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 20th and 21st 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.”
