportional to the amount of control God exercises.

What I should have said is that, for them, "the human will is proportional to the amount of control God does or does not exercise" (i.e., more divine control, less human free-will). Again, it's a zero-sum game in their mind. But I suspect that not many Calvinists would agree with that.

 

[jameslouise]

I am confused

Romans 1. In a sense they are offered Christ, in the fact that they know God from nature and from the fact of existence, wherefore they are without excuse

While I agree that the creation utters speech and declares 'there is a God', are you saying that just viewing nature is enough to be offered Christ? that the Holy Spirit is not needed for this?
I am of the opinion that ONLY The Holy Spirit can lead us to the Truth of the Gospel. So,the people who reject Christ of John 12:48 must have had an 'interaction' with The Holy Spirit, otherwise they have not had a 'valid' offer. It kinds makes you wonder why The Holy Spirit did not regenerate their spirit too?
(Regenerate our will not in the Bible)

Also, God does not force us to choose against our will. We always are 'free', as @Clare73 puts it, to choose according to our inclinations.

I am confused again. So, you say, God does not force us to choose against our will? But if our will is regenerated and I did not ask for it to be regenerated and did not want Christ before hand is that not forcing by another name? How is a regenerated will our will? Did I give God permission to regenerate my will. When? There would seem to be a timeline issue here? My will needs to be regenerated before I can agree to accepting Christ as my saviour but God cannot 'do' anything until I am saved. Which comes first?
(Regenerate our will-not in the Bible)

 

[jameslouise]

Mark Quayle said:[God] made each person ever born for the precise purpose to which he has subjected them—for his use
I agree but the end of the role He chose for us is salvation and back home to Him in Heaven, anything else is unthinkable for a loving father to do. You greatly misrepresent Him if you say otherwise.
(God chooses roles that includes their condemnation to hell-not in the Bible)