Book Review: “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Thirty-Four, The Bondage of the Will.

 This chapter has nine subdivisions.

 Do we have free will? “The debate is not new. Augustine wrote Grace and Free Will. Martin Luther’s most important book was The Bondage of the Will. Calvin produced a treatise called The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. Perhaps the most important Reformed work has been Jonathan Edwards’ A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will, Which is Supposed to Be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame, usually shortened to The Freedom of the Will. Calvinism is virtually alone in denying that we have free will as popularly understood.”

 This reviewer finds it perplexing that so many individuals who embrace strong opinions about the issue of free will arrive at those strong opinions without the benefit of much Bible study or the humility that is displayed by reading credible men of God. Alas, this habit is unlikely to change this side of eternity.

 The Bondage of the Will. Four paragraphs. The author’s position is summarized in the Westminster Confession:

 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (9:3).

 “Pelagianism says we are born totally free. Arminianism says we have a weak but free will. Calvinism says we have a will that is in inescapable bondage to sin until it is freed by Christ in salvation. We do not merely deny that an unregenerate sinner can will to do good but not do good. We assert that he is morally unable even to Will good at all. He is unable to be willing and unwilling to be able. The womb of his heart is barren and unable to give birth to any holy thought, word, or deed. He never has holy motives or desires but only sinful affections.”

 Slaves of Sin. Four paragraphs. Making mention of John 8:34, 2 Peter 2:19, Romans 6:16 – 22, and John 8:32, 36, the author cites Augustine and Zwingli. “Augustine asked, ‘If then they are slaves to sin, why do they boast of free choice?’ Zwingli tied it in with original sin: ‘A slave can beget nothing but a slave.’”

 Slaves of Satan. Five paragraphs. “Worse than that, man is a slave of the Devil. He was born a slave, lives his whole life in satanic bondage, and will die a slave. Sin is the Devil’s chain that keeps us in bondage, and each sin we commit is a link we add every time we disobey God. The chain gets longer and stronger every second.” “Each man is either a slave to God or the Evil One. He serves one or the other – not neither and not both.” “This is not an excuse for the sinner. He cannot blame the devil as Eve did. He is a willing slave. Satan keeps him in a blind slave like the Philistines did to Samson. Jonathan Edwards commented, you can’t see that you are under slavery now because of your blindness which is one effect of your servitude.”

 The Inability of the Will. Three paragraphs. “Fallen man is not only depraved, he is deprived. He lacks the ability to will good…. Man is unable in all areas of true spirituality.”

 Moral Inability. Five paragraphs. “Some Reformed theologians, such as Jonathan Edwards and A. W. Pink, differentiate between natural ability and moral ability.” He then discusses moral inability.

 The Sad State of Spiritual Slavery. Two paragraphs.

 The Myth of Free Will. Seven paragraphs. “It is no surprise that non-reformed opponents reject this analysis. Arminianism in particular vehemently defends free will.”

 It is the reviewer’s position that Arminianism has more to do with the espousal of free will than any notion, however correct, of “eternal security.”

 Conclusion. Four paragraphs.

The California Recall & the General Milley Revelation

I am so relieved that my last Sunday morning message included this comment near the end: 

I have repeatedly mentioned to you in sermons a book written by the late W. Graham Scroggie titled, The Unfolding Drama Of Redemption: The Bible As A Whole. It is a delightful Bible commentary that examines the entire Bible, explaining it like the grand drama that it is. Essential to any drama is what is called the protagonist, from a Greek word protos, meaning first, and agonistes, meaning actor. Webster defines it, “Protagonist, in the drama, the leading character or actor in a play, novel, or story, about whom the action centers; hence, a person who plays a leading or active part.” 

Events of late make it all the more necessary for the child of God to remember and take comfort in the preeminence of Christ. There was the debacle in Kabul, Afghanistan several weeks ago, the overwhelming rejection of the effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsome yesterday, and the revelation out of Washington DC from Bob Woodward’s soon to be released book that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, engaged in two direct yet unauthorized conversations with the commanding officer of the People’s Liberation Army of China.

Where does that leave the child of God? How does the believer react to these extraordinary circumstances and revelations? We are left where we have always been as Christians, safely in the Savior’s hands. Our reaction to the circumstances that we see around us ought to be, stay the course. Continue to look unto Jesus, the Author and finisher of our faith. I am so thankful my God is the God of all comfort.

Book Review of "Prayer Revival - A Textbook on Prayer, Fasting, and Revival" by Benny Beckum

     I obtained my copy of the book (autographed) some ten years ago, after hearing the author preach. He seems a very fine fellow and I estimate that he would be a valued friend. I took the book off my shelf and began to read it as part of my daily devotional read several months ago, reading and reflecting on the material carefully.

     It is a rather comprehensive book, reaching back to the 19th century in the Introduction. Although I had not intended to review the work when I began to read it, my progress through the book resulted in a present compulsion to write this review. I fear this review will cost me.

     The tenor of the book bothered me more and more as I read through it. I have read numerous books on the topic of prayer, including "All The Prayers Of The Bible" by Lockyer, "Only A Prayer Meeting" by Spurgeon, "Prayer" by John Bunyan, "Affirmative Prayer In Action," by Adela Rogers St. Johns, "Prayer - Asking And Receiving," by John R Rice, "Exploring Prayer," by Jack Hyles, and "Power Through Prayer" by E. M. Bounds.

     As you can see from that partial list, the books I have read on prayer are from across the theological spectrum. It is important to note that any author's thrust on the topic of prayer can and sometimes does deviate significantly from how he defines prayer, aside from his best intentions to reflect his stated definition.

     My concern with the book arises from how it reflects the theology of Charles G. Finney, who so dramatically influenced 19th century American Christianity, both the practice of evangelism and the theology of salvation. Since he wrote only three books, Finney's positions on important matters is very easy to discover and evaluate in light of the Bible. Sadly, few take the time to evaluate Finney's positions or impact, forcing me to write on the devastation of his and Horace Bushnell's legacies.

     Though the word and the concept it reflects is a concept not explicitly identified in Beckum's book, synergism is a patently unscriptural distortion of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. I well remember extended discussions with my friend, the late Roland Rasmussen, on the issue of monergism versus synergism. How passionate he was about the issue. And how accurate!

     That this book on prayer does not distinguish between monergism and synergism is unfortunate, because the topic of prayer as seen from one perspective cannot be the same when seen from the other perspective. And the positions embraced by Rice, Hyles, Bounds, and Finney on one hand, are most definitely not embraced the men listed in the book's bibliography; Spurgeon, Bunyan, Bonar, Brooks, Cairns, Edwards, Mack, Murray, Pink, Piper, and Whitefield.

     My point? These men profoundly disagree what prayer is and what prayer accomplishes, as a result of their differing position on monergism versus synergism, something the author does not address. That is unfortunate.

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

“The gap between God and man is not only infinite regarding size and sovereignty but also holiness. Jonathan Edwards said, ‘Fallen man is infinitely different from God in both respects; both as little and as filthy.” God is infinitely and transcendently holy. Man is abysmally depraved. In this chapter we will explore the depths of his depravity but will not touch the bottom. It is beyond exaggeration or comprehension. But praise the Lord, there is a cure.”

This chapter is divided into 10 subsections.

Man Is Spiritually Dead. Seven paragraphs. “Pelagianism says man is alive and well. Arminianism says man is sick. Calvinism says man is dead. The first to agree that man is alive, which is one reason why Arminianism can easily lead to liberalism and Pelagianism. Reformed theology emphatically states that fallen man has no spiritual life: ‘If thou art a bad man, certainly thou art a dead man.’ There may be degrees of health for the living, but there are no degrees of death for the dead. One corpse cannot be deader than another. There is a world of difference between a person who is barely alive and one who is recently deceased.” “The Arminian Dave Hunt fails to see the point that the Bible regularly makes regarding spiritual death. He says that if we are dead, then we could not only believe and obey God, but we could not even disbelieve and disobey God, for a dead man cannot do anything at all. He thereby casually brushes aside the Bible’s whole teaching on spiritual death. But according to the Bible, spiritual death does not mean nonexistence or non-activity. It is unbelief, disobedience, and unrighteousness, while spiritual life is faith, obedience, and righteousness. When God says we are spiritually dead, He does not mean we cannot do anything at all – He means that we cannot do anything spiritually good at all. A corpse cannot sing, but it can putrefy. A sinner cannot get better, but he can get worse (2 Timothy 3:13). As Spurgeon said, ‘You will remember while the sinner is dead in sin, he is our lives so far as any opposition to God may be concerned.’ Conversely, a spiritually alive person is dead toward sin (Romans 6:4 – 13).”

Earthy Bible Descriptions. Three paragraphs. “Scripture uses a number of earthy and blunt pictures to describe fallen man – none of them are complementary!” Several dozen descriptions and Scripture references are provided.

Man Is Worse than Animals. Five paragraphs. In addition to Scripture citations, quotes from Thomas Watson, John Calvin, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, and Abraham Kuyper are cited.

Children of the Devil. Three paragraphs.

Lovers of Sin, Haters of God. Eight paragraphs. Many Scripture references, and comments by Jonathan Edwards, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, Rousas Rushdoony, John Calvin.

Calvin’s Analysis. “In all theological literature, no writer has examined the depths of human depravity deeper or more accurately than John Calvin. Here are excerpts from just one book, Sermons on Genesis, 1:1–11:4 with page numbers in parentheses.

·         “For man is only a mass of filth and villainy, a sinking vessel, until he is renewed.” (146)

·         “As many desires and lusts as are in us, that is how many raging beasts there are still chained up within us, growling and gnashing their teeth or pawing the ground.” (162)

·         “We are submerged in total stench, for if we were not just on a dung heap, but in the deepest and foulest smelling privity in the world, we would not be in a more horrendous pit than we are, in this confusion in which we now find ourselves.” (239)

·         “Subsequently, all our desires and appetites are perverse and filled with iniquity.” (244)

·         “Everything that comes out of us will be putrid and filthy and can only increase his wrath.” (363)

·         “We will always find a subtle infection which grows in our hearts.” (378)

·         “Satan […] drags them about where he wishes and makes them like animals so they fall into such a state of madness they have no scruples about fighting against the living God.” (389)

·         “If they could spit on God’s Majesty, they would do it, so carried away are they in their madness.” (468)

·         “Now a different image followed that one original image of God, for Adam disfigured himself, as if someone had thrown mud on outstanding image in the world and the world had spat upon it and had become covered with filth and contagion.” (489)

·         “There is no vermin in the world that is not worth more than we are.” (490)

·         “We are born as Satan’s slaves under the tyranny of sin, sold into evil, like an animal that one sells and loads and drives where he wishes.” (495)

·         “But if we are recalcitrant and act like untamable animals, shall not such ingratitude have to be punished more grievously?” (526)

·         “There will be enough to condemn hundreds of worlds.” (548)

·         “It would be like spitting at heaven, but it would not reach God, and we would be splattered with our own spittle.” (552)

·         “That we have defaced God’s image in us and remain contemptuous of him surpasses all the world’s murders.” (565)

·         “The devil takes possession of us and puts us through our paces and makes us trot, not only like wild animals, but like monsters.” (634)

·         “It is certain that we deserve to be eaten by wild animals, indeed by vermin.” (744)

·         “All our imaginations are rebellious and perverse, and that all the compartments of man’s soul, his reason, his thoughts, all his desires, and all his affections, are workshops for forging weapons to battle against God. That, I say, is what we are by nature.” (846)

Further Descriptions. Five paragraphs.

Miscellaneous Observations. Five paragraphs.

Extreme Evil. Three paragraphs.

Conclusion. Four paragraphs. “Those who oppose the Reformed view of total depravity would do well to heed the exhortation of Anselm as he rebuked Boso’s rejection of the Anselmian theory of atonement: ‘You have not yet considered the exceeding gravity of sin.’ Calvin echoed this in a rebuke to those who minimize the evil of sin and think they can satisfy God themselves: ‘I say that those who talk such nonsense did not realize what an execrable thing sin is in God’s sight.’ It is not a matter of objectively studying the subject like a high school biology student dissecting a frog. We are the sinners and hence both the subject and object of self-examination.”

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.”