This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Forty-One, Objections to Election.

We come to another of the book’s 74 chapters that by itself is worth the price of purchase. Before dealing with the chapter in a somewhat unusual manner I would like to recollect several experiences, both mine and others. 

One of my closest and dearest friends was the late Kenneth Connolly, a son of the notable Peter Connolly. I remember talking to Ken about his dad, so wonderfully used by God with Jock Troup in the Fisherman’s Revival in England in 1921. Later moving to the USA, Peter Connolly taught at a well-known Bible college in the Bible belt and was a favorite of students. One man mentored by Peter Connolly told me that “once you heard the man pray you were his former life.” Yet Peter Connolly was fired for teaching Calvinism, with the circumstances of his termination being very strange. Though only one of several men who served that Bible college as Calvinists (one being a man who later was my pastor), Peter Connolly was terminated because he was the most prominent. When approached by the college administration with the insistence that he stop using Calvinistic terminology while continuing to teach the same doctrinal truths, Connolly declined and was terminated. It has been widely believed that his termination was the result of protests by supporting pastors who were virulently opposed more to the word Calvinism than to the doctrines that lay back of the word. 

A second anecdote occurred when a younger than I pastor in California related to me of his sad estrangement from his pastor, under whose ministry he came to Christ and was mentored. Then the young man became curious about the doctrine of salvation and began asking questions to his beloved pastor. Curiously, his pastor was unwilling to discuss what the Bible teaches about the doctrine of salvation. As the younger preacher began to press his pastor with questions about the issues a cooling of the relationship became more and more noticeable until finally the young man’s pastor ended the relationship. Interestingly, the young man’s opinion is that the relationship ended as a direct result of his interest in learning from his pastor what the Bible teaches about the salvation of a sinner. 

My own experience was somewhat along this line. As a new Christian I asked my pastor several questions about the word election. My pastor responded by informing me that election was not an issue that should be discussed with new Christians. I found his answer unpersuasive, because of the words used by the Apostle Paul when writing to the new Christians in Thessalonica: “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” 

A final comment about the half-century effort by the late John R. Rice to convince his Sword of the Lord readers that the Calvinism of C. H. Spurgeon, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards (frequently referred to as five-point Calvinism) was Hyper-Calvinism. I accepted Rice’s assertion for many years, until I was made aware of Spurgeon’s concerted efforts against Hyper-Calvinism in London at the beginning of his ministry.[1] How could a five-point Calvinist be a Hyper-Calvinist if a five-point Calvinist strongly and publicly (and successful) opposed Hyper-Calvinism? He could not be. Rice’s insistence that five-point Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism is erroneous. Agreeing on terminology is crucial. 

I have been a Christian long enough to know that believers in Christ will not always agree with each other. I sometimes jokingly remark that at times I do not agree with myself. I would suggest that two prominent reasons for disagreement are, #1 studying God’s Word using differing hermeneutical approaches, and #2 God’s sovereign illumination of different believers in different ways and to different degrees. Yet so many are frightened to discuss doctrines with those with whom they disagree, frequently supposing that all differences are the result of personal sin. Although that can be the case, I am persuaded that it is not necessarily the case. 

In this chapter the author deals with 22 objections to the doctrine of election. Regardless of the position one holds I think it is imperative that these objections be dealt with, discussed, and carefully examined. 

Objection 1: “Calvinism kills evangelism.” Three paragraphs. My response to this objection is George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, and my Nepalese Baptist church planting friend, Samuel Rai, who has established more than 160 Baptist churches over the last 30 years while embracing the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. 

Objection 2: “Whosoever will may come.” Four paragraphs. The author objects to the notion that there is a contradiction between election and the free offer. Additionally, he speaks to the errors of Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism. 

Objection 3: “Calvinism portrays God turning away sinners because they are not elect.” Two paragraphs. The author writes, “Christ has never turned away any repentant sinner nor ever will – nor do Calvinists even hint that He will.” 

Objection 4: “If election were true, then the non-elect would never have a chance to be saved.” Two paragraphs explaining why this is an ill-founded objection. 

Objection 5: “God votes for you. Satan votes against you. How you vote decides the election.” Two paragraphs. 

Objection 6: “God is no respecter of persons.” Three paragraphs. My opinion is that this objection betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between God being impartial and God being no respecter of persons. 

Objection 7: “A similar objection says that ‘Predestination is privilege, and all privilege is wrong.’” Two paragraphs. Really? Abraham was privileged. Was that wrong? 

Objection 8: “If I am elected, I can live in sin, for God will save me anyway.” One paragraph. Believed and stated by no Calvinist ever. 

Objection 9: “To deny faith a place in election is like denying faith a place in justification, which is heresy.” Two paragraphs. The author deals with the five points of Arminianism. 

Objection 10: “If election were true, then I would be saved if I am elect, whether I believe it or not, or I would be damned if not elect, whether I believe or not.” One paragraph. 

Objection 11: “Election is not practical.” Two sentences. 

Objection 12: “Calvin taught election and burned Servetus at the stake; Augustine taught election and believed in several Catholic heresies such as baptismal regeneration.” The author does not state, so I will, that Calvin was never in his lifetime at the helm of Geneva’s government. The author points out that Calvin and Augustine also taught the Trinity and infallibility. Are we, therefore, to deny those doctrines because they were taught by those two men? 

Objection 13: “Election is too speculative.” Two sentences. 

Objection 14: “Most Christians do not believe in election. My church does not.” Three sentences. 

Objection 15: “It sounds like leftover Roman Catholicism.” The author deals with this objection with four sentences. My response is that if you advance this objection you know nothing of contemporary Roman Catholicism. 

Objection 16: “It sounds too complicated.” One sentence. “What is complicated about these three words: ‘He choose us’ (Ephesians 1:4)?” 

Objection 17: “I heard a well-known preacher warn against election.” Two sentences. 

Objection 18: “I have read all the way through the Bible, and I cannot find the doctrine of election anywhere in it.” One paragraph. The author begins the paragraph, “Keep reading.” 

Objection 19: “I do not believe in election even if it is in the Bible.” Four paragraphs. This is the statement of a lost person. 

Objection 20: “God loves everybody equally, therefore a Reformed doctrine of election is not true.” Six paragraphs. God does not love everybody equally! 

Objection 21: “Calvinist election looks like hospital triage. He could not save everyone, so He chose which ones had the best likelihood of being saved.” One paragraph, containing six sentences. In my opinion, this objection is blasphemous, severely limiting God’s power. 

Objection 22: “It is not fair!” Ten paragraphs. My response to this objection is based on my experience of growing up in a different culture, where the concept of fair play is foreign. I assert that there is no such thing as fair, except in the minds of English-speaking westerners. The author’s response differs from mine. 

Conclusion: Two paragraphs, which includes a quote from Jonathan Edwards: “It becomes worms of the dust therefore to subject their understandings to God’s and to own that God knows more than they, and not to find fault with what he did from eternal ages in his infinitely wise and holy counsel’s.

---

[1] Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995) 

This installment is titled “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Forty, The Covenant of Redemption.

Perhaps you have heard someone say, “Well, I have a right to my opinion.” It has long been recognized by thoughtful individuals that, no, you do not have an automatic right to your opinion. Whether it be referred to as the principle of sufficient reason or the law of sufficient reason, the short version is that you do not have the logical, reasonable, or rational right to either hold or express an opinion that is not based upon sufficient reason. If you doubt this, I urge you to do a Google search or a Duck Duck Go search of the phrase “the law of sufficient reason,” or “the principle of sufficient reason.” There are too many Gospel ministers who embrace positions they both defend and advance without doing their homework and therefore having no sufficient reason for their position. Their fatal error, of course, is to imagine that defensible truths are always intuitive, when Proverbs twice warns us how unreliable intuition actually is. 

Pr 14.12: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Pr 16.25: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” 

I would encourage Gospel ministers to read Logic by Isaac Watts and The Improvement Of The Mind also by Isaac Watts. Although a thoughtful attention paid to logic and rational thought processes would improve the tendency of Gospel ministers to achieve agreement, the frequently omitted doctrine of the Spirit’s illumination is a guarantee that even the best man, who thoughtfully seek to understand God’s truth will still not agree on everything this side of heaven. 

My goal in this 40^th iteration of “The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel has never been to persuade anyone to adopt or embrace Calvinism. Rather, my goal has been to do my part in eliminating the tendency of Gospel ministers to adopt uninformed positions. I would have no issue with John Wesley opposing Calvinism and advancing his brand of Arminianism so long as he did so from a place of clear understanding of both positions, knowing what he was opposing and understanding what he was embracing. 

This chapter is divided into nine parts. 

What Is the Covenant of Redemption? Six paragraphs. The author cites Louis Berkhof, Johann Heinrich Heidegger, Karl Barth, and Charles Hodge. The author also rightly states the reason for most who oppose the so-called Covenant of Redemption (including me), “Perhaps the major objection is that it is not explicitly stated in Scripture.” 

Scriptural Proof. Three paragraphs. Citing a number of passages, the author focuses on Psalm 2, Psalm 89, and John 17. 

The Father’s Part in the Covenant. Four paragraphs. A comment by John Trapp is included. 

The Son’s Part in the Covenant. Five paragraphs. A comment by Samuel Rutherford is included. 

The Spirit’s Part in the Covenant. Five paragraphs. A comment by Thomas Brooks is included. 

The Covenant of Marriage. Two paragraphs. This perspective is new to me, but unconvincing. 

The Covenant of Love. Four paragraphs. Augustine and Jonathan Edwards are mentioned as having developed this line of thinking. 

The Covenant of Glory. Three paragraphs. 

Conclusion. The author offers a conclusion written by the great English Puritan Thomas Goodwin.

Note: Of interest to some who are not disposed to embrace Covenant Theology is New Covenant Theology, advanced by my English friend David H. J. Gay, and prolific author and blogger. He can be found on YouTube at David H J Gay Ministry.

What Will Happen In 2022?

I would like to wish each of my readers a happy New Year. I trust you had a blessed and Christ-centered Christmas celebration. I am presently in my office reflecting on the beautiful watch night service we had last night at Calvary Road Baptist Church. I am thrilled when young couples seize opportunities to bring their young children to the Church house. Doing so helps cultivate a sense of anticipation in their young minds and hearts that will prove helpful in reaching the children with the Gospel when they begin to comprehend its implications. On the other hand, I am always saddened, and people opt out of such opportunities to encourage and be a blessing to others. 

2021 has been a year fraught with many difficulties, profound disappointments, incredible challenges, and acts of heroism known only to God. At every level of government and every institution in our culture, there has been both a wholesale abandonment of the rule of law and a commitment to the notion of truth. The hypocrisy demonstrated by elected officials and the usurpation of authority by lifelong bureaucrats, both of whom seem to be more committed to population control than to population care and welfare. It is challenging to be a Gospel minister, and the need for God’s grace and wisdom is great. 

I am so grateful for Church members and pastors of other congregations who make it possible for the scheduled worship of God by a gathered people to continue. I rejoice that so many pastors exhibit Biblical, which is to say Baptist, convictions by recognizing that they do not have the Scriptural authority to discontinue public worship services. Gospel ministers are not legislators but executors. 

Having a more sure word of prophecy, we who love and believe the Bible are certain about future events the Bible predicts. However, we remain uncertain about matters related to our immediate future. If we are not caught up in 2022, what new challenges will we face, and what old challenges must we deal with again. 

Questions about the Covid virus, the efficacy of masks, the danger of vaccines, the ignoring of Nuremberg protocols, and the forced vaccines of citizens worldwide using vaxes with unknown side effects divide populations in every country threatens to divide congregations. 

With different levels of spiritual maturity, differing amounts of understanding, various degrees of current information, and also possessing different spiritual gifts, we are prone to react differently to threats to our health and welfare. Our Lord prayed for unity, with that unity being a practical possibility within the congregation. Yet unity is properly understood to be something other than uniformity. 

This becomes a perplexing problem to a Gospel minister, who is not a virologist, not a healthcare professional, and indeed not a personal physician. A Gospel minister’s calling is to preach the Word of God, shepherd the people of God, and encourage the worship of God. Yet we now live in an era in which people have been propagandized by different levels of government, big tech, and big Pharma, into being afraid of each other. This is a satanic and demonic coup, unlike anything I am aware of happening before. 

This creates complications for the Gospel minister. On the one hand, to follow the example of the Good Shepherd, who left the 99 sheep that He might retrieve the one that had wandered, the Gospel minister will relentlessly reach out to those not attending to encourage them to participate in the public worship of God. Yet such activities by a pastor are perceived by some as a direct threat to their physical health and well-being. Suddenly, it is no longer seen as a good thing for the pastor to encourage people to attend Church! 

Of course, this is alarming. Of course, this doesn't seem right. Nevertheless, people with strong opinions feel threatened by any pastor who urges them to attend Church. This is problematic because God has always wanted His people to gather for worship, even when it is dangerous to do so. Not that any believer should be irresponsible or reckless, but that every believer should exercise personal wisdom and accountability as a priest of God to weigh and balance the risk of danger with the importance of gathered worship. 

How does a pastor handle this task? I am not sure I have that figured out. Functioning as a Gospel minister is a far more complicated matter at present than it has ever been in my experience. All I know how to do is encourage people to gather for worship. I do not know how to justify the decision not to gather for worship, the exception being an immediate danger to one’s physical health and well-being. Yet Christians have always gathered for worship at great risk to their personal safety and the safety of their friends and loved ones affected by the guilt of association. 

One wonders how a mindless virus differs from a hateful tyrant. Whether it be a Caesar, a Pope, a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Mao, Christians throughout history and around the world risk their lives to honor God and exalt Christ. I honestly do not understand how a mindless virus should more affect our behavior. That is one reason why I am glad I am a Baptist and am committed to the concept of soul-liberty. 

In an effort to contribute to the conversation, I offer two brochures to anyone who would like me to send them free of charge. Email me at Pastor@CalvaryRoadBaptist.Church, and I will drop them in the mail to you. Again, may God richly bless you with a happy New Year and a fruitful 2022 serving God in your Church.