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.”

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Twenty-Six, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.

Allow me to respond to an honest inquiry I received from someone who had read my comments about chapter 25 and sought clarification. I am doing my best to provide an objective review of each chapter of Curt Daniel’s book. I have never met Curt Daniel. I am attempting to avoid any advocacy in reviewing his book, in favor of reportage. My goal is to objectively report what the author comments on in each chapter. I do this because of my personal opposition, especially with regard to my colleagues, to voicing opinions and passing judgments on matters they have not personally investigated. The subject of Calvinism has been placed off-limits as a matter of discussion in most Baptist Bible colleges in the United States in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. This seems to me to be utterly ridiculous. I think I am correct in my understanding that for many years the teachers at Arlington Baptist college in Texas held various positions with regard to Calvinism, and were allowed to both discuss their positions and advocate their positions. I think men of God would be well-served by investigating issues in light of God's Word rather than reacting without investigating.

The chapter is divided into six subdivisions. 

“One of the greatest paradoxes in all theology is the puzzle of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Some deny or minimize one or the other, but that does not resolve the problem. We must accept both because both are taught in the Bible.” 

Human responsibility. Six paragraphs. “Responsibility means accountability.” “Human responsibility implies morality and ethics.” “Calvinists hold to human responsibility as much as anyone else.” “Responsibility implies a choice between two options.” “The classic Reformed discussion on this is The Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards. He argued that no man is neutral toward Christ.” 

God Intervenes in the Human Will. Three paragraphs. “God is legally entitled and able to intervene in the will of morally responsible humans.” “The will of man is not off-limits to God. God can go anywhere He pleases.” 

God Intervenes for Good Motives. Three paragraphs. 

God Works through Sinful Hearts. Three paragraphs. 

The Grand Paradox. Five paragraphs. “Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both true, but we cannot fully grasp how. They are two sides of the same coin.” Spurgeon once said, “I have often been asked by persons to reconcile the two truths. My only reply is – they need no reconciliation, for they never fell out. Why should I try to reconcile two friends? Prove to me the truths do not agree. […] The two facts are parallel lines; I cannot make them unite, but you cannot make them cross either.” “Man is responsible because God is sovereign, not the other way around. The sovereign God created man to be accountable despite his sin and God’s sovereignty. We must not deny or overemphasize either truth nor attempt a hybrid of the two.” “Upsetting the grand paradox has bad practical implications. Hyper-Calvinists tend to overemphasize divine sovereignty and we can human responsibility. Arminianism errs on the other side by so stressing human responsibility that it minimizes divine sovereignty.” 

Conclusion. “Both truths must be believed and kept in balance. Preachers must preach both as part of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). When we cannot understand the paradox, let us bow and worship God who does.”

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

Just a thought before quoting the opening paragraph from this chapter of the author’s work. The gospel minister who reflects little or none at all on the will of God is almost certainly not a Calvinist, but is more likely than not and unaware Arminian. 

“One cannot understand various theologies without grasping their dichotomies of certain doctrines. With historic Lutherans, it is the difference between law and gospel. For classic Pentecostals, it is salvation and Spirit-baptism as two separate experiences. With Reformed theology there are two. The first is divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The second is like unto it: the twofold will of God. The usual terms are the secret will and the revealed will. We often refer to Deuteronomy 29:29: ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.’” 

This chapter is divided into 11 subdivisions. 

The Secret Will. Five paragraphs defining and discussing the secret will of God. 

The Revealed Will. Four paragraphs defining and discussing the revealed will of God. 

The Will of God and Salvation. Three paragraphs. The author contrasts between Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism and his understanding of Calvinism. 

One Timothy 2:4–5 and 2 Peter 3:9. Three paragraphs discussing how Calvinists have interpreted these two passages, as well as his own view of the passages. 

Further Proofs of a Universal Saving Desire. One paragraph, citing Luke 19:41–42, Romans 10:21, Isaiah 65:2, and Proverbs 1:24 as proofs that God has a will of desire for all men’s salvation. 

The Denial of Universal Saving Desire. Two paragraphs addressing the arguments of Hyper Calvinists. Allow me to interject at this point the reminder of a previous blog post of mine, that five-point Calvinism is not Hyper Calvinism, despite John R. Rice’s half-century spent insisting that they are the same. C. H. Spurgeon spent upwards of a decade at the beginning of his ministry in London combating Hyper Calvinism among his fellow Particular Baptists, himself being a lifelong committed and knowledgeable five-point Calvinist. He was living proof, because of his amazing doctrinal consistency and commitment to evangelism, that Hyper-Calvinism and five-point Calvinism are not the same! To insist otherwise is to put on display in public one’s misunderstanding of both positions. 

The Two Words for Will. Two paragraphs discussing the Greek words used in the New Testament. 

Contrast Between the Two Wills. Three short paragraphs. 

One Will or Two? Three paragraphs refuting the Arminian position and elaborating Calvin’s resolution. 

The Providential Will. Three paragraphs. 

Conclusion. “The secret will is not entirely secret, for it is revealed in part through Scripture and Christ (Ephesians 1:9). We must not pry into it, such as seeking unrevealed prophetic details (Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:7; John 21:22). But we can study it insofar as it is explained in Scripture. Proverbs 25:2 tells us, ‘It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of Kings is to search out a matter.’ Let us study it and be mindful to obey the revealed will.”

Some Thoughts On Reading Books.

I have been an avid reader for more than 50 years. I am the son of a man who I remember habitually reading a book a day. My father’s reading was purely for pleasure. Most of my reading is related to my obsessive accumulation of information. I have always enjoyed learning. Had it ever crossed my mind to do so, I might have entertained the notion of becoming a professional student. I always loved going to school and would sit in on classes that I was not enrolled in while in engineering school to hear the professors teach interesting things. 

Following my conversion and called to the Gospel ministry, the direction of my reading habits significantly changed. Since 1974 I have assiduously read military history, biblical history, Bible surveys, archaeology, systematic theologies, commentaries, hermeneutics, and the like. I am not a scholar and do not pretend to be a scholar. I am a pastor who studies the Bible and who spends considerable time every day reading. 

I have learned some things about reading that I would like to share with you along the way. These are my opinions. Some of you who read this blog read more than I do and are better trained than I am. If you spot something in my comments that you disagree with, based upon your higher level of training or more extensive experience as a reader, I would greatly appreciate whatever comments you might have. 

Footnotes. Unless I am reading for pleasure, I tend to be a little suspicious of a book addressing a serious subject that provides no or almost no footnotes. An exception to this would be a book like Curt Daniel’s The History and Theology of Calvinism. This is the book I am reviewing a chapter at a time in this blog. Though the author provides some footnotes, the breadth and depth of his study and his astonishing bibliography prove that his work would likely overwhelm most readers with footnotes had he not chosen to use them sparingly. 

I become suspicious when the author produces a supposedly serious book of 400 to 500 pages without providing footnotes to establish that his propositions are not his alone but are held by credible people. I also become suspicious when the author resorts to Strong’s Concordance to establish the meaning of a word rather than a legitimate Hebrew or Greek lexicon. Strong’s is useful for a Church member looking for clarification but is not sufficient for a credible student of Scripture. 

Here is another one. When the author includes Greek words using the Greek alphabet but is unaware that the sigma at the end of the Greek word is different than the sigma anywhere else in a Greek word, you know the author has not taken an introductory course in Greek. An example would be the Greek word for sepulchre or burial place, shkόV, where the initial sigma is s , and the final sigma is V. I am not suggesting the author who does this is not worth reading. I am pointing out that what he says about Greek is suspect. 

A final comment on footnotes has to do with an author whose theology is Arminian. He may embrace the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, though he might object to the word ‘perseverance’ and favor ‘eternal security’ instead. However, in all other respects, he is at least an Arminian and very possibly a Pelagian. Yet all of his footnotes are references to works produced by Puritans! Is it not interesting that an author would publicly oppose Puritans and decry Calvinists while relying almost exclusively on their support of his position on the subject of prayer? 

Dictionaries. Should not Baptist preachers have at least a rudimentary handle on the historical-grammatical approach to interpreting God’s Word? Fundamental to this approach to studying Scripture is the task of ascertaining what the words and idioms found in the Bible meant to the human author God used to write Scripture and the audience to whom the text was initially directed. How ridiculous it is then for a pastor to resort to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary to discover a word’s definition? 

Dictionaries are not authoritative sources for the determination of what a word or phrase ought to mean. Dictionaries are sources of varying authority for the meanings of words at the time of the dictionary’s publication. Therefore, a dictionary that was published in 1828 might be good for ascertaining the range of meanings of words as they were used by English speakers living in the United States in 1828. However, such a dictionary would not necessarily be handy for English speakers living in Great Britain, Australia, or New Zealand in 1828. As well, such a dictionary might be pretty misleading to an American English speaker in 2021. 

The meanings of words are not static, until they are written down. Words contain meanings according to the contexts in which they are used, either in writing or in speech, by the population using those words. To phrase the matter another way, dictionaries do not tell us what words mean. Dictionary publishers engage in massive research to discover what the population they serve tells them the words in their dictionary mean. Then, after the dictionary is published, it is useful to individuals to use the dictionary to discover what the publisher’s opinion is according to their research. 

Meaning? Do not insult my intelligence by persuading me what a word means, based upon a dictionary published in 1828. No matter how scholarly or godly the publisher was in 1828, a dictionary published in 1828 is almost 200 years outdated. No responsible writer would use a dictionary published in 1828 to advance his argument for the meaning of a word in 2021. What that word may have meant in 1828 is no indication of what that word means in 2021. 

If you have an issue with the paragraph above, you are surrendering your position as an interpreter of Scripture using the historical-grammatical approach to hermeneutics. 

Subject Matter. We live in a free country, and an author can write on anything he chooses. However, I tend to favor an author who writes to improve the conversation. For example, my book, The Church of Jesus Christ: 28 Things Every Christian Ought To Learn, is the most comprehensive ecclesiology I have ever seen. I wrote the book to meet what I perceived to be a need. While there were many Baptist histories, there were no ecclesiologies that do justice to the New Testament doctrine of the Church, in my opinion. 

Let me turn to books dealing with prayer. I must confess that I have always been bored with the writing of E. M. Bounds. I do not doubt that he was a godly man, and he wrote many books on prayer. But I have found his works uninteresting. But that is just me. As well, I have read Prayer – Asking And Receiving by John R. Rice several times. I don’t like it very much, though John R. Rice had the reputation of being an incredible prayer warrior. Praise God for him. 

I wonder why pastors resort to a contemporary author on such an essential subject as prayer, especially when a newer prayer book does not seem to add anything to the conversation. Does Exploring Prayer With Jack Hyles contribute to the discussion? I don’t think so. The very first chapter titled God’s Mind Can Be Changed completely turns me off. Then there is chapter 21; God Needs Your Personality. Really? I am not persuaded his book on prayer adds anything to the conversation. Instead, it is unscriptural and harmful to a correct understanding of prayer in light of what we know about the nature of Almighty God. 

I like Charles Spurgeon’s Only A Prayer Meeting. I like Lockyer’s All The Prayers Of The Bible. And I find John Bunyan’s book Prayer unsurpassed. After studying the subject of prayer in God’s Word, I would personally be at a loss to add anything beyond what Spurgeon, Lockyer, or Bunyan have to say. Of course, there are always good Puritans on the topic, but you get my drift. Why write a book on a subject that is already well covered by good men of the past? 

Those are my thoughts for today arising from my half-century of book reading. Do you have a constructive comment? How about a snarky criticism? I would like to hear from you.

Is Military Style Pastoral Leadership Scriptural?

This iteration of Ministerial Musings is the culmination of thoughts and considerations about spiritual leadership I have given attention to for more than 50 years by reading and observing. I had initially contemplated titling this blog, “The USMC As A Pastoral Leadership Model? You Have Got To Be Kidding Me!” However, after the blowback I received from a recent posting from several men whose approach to investigation suggests that they think they can learn everything they need to know about an article from its title, I decided to go with a somewhat understated title. 

A significant number of my contemporaries in the ministry employ a model of pastoral leadership that reflects principles learned and implemented from their military service or adopted from those they admire whose leadership model is along the lines used by the American military. Baptist preachers are notorious followers in this respect, owing to their pragmatism. Before I proceed, let me provide a bit of my background. 

I decided on a career as a military professional when I was seven years old. My parents took us on vacation in 1957. Along the way, we visited the United States Air Force Academy outside Colorado Springs, Colorado. That was all I needed. My course was set. I spent the next ten years checking out every book in the school library related to military history, military weaponry, military leaders’ biographies, and warfare. I wrote every politician who could help, figuring to establish my name recognition for a future appointment. Then, while the student body practiced for high school graduation in the gymnasium, I was called to the principal’s office and informed of my appointment to USAFA. I was astonished none of my classmates was as excited as I was. 

After a back injury resulted in my discharge from the Air Force Academy, I turned from my pursuit of a career in the military to engineering school and, after graduating, worked as a spacecraft design engineer for Hughes Aircraft Company, El Segundo, California. However, I never lost my interest in all things military, even after my conversion to Christ. 

Let me list a few of the books I have read over the years to illustrate my interest in all things military. Skip this list if you have no interest in such reading material: 

The Mask of Command by John Keegan

Dyess Story: The Eye Witness Account of the Death March From Bataan and the Narrative of Experiences in Japanese Prison Camps and of Eventual Escape by Lt. Col. William Dyess

Sherman, A Soldier’s Passion for Order by John F. Marszalek

Patton – The Man Behind The Legend by Martin Bloomenson

American Caesar by William Manchester

Fighter Pilot by Robin Olds

It Doesn’t Take A Hero by H. Norman Schwarzkopf

The Savior Generals by Victor Davis Hanson

The Real George Washington: The True Story of America’s Most Indispensable Man

The Last Lion, volumes one and two, by William Manchester

Churchill, A Life, two volumes, by Martin Gilbert

Stalin, volumes one and two, by Stephen Kotkin

Leaders by Richard Nixon

The Works Of Josephus by Flavius Josephus

The Persian Expedition by Xenophon

A History of Warfare by John Keegan

Battles of the Bible by Herzog and Gichon

God’s War by Christopher Tyerman

The Imperial Roman Army by Yann Le Bohec

The Face of Battle by John Keegan

Death March by Donald Knox

Guadalcanal by Richard B. Frank

Leadership In War by Andrew Roberts

Flyboys by James Bradley

Chosin by Eric Hamel

A Country Made By War by Jeffrey Perret

The Art Of War by Sun Tzu

On War by Clausewitz

The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides 

Many ministry colleagues of my generation are veterans of the Armed Forces. Those who are students of God’s Word, as well as being thoughtful and insightful, recognize something. Despite the apparent similarities between the individual Christian’s lifestyle and our involvement in spiritual warfare, such as the appeal to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, Second Timothy 2.3, and the Apostle Paul’s comments about spiritual armor in Ephesians 6.10-18, there is no valid comparison between spiritual leadership as it is presented in the New Testament and the approach to leadership that is practiced in the United States Armed Forces. 

Consider this matter of spiritual leadership in a Church congregation from four perspectives. 

First, from the perspective of the Lord Jesus Christ’s contrast of His leadership style to the leadership style of the Gentiles. 

Mark 10.42-45:   “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” 

Christlike leadership of the flock should not be like the leadership style employed in the Gentile world (Would that not include any military organizations?). 

Luke 22.26-26 echoes that sentiment:  “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” 

The Savior had no desire that the leadership style of His apostles would parallel that of authority figures in the Gentile world. Does that not speak to the notion of pastors conducting their ministries using the leadership philosophies employed by corporate America or the United States Marine Corps? Sadly, because of poor study habits, many pastors have no concept of leadership beyond the style they were exposed to or employed while serving in the armed forces. 

Second, from the perspective of and under the shepherd’s leadership of the flock in a biblical setting, versus a Western-style shepherd’s leadership of a flock of sheep in the Alps, in the Pyrenees, or the Scottish Highlands. Western-style shepherding makes use of a sheepdog to hound the sheep, sometimes nipping at their heels, and taking advantage of a sheep’s innate fear of sheepdogs to exert control over those timid animals. In the Bible and throughout the Middle East, shepherding was altogether different. The Savior referred to this different style when He commented that “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Yet it is common in our day for pastoral ministries in many Baptist circles to employ associate pastors and other staff members whose conduct resembles Western-style sheepdogs who hound the flock than Middle Eastern style shepherds whose flocks follow them. 

Third, consider the personal style of ministry employed by the Savior instead of that used by so many pastors in our day, whose Church members fear displeasing the pastor. Imagine a Christian being more fearful of disappointing his pastor than disappointing God. Why so? The ferocity so many ‘pastors’ display in their ‘ministries’ often the cause. However, what do we learn from the Bible about the Savior’s ministry style? In response to the Pharisees, the Savior turned to the multitudes, with Matthew inserting this Old Testament passage to describe his Lord’s pattern of ministry in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Matthew 12.17-21): 

¹⁷    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

¹⁸    Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

¹⁹    He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

²⁰    A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

²¹    And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. 

How can verse 20 be interpreted as the Savior not being gentle with the humble? Yet so many pastors are pretty harsh with their flock, with others cultivating a climate of fear among the congregation. “Be careful! The pastor won’t like that!” The Savior was not only the Master Teacher but also the consummate leader. Yet those who followed Him were never scared of Him the way so many are scared of their pastors in our era. 

Fourth, there is the Apostle Paul’s comment to the Corinthian congregation, in First Corinthians 12.4–6: 

⁴     Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

⁵     And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

⁶     And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 

I understand and appreciate the need for a military organization to insist upon behavioral conformity and the top-down imposition of tactics and strategies designed to win skirmishes, battles, campaigns, and wars. The concept might best be described as uniformity. However, that top-down approach necessary in military organizations and civilian corporations is the opposite of God’s plan for New Testament Church leadership, as evidenced by the three verses immediately above. Unity, so crucial to the Christian faith and congregational life, is not uniformity! Let me explain. 

Setting aside any discussion of how many spiritual gifts there are, we can agree that spiritual gifts are given at the time of one’s conversion to Christ and the simultaneous indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Thus, no Christian or Christian leader’s decision can alter what gift or gifts are possessed by the child of God since he or she has trusted Christ. As well, Paul’s comment suggests that a Church member’s place in a congregational ministry (meaning administrations) is supposed to be the Lord’s doing. Verse six refers to operations, which some take to be the magnitude of the ministry the believer is engaged in. God has decided to give some men more extensive ministries than other men. To illustrate, friends tell me Jerry Falwell’s first Junior High School Sunday School class numbered in the hundreds. 

What does this add up to? With the permutations and combinations arising from these three parameters, it is impossible to impose a top-down approach to ministry leadership while, at the same time, allowing for the discovery of individual gifts and the flourishing of individual believers in various ministries. It is not possible! Therefore, the controlling pastor forsakes the discovery of spiritual gifts and the flourishing of individual believers by replacing it with a commitment to lock-step conformity and uniformity at the expense of spiritual growth and the cultivation of genuine unity of minds and hearts. 

Granted, from time to time, problems arise that require decisions to be made by leaders, such as in Acts 6.1-7, providing for the widows, and the critical meeting in Acts 15.1-21. However, New Testament pastoral leadership is assigned the responsibility of equipping the saints for ministry, Ephesians 4.12, not micromanaging the details of every aspect of a Christian’s life. 

Allow me to illustrate: I remember being invited to preach at a Church. Following my message, the congregation settled in a large dining room to watch a movie before enjoying a meal. During the movie showing, the pastor was involved in an important meeting and instructed his staff members not to disturb him. I sat outside the pastor’s office during that time. When a deacon and the pastor’s wife entered the reception area to inform the senior staff member that the movie had ended, the congregation was setting in the dark dining room; no one knew what to do. I watched in astonishment as three adult Church members stood there with furtive expressions on their faces, not knowing what to do and afraid to act. Should they decide to turn on the lights? Should they choose to begin serving food? For upwards of 15 minutes, the entire congregation sat in a dark room before one of them dared to risk the wrath of the pastor by knocking on his door. 

This type of thing occurs to varying degrees in Churches all over America. Everything about such Church’s ministries is imposed on the congregation by pastoral leadership using a top-down philosophy of ministry. Such an approach stifles personal initiative, crushes any entrepreneurial attitude that might develop in a nurturing environment, and employs a cookie-cutter mentality, to not only demand that the lost be evangelized according to a single pattern, but also to eliminate any possibility that Christians will be allowed to discover their spiritual gifts and exhibit creativity in establishing and developing their ministries within the congregation. These are classic examples of insisting on pounding square pegs into round holes. 

In a military environment, such an approach is necessary. In corporate America, this is usually, but not always, necessary. But in the Church of Jesus Christ, not only is this not necessary, it is patently unscriptural and stifling to the spiritual growth and blossoming of Church members. Soldiers are not believer priests. Corporate employees are not believer priests. But Christians are believer priests possessing the soul liberty characteristic of Baptists (or is supposed to be). 

We have 16 distinct ministries at Calvary Road Baptist Church, each one leader by a competent and committed Church member who seeks to glorify God and reach the lost. Additionally, we have many Church members involved in both discipling others and being discipled by others. Praise God! We had a Church choir and a Christian school when I arrived 35 years ago. But it has been my absolute delight over the years for Church members to approach me, asking if they could start and lead a ministry. After discussing what they planned to do and how they planned to do it, I gave them the go-ahead. Have I been burned? Yes! But to gain all, you must risk all, and Gospel ministry is not for the faint of heart and should not be about risk aversion. 

I would never surrender our Church’s biblical approach to Christian ministry. I delight in encouraging the development of spiritual gifts and wisdom using this concept of ministry. Church members are making decisions about their ministries. It’s great! 

I do not miss a control-oriented, military-style, top-down imposed approach to ministry, which bears a resemblance to a Soviet-style command and control system. Such a commonly seen ministry style is foreign to the Christian faith. I opt for the leadership style employed by the Savior, advocated by the Apostle Paul, and described in the New Testament. 

I praise God for the beneficial impact military service has had on men serving in the Gospel ministry. Many such men became men while serving in the armed forces. But it is terrible and stifling to the Holy Spirit to make the mistake of employing a military-style leadership anywhere in a Church ministry.