This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter 32, Total Depravity.

This chapter might not only be the most important chapter of the book but also the chapter Baptists of all stripes and persuasions will most likely be in agreement. 

The chapter is divided into 12 subdivisions. 

“Pelagius said man is good. Arminians say man is good and bad. Calvinists say man is bad, very bad. And God is mad, very mad. In this chapter we will explore the Bible’s teaching that sin infests all parts of us.” 

What Total Depravity Is Not. It is not universal sinfulness. It also is not just culpable guilt. Total depravity is also more than extreme cases of sin. It is also not animalization. It is also not demonization. These are the sentences that begin each of the paragraphs in this subdivision. 

Evil In All Parts. Five paragraphs. “By total depravity we mean the very nature of man has been so thoroughly affected by original sin that every part of his being is under the control of sin. Evil totally affects, infects, and defects man. There is not a single part of him that has not been fatally infested. He is infected with the disease of sin from head to toe (Isaiah 1:6), inside and out, top to bottom. James Henley Thornwell said, “He is morally ulcerated from head to foot; he is one universal mass of gangrenous matter.” In this subsection the author refers to First Corinthians 5:6, Second Timothy 2:17, Psalm 103:1, Mark 12:30, First Samuel 24:13, Matthew 7:11; 15:19; 7:16–19; 12:33, Romans 1:29; 7:18, as well as citing Abraham Kuyper, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, and John Calvin. 

Sinful Bodies. One paragraph. 

Sinful Hearts. Four paragraphs. 

Sinful Minds. Four paragraphs. 

Sinful Emotions. Three paragraphs. 

Sinful Consciences. Two paragraphs. 

Sinful Wills. One paragraph. 

Blind Minds and Hard Hearts. Three paragraphs. “Pelagianism says man sees perfectly well. Arminianism says man needs eyeglasses. Calvinism says man is blind and needs an eye transplant.” 

Totally Depraved All The Time. Five paragraphs. “Man’s total depravity not only extends to the totality of his being, but to the entirety of his lifetime, however short or long. He is always in sinful, always thinks sinful thoughts, always wills evil things.” 

Is Man as Sinful as He Can Be? Four paragraphs. “John Calvin was absolutely right to say, ‘All works done before faith, whatever splendor of righteousness may appear in them, were nothing but mere sins, being defiled from their roots, and were offensive to the Lord, whom nothing can please without inward purity of heart.'” 

Conclusion. “Total depravity refers to the breadth of man’s sinfulness. In the next chapter we will discuss its depth. If Calvinism has a far higher review of divine sovereignty than all other theologies, is it also has a far lower view of human sinfulness than all others.”

Original Sin

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Thirty-One, Original Sin. 

“God’s word teaches that all humans except Jesus Christ inherit a sinful nature from Adam that we call original sin. The term is not in the Bible and was probably coined by Augustine. All evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe in it. Pelagius was one of the first to deny it. Semi-Pelagians and Arminians hold to a modified version. Reformed theology has the strongest view of all. To understand the doctrine of total depravity, we must first understand original sin.” 

This chapter is divided into eight subsections. 

The Nature of Original Sin. Four paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with Ephesians 2.1–3, with mention made of Genesis 1.31, Ecclesiastes 7.29, and Hebrews 4.15. “We have a fallen human nature. Sin is what we are, not just what we do.” Pelagius’ view that mankind is morally neutral following Adam’s sin is disputed. The second paragraph describes original sin as a spiritual congenital disease that is passed on to our children and his fatal. Romanism’s view of the Immaculate Conception and impeccable sinlessness of Mary is disputed. Jonathan Edwards’ description of babies as “young vipers,” baby serpents with the fallen nature of the Serpent is mentioned. The third paragraph mentions sins as proceeding from a sinful nature, with reference to the Belgic Confession, and quotes John Calvin’s description of children: “There is a secret poison working in them, and that although they do not show it at first, yet they are like a brood of serpents.” The final paragraph comments about Roman Catholic theology differing from Pelagianism. The Reformed position is said to be, “We hold that original sin is both the absence of righteousness and the presence of unrighteousness. It includes the active predisposition to sin. Human nature is never morally neutral. Adam was pro-God before the fall and anti-God afterwards, as we all are.” 

Sinful from Conception. Two paragraphs. “It is a biblical diagnosis that fallen man obviously dislikes. It hurts our pride. But a doctor does not hate his patient when he tells him the hard truth that he has terminal cancer. Too often sentimental parents refused to see that their newborn child is born sinful. When he begins to show it, parents sometimes say, ‘Isn’t that cute?’ “When parents fail to see sin in their babies, they often later make excuses for their sinful behavior. For example, they presume he is regenerate, even though he shows no evidence thereof but rather much the contrary. Or, they still think their child is saved because she ‘accepted Jesus into her heart’ as a child, even though her lifestyle is blatantly wicked. Babies are just little sinners, just like the elderly are just old sinners. Original sin permeates our nature from womb to tomb.” 

Biblical Proofs. The first proof is the unity of the human race. All humans have sinful humanity in common. The second proof is the principle of inherited nature. We inherit our humanity from our parents, who got it from their parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve. The third proof is infant sinfulness. The fourth proof is infant mortality. The fifth proof is universal human morality. The sixth proof is universal sinfulness. 

How is Original Sin Transmitted? Two paragraphs. 

Mediate or Immediate Imputation? Six paragraphs. The discussion begins with an illustration of original sin as a fire that can be transmitted. The question of a child inheriting guilt with original sin is addressed. Pelagius, semi-Pelagians, Arminians, and Calvinists are discussed. Mention is made of Augustine, the Amyaldians, Jonathan Edwards, and W. G. T. Shedd. Traducianism versus immediate imputation is discussed, which is the view of the Westminster Confession, John Murray, Charles Hodge, and others. It is sometimes called the federal headship view. 

Objections to Original Sin. Five paragraphs include references to Arminian objections as well as homosexuals who argue, “I was born this way. God made me gay. Therefore, there is nothing sinful about it anymore than being born a certain race.” The author’s response is to point out that one’s racial identity does not involve sin. Sodomy does. 

Evil Comes from Evil. Three paragraphs. “One reason why non-Calvinists reject the doctrine of total depravity is because they fail to see its root in original sin. Deny the root, you deny the fruit.” “Pelagius and some starry-eyed Arminians would say ‘There’s no such thing as a bad boy. Calvinists reply, there is no such thing as a good boy.’” 

Conclusion. “All humans have this disease. It is a universal terminal illness with disgusting symptoms, and it is passed on to our children. But we can be grateful that there is a cure – and only one cure. Roman Catholicism and some Protestants say that original sin is forgiven, though not removed, through baptism. They are wrong. That error is part of the heresy of baptismal regeneration. Others such as the Nazarenes, many “Holiness” churches, and Wesleyans say that original sin may be removed in a post-conversion experience of entire sanctification usually called perfectionism. That too is wrong (1 John 1:8; Philippians 3:12). Reformed theology teaches that the guilt of original sin is forgiven in justification, then Christ’s holiness is put into us by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, with the power to resist original sin in part. But original sin remains in us (perhaps specifically in our bodies) as what we call indwelling sin. That is why even the best of Christians still sin. It will be in us until the day we die, from birth to earth. But praise God, it is left in the grave and not resurrected to infect us in our new bodies in Heaven, where we will live forever without sin or sins. But lost sinners will continue to have it forever in Hell.”

The Problem of Evil.

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Thirty, The Problem of Evil. 

This is another of the chapters that are worth the price of the book, because Baptist pastors too infrequently address these types of issues. And these types of issues need to be contemplated by every gospel minister, regardless of which side of the Calvinist versus Arminian divide he finds himself. 

“In this chapter we will look at the problem that is closely related to the problem of the origin of sin. The question can be put like this: How can a loving and holy God allow so much sin and suffering in the world?” 

The chapter is subdivided into seven parts. 

Providence and Temptation. Five paragraphs. “First, it is essential to realize that God cannot be blamed for sin or suffering. He is beyond blame, and it is inexcusable blasphemy to blame God. It is also true that God foreordained all things that come to pass, including sin and suffering. And He presently allows them to happen. But providential permission is not the same thing as uncaring approval.” The author develops the distinction between testing and tempting, referencing James 1:12–14; Genesis 22:1; Hebrews 11:17; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1; Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Matthew 4:3; and Matthew 6:13. 

Concurrence with Moral Evil. Two paragraphs. 

God Restrains Sin and Takes the Restraints Off. Six paragraphs. The author discusses God’s restraints, is turning of the evil of men’s deeds into good, and His providential dealings with sin in general. 

The Problem of Natural Evil. Four paragraphs. The author discriminates between moral evil and natural evil, and His use of good things to bless bad people. 

The Problem of Pain. Eight paragraphs. The author refutes the 1981 book written by Rabbi Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen To Good People. He also discusses John Gerstner’s essay, The Problem of Pleasure. A paragraph is devoted to the prophet Habakkuk wrestling with this issue. Comments are also made about Judgment Day and Hell. 

Theodicy. Three paragraphs. I had not seen this word before reading this book, coined by Gottfried Leibniz. “It refers to how we can justify the ways of God to man regarding the existence of both moral and natural evil. Basically his answer is that evil of both kinds must exist to show the glory of the good. For good to be good, there must be bad shown to be bad. This implies that God cannot stop moral or natural evil, for they are just plain necessary in this the best of all possible worlds.” By and large, Calvinists reject this view. God does not need bad to prove that He is good. 

Conclusion. “God owes us nothing. He does not owe us an answer to the problem of evil. He condescends to tell us some of the answer. He gave us the book of Job, which Job did not have. He humbles us and moves us to trust him. 

The answer involves the following points:

1. God is sovereign and omnipotent. He permits both moral and natural evil to exist.

2. God is holy. He cannot be blamed.

3. Man alone is culpable and cannot shift the blame onto God.

4. God is good. He gives common grace to all and offers special grace to forgive sinners. He even gives comfort to His unrepentant enemies.

5. In the end, God uses both moral and natural evil to punish the reprobate and bless the elect.

6. God will be glorified in all things in the end.”

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

 It is obvious from the title that the book is divided into two parts. I am persuaded the book is worth reading for the benefit of its historical accuracy concerning the spread of Calvinism. One does not need to be a Calvinist to benefit from an understanding of the spread of Calvinism and its link to the modern missions movement, the rise of missionary Baptists, and the present state of Calvinism in the world today. While it is true, these issues are not fully developed in this book, what the author presents he presents very well. 

The second portion of the book is much the larger in size, dealing with the theology of Calvinism. Again, one need not be a Calvinist to benefit from reading about the theology of Calvinism. One reason is that Calvinists talk about matters that most who are not Calvinists do not consider, much less discuss. The topic dealt with in this chapter under review, The Origin of Sin, is worth the book's price for any pastor, in my opinion. After all, a Gospel minister who does not study about and engage in discussions regarding the origin of sin should probably investigate a line of work for which he is better suited than the ministry. The Origin of Sin is one of those topics the Gospel minister must study and restudy, must discuss with his colleagues and discuss again, and must read about in thoughtful books devoted to the subject. 

“Where did sin come from? If God foreordained it, does that not make Him the author of sin? Reformed theology has the biblical answer. It is not popular with non-Calvinists and is subject to practical misuse. But it is biblical and has good practical implications.” 

This large chapter is subdivided into 14 subsections. 

The Problem. Three paragraphs. “The problem can be stated succinctly. How can we harmonize three realities: (1) God is holy, (2) God is omnipotent, and (3) sin exists? Accepting any two of these creates a problem with the third. First, if God is holy, He must desire to prevent sin. If He is omnipotent, He is able to prevent sin. Yet sin exists. Why did God not prevent it? Second, if God is holy and wants to prevent sin and yet sin exists, it would appear that God was not able to prevent it. Yet God is indeed omnipotent and able to prevent it. Third, sin exists. Nothing exists except by the omnipotent creation of God. But that would imply that God is not holy. Yet God is holy.” 

God Is Not the Author of Sin. Five paragraphs. “To make God the author of sin is as great a blasphemy as can be conceived.” “We must not picture God as in different to sin.” 

Is Satan the Author of Sin? Four paragraphs. “Some have tried to answer the problem by saying that Satan is the originator and author of sin. He sinned before he tempted Adam and Eve to sin.” “Satan was created a good angel but sin. He led Adam into sin. But God did not lead either Satan or Adam into sin. In one sense, we can indeed say that Satan is the author of sin, for he was the first to sin.” 

Foreordination of Sin. Three paragraphs. “Sin exists, therefore in some mysterious way it was foreordained by God, howbeit in a way that absolves Him from being its author.” 

Augustine’s Theory. One paragraph. Augustine was one of the first Christian theologians to wrestle with the problem of original sin. 

God Permitted Sin to Come into Existence. Two paragraphs. Comments by Jonathan Edwards, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Charles Spurgeon are included. 

The Paradox of the Problem. Four paragraphs. Reference is made to Augustine, John Gill, Vermigli, Stephen Charnock, and Calvin. “Clearly God forbids sin in the revealed will but permits it in the secret will. He is not sin’s author in one sense, but in another mysterious sense He permitted it to exist. In neither case does God approve or promote sin, for He is holy in all senses and wills.” 

Some Provisos. Two paragraphs. Jay Adams, Gordon Clark, John Gill, John Calvin, and Duns Scotus are referred to. 

Why Did God Decreed to Permit Sin to Exist? Five paragraphs. Included are comments made by W. G. T. Shedd, Thomas Watson, and the Apostle Paul. 

The Felix Culpa. Eight paragraphs. 

How Did God Allow Adam to Fall? Three paragraphs. “This has bearing on how God righteously allowed sin to enter in the fall of sinless Adam. This has mystified the greatest minds, Reformed or otherwise.” 

Alternative Theories. Eight paragraphs. Mentioned are Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Eastern religions, Manichaeism, Deism, Jensenism, and Arminianism. 

A Caution. Two paragraphs. 

Conclusion. “John Gill said, ‘The same decree which permits sin provides for the punishment of it.’ J. C. Philpott added, ‘It is sufficient for us to know that sin is, and that it is a blessing to know also there is a cure for it.’ We should discuss the whole subject only in an attitude of humble repentance and grateful love.”

Considering The Theocratic Kingdom.

 We frequently inherit our doctrinal positions without giving much thought to either the correctness of the positions we hold because our mentors held them, or whether our correct positions are Scripturally supported by personal study. 

I have long held to a premillennial understanding of last things, but without the research needed to bolster my position. For that reason I embarked on a careful reading of George Peters three-volume “The Theocratic Kingdom” to supplement my Bible study. I have never read such meticulous work as that 18^th century Lutheran pastor invested into his work. 

Before you embrace a position related to the millennium I suggest you inform yourself (by reading what follows) about the position embraced by the preponderance of the preserved works of first, second, and third century Christian leaders. 

Following is but a single observation from Peters supporting but one of his more than 200 propositions: 

PROPOSITION 75: The doctrine of the Kingdom, as held by the churches established by the apostles, was perpetuated. 

Since many of our opponents, in order to make an erroneous impression on those unacquainted with Eccles. History, purposely mingle the later Fathers with the earlier (as if they were contemporary), it will be proper to give the Fathers in chronological order, so that the ordinary reader can see for himself when they lived, and form his own judgment respecting their position in history. This decides the question of priority, and also that of the later introduction of opposing influences. We will, therefore, mention those that are expressly named by both ancients and moderns.

l. Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 1st Century.

a 1. (1) Andrew, (2) Peter, (3) Philip, (4) Thomas, (5) James, (6) John, (7) Matthew, (8) Aristio, (9) John the Presbyter-these all lived between A.D. 1-100; John, it is supposed-so Mosheim, etc.-died about A. D. 100. (All these are cited by Papias, who, according to Irenaeus, was one of John’s hearers, and intimate with Po1ycarp. John is also expressly mentioned by Justin. Now this reference to the apostles agrees with the facts that we have proven: (a) that the disciples of Jesus did hold the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the first part of this century, and (b) that, instead of discarding them, they linked them with the Sec. Advent.) Next (10) Clement of' Rome (Phil. 4:3), who existed about A.D. 40-100. (His Chiliasm, in the small remains left, is apparent from three particulars: (a) “preaching the Coming of Christ;” (b) rebuking scoffers at the alleged delay of that Coming, and expressing the hope “that He shall come quickly and not tarry;” (c) and occupying the Chiliastic posture of “every hour expecting the Kingdom of God.” Such sentiments only accord with the· then prevailing Millenarian views; if opposed to it, as some too eagerly affirm because. no detailed expression of eschatological opinions have reached us, how could he, when Jewish views were all around, thus employ language pre-eminently adapted to confirm Chiliasm, unless in sympathy with it.) (11) Barnabas, about A.D. 40-100. (Whether the Epistle is that of Barnabas who was with Paul, or of some other one, makes no material difference, seeing that all concede him to us, and admit that it was written quite early, and must be indicative of the views then held.) (12) Hermas, from A.D. 40 to 150. (We give this lengthy elate to accommodate the dispute respecting the Hermas who is the author of the Pastor. Some who do not receive Chiliasm, make him the earlier mentioned Rom. 16:14; others, a later Hermas, who wrote about A. D. 150. All agree that he is a Chiliast, and his location as to time is, probably, decided by our doctrinal preferences.) (13) Ignatius, Bh. of Antioch, died under Trajan, about A.D. 50-115 (some date his death A. D. 107). (His references, in the brief fragments, to “the last times” and the exhortation in those times to “expect Him,” is in correspondence with our doctrine.) (14) Polycarp, Bh. of Smyrna, a disciple of the Apostle John, who lived about A.D. 70-167. (In view of his association with Chiliasts, and, in the few lines from him, locating the reigning of the saints after the Coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints, has led Dr. Bennet and others to declare him a Millenarian.) (15) Papias, Bh. of Hierapolis, lived between A. D. 80-163. (His writings come chiefly through an enemy-Eusebius-but all concede him to be a Chiliast, and declare that he was the disciple and pupil of St. John, and the companion of Polycarp.) This is the record of names in favor of Millenarianism,­ names that are held in honorable esteem because of their faith and works in the Christ, extending to death.

b 1. Now on the other side, not a single name can be presented, which can be quoted as positively against us, or (2) which can be cited as teaching, in any shape or sense, the doctrine of our opponents.

2. Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 2d Cent.

a. (1) Pothinus, a martyr, died aged 99 years (A. D. 177, Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 120), hence A. D. 87-177. (His Chiliasm is evident from the churches of Lyons and Vienne, over which he presided, being Chiliastic, from his associate Irenaeus being his successor, who describes the uniformity of faith, Adv. Hoeres, 50, 1. 10.) (2) Justin Martyr, about A.D. 100-168 (although others, as Shimeall, give A.D. 89-165). (He needs no reference, as we largely quote him. Comp. Semisch’s Art. on him in Herzog’s Real Encyclop.) (3) Melito, Bh. of Sardis, about A. D. 100-170, a few fragments alone preserved. (Shimeall, in his Reply, says, “Jerome and Genadius both affirm that he was a decided Millenarian.”) (4) Hegisippus, between A. D. 130-190. (Neander, Genl. Gh. His., vol. 2, pp. 430, 432, designates him “a church teacher of Jewish origin and strong Jewish prepossessions,” and an advocate of “sensual Chiliasm.”) (5) Tatian, between A.D. 130-190. (He was converted under Justin, and is designated by Neander as “his disciple.”) (6) Irenaeus, a martyr (being, Mosheim, Ch. His., vol. 1, Amer. Ed., note, p. 120, “born and educated in Asia Minor, under Polycarp and Papias, must therefore be), about A.D. 140-202. (We frequently and largely quote from him.) (7)_ The Churches of Vienne and Lyons, in a letter A.D. 177 (which some attribute to Irenaeus and others to a Lyonese Christian-author unknown) has distinctive traces of Chiliasm in the allusion to a prior or first resurrection. (8) Tertullian, about A.D. 150-220. (We frequently give his views.) (9) Hippolytus, between A.D. 160-240. (He was a disciple of Irenaeus, and-according to Photius-he largely adopted Irenaeus in his work against Heresies, and in his Com. on Dan., fixed the end of the dispensation five centuries after the birth of Jesus.) (10) Apollinaris, Bh. of Hierapolis, between A.D. 150-200. (He is claimed by us, and conceded by e.g. Hagenbach, His. of Doc., Sec. 139.) Nearly every witness is a martyr.

b. Now on the other side, not a single writer can be presented, not even a single name can be mentioned of any one cited, who opposed Chiliasm in this century, unless we except Clemens Alexandrinus (see 3); much less of any one who taught the Whitbyan view. Now let the student reflect: here are two centuries (unless we make the exception stated at the close of the 2d), in which positively no direct opposition whatever arises against our doctrine, but it is held by the very men, leading and most eminent, through whom we trace the Church. What must we conclude? (1) That the common faith of the Church was Chiliastic, and (2) that such a generality and unity of belief could only have been introduced-as our argument shows by logical steps-by the founders of the Ch. Church and the Elders appointed by them.

3. Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 3d Cent.

a. (1) Cyprian, about A.D. 200-258. (He greatly admired and imitated Tertullian. We quote him on the nearness of the Advent, the Sabbatism, etc. Shedd, in his Hst. of Doc., vol. 2, p. 394, says that “Cyprian maintains the Millenarian theory with his usual candor and moderation.”) (2) Commodian, between A.D, 200-270. (Was a decided Millenarian. Comp. e.g. Clarke’s Sac. Lit. Neander, Gent. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 448-(censures him as follows: “The Christian spirit, however, in these admonitions, which otherwise evince so lively a zeal for good morals, is disturbed by a sensuous Jewish element, a gross Chiliasm; as for example, when it is affirmed that the lordly masters of the world should in the Millennium do menial service for the saints.” Neander overlooks how early childlike piety might contemplate Ps. 149:5-9; Isa. 60:6-10; Mic. 7:16, 17, and kindred passages.) (3) Nepos, Bh. of Arsinoe, about A.D. 230-280. (Jerome, Whitby, Shedd, etc., make him a pronounced Chiliast.) (4) Coracion, about A.D. 230-280. (He is always united with Nepos by various writers, comp. Hagenbach’s His. of Doc.) (5) Victorinus, about A.D. 240-303. (He is expressly called a favorer of Nepos and the Chiliasts by Jerome, de Virus Ill., c. 74.) (6) Methodius, Bh. of Olympus, about A.D. 250-311. (Of whom Neandcr-Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 496-says, he had “a decided leaning to Chiliasm.” Conceded to us by Whitby, Hagenbach, and others.) (7) Lactantius (although his works were chiefly composed in the next cent., yet being contemporary with Chiliasts so long in this century, we include him), between A.D. 240-330. (We quote from him, although Jerome ridicules his Millenarianism. Prof. Stuart calls him, “a zealous Chiliast.”) Others, whom we strongly incline to regard as Millenarians, owing to their constant association with Chiliasts, etc., we omit, because the remains and the statements that we have are so meagre as to make it impossible to give a decided expression of opinion.

b. In this century we for the first time, unless we except Clemens Alexandrinus, come to opposers of our doctrine. Every writer, from the earliest period down to the present, who has entered the lists against us, has been able only to find these antagonists, and we present them in their chronological order, when they revealed themselves as adversaries. They number four, but three of them were powerful for mischief, and speedily gained adherents (comp. Prop. 76). The first in order is (1) Caius (or Gaius), who is supposed, by Kurtz (Ch. His.), to have written about A. D. 210, or as Shedd (His. Doc.), in the beginning of the 3d cent. (Much that he is alleged to have said comes to us through bitter Anti-Chiliastic sources, and must be correspondingly received with some allowance.) (2) Clemens Alexandrinus, who suecceded Pantaenus (died A.D. 202, so Kurtz), as preceptor in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and exerted a powerful influence (on Origen and others) as a teacher from A.D. 193-220. (He became a Christian under Pantaenus, after having devoted himself to Pagan philosophy, and only during the latter part of his life made the disciples, who so largely moulded the subsequent interpretation of the Church.) (3) Origen, about A.D. 185-254. (We shall refer to him under the next Prop.) (4) Dionysius, about A.D. 190-265. (Sec next Prop.) There is no doubt but others were largely led to accept of Anti-Chiliastic teaching (seeing what an opposition sprung up in the 4th cent.), but these are the champions mentioned as directly hostile to Chiliasm. Now let the student carefully weigh this historical record, and he will see that the Church history indubitably seals our faith as the general, prevailing belief for the most that can possibly be said respecting the opposition is, that in the closing years of the 2d century men arose who started an antagonism distinctively presented and urged in the 3d cent., and which culminated in the 4th and succeeding centuries. Hence, our Prop. is abundantly confirmed by the doctrinal status of the early Church; indeed, it is-if our line of argument respecting the apostolic belief remaining unchanged concerning the Kingdom is conclusive-the very position that the Chnrch in its introduction must occupy. How illogical and unscriptural, therefore, for men to strive to weaken the testimony of those Fathers, and to apologize in their behalf, by making them ignorant, superstitious, sensual, etc., thus tracing the Church, established by inspired men and their selected successors, though ignorant, superstitions, and sensual believers, until the learned, enlightened, and spiritual Clemens, Caius, Origen, and Dionysius arose and brought light which “the consciousness of the Church” appreciated.

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

This chapter deals with an issue that clearly, in my opinion, distinguishes between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist’s understanding of Scripture. 

“What is the final goal of all things? What is the destination of predestination? The answer is this: the glory of God. “For of him and through him and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Romans 11:36). God created all things and is worthy of worship (Revelation 4:11). The doctrines of grace could also be called the doctrines of glory. Grace leads to glory. Grace now, glory later (Psalm 84:11). 

The chapter is divided into five subdivisions. 

What Is Glory? Three paragraphs discussing the concept of divine glory. Passages cited include 1 Chronicles 29:13; Romans 1:19–20; Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:2; Exodus 28:2, 40; Job 40:10; Isaiah 28:5; 33:17; Psalm 90:17; Song of Solomon 5:16. Thomas Watson is also quoted. 

The Revelation of Glory. Six paragraphs discussing glory shown and glory received. The first is the revelation of divine glory; the second is the reflection of glory back to God. “This is a major theme in Calvin’s theology.” 

Future Glory. Four paragraphs. The author asserts, “The ultimate goal is not salvation but glory.” This is the point of contention between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, in my opinion. I suspect that most non-Calvinists would insist that the ultimate goal is not glory but salvation. 

Christological Glory. Two paragraphs. 

Conclusion. “If Lutherans emphasize sola fide, Calvinists emphasize soli Deo gloria. Abraham Kuyper identifies this as “the fundamental principle of the Reformed churches: ‘That all things must be measured by the glory of God.’ Calvinists are ‘Doxistas’ – ‘glory-givers.’ We love to sing, ‘To God be the Glory.’ Arthur C. Custance once said that the chief end of man can be summed up in three words: ‘to please God.’ May it be so in our lives. Amen.”

This installment is titled “... Prayer and the Sovereignty of God."

 I mentioned in my last installment of this blog that my goal is reportage, a faithful account of the content of each chapter of this author’s work. I am committed to that mission, though I have an observation from my other readings to relate to my readers before a review of chapter 27. 

I am currently reading a large volume whose title suggests the author is commitment to a revival of prayer. The author is a self-described independent Baptist, as is my own background. I find his book on prayer to be well researched, while unsurprisingly reflecting his essentially Arminian theology. Interestingly, most of his footnotes source Puritan divines’ writings on prayer. That observed, I would not be surprised to find this Baptist author’s position on the Calvinism of those sources he cited to be antagonistic. In short, he will cite them as sources on matters of prayer while disagreeing with them about almost everything else. Am I the only one who notices such irony in the ranks? 

I now turn to the Curt Daniel’s chapter titled Prayer and the Sovereignty of God, a chapter whose subject should be most intriguing to my readers. 

“A case that illustrates the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is prayer. If God is sovereign, why pray? What good is prayer if God has already predestined what will happen? Is it presumptuous to pray? Or conversely, if we should pray, does this not imply that God has not foreordained everything or at least that he can change his plans?” 

The chapter has seven subdivisions. 

What is prayer? Two paragraphs. The first paragraph addresses The Westminster Shorter Catechism definition of prayer. The second paragraph addresses the four categories of prayer recognized by Reformed theology, confession of sin, supplication, intercession, adoration. 

Is God Obligated to Answer Prayer? Four paragraphs discuss this question and provides answers. 

Praying for Lost Sinners. Four paragraphs. The author quotes Augustine. The author contrasts Arminian versus Calvinist views of prayer. The author quotes Calvin. The author addresses Hyper-Calvinism’s unwillingness to evangelize or pray for everyone. My note: An Arminian is an Arminian if he holds to Arminian theology in all points but one (eternal security), despite his claims to be a "biblicist." What systematic theologies does such a fellow cite as a reference to others who hold such a view if it is well-reasoned and worth articulating for the benefit of the faith?

Does Prayer Change God’s Mind? Two paragraphs. The author speaks to the phrase “prayer changes things,” and quotes R. L. Dabney, “prayer is not intended to produce a change in God, but in us.” The second paragraph discusses Jonah and the Ninevites. 

Prayer and the Secret Will of God. Three paragraphs. The first paragraph discusses prayer in the sovereignty of God. The second paragraph deals with prayer and the decrees of God. The third paragraph deals with prayer and Christ’s second coming. 

Thy Will Be Done. Four paragraphs. “This phrase is found in the Lord’s Prayer … The Westminster Shorter Catechism explains: ‘We pray that God, by His grace, would make is able and willing to know, obey, and submit to His will in all things, as the angels do in heaven.” 

Conclusion. “Why pray? Because God has commanded us to pray. And because God uses our prayers in a mysterious way to carry out what He foreordained. We must not wait until we fully understand it, else we will never pray. It is sufficient that God knows.”