“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Ten, titled Hyper-Calvinism.

  

I think it is appropriate for someone who has spent as long in the gospel ministry as I have, with approaching 50 years of what I hope will be appreciated as conscientious observation of the theological and ministerial landscape, to make three initial observations.

Observation number one. For almost a half-century, I have witnessed many opinions about Calvinism coming from men who have not studied Calvinism. Instead, they have formed opinions about Calvinism based upon hearsay or the personality of someone they knew who claimed to be a Calvinist. Because the person had not himself studied the issues related to Calvinism, he was not in a position to recognize whether the supposed Calvinist he did not like was indeed someone whose positions and practices reflected Calvinism. That isn’t very ethical, in my opinion. I remember several Bible college classmates who claimed to be Calvinists, who were uninformed, misinformed, and arrogant. In my many years since sharing several classes with them, my conclusion is that, despite them claiming to be Calvinists, they knew nothing about Calvinism. They sought the attention that young, brash men sometimes seek by being controversialists and contrarians.

Observation number two. The founder and, for many years, the editor of The Sword of the Lord was John R. Rice.[pictured]

Almost every gospel minister in the latter half of the 20^th century would agree that John R. Rice’s opposition to Hyper-Calvinism was legendary. He taught against, preached against, and wrote against Hyper-Calvinism as much as any other issue he opposed. I have heard it said that he blamed his father’s deviation from Christian orthodoxy and declension into spiritual lethargy on his father’s adoption of the tenants of Calvinism. I have also heard that he blamed his father’s deviation from Christian orthodoxy and declension into spiritual lethargy on his father’s embrace of Freemasonry. I do know this. In the days that I read The Sword of the Lord, John R. Rice most usually printed sermons in his periodical that were the sermon manuscripts of Calvinists! However, John R. Rice never informed his readers that the men whose sermons they were reading were Calvinists. He also severely edited those sermons to remove any comments he deemed inappropriate. He did so without informing his readers of his decision to censor the material he offered. How is this different from CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, or Twitter censoring content? At least the mainstream media sometimes informs their audience that they are censoring material. I do not doubt that John R. Rice was a wonderful Christian man, profoundly spiritual, and a legendary prayer warrior. However, the practice of criticizing Calvinists while printing their heavily (secretly) edited sermons does not sit well with me as being ethical or intellectually honest.

Observation number three. Still dealing with the legacy of John R. Rice, he redefined Hyper-Calvinism as embracing T-U-L-I-P. In his view, all five-point Calvinists were Hyper-Calvinists. This is most interesting because it is not valid. It is demonstrably, not true. Most of the pastors who led what is today the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London were five-point Calvinists. Included were Benjamin Keach, John Gill, John Rippon, Charles Spurgeon, and the current pastor Peter Masters. Few would deny that John Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist, but were the other men Hyper-Calvinists? No.

True, they embraced all five points of Calvinism. Yet, how could a five-point Calvinist be honestly described as a Hyper-Calvinist when the famous Charles Spurgeon, a self-proclaimed five-point Calvinist, campaigned against Hyper-Calvinism the first decade of his ministry in London? A five-point Calvinist is not a Hyper-Calvinist except in the mind of John R. Rice and those who have subscribed to his definition of the term. No one in the 19^th century believed that five-point Calvinists were Hyper-Calvinists. No one. Why John R. Rice decided to mislabel Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, David Brainerd, and so many other profoundly influential gospel ministers Hyper-Calvinists, I do not pretend to know.

Imagine my surprise upon learning that Iain H. Murray,[pictured with me] a wonderful Christian gentleman, scholar, and author, who I have met and whose company I enjoyed, wrote “Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.”[pictured] One cannot be a Hyper-Calvinist while attempting to eradicate Hyper-Calvinism as a detriment to Christ’s cause.

Thank you for putting up with these personal comments and observations, which I believe to be an appropriate backdrop for my review of the chapter titled Hyper-Calvinism.

The chapter is subdivided into Background, Eighteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, Nineteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, Twentieth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, The Issues, and Conclusion. It is interesting to note at this point that the author’s Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Edinburgh, in 1983, is titled “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.” He is knowledgeable on the subject. In the first paragraph of the chapter, he acknowledges that Hyper-Calvinism is a term that is often misunderstood.

Background. Five paragraphs are devoted to the history of Hyper-Calvinism, including the names of notable opponents of Hyper-Calvinism, including Richard Baxter (1615-1691).[pictured]

Eighteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. One of the distinguishing features of Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that the gospel offer should not be delivered indiscriminately. John Gill was the undisputed leader of both the Baptists and the hyper-Calvinists during his 51 years of pastoral ministry. “Toward the end of the century, five pro-offer English Particular Baptists came to the rescue: Andrew Fuller (1754–1815), William Carey (1761–1834), John Rippon (1751–1836), John Ryland Jr. (1753–1825), and Samuel Pearce (1766–99). Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation defended free offers and Duty Faith, which the hypers had denied. His friend William Carey produced what many consider the mandate for the Great Missionary movement, An Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. They were influenced by Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Awakening in England, which the Hyper-Calvinists usually ignored or opposed test.[pictured]

Nineteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. In this chapter, the author introduces a group known as Strict and Particular Baptists without explaining their position. Strict refers to a closed communion ecclesiology. Particular refers to five-point Calvinism. The author wraps up this section with a paragraph addressing American Primitive Baptists and their approach to Hyper-Calvinism. Though he was by no means a Hyper-Calvinist, some who read this review will recognize the name of my late friend Kenneth Connolly. [pictured]

Though his name does not appear in this book. He was most certainly not a Hyper-Calvinist. He and his father, Peter Connolly, embraced the Strict and Particular Baptist persuasion, meaning they advocated closed communion and five-point Calvinism while offering the gospel freely to one all. [pictured]

Twentieth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. This portion of the chapter deals with men who lived on both sides of the Atlantic. Abraham Kuyper, Louis Berkhof, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon H. Clarke, John H. Gerstner, and Arthur W. Pink are recognizable names. Pink usually opposed Hyperism.[pictured]

The Issues. The author spends about 3½ pages discussing the main issues, which I will merely list. First, all Hyper-Calvinists reject the idea of the free offer of the gospel, grace, and/or Christ. Five-point Calvinists disagree. Second, Hyper-Calvinists deny that God desires all men to be saved. Five-point Calvinists disagree with Hyper-Calvinists. Third, the issue of Duty Faith, the belief that saving faith is both a duty and a gift. Hyper-Calvinists disagree that faith to trust Christ is a duty for all sinners. Fourth, the matter of common grace is in dispute. Hyper Calvinists do not believe God loves all men. Five-point Calvinists believe God mercifully restrains all sinners to some degree, enables the unconverted to do outwardly good things, and has a general love for mankind.

Conclusion. The author points out that Hyper-Calvinists are firmly evangelical, even if not very evangelistic. They are sound on the five sola doctrines, the five “fundamentals,” and the five points. They strongly endorse biblical infallibility, the Trinity, the deity and resurrection of Christ, and other vital truths. They worship the same God and love the same Christ as do all Christians. Hyper-Calvinism upsets the beautiful balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, minimizes or opposes evangelism and missions, usually denies that Arminians are saved, and has been a thorn in the side of mainline Calvinism.

“A Day That Will Live In Infamy”

 

Seventy-nine years ago today, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other US military installations on Oahu island in Hawaii. At roughly the same time, US military installations in the Philippines were also attacked. However, since the Philippines are on the other side of the international dateline, their history of the attack is dated December 8, 1941.

Most Americans of my generation have grown up with the memories of JFK, RFK, and MLK’s assassinations. Of course, my generation was forever changed by the Vietnam War. Our parents, however, grew up with the impressions of World War II firmly lodged in their national and generational identity. And what began World War II for us? The attack on Pearl Harbor, without question.

My attitude toward the attack on Pearl Harbor and the war that it sparked is somewhat different than most of my generation because of two important men in my life who were in uniform and came under attack on that fateful day. Rex Bray, our next-door neighbor when I was in high school and the man I worked for as a summer higher for two summers, was an enlisted man in the Army Air Corps at Clark Field in the Philippines. Leon Waldrip [pictured], my favorite uncle as a teenager and my father’s favorite older sibling, was serving in the coastal artillery as an enlisted man in the United States Army, stationed at Corregidor.

Twenty years after World War II, Rex Bray and Leon Waldrip saw each other for the first time after the war in front of our house in Warm Springs, Oregon. They had never known each other’s names before, but each recognized the other as a comrade who had survived the brutality of a Japanese prison camp on the Bataan Peninsula. That night I learned from my uncle Leon about the bravery of Rex Bray, risking his life to keep fellow prisoners of war alive. Over the days following my uncle’s return home, I learned from Rex Bray about the bravery of my uncle Leon, risking his life to keep fellow prisoners of war alive.

I also had an uncle in the European theater of operations. I had several uncles who served in the South Pacific. But it was these two men who I knew and looked up to who were in uniform, on the scene, when the war began. Because of them, I have always had a keen interest in the attack on Pearl Harbor, the attack on the Philippines, and just about everything about World War II.

I could not have predicted my emotional response when a former church member and US Navy veteran reminded me, on December 5, that two days later would be the 79^th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. His in-laws (I suspect) were living on the island of Guam when, at least for the United States, it all began.

Victor Davis Hanson {pictured] is a classicist and military historian who has grown in popularity over the last few years because he is one of the few academicians who unreservedly supports President Donald J. Trump. My interest in VDH is partly due to his recognition that World War II was a series of wars that began at different times but merged into one giant conflict.

War had gone on for years in Europe before our country’s involvement began. In the Far East, Japan had occupied the Korean Peninsula for years and had pushed into Manchuria, establishing a puppet state known as Manchukuo. Of course, the USA was involved, especially in the European war, by a program called Lend-Lease, whereby FDR “lent” ships, trucks, and vast quantities of other necessities to not only Great Britain, but in the main and somewhat concealed from the American public to the Soviet Union.

Then, for some reason, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked the military facilities in two locations of the United States. The question that begs for an answer is why the most significant industrial power in the world was attacked? Why drag the United States of America into the war, isolated from the fighting in two theaters of operation by huge oceans?

Some historians point out the provocations of FDR directed at the Empire of Japan. Others make mention of the threats to Japanese sources for raw materials. However, some other considerations are almost never mentioned by those supplying answers to the questions that are asked. Japan already had access to sources of petroleum to its south. As well, Japan already occupied Manchuria with its abundance of coal and other materials that they mined.

Why would Japan forgo striking to the north against the Soviet Union? After all, they had already decisively defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima Strait in 1905.[1] Since Germany had attacked the Soviet Union’s Western front in June 1941, a Japanese attack of the Soviet Union would create a two-front war against the Soviet Union. The Eastern front being at the edge of the far distant Siberia would have been an easy win for the Japanese.

Yet Japan attacked the most formidable industrial power on the planet, located on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. The USA possessed no vital interests on their side of the Pacific. Why would they do that? Why did they launch an attack against the Armed Forces in which my uncle Leon and my boss Rex Bray served? Why did they launch an attack that resulted in these two much-admired young men spending 3 ½ years in a brutal prison camp environment?

I think Diana West has the answer pictured]. She began her writing career as an investigative journalist and commentator but has also written a couple of incredibly insightful histories. I find her such an interesting writer that I was reading three of her books at the same time. I am not a neutral observer when it comes to Diana West’s books.

I believe the answer to the question of why Japan attacked the United States and not the Soviet Union can be found on the pages of her 2013 book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.” A meticulous researcher, West has pulled together threads from readily accessible sources. Each of her works is thoroughly sourced.

I was reminded in her book of a Soviet spy serving in Tokyo, a German national. Posing as a Nazi, and moving in the inner circles of Japan’s shakers and movers, this Soviet spy’s communications with Moscow were retrieved after the fall of the Soviet Union, thanks to Boris Yeltsin. The Soviet Union used their Tokyo spy with significant effect. Even using him to persuade the Japanese high command to attack the United States and pushed can be found, rather than attack a far more vulnerable Soviet union’s eastern flank.

There is a second reason why the Soviet Union influenced Japan to attack the USA. Stalin wanted  Germany to fight a two-front war, knowing that Great Britain was not strong enough to fight the German war machine without help. But Stalin did not want the war to be won too quickly. Evidence suggests he delayed the prosecution of the war long enough for the Russian front to push the Germans out of the Soviet Union and into Germany. Once Stalin had pushed the front into the non-Russian territory, knowing that he would never give up territory his soldiers had occupied, he was ready for the war to be won.

Not only was the United States dragged into a war that they didn’t need to be involved in because of the Soviet influence of the Japanese high command, but millions of people died in Europe who didn’t need to die, all because Josef Stalin prolonged the war so he could gain occupied territory. While Uncle Joe and Winston Churchill were playing chess, FDR played checkers and ended up being played.

FDR was right when he claimed that the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, would be a day that would live in infamy. That infamy, however, would be far greater than he could ever imagine.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Nine, titled Amyraldism.

  

This chapter of the book presents itself as somewhat obscure at first glance but comes together at the end with two characters and a position you are likely to have some familiarity with. 

The chapter is divided into eight subheadings, Roots of the Controversy, Moyse Amyraut, Other Amyraldians, The Anti-Amyraldians, The Issues, The Response, Further History, and Conclusions.

Amyraldism is a subgroup of Reformed theology that has variously been called hypothetical universalism, Low Calvinism, four-point Calvinism, Moderate Calvinism, or more precisely, Amyraldism. In this chapter, the author concentrates on the 17^th-century controversy surrounding Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) [pictured].

 Roots of the Controversy. Reference is made to the French Calvinists known as Huguenots and their response to the Wars of Religion in France between the Catholics and the Protestants. A Scotsman named John Cameron (1579–1625) taught for a short time at the Theological Academy at Saumur, where he promoted what may be termed “Low Calvinism,” though he was no fan of Arminianism. 

Moyse Amyraut. This man, not known to me before reading this book, was a prolific author, influencing the French Protestants through more than 100 publications, including a six-volume Christian Ethics (over 4,600 pages). His most controversial work was A Brief Treatise on Predestination. Displeased with the theological drift taking place in his circle, he wanted a return to Calvin’s more biblically-balanced approach. He was also concerned about the drift of Lutheranism to Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. 

Other Amyraldians. The first paragraph deals with other French-speaking scholars who agreed with him. In the second paragraph, the author addresses developments in Britain at the same time. The original English Reformers were moderate and not given to extremes, but some Puritans became too scholastic and supralapsarian. Among those who rejected “High Calvinism” in the 17^th century in Britain included James Ussher (of Ussher’s Chronology fame), and Richard Baxter [pictured] (the author of The Reformed Pastor, the best pastoral theology ever written according to C. H. Spurgeon). To this day, there is a debate whether British Low Calvinism was Amyraldian or mainstream Moderate Calvinism. 

The Anti-Amyraldians. Opposition arose in France, Switzerland, and England, where the issues were debated at the Westminster Assembly. However, most of the controversy was between the French and the Swiss, centered around the academies in Saumur and Geneva. 

The Issues. This portion of the chapter contains four paragraphs. The controversy dealt with in the first paragraph is original sin. The second paragraph deals with hypothetical universalism. The third paragraph deals with Amyraut’s system of salvation through three covenants. The fourth paragraph treats his belief that Christ died equally for all men to provide the universal aspect of the covenant of grace. He viewed the atonement as unlimited, but its application was limited to the elect. This was an early stage of the “Calvin versus Calvinism” debate. 

The Response. Those opposed to his view responded by teaching the federal theory of the transmission of original sin, denying that any of the divine decrees were conditional, and recoiling at the idea of the hypothetical salvation of heathens who never heard the gospel. 

Further History. Amyraut appeared before several French synods to answer charges against him, though he was never condemned. With the situation deteriorating, many Huguenots fled France for religious freedom in England, Holland, and America. 

Conclusions. The issues are still debated to this day. Laxness in terminology has resulted in this meaning “four point Calvinism,” in which a person rejects limited atonement but does not necessarily accept the other four points. The author mentions the late Roger Nicole, a Swiss Baptist theologian who spent most of his adult life in the USA, as the foremost authority on the subject [pictured].

“In the 20^th century, several leading American dispensationalist theologians such as Lewis Sperry Chafer [pictured] have advocated a theology akin to Amyraldism.

Others such as Norman Geisler [pictured] have defended what they consider moderate Calvinism but in reality is more similar to Arminianism.”

Questioning Authority Figures

 

I am wonderfully blessed to be the firstborn son of a man who was an authority figure to others throughout my life. As a newborn, my father was a schoolteacher on an Indian reservation. As a preschooler, my father was a high school teacher on another Indian reservation. On yet another Indian reservation during my grade school years, my father was the administrative officer, with all of the government employees on that reservation reporting to my dad. On yet another Indian reservation, my dad was the superintendent of an Indian reservation in my high school years. During his career in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I enjoyed observing my father functioning as a respected authority figure. I also enjoyed watching my father, sometimes questioning authority figures in situations where he was not the man in charge. All of this contributed to my approach to authority.

I have been the pastor of two churches since 1978, exercising some measure of scriptural authority in the lives of other people. I take this very seriously and am very careful not to Lord it over God’s heritage. Since I am my father’s son, I have enjoyed situations in which I have encountered authority figures of some sort who misused their position and misunderstood their function. Allow me to share with you six such experiences.

First. When my daughter was five years old, I took her and my wife on vacation to visit all of the places I had lived growing up, except for Florida, which was too far out of the way to see on that vacation. We left Monrovia, California, and went to Brawley, California. After Brawley, we went to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to show my daughter where my paternal grandparents had lived. We then went to Wheeler, Texas, to visit my maternal grandparents’ farm outside the little town where I was born. Heading north, we went to Cherry Creek, South Dakota, where my father taught in a one-room schoolhouse for several years and became acquainted with the last living survivor of the Battle of the Little Big Horn and the last living survivor of the massacre at Wounded Knee. We then went to Mount Rushmore on our way to Cheyenne Agency, South Dakota, and then to Fort Totten, North Dakota.

My first clash with an authority figure took place at Mount Rushmore [pictured] when a park ranger spoke to our group of tourists and sarcastically criticized the “environmental catastrophe” that resulted from carving the faces of four American presidents on the side of a mountain. Her bitterness was undeniable. At that point, I spoke up, saying, “None of us came here to hear you say that. We came here to admire Mount Rushmore and to glory in the blessing of four great presidents. Yet you have chosen to misuse your position and subject us to your political slant, your radical environmentalism, in an attempt to destroy our experience. How dare you. You are misusing your position.” The park ranger took great offense at my comments, while several of the tourists congratulated me and expressed their appreciation that I had spoken up.

Second. Years later, I was standing in line to go through passenger Security at Heathrow Airport outside London. On the walls, I noticed that stickers warned travelers not to criticize uniformed personnel, with any criticism of the uniformed personnel to be treated as criminal assault. I thought such signage was unusual, but I took little note of it as I stepped into line behind approximately fifty South Asian travelers. I noticed three things about them. They were very small in stature, very dark in complexion, and extraordinarily well-mannered and pleasant to me and everyone else.

As the line of passengers advanced, I could hear a uniformed security officer shriek at the first of the South Asians she encountered. “Can’t any of you read?” she asked. “Why is it always the same with you people?” she continued. Her tirade continued, a racist rant against each South Asian in the line in front of me. I was horrified.

I tried to figure out what her issue was with each of them. I could not detect that they had done or said anything wrong. When the line advanced to the point where she spoke to me, suddenly her countenance changed, her expression changed from a scowl to a smile, and the tone of her voice was unexpectedly charming. I asked her, “Are we having a bad day?” She looked up at me and said, “What did you say?” I repeated, “Are we having a bad day?” I was smiling, my tone of voice was pleasant, and my question was genuine. She did not take it that way. “Security! Security!” she shouted. When two male uniformed officers arrived, she handed me off to them, and they took me into an interrogation room.

They subjected me to about five minutes of examination, asking me a dozen or so questions. My answers to their questions were very calm, unhurried, and reassuring. “I simply asked her if she was having a bad day.” Eventually, they turned me out of the room. Since I still had a couple of hours before my connecting flight, I decided to deal with her problem.

I looked around to find out which door the uniformed personnel went through when they went on break. I continued to observe that door until a “suit” exited the door. If ever you have a problem and have the opportunity to deal with the problem, I learned from my father’s example that you should always talk to one of the “suits.” I walked up to the “suit” and very politely asked him if he could spare me a minute or two. He was very kind and responsive.

Rather than accuse the woman of wrongdoing, I chose a different approach. She had spoken so harshly to the South Asians and had reacted so negatively to my question that I knew the “suit” would disapprove of her conduct. I asked the “suit” to review the tape at her workstation from the time she spoke to me, backing up about 10 minutes to observe how she dealt with the people in front of me. He assured me that he would do that after I pointed out that I did not think Heathrow airport wanted any of their travelers subjected to a racist rant. He agreed. He also thanked me. I assume he dealt with the problem, and it would not soon be repeated.

Third. On yet another occasion, my wife and daughter, and I were in Sitka, Alaska. We decided to visit the birds of prey sanctuary, one of two facilities in North America where injured birds of prey worked on by very skilled veterinarians [pictured]. As a ranger was taking us on a tour through their facility, she indicated to my group as she pointed out a huge golden eagle, “This bird will never be introduced into the wild. It is a casualty of the intrusion of man.”

What? The intrusion of man? What does that mean? So, I asked her. She said something about the intrusion of man being mankind intruding into the environment. I thought, “Here we go again, pushing a political agenda.”

“Can you tell me precisely how that bird was injured?” I asked her. She paused for a bit and then said, “The bird flew into a powerline tower.” I sought clarification. “The bird flew into a stationary structure?” I asked. “Yes,” she answered. I then said, “The intrusion of man did not cause that bird’s injury, but its stupidity.” Needless to say, while she was furious with me, I received several congratulatory remarks from the other tourists in the group.

Fourth. A situation unfolded some years ago as I led a group of teenagers on an annual tour of Washington, DC and New England to cultivate their appreciation of our nation’s history and the arrival of the Pilgrims. We were touring the Plymouth Plantation, a place where actors reenact life as it was lived by those who arrived on the Mayflower, as well as the Native Americans they encountered. However, one Native American actor chose the opportunity to go on a racist rant against white Europeans for daring to come to North America.

Growing up in Indian reservations, I am quite familiar with Native American history. I could not allow the Native American actor to proceed with such an error in front of my teens without responding. I pointed out to him that the place the Pilgrims arrived was uninhabited since those who previously had lived in the region had been decimated by some plague, which was not the fault of the Pilgrims.

I further pointed out that the Native Americans who moved back into the area generally had excellent relations with the Pilgrims, and they interacted with each other very well. Of course, problems later developed with later arrivals into the area from both groups who sought only to stir up trouble.

When there is a 7000-year technological disparity between one culture and another, there will be severe problems in the best of circumstances. It is unavoidable. However, for the most part, the Pilgrims and later Puritans sought the conversion of the Native Americans to Christ. That is a good thing. I don’t think he agreed with me, but it needed to be said to benefit my teens.

Fifth. I recall an occasion when I was in Washington, DC, alone. With a bit of spare time on my hands, I decided to ride the tram around Arlington National Cemetery and across the river to the Vietnam Memorial site [pictured]. There were very few people on the tram, so I decided to sit at the very back, where there was only one other younger man, who by the kind of glasses he wore and his hairstyle was very obviously military. For those of you who are not familiar, the tram driver is a tour guide who wears a microphone and makes comments while driving the tram by historical landmarks.

Only this tram driver was a vitriolic hater, who spewed venom as we passed by the wall memorializing our nation’s dead in Vietnam, referring to them as “baby killers.” I did not like what I heard. I turned to the man sitting to my right on the other side of the aisle and said, “What she says offends me. Does it offend you, as well?” “Yes, sir,” he said. “I am very offended.” I said to him, “You are obviously military. What is your service?” He responded, “Sir, I am a major in the United States Army, and I serve as a tank commander. What she said, I find very offensive.”

I then told the much younger than me major, “I am not going to let this go. I’m gonna deal with this.” He then asked me if he could accompany me on my mission to deal with that problem, and I said, “Yes.” We stayed on the tram until it returned to its point of origin near the Arlington National Cemetery entrance. I then began to check out where the drivers went when they left the tram, figuring that would be where the “suits” can be found. You always want to talk to the “suits.”

You can imagine, at this point, what I did. A man walked out the door wearing a very nice suit. The major and I approached him and asked him if he had time to speak to us. I related to the “suit” what the tram driver had said, and the major backed me up all the way. The “suit” assured me he would deal with the issue because “That is not the kind of experience we want anyone writing our tram to have.” He then thanked me and headed back to the office through the door our tram driver had walked through. I feel confident that tram driver/guide would be unlikely to disparage our Vietnam War dead again soon. As we parted company, the young major was very appreciative.

Sixth. My final anecdote took place in the Capitol rotunda, yet another trip with our Christian high school students to develop an appreciation for our nation’s history. The tour guide (these problems frequently arise with tour guides for some reason) leading our group said, “The Capitol rotunda was built during the presidency of George Washington.”

I could not allow that misstatement to go by without correction. The students in our Christian school are taught accurate US history. My teens knew that the presidency of George Washington took place in the temporary capital of New York City, not Washington, DC. The Capitol rotunda [pictured] was built after George Washington had died. I said to her when she paused, “Excuse me, but that is not true.”

She took offense, of course, and insisted that the Capitol rotunda was built during the presidency of George Washington. I said to her, “I mean no offense. I have no desire to embarrass you in front of other people. But most of the people in the group you are leading know that you are mistaken. I spoke up only because these are rather important historical facts to know, and it is surprising that since you do this for a living, you don’t know the facts.” Once more, members of the group thanked me for insisting on accuracy.

I try to be nice. I don’t want to offend anybody. I want to get along with people, if at all possible. However, I am my father’s son, and I cannot stand by while those who occupy positions of authority or who officially dispense information misuse their position to misinform, disparage, or belittle others.

I am wondering if we Americans ought to cultivate our willingness to speak up when it is appropriate to do so.

“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Eight, titled The Westminster Assembly

 

This is a relatively brief chapter divided into four subheadings, History, The Westminster Standards, Related Documents, and Conclusion.

My wife and I had the great privilege of going to the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey in London some years ago (pictured). It was a bit eerie to visit the room where such a monumental undertaking was conducted. I think it would serve us well for me to quote the first paragraph of the chapter. “What many theologians considered to have been the largest gathering of spiritual giants since the days of the apostles met from 1643 to 1648 in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey in London. The documents they produced also rank among the theologically richest in all church history. No study of Calvinism is complete without a look at the Westminster assembly, its participants, and its documents.”

History. This portion of the chapter consists of five paragraphs containing several historical details that I suspect would be of little interest to those reading this blog. However, it might interest my readers to know that the Assembly met in 1163 sessions over almost five years. Of the 151 members, 121 were theologians and pastors, 30 were lay “assessors” (20 from the House of Commons and ten from the House of Lords). Most of the members were Presbyterians. Five were Independents. A few were Anglicans. None of them were Baptists. There were no Arminians, Catholics, Quakers, or Lutherans. On average, there were 70 men present each day, with occasional days of prayer and fasting. Every member took the following vow, which was read aloud every Monday morning:

I do solemnly promise and vow, in the presence of Almighty God, that in this Assembly whereof I am a member, I will maintain nothing in point of doctrine but what I believe to be most agreeable to the Word of God; nor in point of discipline, but what may make most for God’s glory and the peace and good of His church.”

Notable among the 151 were John Arrowsmith, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Gataker, Anthony Tuckney, William Gouge, Anthony Burgess, Jeremiah Burroughs, Edward Reynolds, and Thomas Manton. The only member to attend every session was John Lightfoot.

The Westminster Standards. The Westminster Assembly issued several documents, three of which stand out. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) is most famous. Longer than most Reformed confessions, Baptists in London revised it in 1677 but did not publish it until 1688/89 as the Second London Confession of Faith (also known as the Baptist Confession of 1689). The author suggests the Baptists revised the Westminster Confession to reflect Baptist ecclesiology. That the Baptists of London revised the Westminster Confession is true. That it reflects Baptist ecclesiology, I dispute.[1] I think the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith wrongly reflects Protestant ecclesiology. The Assembly also issued the Shorter Catechism, having 107 questions and answers meant for the instruction of children. The Larger Catechism has 196 questions and much fuller answers.

Related Documents. The author references several works produced by members of the Assembly. The Sum of Saving Knowledge (1650), The Form of Presbyterial-Church Government (1645), The Directory for the Public Worship of God (1645), The Directory for Family Worship (1647), The Westminster Annotations (1647), and The Metrical Psalter.

Conclusion. The author summarizes the history of the period by suggesting that the greatest legacy of the Puritans is the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism.

---

[1] See my book John S. Waldrip, The Church of Jesus Christ: 28 Truths Every Christian Ought To Learn, (Monrovia, CA: Classical Baptist Press, 2019), available at www.ClassicalBaptist.Press and on Amazon.

The Some Thoughts Come To Mind After Reading Booker T. Washington's Autobiography, "Up From Slavery"

 

The three most constructive figures in the American civil rights movement were Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington (picture), and Martin Luther King Junior. I have intentionally left out from this list of three towering figures W. E. B. Du Bois. This has been intentional since Dubois was a communist who advocated for political power in a fashion that I do not believe helped the black community of his day.

Frederick Douglass was a former slave who escaped to the north and developed into the most captivating orator of his day. He was an advocate for abolishing slavery before and during the Civil War and was very active for civil rights following the war. Of course, people of our day recognize the name of Martin Luther King Jr., with those of my age remembering his spellbinding deliveries of speeches and sermons and his effectiveness as a nonviolent protester on behalf of black civil rights and in opposition to Jim Crow laws. I well remember as a young teenager the heartache I felt upon hearing of his assassination.

Between those two towering figures was a man of unparalleled wisdom and discernment, also a towering figure in his own right, but in a different way. While Booker T. Washington was not an orator in the same vein as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr., he was a profoundly compelling public speaker. His effectiveness as a speaker, as an educator, and as a builder of responsible and accomplished men and women owed more to his incredible work ethic, his keen insight into human nature, and his grasp of the most effective strategy to be employed by the black community in the South in overcoming the racism and the fear of the southern white majority.

I am sorry I came to read this book so late in my life and ministry. I had the privilege of being born in 1950 to a mother and father born and raised in the deep South, but who had no detectable racial bias that I have ever perceived. My earliest memories as a child were a vacation trip from the Indian reservation in South Dakota. My dad taught high school for the Bureau of Indian affairs to my grandparents in Texas’s panhandle. My mother, younger brother, and I rode in the car’s back seat while my dad drove with one of his colleagues. That colleague was a black man sitting on the passenger side in the front seat. Only later in life did I realize what an unusual occurrence that was in 1955.

Living in Florida from 1960 to 1965 meant that the civil rights movement unfolding in the deep South was ever before me. I even remember another vacation, this time in 1963, driving from southern Florida again to Texas’s panhandle, with my father detouring through Selma, Alabama to show us where the Selma march had occurred and explained to his two boys the significance of the March. My brother and I were profoundly blessed to not only grow up in that era but to have the parents that we had who displayed to us no detectable racial bias, ever.

I knew of Martin Luther King Jr. from a boy. I learned of Frederick Douglass in high school. But it was not until I was a young man that I heard of W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, two men with radically opposing views about the strategy the black community should adopt to gain equal footing after the Civil War and into the 20^th century.

This book is a must-read for every black person. I think it is a must-read for every pastor. This autobiography presents one of the pivotal figures in American history and race relations for the half-century following the Civil War. Decide for yourself if Booker T. Washington’s approach was the correct one. I have.

“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Seven, titled The Puritans

 

Before continuing with my review of chapter 7, The Puritans, I thought it might be useful to revisit a portion of my original blog post dated October 14, 2020, where I announced my intention to write these chapter reviews.

As I prepare to read this massive book, I think it would be good to reflect on a few things before starting:

Number one, it must be incredibly stupid to form an opinion about a man without having read any portion of his body of work. I know many people have unjustified and unwarranted thoughts because the basis of their views is a rumor, innuendo, and gossip. It should be every gospel minister’s posture to avoid, whenever possible, having a decided opinion about anyone or anything he has not personally studied. To have an opinion about John Calvin or his doctrinal position without reading John Calvin is not just stupid and ill-advised; it is lazy. There is no room in the gospel ministry for intellectual laziness. We have too much of that already.

Number two, it isn't very reasonable to evaluate someone who lived long ago by modern-day standards. An example of this came to me yesterday when I learned that late-night talk show host Jimmy Fallon performed a black face comedy routine 20 years ago when he was on the cast of Saturday Night Live. Of course, the cancel culture wants him fired today for doing something 20 years ago that was at that time acceptable to everyone in the entertainment industry. However, gospel ministers have long been guilty of the same kind of cancel culture thinking.

The subheadings of Chapter 7, The Puritans, are Origins of Puritanism, The Anglican Puritans, The Presbyterian Puritans, The Independent Puritans, The Baptist Puritans, The Scottish Puritans, Further History, and Conclusion. Quotations typically indicate the author’s exact words.

“To some, the Puritans were superstitious and ignorant witch-burners. To others, they were revolutionary fanatics who overthrew the English monarchy and grabbed all the power they could get. To still others, the Puritans were unsmiling legalists who carried their religion too far. Or they were just religious hypocrites.”

“All these opinions are wrong. In truth, the Puritans were among the leading intellectuals and godliest Christians in England from 1570 to 1700. They had various ecclesiastical views in different on other issues. But they were all evangelical, Bible believing Calvinists and as such are worthy of our study, respect, and imitation.”

Origins of Puritanism. Puritanism arose in England when 800 Protestant leaders sought refuge from “Bloody Mary” by fleeing to Europe, especially to Geneva. Others went underground. About 300 were martyred. The heart of the movement began at the White Horse Inn and in Cambridge University. These “Cambridge Calvinists” wanted to duplicate what their Swiss and Scottish brethren had achieved in church and society. One of the results of their activity that I was previously unaware of was that King James I commissioned the Authorized Version of the Bible, known as the King James Version of 1611. “It eventually became more popular than the more Reformed Geneva Bible.”

The Anglican Puritans. This subheading is quite lengthy, the author mentions several Anglican Puritans I am not familiar with, but I recognize some names. He says William Perkins was the most prominent of his era, whose book The Art of Prophesying is in my library. Another is William Ames, a disciple of Perkins, and the author of the work on the conscience, a topic I think had not been addressed from that day until John MacArthur’s book on the subject a year or two ago. Then, of course, there is Richard Sibbes, whose works are cherished by many. Who has not heard of Archbishop James Ussher, William Twisse, John Trapp, William Gurnall, Matthew Poole, Richard Baxter (pictured), and the poet John Milton? Gurnall, Poole, Baxter, and Milton are very profitable to read, in my opinion. C. H. Spurgeon recommended Richard Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor as the best practical pastoral theology ever written. Many dunces have avoided The Reformed Pastor, thinking it was a manual on Calvinistic theology. It is, instead, one of the best practical pastoral guides ever written.

The Presbyterian Puritans. The main difference between the Anglican and the Presbyterian Puritans was their view of church government. Anglicans embrace the notion that the church should be ruled by bishops, with Presbyterians persuaded elders should lead the church. Steven Charnock, Thomas Watson, John Flavel, and Matthew Henry were of this persuasion. These four men’s writings have been profoundly beneficial to Christians and gospel ministers down through the centuries. The greatest gospel preacher of the 20^th century, in my opinion, was D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. A trained medical doctor with a sterling reputation in his field, Lloyd-Jones never received formal theological training when he left medicine to enter the ministry but benefited tremendously from reading such Puritans as these. Many of Lloyd-Jones’ sermons bear the traces of outlines suggested by Matthew Henry, though his sermons were his own.

The Independent Puritans. This group of Puritans was known as Congregationalists in America. In church polity, Congregationalists were very similar to Baptists, differing on the matter of baptism. There were several different groups of Congregationalists, but some of the names are quite recognizable. John Owen was a Congregationalist Puritan. Thomas Goodwin was a London Congregationalist pastor and president of Magdalen College, Cambridge University. Goodwin was a premillennialist. The most influential of the Independent Puritans, however, was not a gospel minister or scholar, but a statesman and military leader, Oliver Cromwell. A subgroup of the Independents were the Puritans, Separatists, who fled England and went to North America. These Puritans were the Pilgrim Fathers.

The Baptist Puritans. Is it possible for someone to be a real Baptist if he arrives at Baptist convictions and begins to exhibit Baptist practices from Protestantism? Though some Baptists trace their plausible lineage into continental Europe in the dark mists of the barely recorded past, other Baptists sprung up from their study of God’s Word. Apart from any recognizable exposure of anyone we would recognize, they embraced Baptist convictions. Such were the Baptists of England, such as John Smyth (1554-1612), and “the Three K’s,” Hanserd Knollys (1599-1691), William Kiffin (1616-1701), and Benjamin Keach (1640-1704). The two great London Baptist confessions of 1644 and 1689 were a result of their influence, with the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 differing little (on baptism) from the Westminster Confession. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 is still popular with contemporary Reformed Baptists. Of course, the most significant Baptist Puritan, and the most read of all the Puritans, was John Bunyan (1628-88) (pictured), the author of such classics as The Pilgrim’s Progress,[1] The Holy War, and Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. I visited his gravesite in Bunhill fields, London, where he is buried with many other Puritans.

The Scottish Puritans. In the five paragraphs under this subheading, the author mentions three men of significance, whose writings I have read and benefited from reading. Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) wrote the pivotal Lex Rex, declaring that the king is not law, but that the law is king. William Guthrie (1620-65) penned The Christian’s Great Interest, a classic on the assurance of salvation. Henry Scougal wrote the classic The Life of God in the Soul of Man, which greatly influenced George Whitfield. It is also a favorite of my friend David M. Coe.

Further History. “Puritanism reached its height around 1650. But there was a severe backlash.” Civil war ensued, the forces of Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell (pictured), were victorious. For 15 years, God wonderfully blessed English society, and then Cromwell died. His son was an ineffective leader, and the monarchy was restored. 2000 Puritan pastors lost their pastorates. Puritanism survived but in a weakened form. Anglican Puritanism diminished rapidly. English Presbyterianism veered into Arianism in the 1700s. Historic Reformed theology was mainly in the hands of Independence and Baptists.

Conclusion. Historic Calvinism was rediscovered in the mid 20^th century. Many of their books have been reprinted. Though unstated by the author, my opinion is that this resurgence can be explained by two men’s influence. The first influence that I’ve already hinted at came from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in London. He was not only the greatest preacher of God’s Word in the 20^th century, but he was an unabashed Calvinist who was not shy about his admiration of the Puritans. Secondly, a man named Bob Ross, an author and Christian bookstore owner in Pasadena, Texas took on the enormous task of reprinting C. H. Spurgeon’s sermons. Spurgeon has often been called the last of the Puritans, and so he was in many respects. He admired the Puritans, read the Puritans, quoted the Puritans in his books and his sermons, and in many ways, preserved the heritage of not only Puritanism but also historic Calvinism. Spurgeon was very much the Calvinist. Thus, with Spurgeon in the 19^th century (and Bob Ross’ reprints) and Lloyd Jones in the 20^th century, a bridge to a 21^st-century consciousness and awareness of historic Calvinism can be traced.

---

[1] Probably the best-selling Christian book ever written in English. Bunyan’s allegory of Christian conversion was thought to be so true to Scripture that although Bunyan was a five-point Calvinist, the book was mandatory reading for all Methodist ministers for more than a century. Sadly, almost no contemporary congregations have any members who have experienced anything like conversion as pictured in Bunyan’s book.