Providence

“Who is in charge? God rules and guides the entire universe by His invisible hand. We call this the providence of God. The English word providence comes from two Latin words that mean “to see over.” God is the overseer of all things. He not only sees all but guides all. He steers all things to bless His people (Romans 8:28). The sovereign God carries out all the details of His predestination through providence, and without predestination there can be no providence. He planned the work and worked the plan.”

The chapter is divided into seven subsections.

God provides for the universe. Three paragraphs.  God created, sustains, cares, provides, upholds, preserves, keeps His universe.

Care for His creation. Five paragraphs.  Numerous examples and Scripture references.

The law of creation. Four paragraphs. Many great scientists in history rightly acknowledged the Creator and Provider of all and expressly stated that God is the foundation of all science (Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, et al).

Causality and Concurrence. Four paragraphs. God is the uncaused First Cause.

Ordinary and Extraordinary Providence. Five paragraphs. Ordinary providence is the usual way God governs creation through the laws of nature and science. Miracles are God’s special providence.

Providence with Purpose. One paragraph. God has an ultimate purpose in providence.

Conclusion. The Puritan John Flavel wrote a delightful book entitled The Mystery of Providence.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Twenty-Three, Foreknowledge.

“During the Watergate hearings in the 1970s, one question kept coming up: ‘What did you know, and when did you know it?’ If we ask this of God, the answer would be: ‘Everything, and from eternity.’ This leads to another question: What is the relation between foreordination and foreknowledge? This has direct bearing on the Reformed view of the absolute sovereignty of God.”

 This chapter is divided into six subsections.

 The omniscience of God. Two paragraphs. “The Bible repeatedly and expressly teaches the omniscience of God. It may be defined as the perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act.”

 Absolute foreknowledge. Three paragraphs. Prescience and the foresight are synonyms for foreknowledge. Foreknowledge can be causal or affectionate. God has eternal foreknowledge.

 Foreordination and Foreknowledge. Four paragraphs. Discussing the logical sequence of foreordination preceding foreknowledge. Mention is made of Dave Hunt’s misunderstanding of this aspect of Calvinism.

 Middle Knowledge. Five paragraphs. Middle knowledge is one of two erroneous theories that seek to evade the absolute foreknowledge and omniscience of God.

 Open Theism. Seven paragraphs. Theory says that God is in the process of growing in his being and knowledge, therefore God does not have omniscience or perfect foreknowledge. Reformed theology has been the strongest opponent of theological fad.

 Conclusion. Calvinism teaches full omniscience and foreknowledge.

Objections to Predestination

This installment of my chapter reviews is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Twenty-Two, Objections to Predestination.

“There have been many objections to the Reformed doctrine of absolute predestination. Some come from non-Christians who agree that it is taught in the Bible, but they do not believe in the Bible. Others are Christians who believe the Bible but do not believe that this doctrine is taught there. Here are a few popular objections and Reformed answers.”

 This chapter is divided into 10 subsections, with the first eight subsections addressing specific objections to the Reformed doctrine of Absolute Predestination, one subsection dealing with Miscellaneous Objections, and the Conclusion.

 “Absolute predestination is fatalism.” Four paragraphs. The author mentions Islam, Stoicism, and Augustine.

 “Things just are.” One paragraph.

 “Absolute predestination renders history meaningless.” One paragraph. Mention is made of G. C. Burkouwer, Herman Hoeksema, and the Hyper-Calvinist supralapsarianism. The paragraph ends with the author writing, “History has meaning precisely because of predestination. If there was no predestination, there would be no meaning but only chance.”

 “Predestination is linear, but the universe is cyclical.” Two paragraphs. Mention is made of Burkouwer, Arminians, Open Theists, and eternity as being both endless linear time and infinite eternal now non-time. The author observes the Bible does not present the cyclical view of time of Buddhism and Hinduism. “Meanwhile, history is His story, which He wrote in advance in predestination.”

 “God changes his mind.” Five paragraphs. Addressing the use of the word repent as anthropopathy – attributing human emotions to God in a figure of speech. Passages cited include Numbers 23.19; 1 Samuel 15.29; Psalm 110.4; Hebrews 7.21. Mention is made of Jonah. The final paragraph addresses two Greek words for repent, illustrated with the examples of Judas Iscariot and Peter.

 “The universe is a game of cosmic chess.” “This is a dangerous and unbiblical theory. It resembles the Greek gods on Mount Olympus, such as the Fates playing whimsical tricks on men. Worse, it resembles the cosmic dualism of Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia in which the white God of light and fire opposes the black God of darkness. It sounds like by theistic polytheism. But we add Satan is not a god and certainly is not the equal opposite of God Almighty. God is eternal and infinite; Satan is neither. God predestined that He will win; Satan cannot win. This is not cheating as the extreme Arminian theory suggests but reveals the absolute perfection of God.”

 “History is a battle between God and Satan.” Three paragraphs. “We reply that the Bible does indeed portray spiritual warfare between God and the Devil, but we add that the victory is settled in eternal predestination and guaranteed by the cross … God always wins.”

 “Predestination leaves no place for chance.” Six paragraphs. “How true!”

 “Miscellaneous objections.” “Predestination is not democratic.” “But my church does not believe in predestination.” “It’s not practical.” “I just don’t like it.” “It sounds too deep for me.” “It’s a great idea, but of course, men can overrule it by free will.” “Well, nobody can know the truth on these things.”

 Conclusion. “Luther wryly observed: ‘All objections to predestination proceed from the wisdom of the flesh.’”

Jack Hyles Knew Nothing About Evangelism.

According to Second Corinthians 4.13, the Apostle Paul attributes a believer’s faith to the Holy Spirit: “We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak.”

No person’s faith is conjured up by that individual. Neither is faith produced by manipulative means. The preacher does not generate faith in an audience by his oratorical skills, nor does any individual produce faith in his own life in response to his determination or personal decisions. The Spirit of God produces faith.

That said, the Spirit of God makes use of means to produce faith. When I speak of means, I am suggesting that the Spirit of God does not zap people and spontaneously produce faith in them. Rather, He produces faith using a mechanism, an implement, a tool, or an activity. His primary means of producing faith is the declaration of the truth of God’s Word when someone hears it preached or taught (and, of course, when it is read). Romans 10.17 addresses this reality: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

James 1.18 also addresses this reality: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

There is no indication from Scripture that faith is always produced when someone hears the Word of God preached or taught. In Second Thessalonians 3.2, the Apostle Paul declared to that congregation, “all men have not faith.” Thus, some who are exposed to Bible truth by various means are not given faith by the Spirit of faith. Also, and this bears on the faith of the eleven remaining apostles in John 16 following their departure from the Upper Room, there is no indication that faith will necessarily be produced instantaneously by the Spirit of God as one hears Bible truth.

In some cases, faith is given by the Spirit of God as they are receiving Bible truth. In other cases, faith is given by the Spirit of God after the passage of time and their hearing of Bible truth. My conversion to Christ occurred seventeen years after the Gospel was presented to me.

I bring this up because the apostles were exposed to Bible truth as they heard the Savior preach and teach for three and one-half years. Yet, their faith was not always the immediate result of the truth they were exposed to. I would suggest the Spirit of God gradually gives faith, with that faith not always being either strong or of much depth initially. The apostles seemed to recognize that reality when, in Luke 17.5, they said to the Lord, “Increase our faith.”

With these introductory remarks made, I would now like to offer an opinion. Some would say, “Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion.” Perhaps everyone is legally entitled to his opinion, but everyone is not logically or rationally entitled to his or her opinion. Concerning the principles of logic, there is a thing called “The Law of Sufficient Reason.” “The Law of Sufficient Reason” demands that a person have a reasonable and rational basis for an opinion that is held or advanced. Therefore, it is not true that everyone is entitled to his opinion. I am about to express the opinion that I am entitled to both hold and express because I have rational and reasonable bases for my opinion.

Let me get two more things out of the way before I begin in earnest. The naïve among us frequently insist that no adverse opinion be held or expressed about another person’s position or practice without first confronting that person personally and privately. Of course, that is utter nonsense, based upon a misunderstanding of Matthew 18.15ff, which portion of Scripture governs only matters between members of the same church. Additionally, it is felt by some to be a low blow to deal with matters related to a person who is now dead, as though any criticism of positions and practices held by those deceased is, for some reason, no longer legitimate topics of inquiry, discussion, or criticism. That, too, is poppycock and balderdash. Whenever an individual proclaims his positions and practices into the public sphere, he enters the realm known as the arena, where all ideas that are practiced and proclaimed are subject to public scrutiny, public discourse, and public criticism. If you don’t want people to criticize what you believed and how you behaved while you are alive after you have died, then you’d best keep your mouth shut.

Now for my opinion, and the reasons back of my opinion. The late Jack Hyles knew nothing about evangelism. There, I said it. Following are the reasons I have concluded after years of reflection on the matter why I think Jack Hyles knew nothing about evangelism. Before citing my reasons, let me grant certain things about Jack Hyles, whose books I have read, whose tapes I have listened to, whose pastors schools I have attended, whose sermons I have listened to at preachers meetings, and who I have met on too many occasions to recall at this time.

Jack Hyles was undoubtedly a genius. For many years he pastored the largest church in the entire world. He was an organizational genius, a platform genius, and a genius at influencing large groups of pastors and parishioners. That said, he knew nothing about evangelism.

Jack Hyles wrongly assumed a number of things Scripture simply does not teach to be true, affecting his philosophy of personal evangelism and soul winning.

1. Jack Hyles wrongly assumed sinners decide when to be born again. Such an assumption is laughable and ludicrous, showing Hyles to be an Arminian at best or a Pelagian at worst. The phenomenon the Lord Jesus Christ spoke to Nicodemus about in John 3 was a miracle that is performed by the Holy Spirit of God. But the Savior termed it “born again,” showing some likeness between birth and the new birth. As no child decides when to be born, so no child of God decides when to be born again. The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of anyone who maintains the miracle of the new birth occurs when a sinner decides it occurs.

2. Jack Hyles wrongly assumed sinners are saved from their sins by praying. In the books that he wrote, in the cassette tapes he sold, and the soul winning programs he advanced, sinners were always directed to be saved by praying, despite the fact that there is no example of any sinner in the Bible who is definitively shown to have been converted to Christ by praying. What sinners are directed to do in the Bible is believe on Jesus Christ, trust Christ, or come to Christ, not pray. The danger in encouraging sinners to pray to receive Christ is that praying is undeniably a work, causing some unknown percentage of sinners to imagine that it was their prayer that was the instrumental cause of their conversion. But salvation is not the result of works of righteousness, Titus 3.5. It is dangerous to encourage sinners by leading them to think that they can become a Christian by praying.

3. Jack Hyles wrongly assumed sinners are convicted by the Holy Spirit of God while they are being witnessed to. There is no indication in Scripture that the Holy Spirit of God necessarily convicts any sinner at the time they are being witnessed to, at the time they are listening to a sermon, at the time the Bible is being taught to them, at the time they are reading the Bible or a gospel tract. While the Spirit of God does sometimes convict sinners while they are being witnessed to, there is no guarantee in Scripture that this is the case. Therefore, it is entirely presumptuous to assume the Spirit of God convicts sinners of their sins concurrently with them being witnessed to.

4. Jack Hyles wrongly assumed sinners are persuaded to trust Christ simultaneously with being dealt with by a soul winner. Of course, this sometimes occurs. However, this does not always occur. And, again, it is presumptuous and potentially dangerous for the spiritual welfare of the sinner to assume that sinners are persuaded to trust Christ by the Holy Spirit when they are being dealt with by the soul winner.

5. Jack Hyles wrongly assumed all sinners must always be dealt with by soul winners in the same way. This despite the fact that Jack Hyles did not always deal with sinners in the same way, as his soul winning stories reveal (in the days when he went soul winning). Soul winners were trained by him, and by his devotees, to almost always deal with almost all sinners in precisely the same way. Yet Scripture does not suggest that the Savior, or any of His apostles, ever dealt with two sinners in the same fashion. Such a cookie-cutter mentality of soul winning is clearly not the pattern shown in Scripture.

6. Jack Hyles wrongly assumed sinners are usually saved at their front door or in their living room where they are led to Christ by soul winners. Nothing in Scripture would suggest that this is the case. As well, John R. Rice, who did more to promote personal evangelism than anyone in the United States during the 20^th century, insisted that the vast majority of people who turned to Christ did so in response, not to personal soul winner’s efforts, but after hearing the Gospel clearly presented in church worship services.

7.   Jack Hyles wrongly assumed sinners must be acknowledged to be saved who claim to be saved. Of course, this is a flagrant violation of the Biblical principle of two or three witnesses that was set aside by the infamous Pelagianism heretic of the 19^th century, Charles G. Finney. Prior to Finney, virtually all gospel ministers in the English-speaking world referred to those who presumably had trusted Christ as their Savior as “hopeful converts.” Believing in the Biblical principle that matters of fact are established at the mouths of two or three witnesses (a principal the Lord Jesus Christ adhered to during His earthly ministry, a practice honored by God Himself, as well as the glorified Savior) Gospel ministers of old would act upon the claim of those who insisted they had trusted Christ by thoroughly investigating their claim with questions designed to clarify their understanding of the Gospel, supported by an abandoning of their sinful lifestyle practices. Even after most American Gospel ministers had abandoned the practice of trust and verify, C. H. Spurgeon continued the practice throughout his ministry.

You might disagree with my opinion that Jack Hyles knew nothing about evangelism, nothing about personal soul winning. That is perfectly fine. However, there can be no doubt by those who are familiar with his ministry over the decades before his passing, that he was a masterful manipulator and had weapons-grade persuasion skills. I acknowledge this to be true. My claim is that his impressive skills were not informed by an understanding of Bible truth.

You might also counter my Ministerial Musings by impugning my motives. Before you do that, take note that I have not challenged Jack Hyles’ motives. Neither have I launched an attack on his morals or integrity, as many have done. My comments are the result of a consideration of his practices, and my opinion that his practices were at variance with Bible doctrine. If you believe I am mistaken, I suggest that you take me to task using God’s Word.

The right approach to seeking the salvation of the lost must be advanced by clearing away that which is harmful and unscriptural.

The Most Dangerous Dads In The World.

A few minutes ago, I looked in on our Church’s monthly Saturday morning session of Kids Krafts, with a grandmother and several mothers spending time at the Church house guiding children as they made gifts to give to the important people in their lives. The picture shown is so altered that no one can recognize any of the individuals whose faces are shown. In contrast, family and loved ones will have no difficulty identifying the overall body shape, posture, and physical attitude of the person pictured. Kids Krafts was not on my mind several days ago as I began to formulate this iteration of Ministerial Musings, “The Most Dangerous Dads In The World.” 

What is the most important task any human being can ever take on? If Revelation 4.11 is any clue, the most essential duty, obligation, and responsibility for any human being is to consciously and conscientiously seek to glorify God. How that is best done depends upon a variety of factors, such as whether you are a child or adult, a man or a woman, married or unmarried, a husband or a wife, a father or a mother. As one’s status changes over life, how one consciously and conscientiously seeks to glorify God must modify. 

For this iteration of Ministerial Musings, I want to give thought to a man, a dad, who is very dangerous for his child or children. Most fathers do not seek to be hazardous to their children, but many fathers are inadvertently a profound threat to the spiritual health and welfare, yes, to the eternal good of their children. 

What are the most important influences in a child’s life? The importance of environment, parents, siblings, extended family members, and inherited traits and characteristics are recognized. Most of these things, however, are beyond the scope of my present musing. I am a pastor. The Lord called me to the Gospel ministry in 1975. Therefore, I have been in the Gospel ministry for 46 years. I have observed a great deal. I have experienced a great deal. And I have studied a great deal. 

While fathers are not the most important person in any child’s life at the outset, they can become the most important adult in a child’s life over time. This is especially true with boys and is confirmed as children age and become somewhat more independent and autonomous from their mothers. As the importance of mothers correctly and appropriately diminishes to some degree, the importance of fathers correctly and appropriately intensifies to some degree. Of course, this is especially true of boys. 

At some point in a boy’s life, he begins to recognize (usually below the level of conscious thought) that he is different than his mother. Studies have shown that for a boy to reach his potential as a man, he must reorient himself away from the female world and toward the male world at some point in his life. There is a wide variation of the healthy timing of this reorientation. This reorientation is not necessary for girls becoming women, but it is both complex and crucial to the transformation of boys to men. Therefore, imagine the confusion in our culture from failing to recognize the importance of this transition, either by denying that men are essentially (physically and psychologically) different than women or by failing to provide models and templates for boys to embrace as they step away from their mothers to reorient themselves for life as an adult male. 

I am profoundly thankful that my mother was of a generation of women who seemed to understand the importance of this transformation innately, did not resist this transformation in the lives of either of her sons and encouraged her sons to become both manly and men. 

There seem to be three kinds of fathers I have observed in the world we currently live in. There is the father with no discernible influence in his child’s life, either because he is not physically present in the home or because he is a virtual non-entity in the home. He is not emotionally involved in the life of his child. He is emotionally distant. He is preoccupied by something other than his wife and child. There are too many such men. 

There is also the father with negative influence in the life of his child, either because he is not usually physically present in the home and does a poor job when he does show up from time to time, or he is physically present in the home environment but contributes only in a profoundly negative way by mistreating the child’s mother or mistreating the child. Sometimes both people are mistreated by this sort of guy. There are too many such men. 

Then there is the father with a desirable influence in the life of his child. This is the physically present guy in the home who devotes himself to doing what he believes is an excellent job of being a husband to the child’s mother and a father to the child. He is loving. He is attentive. He is patient and instructive. He is conscientious. This type of father is the most dangerous dad a child can have. 

Why so? Because there is no interest in or consideration of the spiritual aspect of the child’s life. Consider that fathers are the pattern that most boys will aspire to in their struggle to attain manhood. Consider, also, that the father sets the pattern that most girls will aspire to marry as they arrive at the full blossoming of womanhood, childbearing age, and concerns about marriage matters. 

Over the years, I have known and am good friends with many men whose fathers were despicable. Their dads were brutal, cruel, harsh, and unloving in the extreme, yet God has profoundly blessed them to be godly Christian men, husbands, and fathers who were nothing like their dads. Praise God for His grace and mercy. 

When these guys first considered spiritual issues, they likely gave no thought of any kind whether or not their consideration of Christ and the Gospel message would meet with their dad’s approval. Their fathers did not figure in their contemplation of spirituality, eternity, the forgiveness of their sins, or any future relationship with Christ. They had already rejected their fathers as manhood models and templates. They had already adopted a model for manhood or were seeking a model for manhood, which was different from their dads. That is a good thing. 

On the other hand, what about the dangerous dad? What about the loving and attentive father who takes his kids camping, who teaches his children how to fish, who makes sure his kids go to Disneyland, Magic Mountain, Knott’s Berry Farm, or Sea World on an annual basis? This is the dad who consciously and conscientiously involves himself in the lives of his children, yet he pays no attention whatsoever to their spiritual welfare. This father is secular. To him, God either does not exist or is not important enough to pay attention to. Christ is never discussed, considered, or honored. The consequences of this dad’s approach to fatherhood are catastrophic. 

This man’s children will grow up and formulate their worldview without considering sin, salvation, God, Christ, or their eternal destiny. The things of God do not fit into their considerations. Should they ever come in contact with a Gospel message, even if they are exposed to the Gospel through the ministrations of their godly mothers, their love and loyalty felt toward their dad will demand that they consider his opinion with respect to the Gospel. 

Whether they will receive the Gospel is dependent upon whether they imagine their father approving or disapproving. Whether they consider the Gospel will depend not on the will of God for their lives as it is found in the Bible, but on what their dads say or what they speculate their dads will say. 

Very few attractive but dangerous fathers, whose children love them, will admit to their children in a serious conversation, “I was wrong to raise you the way I did. I was wrong to present to you an attractive but secular lifestyle. I was wrong to give you the impression that you could be a good woman or a good man apart from being a Christian woman or a Christian man. I was wrong not to embrace the Gospel and live the Christian life in front of you. I was wrong to not prayerfully and carefully rear you in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in the hopes that you would turn to Christ at a young age and live for God throughout your life. Should you not turn to Christ before you die, you will hate me for eternity for the way I raised you.” 

Regardless of how his children turn out, the attractive but dangerous father who sets before his children the pattern of a secular man, a secular husband, and a secular father is an unmitigated failure. The selfish pursuit of his agenda ignored the fact that the Bible declares that there is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. This most dangerous father in the world succeeds only at setting his children up for their eternal damnation and everlasting failure.

Frenzy

 

There is a type of spiritual schizophrenia in Christendom. Christians and non-Christians believe and yet do not believe, subscribe, and somehow do not subscribe to invisible spirits’ reality and their danger. We do not doubt that what the missionaries tell us takes place on the mission field about demon possession and influences being both quite dangerous and very real, yet we do not think such dangers apply to us. We conclude that we are in no danger, resulting more from feelings of familiarity about issues than objective facts and reality.

To address this lethargy, I have begun on Sunday nights to survey indications of Satanic and demonic warfare found in each book of the Bible. It is a survey designed to heighten awareness and provoke concern about this matter of Satanic and demonic warfare in the human realm, especially as it relates to seducing spirits. Have we been unknowingly seduced about the proper way to approach God in our worship?

During my research, I noticed that one commentator used a word that caught my attention, describing the religious practices of the Egyptian idolaters of Moses’ day as engaging in frenzy. That word frenzy caught my attention and piqued my interest. I remembered the description Moses wrote of the Israelites activities in Exodus 32.6: “And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play,” the word “play” translating qxu  tsachaq,  tsaw-khak'. Does that Hebrew word refer to this notion of frenzy? I am investigating, especially in light of the “mischief” of the people, verse 22, and their “nakedness,” verse 25.

For the first 25 years of my life, my father worked for the federal government, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. From my earliest years, we lived on Indian reservations, and it was not uncommon for us to spend Saturday nights on the reservations at the very well-attended war dances. I was looking back on those war dances I attended 60 years ago. I am struck by what now seems to me to be remarkable similarities. I am discovering that Egyptian and Canaanite pagan frenzy appears similar to the frenzy on display during my childhood at the various plains Indians’ war dances. It is eery.

During my junior high school years, I had no conscious awareness of any personal religious inclinations, and our family did not but rarely attend church services. I do remember reading a book titled The Religions Of Man, by Huston Smith. A revised and updated version of that book is now available under the title The World’s Religions. Although Smith does not use the term frenzy, he does use the term ecstatic to describe what appears to be some form of frenzy among the Sufis of Islam, known as dervishes. Are the practices of those engaged in frenzy and those demonstrating ecstasy the same phenomenon?

Almost immediately after my conversion to Christ in 1974, I found myself surrounded in my workplace environment by Pentecostalism and adherents to the Charismatic movement. One fellow was an usher for Katherine Kuhlman. Another fellow was an usher for Frederick K. Price. Though never inviting me to any church services, my Pentecostal and Charismatic colleagues frequently invited me to the Shekinah Fellowship on Saturday nights to watch what could only be described as ‘the spectacle’ of the effeminate, pirate-puffy-sleeved, satin-shirted (with satin bow tie) and obligatory Dutch Boy haircut-wearing Brant Baker. To be sure, my recollection of tongues-speaking afterglows strikes me as frenzy.

One of the mistakes people make when seeking to justify inappropriate conduct during contemporary worship services is to claim affinity to David. They embrace the imagery of David dancing before the ark of the LORD (2 Samuel 6.16 and 1 Chronicles 15.29) as it was being relocated to Ornan’s threshing floor where Solomon would later build his temple. Yet David was not, as he danced before the ark in delight, engaged in the public worship of the God of Israel prescribed in the Law of Moses. He was dancing a jig because he was excited, and rightly so. His conduct on that occasion should not be seen as normative for gathered Christian worship.

My great fear is that the frenzy that characterizes paganism has found its way into mainstream Christianity. With its abysmal lack of truth requiring that emotions be stirred by drums and flutes and stringed instruments accompanying dancing, and the abandoning of any pretense of self-control, pagan worship was on display by the children of Israel in Exodus 32.

It is not called frenzy among its professing Christian practitioners. It is called worship. However, with its nightclub mood and lighting, and its insistence on music that is heavily dependent upon the rhythm section of the band, as well as the singing of choruses that are so repetitive as to for all intents and purposes be chanting, I am afraid there is more of paganism’s frenzy in contemporary Christianity’s worship than anyone wants to admit.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Twenty-One, Absolute Predestination.

 Reviewer’s comment. This is an exciting chapter to review because of the responses that I expect to receive to respond to the author’s trigger words. One need not wonder where the younger generation’s fixation on trigger warnings and the demand that forewarnings be issued before certain words or topics are mentioned by a teacher in a university classroom. I suspect many millennials learned such tactics from their childhood pastors who go off when such words as predestination, election, or foreordination are used, evoking criticism when the terms are used, without considering reading the way the author uses such Biblical words.

 This chapter has ten subdivisions.

 “The big question is: Why? Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Whence and whether – where did we come from and where we going? In German there are two words for why. Warum means “What caused this?” Wozu means “What is the purpose or goal of this?” The answer to all these questions is the same: God. Romans 11:36: “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

 What is Predestination? Five paragraphs are devoted to answering this question, with those paragraphs supplying Scripture references and a discussion of predestination and for ordination as synonyms.

 The Word Predestination. Two paragraphs address the meaning of the English word and the Greek word from which it is translated. Passages cited include Acts 4:28, Romans 8:29–30, First Corinthians 2:7, Ephesians 1:5, and Ephesians 1:11.

 The Purpose of God. Four paragraphs develop God’s purpose. Two Greek words often used for God’s wise counsel and purpose are explored.

 The Decree of God. Three paragraphs address God’s decree. Arthur W. Pink commented: “There is a vast difference between the promises of God and His eternal decrees: Many of the former are conditional, whereas the latter are immutable, depending on nothing for their fulfillment save the omnipotence of God.”

 The Program and Plan of God. Two paragraphs.

 Eternal Predestination. Three paragraphs. Three verses are cited: Second Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4, Job 14:5.

 Absolute Predestination. Six paragraphs. “Predestination is absolute and definite, not contingent or merely possible. It is unfrustratable, unstoppable, invincible.”

 Predestination of All Means and Ends. Two paragraphs. Predestination is universal. “Could God have predestined things differently? In a way, yes. He is independent and did not have to create. Creation is a free act, not a necessary act, like the eternal generation of the Son or the eternal procession of the Spirit.”

 A Caution. Two paragraphs. “Deuteronomy 29:29 should be remembered: ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.’”

 Conclusion. Three paragraphs. “Arminianism approaches that in its idea of predestination being contingent upon man rather than God alone. The alternative to sovereign divine predestination is human tyranny… No man fully understands predestination. Only God does. But he has revealed enough of it in Scripture for us to believe in it. Why? Because God says so.”

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Twenty, The Sovereignty of God.

 This chapter has nine subdivisions. 

To this point I have been reviewing the portion of the book dealing with the history of Calvinism. Not surprisingly, my chapter reviews of Calvinism’s history have provoked some extremely negative reaction from Baptist brethren who seem to be unaware that the vast majority of Baptists in England and in the New World for the last four centuries have been self-described particular Baptists, which is to say Calvinists. Not until the twentieth century were most Baptists not Calvinists. This is irrefutable historical reality. The Philadelphia Baptist Association, formed 312 years ago under the leadership of Elias Keach, was the first Baptist Association in the New World, and gave rise to all other Baptist groups in North, Central, and South America (with the exception of the Swedish Baptists). The pastors and congregations that formed the Philadelphia Baptist Association were self-described Calvinists. 

Going forward, the author begins to deal with the theology of Calvinism, which I expect to provoke moral outrage and indignation from those who would describe George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, Charles H. Spurgeon, Dwight L. Moody, Billy Sunday, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J. Frank Norris, Jewel Smith, and D. James Kennedy as heretics. My advice to those of you who hold to such opinions, and are allergic to discussions of topics you are unfamiliar with or that you disagree with, is to read Ministerial Musings no more. It is not my desire to provoke antagonism, but to review the most substantial treatment of the doctrines and history of Calvinism I have ever read. The rest of us will now continue. 

The Transcendence of God. Three paragraphs.. God is the self existent one from eternity. He created the universe to display His glory, but being infinite, He is greater than the universe (I Kings 8.27). He transcends us from the sky above us. He is both near and far, both immanent and transcendent. 

The Independence of God. Three paragraphs. Being eternal, self existent, and infinite, God needs nothing and nobody. He did not create the universe because He needed it, nor does He redeem sinners because He was lonely. Nothing compels Him to do anything. He is totally independent. He alone has totally free will. God therefore does what He does for the simple reason that He chooses to do so. Not only does God not have to answer our questions or defend His decisions, He does not need our advice. 

Absolute Sovereignty. Four paragraphs. God repeatedly describes Himself as king. He reigns. Which attribute of God is superior to the others? God is described as Lord thousands of times more than as holiness, love, or anything else. It is worth pondering. Any idea of God that does not immediately entail Him as Lord is an idol. 

God is God-Centered. One paragraph. The universe is centered around God. It is a theocentric cosmos. Each of us should be consciously and morally centered around God as well. We must center on the glory of Christ, not the felt needs of man. In worship we must engage in God centered praise, not man centered entertainment. 

The Rights of God. Four paragraphs. God has given to man certain privileges and duties, and men should show fairness and love to each other. But to be sure, man has no rights with God. God has all the rights–period. He has the right to choose whomever He pleases and reject whomever He pleases. We dare not quibble or argue with God about rights we presume to have. 

Absolute Authority. Four paragraphs. Being the absolute Lord and King, God has a right to do whatever He pleases to do. He has what may be called a holy and wise arbitrariness. God does not will or act in a willy-nilly manner. His decrees are perfectly wise, for God predestines and commands according to His own counsel and perfect wisdom (Ephesians 1.11). 

The Objection. Seven paragraphs. Fallen man does not like the sovereignty of God. He recoils from it and argues against it. D. James Kennedy saw why man objects to the sovereignty of God. Men will not allow God to be sovereign for a very simple reason – they want to be God themselves. We wholeheartedly agree with Luther’s battle cry: “Let God be God!” 

The Contrast. Three men are quoted.

Arthur W pink wrote,

“The God of the 20^th century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular man is a creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many of present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than awe-inspiring reverence.”

Charles H Spurgeon said,

“There is no attribute more comforting to his children than that of God’s sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe trials, they believe that sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that sovereignty overrules them, and that sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children ought more earnestly to contend than the doctrine of their master over all creation – the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands – the throne of God and his right to sit upon the throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Man will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne. They will allow Him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and make stars. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, will rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth. And we proclaim and enthroned God, and His right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter; then it is that we are hissed execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. But it is the God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon His throne whom we trust.”

Lastly, Jonathan Edwards:

“From my childhood up, my mind had been wont to be full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty; in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and to be everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to the sovereignty of God, and his justice in thus eternally disposing of men, according to his sovereign pleasure. But never could give an account, how, or by what means, I was thus convinced; not in the least imagining, in the time of it, nor a long time after, that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s Spirit in it: but only that I now but only that now I saw further, and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it. However, my mind rested in it; and it put an end to all those cavils and objections, that had till then abode with me, all the preceding part of my life. And there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, with respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, from that day to this; so that I scarcely ever found so much as a rising of an objection against God’s sovereignty, in the most absolute sense, in showing mercy on whom he will show mercy, and hardening and eternally damning whom he will. God’s absolute sovereignty, and justice, with respect to the rest assured of, as much as of anything that I see with my eyes; at least it is so at times. But I have oftentimes since that first conviction, had quite another kind of sense of God’s sovereignty, then I had then. I have often sins, not only had a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty has very often appeared, and exceedingly pleasant, right and sweet doctrine to me: and absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God.” 

Conclusion. One paragraph. Let God be God.