Thank you so much for coming out this morning and giving your time to listen to another lecture. And in particular, one of the things that I had mentioned last night is that we were wading into some deep waters. Obviously, the subject matter is very challenging in some respects. But one of the things that I promised last night is that I would, in this particular lecture, talk about something that was eminently practical and pastoral. And so I'm hoping that I can definitely deliver on that. I think that when we talk about the decrees, certainly there's a hush that falls over our mind as we investigate things that are, at the same time, mysterious. They're sublime. They're mentally challenging. We're always wanting to be careful so that we guard the exegetical boundaries and the guardrails that the scripture set up, lest we fall into undue speculation. And we have to recognize that not only if we're talking about the decree in general, or if we're talking about the decree, say, of election, when we're contemplating topics such as election and reprobation, that these are undoubtedly very, very weighty matters. Well, perhaps one of the most famous events in church history, certainly if you're Reformed, comes to us in the Synod of Dort, where delegates from a number of different countries as well as provinces in the Netherlands ended up gathering together so that they could respond to the Arminian remonstrance, where the teachings of Jacob Arminius really took shape, and where they challenged the Reformed Church's understanding of the doctrine of election, and more generally, the doctrine of the decree. And as we look at the Synod of Dort, it's natural, I think, that we would want to say, how is it that they debated these topics, how is it that they resolved their conflicts, because I suspect that Reformed Baptists aren't probably too much different there than Presbyterians, that when you get four of them in the same room, you get five or six opinions, right? Everybody's got an opinion, and sometimes more than one. Well, I want to talk about one particular debate and how they resolved it, or at least how it came about, and that I think it's a particularly useful illustration that shows us that when we are discussing weighty matters such as the doctrine of the decree, how vitally important it is that we investigate the topic and that we discuss it with a concern for piety. with a concern for piety, with a concern for humility, with a concern for charity, especially as we deal with one another. And that in particular, there was one debate where one of the delegates at the Synod of Dort became so angered, so angered, that I suspect in the love of the Lord, he challenged his ministerial colleague to a duel to the death. Yes, a duel to the death. And so you want to say, well, good grief, how on earth did that happen? And, you know, from our 21st century vantage point, this seems like this would be something that would be completely scandalous. Yet there's a sense in which it actually wasn't all that scandalous for the time, although we can say that there were certainly dissenting opinions and that the synod ultimately did not grant this particular delegate's request for a duel to the death. And so what I want us to do is I want us to look at this particular incident as they were debating the decree, and I want us to see how it is an excellent opportunity for us to see how important it is that when we face challenging issues, or even significant debate and disagreement, or even heated debate and disagreement, that we would always be on guard against the ever-present danger of personal pride. We should never think that our pride is always subdued, but rather it's always ready to surface. It's always ready to assert itself. But then secondly, I want us to consider the fact that we in the church always have to be on guard, especially in our most sacred tasks, such as unpacking issues related to, say, the decree, for example. that we don't want to let the world around us press us into its mold so that we carry on our business, so that we carry on the most sacred task of teaching the scriptures in a worldly way. We can present truth. But we can do it poorly. We can do it uncharitably. We can do it without love. And so what I want us to do is, first of all, I want us to do a biographical sketch of Franciscus Gomarus. Franciscus Gomarus was the individual, the minister that got so upset that he challenged his colleague to a duel. And so I want us to learn a little bit about Franciscus Gomarus so we can understand what shaped the man. You know, is it nurture? Is it nature? I think sometimes in this particular case it's a little bit of both. Secondly, we want to look at the famous event. What was it? What particular aspect as they were debating the decree prompted Gomaras, as we'll read momentarily, to drop the glove? What prompted him to drop the glove? Third, I want us to look at the ethics of duels. Because standing from the 21st century, we just think, this is just outrageous. How is this possible? Well, in the early modern period, in the 17th century, dueling was actually quite common. It was quite common. We might liken it to, say, the commonality of divorce. We would all recognize that divorce is only allowed under very certain circumstances, but yet in the broader culture it is very common because it was legal. Well, it was legal in the 17th century. And so we'll look at that, the ethics of duels, as well as the early modern context of duels, so that we can understand how common this was, so that it wouldn't have been unheard of for Dr. Gomaras to drop the glove. And then finally, fifth and last, we want to consider the practical lessons, the practical lessons of how important it is that we always wed our doctrine to personal piety and to charity as we deal with one another on these sublime and mysterious topics. So first of all, who was Franciscus Gomarus? He's perhaps not too well known to us these days. But he was certainly well known in his own day in the 17th century. He was known for his vehement opposition to Jacob Arminius, and he fought, I think, vigorously to oppose Arminius's theology, not only his doctrine of predestination, but he was also particularly concerned about his doctrine of justification, which I think is perhaps not as well known. He was undoubtedly shaped, I think, by the events in his life, particularly his personal suffering. He was from an area that is now what we call Belgium, and when he converted to the Reformed faith, he had to flee for his life because that part of Belgium and that particular point in history was under Spanish occupation. And in that particular time in church history, it's a period where theologians wrote checks cashed in blood. In other words, theology and politics were so intertwined that if you were a Roman Catholic official, if you were a Roman Catholic king, a Roman Catholic prince, then you enforced the theological convictions with the sword. And so here, Gomarus had to flee for his life because he and his family lived under the constant threat of these Roman Catholic occupying armies from Spain. He was pretty learned. By the time he was 14 years old, he knew both Latin and Greek, so that told you that he was intelligent. He studied at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and then he eventually left England where he, among the many places that he went to, he went and stayed at Heidelberg, where he studied with Zacharias Ursinus. He was the author of the Heidelberg Catechism, that familiar Reformation-era catechism. He served as a pastor for some seven years before he moved to the University of Leiden, where he became a colleague to Jacob Arminius. And then he engaged Arminius in debate, as well as his successor, a gentleman by the name of Conrad Vorstius. And later he moved to another Dutch university at the University of Groningen, where there at Groningen he served as a delegate from the university to serve as a delegate at the Synod of Dort, which met in 1618 and 19. He contributed to the overall work of the assembly in a number of ways, but chiefly he was one of the co-editors of the Dutch Staten Vertaling, which is the Dutch state bible. It was the official Dutch translation of the scriptures. So he was a knowledgeable Old Testament scholar in that regard. But in addition to this, personally, he lost his wife and his first child as she gave birth shortly after they were married. This is a time in world history when lifespans were short. We didn't have things such as antibiotics. And so the simplest of illnesses, or perhaps even something that we take for granted these days, such as childbirth, was not necessarily so simple. Nevertheless, in spite of those challenges, he nevertheless had a reputation for being truculent, for wanting to mix it up. His brother-in-law, Francis Junius, who is another well-known Reformed theologian who also taught at the University of Leiden, wrote this about him. He says, that man pleases himself most wonderfully by his own remarks. Ooh, okay. He derives all of his stock of knowledge from others. So he says he wasn't an original thinker. He brings forward nothing of his own, or if at any time he varies from his usual practice, he is exceedingly infelicitous in those occasional changes. That's from his brother-in-law. Which makes you think, okay, maybe he was a little bit rambunctious. Now at the same time, even though he did have a reputation for being a theological pugilist, he was nevertheless noted for being kind to the remonstrants, the Arminians who were there at the assembly, or at least those who were, quote unquote, less obstinate. So if you kind of mixed it up, then he might mix it up with you. Okay, so that's just a little bit as to who Franciscus Gomoris was. It gives us a little bit of a window into his personality. So let's bring us now, secondly, to the incident. What is it that actually occurred? Well, in a letter from one of the observers at the Synod of Dort to the English ambassador, we get a firsthand account of an argument that occurred between Franciscus Gomoris and another theologian by the name of Matthias Martinius. and that they were debating the first head of doctrine, first head of doctrine that we see in the canons of Dort, and in particular they were trying to figure out the question, how is Christ the foundation of election? How is Christ the foundation of election? The Reformed claimed that the Father is the foundation of election. The Father is the foundation of election. And you see this in a number of places in the scriptures. Say, for example, in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says, I have lost none that the Father has given to me. Or that in him we have been chosen by the Father. Say, for example, in Ephesians chapter 1. Whereas conversely, the remonstrants argued that the human decision to believe was the foundation of election. Okay, quite different. Well, the synod determined to omit this phrase, the foundation of election, because of its Arminian associations. But the reform nevertheless argued that the sun, according to the divine nature, is considered to be a part of the foundation of the salvation of the elect, which can't be said of the incarnate mediator as it pertains to the decree. So in other words, it's one thing to say Christ, according to the divine nature, we could say is a part of the foundation of election, but in terms of his role as mediator, he is not the foundation of the decree of election, but rather the one who brings about its execution. So here they're dissecting some very challenging issues. So undoubtedly, there are going to be differences of opinion. And this is where Martinius had some dissenting views. He appealed to Ephesians 1, 4, where he says he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. And so he said he believed that Christ was the foundation of election. He's the first of the elect, he said. He is, therefore, the foundation of the elect. But he would say not the foundation of election per se. He's the foundation of the benefits which come through Christ to the elect. We're splitting some fine hairs here, so I don't want to say that these observations, these potential objections are not necessarily without some merit. But it's in the course of this debate, one evening, where Gomorrah was significantly offended. And it's in this letter that one of the observers writes to the English ambassador. He says, Gomaris, who owes the Synod a shrewd turn, and then, I fear, began to come out of debt. In other words, he kind of got upset. Presently, as soon as Martinius had spoken, starts up and tells the Synod, ego, hank, rem, en me, recipio, I take this charge to myself. In other words, Martinius spoke and Gomorrahs took personal offense that Martinius was disagreeing specifically with Gomorrahs. And then the letter says, and there with all casts the glove. I can imagine this. You're in a church meeting. You're at the assembly. You're in a session meeting. How dare you? I dropped the glove. So he drops the glove. Therewithal, he casts his glove and challenges Martinius with this proverb, ecce rodum, ecce saltum. Here is your test. Show yourself courageous. In other words, oh, you think you're so smart? Why don't we settle this like men? Let's settle this in a duel. And he drops the glove. and requires, the letter goes on, and requires the synod to grant them a duel, adding that he knew Martinius could say nothing in refutation of that doctrine. He says, you think you're so tough? You really think your opinions are all that smart? Come on, let's go outside. Now, what's unknown at this point as to what kind of a duel this was, because it could have been duel with pistols, Or it could have been a duel with sabers, dueling sabers. German theological students, I kid you not, German theological students in the 18th century preferred pistols. because they could hide bullet wounds more easily than if they had been slashed across the face. It was more difficult to explain to your congregation, yeah, I was in a duel this weekend and I got a slash across the face where they could more easily bandage up that bullet wound. This is how common this was in this period of history. Well, the synod said no. You know, can you imagine the bad PR about that? Oh yes, we Calvinists have gathered together to unpack the mysteries of the faith. And oh, by the way, we shot one of the participants because he just didn't quite get along with everybody. And so the Senate said, no, there's no duel. We need to close the evening's business. So let's close in a word of prayer. And so they had a closing prayer. And so then, On the heels of the prayer, after the prayer was over, the letter continues, zeal and devotion had not so well allayed Gomorrah's his choler, his anger, but immediately after prayers, he renewed his challenge and required combat with Martinius again. But they parted for that night without blows. So you can imagine, you know, let's all pray. So you pray, and oh Lord, you know, and you're praying, and meanwhile, Gomaris is probably just seething with anger. How dare they not grant me the duel? This scallywag has challenged me. He has insulted me. And in Jesus' name we pray, amen. I challenge you to a duel again. Kind of like, Dr. Gomaris, were you listening to the prayer? Were you paying attention? Were you really humbling yourself? Were you repenting of your sins? Were you trying to set aside your anger? Wow, okay. Well, the English delegation, there was a delegation of English theologians from the Church of England, they went and interceded. They ended up visiting with Gomorrahs, they visited with Matthew Martinius, and they ended up resolving things. So, blessedly, they never came to blows, there never was a duel. But this brings us to our third point, which is to ask the question, you know, there's a sense in which this seems pretty scandalous. I mean, I'm sure that there have been heated exchanges in church meetings. I'm sure that there have been people at meetings of presbytery, for example, in my own context, where People get upset because votes don't go their way or because somebody says something where they perceive that it, you know, questions their motives. It questions the veracity or the sincerity with which they are trying to say and do something. But nevertheless, you look at Gomorrahs and you think, boy, this looks rather scandalous. I mean, we laugh now, but when you look deep down inside, you think, boy, it seems like something really went awry. How can you threaten to kill a ministerial colleague over a doctrinal dispute when you're debating the grace of God in election? Well, I think it's important that we have to understand the context of the time, do as much as we can to take a step back into history, set aside our own present-day convictions about these things, and try to step into their shoes to understand the context. Now, keep in mind, this is not to excuse the conduct. I think we can say categorically that it was sinful and it was wrong. But I think it can help us to step into their shoes so that we can say, well, how is it that they could come to this conclusion? And it also perhaps prepares us for in the future to say, what cultural assumptions have we unwittingly imbibed from that we unwittingly embrace that are actually in reality sinful? And how are we ourselves conducting ourselves in sinful ways that we perhaps don't even realize? And so in this respect, first of all, we have to recognize the political and theological stakes that were on the table. In that, you know, Charles Taylor, the philosopher, has described our present day situation as that of living in a disenchanted age. In other words, we think that religion is essentially a very private affair and it doesn't necessarily impact or affect the broader world around us. Well, this was certainly not the case in the early modern period in the 17th century. Kings were interested in these events. King James, as in the King James Bible, sent his delegation to the Synod of Dort to participate because he was significantly concerned about the deliberations there. The Thirty Years' War, which was a war that was fought along confessional lines in terms of Protestant armies versus Catholic armies, was literally months away from beginning. Three decades of the most, I think, devastating war in recorded history until World War I. Eight million people were killed. Eight million people. People were slaughtered. men, women, and children. Franciscus Gomaras undoubtedly lived with the memories and the fears of his own childhood flight from Roman Catholic armies where he feared for his life and for his well-being and for that of his family. The Synod, with the conclusion of the Synod, sparked executions. There were executions that were carried out, as well as imprisonments, as well as excommunications. Armenian ministers were deposed from their pastorates, and they were not allowed to conduct their ministry. And they were thrown out of the pastorate under penalty of fine and imprisonment. So theology in the 17th century was not something that you chatted about at a coffee shop, over a Starbucks, and then left and went your merry way and it was just kind of coffee shop banter. That's not to say that we treat it that way or that we think that these things are insignificant, but there aren't necessarily immediate life and death financial consequences to the theological discussions that we have in our own day. We just go about our business. A second observation we want to note about the period is that duels, which we would say was trial by combat, trial by combat was a typical way of resulting conflict. St. Augustine I have not been able to locate this particular quote. I have obtained it in a secondary source. And so it's as far as I've been able to trace it. And so I'm continuing to hunt for this quotation from the primary source. But it's attributed to Augustine. He says, during the combat, God awaits, the heavens open, and he defends the party who he sees is right. So in the early modern period, as well as even in the patristic period, there was the opinion that if there was a dispute, a way to resolve it was a duel, and that God would grant the winner as the one who was in the right. The wrong person would suffer death, and the person that was righteous would be victorious. Now you say, well, maybe that theologically works, unless of course the guy happens to be a better shot than you are and you can't hit the broad side of a barn. Now, there was continued support for duels in the Middle Ages. There were sword duels. There was jousting on horseback. And in the early modern period, in the 16th century, during the reign of Henry IV in France, there was a two-decade period, a two-decade period during his reign in the late 16th century, where there were approximately 10,000 deaths due to duels. That is over 500 duels per year at nearly 10 deaths per week for two decades. It was a common way to resolve a conflict. Why is this the case? This seems so odd to us. Well, Sir Walter Raleigh said, to give the lie deserves no less than stabbing. In other words, to be lied about, was to be a severe, it was a severe insult. There was a sense in which all you had was your reputation in this world. And people in this particular period in history prized their reputation. In Shakespeare's Othello, The chief villain, Iago, says this, good name in a man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse, steals trash. Tis something, nothing twas mine. Tis his and has been a slave to thousands. But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed. Just take my money, fine, but take my good name and you've stolen everything. You've stolen everything. So the idea here is that all Gomarus had to do was to believe that Martinius had insinuated that he was a liar. not say that he was a liar, is that he would insinuate that he was a liar or somehow besmirch his reputation, at least in Gomorrah's mind. I don't realize it, but even in this country, duels was a common practice up until the mid to late 19th century. I've read a bunch of historical research on dueling. That's fascinating on the one hand, but it's quite, I think, unnerving when you hear about it. It's like I remember reading about this 19th century account of two US cavalry officers in the 19th century where they sat down to eat and one of them said, well, our regiment has the finest beer in all of the US cavalry. And his officer colleague says, well, actually, I believe our regiment has the finest beer. And the officer said, are you calling me a liar? Less than 10 minutes later, one of them was dead. That's all that you needed. He didn't say, you're a liar. He just said, no, I think our beer's better. He says, are you calling me a liar? So that's the potential nature of this disagreement between Gomaras and his colleague. Now, this is not to say, despite its commonality, despite the fact that so many thousands of men died in duels, that everybody agreed with this. On one hand, we can say that Gomarus, the fact that Gomarus challenged Martinius to a duel at a church synod is prima facie evidence that at least some Christians believed that it was an acceptable way of resolving conflicts. Machiavelli, for example, as in The Prince, as in The Ends Justify the Means, Machiavelli believed that Christianity taught people to be weak and effeminate. He says, our religion has glorified humble and contemplative men rather than men of action. It has assigned a man's highest good humility, abnegation, and contempt for mundane things. Machiavelli thought that Christianity made you weak. And so, you know, even there for Machiavelli, he may have been Italian, but he was all about wanting to be muy macho, right? You know, it's like, no, I'm not going to be weak. I don't want to have people to think that I'm not willing to defend myself. But there were nevertheless dissenting opinions, three of which, in my research on this, three of which I was actually quite surprised. I did as much research as I could, and you'll never guess where I found three opposing opinions about dueling. They came from John Davenant, Joseph Hall, and William Ames. You might not think, well, okay, I've heard of some of those names, but guess what? All three of them were delegates to the Senate of Dort. All three were delegates to the Synod of Dort. And with two of them, they're writing some 15 to 20 years after the Synod of Dort, which makes me think that the events of that fateful night when Gomaris challenged Martinius to a duel still reverberated in their minds, and they wanted to address this particular topic. So John Davenant in his commentary on Ephesians, I'm sorry, on Colossians 3.13, which says, bearing with one another, and if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other, as the Lord has forgiven you, so you must also forgive. Now what's interesting here is that dueling is not at all in view. But Davinat wanted to raise the issue, which makes me think again, the events of that night were still fresh on his mind. Or it could have been that dueling was such a common practice that as a good pastor, he wanted to address it to ensure that his church and the readers of his commentary would not engage in this ungodly practice. And so what Davenant does is he draws upon Bernard of Clairvaux to prove that the doctrine of Christ should lie at the heart of all Christian virtue. He says we have to first be keenly aware of the degree of our own sin, and then conversely, keenly aware of the depth of the forgiveness of sins that we receive from Christ. In other words, if Christ has forgiven us of much, well then we need to be willing to forgive others of much. And he says, one who is unwilling to forgive, ultimately, according to the scriptures, does not know the forgiveness of Christ. How can you be the unforgiving servant when you yourself have been forgiven of much? He says also that Christians vainly excuse their own revengeful malice. He says, plain and simple, seeking retribution through trial by combat was nothing less than vengeance. Nothing less than vengeance. He writes, it is therefore a diabolical opinion which has possessed the minds of almost all those who lay claim to gentility that they cannot bear even a reproachful word without the loss of their honor and their reputation, but are under the necessity of seeking revenge in a duel at the manifest peril of their own lives and a plain attack upon the life of another. He says, really? You can't stand a single accusation, a single false charge, and that to receive simply one charge is such a reproach that you demand vengeance even unto death? Really? He brings forth other arguments. He cites pagan authorities, Socrates, Aristotle, and Seneca, where these three philosophers essentially say, sometimes when somebody insults you, it says more about them than it does about you. So that he says, look at these pagan authorities. They don't say that vengeance is necessary. But then he gives three specific reasons as to why dueling is sinful. First of all, he says no one should be a judge in his own cause. I think it's a good observation. How many of us really should be our own judge, jury, and executioner in our own case? Might there be a tinge of bias? He says, secondly, that Christians usurp the authority of the magistrate when they seek revenge. In other words, we're taking something that is really not lawfully our place to carry out. And then third, he says, every single offense in this particular venue receives the exact same punishment, death. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. And then he makes a final observation. He says, from all of these reasons it appears clear that they are absolutely madmen who follow the opinions of the man, renouncing the doctrine of Christ so that they may retain the name of gentlemen. They do not fear the title of homicide, and finally, so that they may avoid suspicion of false infamy, they leap into the very pit of hell itself, thus much of those virtues which we practice towards such persons as are hostile and injurious to us." He calls them madmen. He says, all in the effort to maintain your gentlemanly honor, you leap into the pit of hell. A second theologian, was Joseph Hall. And he addresses the subject of dueling in his exegesis of 1 Samuel chapter 17 because you can imagine one of the passages of scripture to which people appealed was David's duel with Goliath. If David can do it, why can't I? And what Joseph Hall says is he says this text doesn't legitimize duels because there was ultimately two nations at war. We might also add some other observations, but nevertheless, I think his observation is valid. He says, where learned we that devilish art and practice of the duel wherein men seek honor and blood and are taught the ambition of being glorious butchers of men? And then, of course, William Ames, we could say. He was an English theologian who worked in the Netherlands. He was there in exile, but he was the assistant to the president of the Synod of Dort, Johannes Bogermann. And he has some very similar observations. Here these three theologians reject the practice of dueling. And so I want to make a few observations about their rejections. First of all, as I said, all three were present for the incident. Second, just because dueling was common didn't mean that everybody thought it was biblical or lawful. And this is where things, particularly for me as a historian and particularly as a Presbyterian, it makes me a little bit uncomfortable. Why is that? Well, because when I started researching this and I looked, say, for example, into the larger catechism, I began to realize, huh, there's no condemnation of dueling in the larger catechism. That's odd. Because when you read the larger catechism, you can see that it goes to massive and very detailed, you know, an extent to explain all of the different ways in which you can fulfill a commandment or all of the different ways in which you can violate it. So for example, the sins forbidden in the Sixth Commandment are all taking away the life of ourselves or of others except in cases of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense. What was the legal defense for dueling when you killed somebody? It was self-defense. The neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life, sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive passions, distracting cares, and moderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreation, provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, or whatever else tends to the destruction of life of any. Why couldn't they insert dueling? They were pretty specific here. Now, you could say, well, a number of these things argue against it or would push back against it. And you could say, yeah, generally speaking, but it is interesting that they don't mention it. Moreover, in their ninth commandment, question 144, there seems to be a loophole that says that one may defend their good name when it is so required. In addition to that, there was a Westminster Divine by the name of John Selden. He supported dueling and argued that it was a legitimate means for resolving conflict. And this is the one, however, this is the one that made me think that the Westminster Divines lacked the courage to condemn dueling. It's because the Council of Trent Roman Catholic confession of faith, the Council of Trent explicitly condemns dueling as an abominable practice and a contrivance of the devil. Why is it that you get an explicit condemnation of dueling by the Council of Trent, but you cannot find that same kind of explicit statement against dueling by the Westminster divines in the larger catechism? I don't want to say automatically that they condoned it, but it makes me think that it was a significant issue where enough men were not necessarily opposed to the practice that they decided to kind of dance around the topic and not necessarily say anything specifically against it. And so thus, in a sense, kind of walk past it. Not condone it, but not necessarily condemn it either in the same way that the Council of Trent did. Now keep in mind, I think that it's important to recognize that even in the absence of the explicit condemnation of dueling in the Westminster Larger Catechism, that we can say that there were a sufficient number of theologians of the period that recognized that it was ungodly, that it was sinful, that it was murderous. And we can also note that even pagans at this particular time, you know, say for example, as we said, Seneca, Aristotle, you know, and others, they rightly recognized that dueling was wrong. But it is so important, I think it is so important that we recognize the significant difference, the significant difference between those pagan opinions who rejected dueling versus the Christian theologians who rejected dueling. In that these pagan philosophers, Socrates, Aristotle, Seneca, and the like, I believe that they resisted the urge for vengeance based upon the principles of stoic virtue, that you had to maintain your self-control. That you couldn't let the events of your life, in a sense, dramatically affect your own personal disposition. Stiff upper lip and all. Whereas Davenant is very explicit that he was willing to suffer wrong because ultimately he was in union with Christ. He was living out the doctrine of Christ in his own life. He was willing to suffer wrong because Christ suffered wrong. He was willing to suffer wrong because it was to bear the cross. And so I think it's important that we recognize that the ethical outcomes might have been the same. but the driving and motivating factors behind the Christian rejection of dueling were quite literally worlds apart. The new creation versus the old fallen creation. And so this brings us to our last and final point, which is what are the practical lessons that we can learn from this event? Well, we can say certainly that duels were common, but it doesn't mean that Gomorrah's actions were godly. Dueling might be passe today, but impatience, pride, anger still churn in the hearts of all of us. So we might say, okay, this is an interesting event from church history. Nobody's gonna go out and shoot somebody else over a theological dispute. I hope that's the case. I hope that's the case. But it doesn't mean that the underlying and motivating vices and sins that live in all of us have somehow dissipated or disappeared with the passing of time. We always have to have a vigilance against pride. We always need to ground our conduct in our union with Christ. And we always have to be on guard lest the world presses the church into its mold. So first, in terms of our vigilance against pride, I think it's important that when we generally engage in the Christian life, but especially when we are engaged in the business of the church, say, for example, in sorting through challenging doctrines such as the decree, that we should be mentally and spiritually prepared that people will be offensive, maybe not on purpose, or maybe on purpose, we have to be mentally prepared to say, I need to do everything that I can to ensure that I do not offend, but I also have to be prepared and ready to receive the offense to turn the other cheek in the words of Christ. Now, this is not to say that we cannot express our disagreements. This is not to say that we can't debate one another, perhaps even vigorously so. But ultimately, we have to pray that Christ would enable us to respond in a godly manner, or in some cases, maybe not respond at all. Sometimes the better part of wisdom is silence and letting the offense, whether genuine or not, pass us by. So that's the first thing. We need to be vigilant against pride in our own hearts. I don't know how many of us do this, but when we know we're going to go into a situation where there's going to be doctrinal disputes, do we mentally and spiritually prepare through prayer and meditation, oh Lord, help me to conduct myself in a godly manner, not only in the words that I say, but in the way that I react to people's comments and observations and opinions. Secondly, I think it's important that we continue to ground our conduct in our union with Christ. And in this respect, I think Bernard of Clairvaux's observations, these are the observations that John Davenant drew upon in his own commentary on Colossians. He drew upon Bernard's observations. He says this. He says, what have you to do with righteousness If you are ignorant of Christ, who is the righteousness of God, where, I ask, is true prudence except in the teaching of Christ? Or true justice, if not from Christ's mercy? Or true temperance, if not in Christ's life? Or true fortitude, if not in Christ's passion? Only those can be called prudent who are imbued with his teaching. Only those are just who have had their sins pardoned through his mercy. Only those are temperate who takes pains to follow his way of life. Only those are courageous who hold fast to the example of his patience when buffeted by sufferings. Vainly, therefore, will anyone strive to acquire the virtues if he thinks they may be obtained from any source other than the Lord of virtues, whose teaching is the seedbed of prudence, whose mercy is the wellspring of justice, whose life is a mirror of temperance, whose death is the badge of fortitude. I think true and biblical words come there from Bernard of Clairvaux's pen. He says, you want temperance, you want patience, you want fortitude in the midst of suffering. The only source from which you will find that is in Christ. It's in the life of Christ. Grounding your conduct in your union with Christ. We always have to keep the cross of Christ before us, both in terms of the price paid for sin, as well as in the path of sanctification that lies before us. And so in this respect, I think what Gomaras did is he squandered Let's assume that the insult was legitimate. He squandered the opportunity to show mercy to a colleague as he himself had been shown mercy by Christ, and he squandered an opportunity to bear the sufferings of Christ by not responding to the insult. He squandered the opportunity to shine forth the glories and the sufferings of Christ in that moment, and he spent that God-given opportunity on anger, vengeance even if he wasn't able to carry it out so we need to be vigilant against pride we need to ground our conduct in our union with Christ in the grace of the gospel but third and finally we must not let the world press the church into its mold dueling was common enough that Christian theologians pastors both at the Synod of Dort as well as at the Westminster Assembly believed that it was legitimate. It was a legitimate way of resolving conflicts. Now ministers may no longer draw pistols at dawn, at least I hope, but I suspect that we can throw down the gauntlet in other ways, say for example, especially on social media. The bullets may not fly, but the words do. I don't know about you, but so often I look at an article and then I'll go and I tell myself, don't do it. But I look down at the comment section and you can see that the comment section is just an intellectual sewer. at how quickly the comments degenerate into the worst sort of insults, the worst sort of ungodliness. And then you go out to the Twittersphere. Richard Barcellos is my source of all knowledge on the Internet. He'll text me screenshots, get a load of this. And you begin to go and scan down the comments and the threads of theological discussions, and you think, goodness gracious, I'm getting the kill sign from Barcelos back there. You look at the threads, the comments threads, and it almost looks as bad as the comments section on any article that you might find on the internet. There's insults, there's sarcasm, there's gossip. But remember this, bullets or not, God looks at the heart. Matthew chapter five, verse 22, but I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to the judgment. Whoever insults his brother will be liable to the counsel and whoever says you fool will be liable to the hell fire. sobering words. I think it behooves us, therefore, to be cautious in our conduct with these matters. And it's not just a question of refraining from typing, you moron. Moron in Greek, by the way, is how you say fool. It's also the condition and state of our heart, which is only something that the grace of the gospel of Christ can shape and mold, so that it's not simply the refraining from typing something that's ungodly, but rather it should also be a question of not thinking something ungodly. Our prayer should be, is that whenever we engage in these matters, that the Lord Jesus would protect us, that he would keep us humble, that he would enable us to exercise charity towards one another, so that even if we find ourselves in the midst of our dispute, that we can conduct ourselves in a God-honoring manner, that even if we become annoyed and incensed because why won't this person agree with me, that we can nevertheless walk away knowing that at least we've sharpened iron you know, iron sharpening iron, and that we can still love our brother in Christ, or our sister in Christ, in spite of it. I think in all of these ways we can ultimately say that this duel that almost was, was I think an embarrassing episode in the history of the Reformed Church. But if we bury it, or we try to forget it, and we don't own it, then we cannot learn from it. We would inevitably, I think, repeat it, perhaps not with pistols or swords, but certainly perhaps with the words that we say, whether those that we speak or type. Doctrine can be difficult, but I suspect the degree to which we comprehend the mysteries and the glories of the divine decree will ultimately be manifest in the godliness the charity and the humility with which we discuss these things. I hope that this is a truth that we all ponder and meditate upon. Let's pray. Father God, we give you great thanks and praise for the profundity of your word, for the complexities of things like the decree because it reminds us, O Lord, that how rich and all surpassing are the depths of your wisdom and knowledge, and how far beyond all discovery they are, and that we are but mere creatures standing before an infinite ocean of your knowledge, your wisdom, your righteousness, and your holiness. We pray, O Lord, that you would grant to us humility above all else, and that we would worship you in awe as we consider these truths. but at the same time as we recognize the infinite nature of your existence, the all-surpassing nature of your knowledge, that you would instill in our hearts the charity of Christ, and that if we find ourselves in disagreement, that we would exercise charity and caution and love and humility, so that ultimately we would be able to learn more about the truth, challenge one another in humility, rather than seeking another opportunity with which we can express pride, selfishness, or even vengeance. Have mercy upon us, we pray, not only for our sake and for our edification, but ultimately that we would bring glory to the name of the triune God through everything that we say, everything that we think, and everything that we do. We ask these things in Christ's name, amen.