"The History & Theology of Calvinism" by Curt Daniel

          I am an inveterate reader. I have the great benefit of growing up in a readers’ home, with my dad very typically reading one entire book a day. The result of his lifelong passion for reading (his sister taught him how to read when he was four years old) was that my dad was always the most well-informed person in the room. Always.

I bring all of this up because I have decided to read a book sent to me in the mail about a week ago, having no idea who sent it to me. Having caught the reading bug from my dad following my conversion, I am presently reading 30 books, usually a chapter from each book per day and at least three chapters from the Bible each day. The book that I received in the mail, written by Curt Daniel, is titled The History & Theology of Calvinism, 906 pages. Yesterday I decided to read it, adding it to the many books I am already reading.

Upon reflection, I find it interesting that at my age (I am now 70), I have never read a book written by John Calvin. I have the 22 volume set of Calvin’s Commentaries, though I have only rarely consulted with them and have not purposefully read any of them. I also have Calvin’s Christian Institutes, without having read that work either.

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.

I bring this up concerning the universal condemnation that I have heard throughout my Christian life regarding John Calvin’s connection with a man named Michael Servetus (1511-1153). The incident almost always comes up in a discussion about Calvinism. It is referred to by my Baptist brethren as a cudgel against John Calvin and his doctrinal stance for supposedly being an accessory to the murder of a Baptist.

Not so fast. History shows us that Servetus was a Spaniard, an Anabaptist, and a heretic who denied the Trinity and Christ’s deity. Before he arrived in Geneva, he had been condemned to death by the Roman Catholic Inquisition and had been warned by Calvin that it would not be a good idea for him to come to Geneva. Once he was in Geneva, he was arrested, prosecuted, and executed by burning.

Contrary to what many of my Baptist brethren claim, John Calvin was not a judge at the trial, nor was he the prosecutor. He was called a witness for the prosecution, and he testified, but he exercised no role other than that in either finding Servetus guilty or executing him. Not only did John Calvin have no authority to stop the execution of Servetus, but it is almost sure that whatever city he had gone to Servetus would have been arrested, tried, and executed, whether the town was a Protestant city or a Roman Catholic city.

My Baptist brethren should be reminded that we would recognize not all Anabaptists as our spiritual forebears. Are you a Baptist if you sprinkle rather than immerse? Are you a Baptist if you deny justification by faith? Are you a Baptist if you repudiate the doctrine of the Trinity? Are you a Baptist if you deny the deity of Jesus Christ?

I am not for one moment communicating approval of the execution of Servetus. However, let us recognize that no city on earth in John Calvin’s day tolerated religious dissent. And there were many offenses dealt with harshly in that day, which we allow to pass without comment in our day. Let us also recognize that John Calvin did not occupy the same relationship with Geneva’s government or religious institutions that a Baptist pastor enjoys in the 21^st century. Never forget that John Calvin was a foreigner, a Frenchman living and serving in Geneva, Switzerland. He had neither the freedom of action nor the freedom of speech that every Baptist in America takes for granted.

Let us be very careful that we do not practice our own form of cancel culture. Most people I know would decry the attempt to have Jimmy Fallon fired today because of something he did 20 years ago that no one then disapproved of. Let us apply the same kind of standard to one of the most prominent Christian leaders of his era who lived five centuries ago, who exercised no control over whether Servetus was arrested, tried, convicted, or executed.

I am not going to make up my mind about this man and his doctrinal position before I read what he wrote. I advise the same for others. I am sorry for any church member whose pastor has such a pygmy mind that he is willing to decide and speak about his decisions without giving the man a fair hearing.

THE COURAGE OF FAITH

 

“THE COURAGE OF FAITH” 

We are living in an era of scarce courage. Few pastors display anything like the courage they sometimes preach and teach about from God's Word. Instead, there is terrified compliance with the illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, and certainly antichristian edicts demands that we not worship according to the dictates of our consciences.

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines courage as, “The quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.”^[1] This is a clear instance of a supposedly authoritative source being wrong.

From the time I was a little boy, from movies that I watched to books that I have read I have always known that courage is almost never displayed in the absence of fear. Quite the contrary, the admirable characteristic about courage, real courage in the face of danger and adversity, is that courage overcomes fear. I have never met a soldier or sailor who met the enemy in battle who did not admit to fear, even those who have been highly decorated for acts of heroism and bravery at the risk of their own safety. Therefore, even so well known an expert as Webster’s Dictionary can get it wrong sometimes.

Let me amend Webster’s definition to a working definition that I will use. Courage, being synonymous with bravery, is that quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., despite fear.”

That said; let me now admit that I have a topic, an issue, a theme to set before you that has been brought on by observations I have made along the way in my ministry.

What would you say about a young man who is terrified at the thought of discussing spiritual things with a pastor, but is willing to join the military and lay his life on the line in combat? What would you think about a guy who is willing to face bad guys every shift as a patrol officer, but breaks out in a cold sweat at the thought of a low-key discussion of spiritual matters? I once had a discussion with a gang-banger, who was seemingly unafraid to face guys with loaded weapons, but who could not bring himself to carry a Bible to school, so intense was his fright.

You might be tempted to label the person who is fearless in the face of life-threatening danger courageous, if you did not also consider the complete absence of moral courage to tote a Bible or discussion spiritual matters. So, what is a soldier, if he will face shooters and IEDs in Iraq or Afghanistan, but is scared witless of a conversation with the only pastor he has ever known over a cup of coffee? Is such a man brave, or is such a man a coward? Is he courageous, or is he gutless?

What about the pastor of a Church who bows in terror before a government official who dictates against reason and righteousness that he may not lead his congregation in public, gathered, worship without risk of fine or arrest? Is that not fear of man rather than fear of God, even when he disguises his fear as "following the leadership of the Holy Spirit"?

I submit to you that there are two entirely different realms of conduct in which courage and cowardice can be displayed. There is that realm of existence where the challenge to be faced is a threat to physical safety and well-being, and then there is that realm of existence where the challenge to be faced has to do with spiritual safety and well-being. To be sure, these two realms can easily overlap and intersect, such as when a Christian is threatened with torture or martyrdom in an effort to coerce compromise or apostasy. However, the cowardly refusal to so much as carry a Bible to school begs the question of physical danger so much that a bully’s fear of someone’s questioning look or a sniff of laughter exposes his true nature.

Shall we grant, then, that there are some big bad boys out there who are courageous in the face of weapons fire, courageous in the face of unseen threats to life and health, but who are sadly lacking what we might refer to as moral courage? As well, are there not people who are small and frail who are quite timid in the face of physical danger, but who display incredible moral courage to stand up for what is right and to speak up for God when opportunities present themselves?

Therefore, while we must always show proper respect to someone who has displayed physical courage in defense of the helpless at great risk to their own lives, I believe I can establish the greater worth to mankind, to our nation, and to the cause of Christ, of those who rather display moral courage. These are those who display courage in the classroom, who stand up for what is right in the public square, who are willing to suffer the verbal attacks of the faceless mob, and who are willing to face jail time for conducting public worship.

Among those who display what I term moral courage are those who exhibit the courage of faith. I am not sure I have ever seen or read any treatment of the courage of faith by a preacher or commentator, but it is a topic that has weighed on my mind for a number of months now, particularly as I have contemplated the obvious terror that some display at thought of discussing spiritual matters or standing up to government prohibition to worship according to the dictates of our consciences. Oh, I am sure that many who are lacking the courage of faith conveniently conceal their fright from themselves in a ballet of self-delusion and rationalization. However, what other explanation can be advanced to explain what appears to be a complete lack of courage?

If you will consider Hebrews chapter 11, there are a few verses that reasonably show what we would call the courage of faith:

Notice Hebrews 11.8: “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” No one is saying that Abraham was the only man who ever left home with an uncertain destination. However, the Bible does point out that what Abraham did he did by faith, and our own reason suggests that such a move in the face of danger and uncertainty displayed courage. I think this is an example of the courage of faith.

Look at verse 17: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” Though Abraham was not concerned for his own safety, there is no doubt that he feared for the life of his son Isaac. Only the courage of his faith could overcome his undeniable fear for his son’s safety.

Verse 23: “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.” This verse clearly attests to the courage of the faith of Moses’ parents.

Verse 27: “By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.” What overcame his fear of the wrath of Pharaoh? The courage of his faith.

Did not David’s faith show itself as courage when he faced Goliath? Did not Daniel’s faith show itself as courage when he stood up to Nebuchadnezzar and told him the truth, when he stood up to Belshazzar and told him the truth, and when he held fast and unwavering in the lion’s den? As well, what about the courage of those three Hebrew’s faith in the fiery furnace?

Then there was Paul, and Peter, and James, and John in the New Testament, along with Stephen. Down through history there are so many thousands whose names we will not learn this side of heaven, whose courage of faith greatly glorified God and exalted the Savior. There was Martin Luther, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Bunyan, John Knox, and Obadiah Holmes, beaten in Boston on September 5, 1651, when he was given thirty lashes with a three-corded whip, the executioner applying all his strength, for being a Baptist. Those men displayed the courage of faith.

Faith is not always displayed by courage, though it is frequently displayed by courage. Sometimes it is displayed by the moral courage to stand up for what is right, to withstand the facial expressions, the taunts, and the disapproval of those who are enemies of the gospel. At other times it is displayed by the physical courage to stand up to threats of torture, imprisonment, or even martyrdom. At other times it is displayed by disobeying a governor's order forbidding gathering for public, Scripturally mandated worship.

We must not presume that only the saints display the courage of faith, for we have good evidence that not only do some who are lost have a kind of genuine faith, but that they display what can only be the courage of their faith. However, before I show you the courage of faith in the life of someone who is not a child of God, I want to contrast the courage of faith with a complete absence of such courage, because of the complete absence of faith, in the lives of two people you are very familiar with.

Adam and Eve sinned against God by eating the forbidden fruit. You are familiar with the Biblical account of the Fall in Genesis chapter three. Have you considered their motivation for hiding in the bushes and attempting to conceal themselves from discovery? When God asked him where he was, Adam responded in Genesis 3.10, by saying, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Therefore, Adam’s motive for hiding, and presumably Eve’s as well, was fear. However, it must have been fear in the absence of any courage, because courage enables a person to do the right thing even when he is afraid.

On the other hand, there is the example of Abram, in Genesis chapter 12. Though there is no direct comment in Scripture indicating Abram was fearful, I think it goes without saying that a long journey for an old man to a place he has never been before, facing an uncertain future, would require courage. Since Hebrews 11.8-10 declares to us that his journey as well as his sojourn there was accomplished by faith, it is easy to see the evidence of the courage of faith. Keep in mind that Abram was a lost man at this time in his life. From Genesis 15.6, Romans chapter 4, and Galatians 3.6, we know he did not come to saving faith for at least ten years. Thus, Abraham’s journey, his compliance with what he knew to be God’s will for his life, was prompted by the courage his faith displayed to go where God wanted him to go, and to do what God wanted him to do, even before he was justified in the sight of God!

This brings me to the lost who attend Church. Is it not amazing that the lost are comfortable in their damnation, while at the same time they are fearful of delivery and salvation? This is the deception of sin and delusion of the devil to believe a lie. That said, it is undeniably true that when a sinner comes under the sound of the Gospel and is given enough faith by God to begin seeking the Lord while He may be found, real courage is required to overcome the fear that exists, to negotiate the formidable issues that each lost person has to deal with in order to simply come to Christ.

So, why is it the sinner will not seek the answers to the questions that plague him? Why will she not ask the questions that must be both asked and answered before she will come to Christ? No courage. It requires courage to do scary things. It requires bravery to overcome terrors. And it is the courage that results from God-given faith that makes it possible for a sinner to forge ahead to the finish, to actually close with Christ.

The courage associated with faith is scarce these days. I had hoped to see more of it from pastors of Churches in the face of government bullying. I am sad to say that I have been very disappointed.

---

^[1] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 464.

A Sad And Unsought Memory

"A Sad And Unsought Memory"

          I have served in my present ministry for almost 35 years. I was recently reminded, by the compromise of a long-time pastor, of a tragic sequence of events that occurred some 30 years ago.

There was a time when a certain the Baptist group I was formerly associated with was a vibrant nationwide loose assembly of independent Baptist pastors who met regularly for fellowship, supported several Bible colleges, and engaged in worldwide church planting missionary endeavors. At the local level in Southern California, that Baptist group was also active, with monthly meetings of pastors. Most of the time, the meetings featured sermons delivered by several attending preachers on a Monday evening, and the next Tuesday morning, ending with a Tuesday lunch.

I remember a particular meeting with sadness. It was held in what was at the time a Baptist church, with the Southern California group led by an experienced Baptist pastor. If I recall, he was originally from Texas, had been trained in Missouri, then pastored in Illinois, and finally settled in San Diego County. He seemed to have been quite conservative in his theology, in his personal manner and deportment, and in his philosophy of ministry. I also recall that insofar as his Baptist roots and acquaintances permitted, he had been favorably inclined to the late Jack Hyles’ approach to ministry.

Then his son went off to college and was trained to be a champion for Christ. His son did not go to the same school his dad had attended but enrolled in a school much farther away. After his son’s graduation, he worked for a time with his dad. He embraced an entirely different philosophy of ministry than his dad's, reflected by radically different personal standards and appearance, with a countenance that frequently indicated how off-put he was with old-fashioned pastors who attended fellowship meetings dressed in suits and ties.

Though I liked him and seemed to get along with both him and his wife, it seemed evident to me that his philosophy of ministry was far more reflective of Southern California evangelicalism than the independent Baptist movement that he had been born into and raised in, until he went off to school to become a champion.

My mild concern for him was confirmed when he became the senior pastor of a long-established Baptist Church, several counties removed from his father’s ministry where he had served after graduating from college. As his father led the Southern California fellowship of Baptist pastors, it was apparent to me that dad was very concerned that his son continued to fellowship with dad's group. However, the son seemed to express little inclination to continue doing so.

It was at a fellowship meeting in one of the Orange County beach city Baptist churches (that is no longer a Baptist church) that two things occurred, which stuck in my memory. First, the host pastor welcomed us to the church house only to inform us that the Baptist church where we gathered for our preachers’ meeting had, two days before, merged with another church. The other was not a Baptist church. He was no longer the senior pastor. The new resulting church was no longer a Baptist church. And our host made it very clear to us that our opinions regarding those developments should be kept to ourselves. Okay.

The second thing that occurred had to do with the pastor dad presiding over the meeting. He was concerned about the direction of his son’s life as a new senior pastor. His concern was expressed when the meeting came to order. The worried father presiding over the meeting expressed his hope that our Baptist fellowship would morph into the kind of group that his increasingly less and less Baptistic son would feel comfortable meeting with. His surprising words were on that occasion burned into my memory: “Can’t we all just be Unitarians? Guys? Can’t we all just be Unitarians?”

On reflection, I did not believe my older and far more experienced Baptist pastor friend and dad was suggesting that the gathered Baptist preachers abandon Trinitarianism. He was not a latent Socinian. He was not well-read enough to reach such a conclusion. He was frustrated with the realization that his son would not continue to fellowship with the group he presided over as long as we continued to be obviously and distinctively Baptists. He was desperate to hold on to his son in this respect.

Time has borne out my conclusion about his desperation. The pastor dad continued down the path of his attempts to influence his son and to lead him. He soon led his Baptist congregation to merge with a much larger charismatic super church, with the charismatic church acquiring his congregation’s valuable property and he securing for his old age a senior citizens ministry in the charismatic congregation. So, his pay check would continue, at least.

Thus, for several years of following his son, philosophically, doctrinally, and ministerially, he ended up utterly abandoning Baptist convictions and practices.

Of course, to pull this off, he had to resort to some skulduggery with his Baptist congregation, most of whom had far stronger Baptist convictions than he had. To accomplish this, he met with the Anglo church members without the knowledge of the Hispanic church members (somewhat more in number than the English speakers) and voted to do the dirty deed without the Spanish speaking church members knowing about it until after it was a done deal. A Filipino Baptist congregation was embroiled in and enraged by all this, but that is another posting.

I am sure that those involved in making the merger decision will deny that it was a merger between a Baptist church and a charismatic church. However, to verify what I feared had happened I called the church office of the super church that came to possess the independent Baptist church property and asked, “Is this a charismatic congregation? Are speaking in tongues permitted during worship?” The receptionist who answered the phone answered my questions with effusive affirmation. As well, the denominational website of the super church indicated that it was a charismatic denomination.

It is none of my business as a Baptist pastor to involve myself in the affairs of another, autonomous Baptist church. They can do what they want. However, I am saddened by the whole thing, specifically by two things. First, I am saddened that a long time and experienced Baptist pastor would surrender his Baptist convictions, doctrines, and philosophy of ministry in a failed attempt to influence his son. A spiritual leader, a Christian dad, does not influence his son by following him. A leader affects by leading. Sadly that did not occur with his father in his dealings with his son. Second, I am saddened that a Spanish pastor and congregation were dealt with so unethically and so deceptively by their pastor and by the Anglo members of the congregation they had joined and were serving in.

What brought up this sad memory from so long ago? At the center of all these sad details was a father who was so concerned about the direction his son was going that instead of providing godly and wise leadership for his son, he followed his son, dragged a fellowship of pastors with him in following his son, and obliterated an autonomous Baptist church as a result. It was a bit like David with Absalom.

We have an altar

“We have an altar”

     Yesterday I watched a 30 minute YouTube video narrated by Ryan Reeves, a professor at Gordon Conwell seminary, on the history of Pentecostalism.[1] The relatively unbiased and historical narrative on the rise of Pentecostalism in the 20^th century was spot on. Having lived in the Los Angeles area since 1973, and being a student of the growth of Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement in this hotbed of Christian heterodoxy, I learned nothing new from this excellent video. Still, I was reminded of some things I had previously unearthed.

     Dr. Reeves capably pointed out how much Pentecostalism and later the charismatic movement has influenced every other part of Christendom, from Roman Catholicism on the one hand to the Baptists on the other hand. Though Reeves did not explicitly say it in his video presentation, I have observed the encroachment of Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement upon the independent fundamental Baptists for almost 50 years. Additionally, I am an avid reader of Baptist history in the 17^th, 18^th, and 19^th centuries.

     The result of my reading has left me very dissatisfied with the notion by so many of my colleagues that they practice traditional Christianity and are committed adherents to the “old paths.” Excuse me, but nothing that began in the 20^th century and was never before practiced routinely throughout Christian history can possibly be an “old path.”

     My eschatology can be described as pre-millennial and pre-tribulational. My evangelism can be characterized as Classical Baptist,[2] since it is the approach that was not only used by George Whitfield, John and Charles Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards, who were not Baptists, but also by the innumerable men who came to Christ during the first great awakening and adopted Baptist convictions and practices, men like Isaac Backus, the Marshalls, and J. L. Dagg.

     The modern missions movement began when Particular Baptists from England, who embraced a Covenant Theology eschatology, started to engage in foreign missions church planting. William Carey did not hold to the same eschatology that I embrace. Neither did David Brainerd, a missionary to the Indians in New England. Neither did Adoniram Judson, the American who went to Burma. Neither did Hudson Taylor, the famous missionary to China and founder of the China Inland Mission.

     I was always told, and I have read in my first Bible school texts, that my view of eschatology figured so prominently in my evangelistic motivation and concern that no one who embraced a different eschatology could be as highly motivated to reach the lost with the gospel as “our group.” I have not found that to be the case in real life. The 19^th-century missionaries who penetrated so many continents and unreached ethnic groups were typically post-millennial or amillennial in their eschatology. During my lifetime, I have become terrific friends with two men, one from an African tribe in the Sahara and one from Asia, both of whom are amillennial. Yet, they are the most committed and energetic personal evangelists I have ever known.

     Both men are passionate to reach the lost, one in a 98% Muslim African nation and the other in a country dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism while maintaining solid Baptist convictions and practices without in any way being mealymouthed about their identity as Baptists. May I also point out that I am not going wobbly concerning my eschatology? I point out that it is not my experience from observation or from reading Baptist history that one’s eschatology dramatically impacts his passion for reaching the lost. The issue is far simpler than the complexities of eschatology, in my opinion. It boils down to obedience to the Great Commission and a Spirit-given love for the lost.

     Allow me also to circle back to this matter of “old paths.” Earlier I pointed out that no practice that had its origin in the 19^th century, and came into extensive use in the 20^th century, can be described as an “old path.” Yet there are many uninformed and misinformed pastors and Baptist church people who are convinced that referring to steps that lead from the auditorium floor to the platform as an altar is somehow preserving an “old path.”

     Recognizing that centuries passed before Christians began meeting in buildings that were built for and dedicated to assembled worship, and that many more centuries passed before such buildings had more than dirt floors, the notion of steps at one end of the auditorium that lead to a platform upon which the pastor speaks as he is delivering his sermon is appropriately described as “an altar,” is ludicrous in the extreme. Some church auditoriums do not refer to the steps leading up to the platform as “an old-fashioned altar,” but have something akin to a banister that they call “an altar,” or benches supplied with tissue boxes for criers that they refer to as “an altar.”

     Excuse me, but this is nuts. And it is nuts for two reasons: First, it is nuts because gospel preaching churches did not have any such thing for 1800 years that they referred to as an “altar.” Only Roman Catholic churches had altars, and then Greek Orthodox churches, and then Anglican churches, and then Protestant churches. Baptist churches have never had altars throughout history! Therefore, unless our Baptist forebears were wrong, there was no need to introduce in the 19^th or the 20^th century what was missing for 18 previous centuries.

     Additionally, there is a biblical reason why Baptist churches never had an “old-fashioned altar” until they began to diminish the importance of the Lord Jesus Christ in the thinking of their people, replacing a consideration of the glorified Savior with a piece of furniture. Blasphemous, if you ask me. Why so? Because the writer of Hebrews tells us, in Hebrews 13.10, that “we have an altar.” The venerable Baptist commentator James A. Haldane not only concisely but correctly writes about this verse, “The Jewish sacrifices were offered upon the altar. Now we have an altar, by which is evidently meant Christ. He is at once the altar, the sacrifice, and the Priest.”[3]

     I think it is about time Baptist pastors display a willingness to rethink specific issues. I am not suggesting the rethinking of my position on eschatology. As I read through George N. H. Peters’ great work, “The Theocratic Kingdom,” my views related to eschatology seem to be more firmly established. What I am thinking about is a willingness to make claims that cannot be substantiated either by history or by the Word of God.

     On one hand, I have never noticed in God’s Word, and have never read anything in Baptist history, that would suggest a man’s eschatology influences his evangelistic zeal. That, in my opinion, has more to do with one’s willingness to obey his Savior.

     The other thing I think pastors ought to be willing to rethink is this notion of urging repentant Christians and sinners to come to an “altar” which is a piece of furniture when what we ought to be doing is calling sinners to come to the altar we have, which is on prominent display in the Word of God, which is not a piece of furniture, but which is the glorified, exalted, and enthroned Jesus Christ, the Lord. Urging people to come to Him, you cannot go wrong.

---

[1] https://youtu.be/LzT3pRu2FkY

[2] https://classicalbaptist.press/

[3] James A. Haldane, An Exposition Of The Epistle To The Hebrews, (Springfield, Missouri: Particular Baptist Press, Second Edition 2002), page 389.

Working Out At The Gym

I was excited to receive notification last week that my gym had developed a smart phone app for me to download. I downloaded the app and discovered that my gym was not yet open for business, but planned to open on July 5. Imagine how excited I was to use the app to make an appointment to work out with a select few today at 11:00 AM.

As I stood in line, maintaining social distancing from others also in line, it was apparent that the front door was locked, prohibiting entrance into the facility before 11:00 o’clock sharp. I stood in line with my mask on and noticed the sign on the front door insisting that those working out wear both mask and latex gloves while exercising inside. I imagined that this was for the purpose of maintaining a rather sterile environment for the protection of others. I had no latex gloves with me and expected, correctly it turned out, that my gym would provide the latex gloves.

The door was then opened, and entrance was allowed for each person who could display on a cell phone the proper “no contact app display” proving my identity and my reservation to work out. I passed through the door and stood at the welcome desk, asking for latex gloves. The attendant ran to the back office and brought out a box of latex gloves that fit the hands of every woman who wanted to work out and that fit the hands of the men with great difficulty.

As I put on my latex gloves while walking upstairs to the weight room it dawned on me that the very act of putting on the latex gloves rendered the latex gloves no longer sterile. It is impossible to put on latex gloves without touching the latex gloves on the outside. Wearing latex gloves benefits the wearer but no one else. Thus, when one works out by touching the barbells, the kettle balls, the dumbbells, and the various exercise machines, every surface a customer touches is immediately contaminated. The next time I come into the gym, reusing the latex gloves they gave me, my gloves will be even more contaminated. Of course, they know that. It doesn’t matter. The whole point of gloves and mask to exercise is to calm the fears of the uninformed, the misinformed, and the frightened.

As I began to work out, I noticed especially the young men in the facility. The big guys, the muscular guys, the fit fellows, immediately took their masks off and mostly took their latex gloves off. They ignored the warning over the loudspeaker. Thus, the guys who were serious weightlifters were not about to encumber themselves with stupid and ineffective masks or latex gloves that interfered with a good grip. They did not care about any Karens who might be in the room. I laughed as I observed it all, and was particularly amused by the very conscientious (and not very muscular) mask wearers and latex glove wearers.

Notice my picture with masks on and latex gloves on. Don’t I look positively ridiculous? What a stupid way to approach vigorous exercise, by interfering with your breathing and encumbering a good grip.

The owner of this facility cannot be a moron. He cannot be an idiot. There is no possible way he would have reopened this facility without consulting sterilization experts and, more importantly, attorneys. This whole exercise in sterilization futility is not for the purpose of minimizing the likelihood of CCP Virus spreading, but to minimize the gym’s liability exposure when someone who has recently been to the gym catches the CCP Virus from an immediate family member. You can’t sue family, but you can blame the fitness center. That is what this is all about.

It’s the same with restaurants and churches. You cannot go into a restaurant without having a mask on. The establishment will not allow any patron to enter without a mask of any kind. Methinks a cheesecloth mask would be acceptable to most eateries. However, once you go in and sit down at your table, removing the mask is not only optional, it is necessary. Who can drink a beverage or eat food while wearing a mask? So why is a mask required to enter the restaurant? Purely for the purpose of reassuring the uninformed, the misinformed, and the timid.

This causes me to reflect upon church services yesterday. Our church has been conducting services throughout the pandemic lockdown because I am a Baptist pastor and we are a Baptist church. Baptists believe (or claim to believe) in soul liberty. Soul liberty prohibits me from denying other Christians the right to exercise their God-given liberty to gather for worship. Thus, Baptist pastors who close their auditoriums because of a government edict and deny their individual congregants the opportunity to exercise their God-given liberties as free moral agents, are not really acting much like Baptists at all.

I am also reminded of the thoughts that frequently ran through my mind throughout this pandemic lockdown, which affected most churches but which did not affect the church I pastor at all. Where were the leaders among the Baptists during the mandatory lockdown? Where were those with the courage of a lion, who annually conduct leadership seminars that young and gullible Baptist preachers pay money to attend, when the government was demanding that they shutter their auditoriums, and they meekly and timidly complied with those unscriptural, illegal, and obviously unconstitutional demands?

Where in the Bible does it say that someone wearing a white smock, with a stethoscope draped around his neck, is an authority figure whose demands and commands must be obeyed? Where in the Bible does it say that someone occupying a position of authority in government, whether he wears a uniform or not, is an authority figure whose demands and commands must be obeyed even when he directly violates the U.S. Constitution? And where did the legacy of Baptist civil disobedience in the face of outrageous infringements upon our God-given duties and privileges to worship and serve God fly off to when this CCP Virus pandemic came along?

Someone might express a concern that going to church during a pandemic might be dangerous. However, throughout most of Christian history over these last 2000 years it has been dangerous for God’s people to gather for worship, with the danger being far more violent than a sub microscopic virus. Courage is required to live the Christian life. Liberty is granted by God to His children so that we might individually exercise wisdom and caution in proportion to the danger, to our age, and to our individual susceptibilities to illness. But this notion of an entire nation’s population being locked down before we get sick is positively ludicrous.

I know a few Baptist pastors who have exercised wisdom by not calling attention to themselves, while continuing to conduct their church services. I applaud them. I say bravo. Those men remind me of the Baptist pastors of days gone by, the kinds of men that Patrick Henry used to defend in courts of law in the Commonwealth of Virginia for their defiance of government mandates that they restrict the exercise of their religious liberties.

I have no problem with the privately owned business requiring masks and latex gloves. I know that masks and latex gloves accomplish virtually nothing, besides calming the misinformed, the uninformed, and the timid. But, for God’s sake, and for Christ’s sake, I call upon Baptist pastors everywhere to ignore the leadership advice of those big boys who have been silent for the last 90 days, and start paying more attention to the conduct of men like the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter.

Racism or Sin? by Dr. William R. Downing

Racism or Sin?

A plea to pray for revival in our churches and a spiritual awakening in our society, by Dr. William R. Downing, pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley, Morgan Hill, CA

     Our nation and society are being torn apart, we are told, because of racism, prejudice and police brutality. The protestors and rioters, allegedly protesting against the failures, actions and personalities of the past are themselves breaking existing laws and ordinances, and even deifying persons who were despicable in their lives and lawlessness. They believe that they can do so because their cause is just. They have torn down statues, defaced and destroyed buildings and looted businesses, demonstrated their violent actions, and vented their energies and hatred against the standing social order. Protestors and rioters have even torn down or defaced statues of abolitionists and such leaders as Lincoln, who allegedly emancipated the slaves! But all they have done or can do is destroy—they have not and cannot build.

     At the same time, our nation is celebrating fifty years of Gay Pride this week. Cosmetic companies are changing “whitening” creams to more acceptable terms. Universities are changing the names of their respective schools. Some cities are in the process of disbanding or defunding their police departments. This is “Political Correctness” and “Social Justice” run amuck in the extreme. We are a nation without morality.

     Is there something deeper than the Marxist–led mob in their desire to erase the past and establish a new world order? Yes. There is one single underlying factor and awful reality which permeates all this destructive violence—SIN. Mankind is fallen and sinful. It is easier to destroy than to build; easier to erase than to spell, draw or paint; easier to riot than to establish true equity. Man as a sinner has always wanted the “quick fix.” Like a spoiled child, he wants his own way and does not consider the consequences. He wants to take, but not give; to destroy, but not build; to curse, but not bless; to stand arrogantly, but not bow…

     What is most needful at this point in our national history and survival is Divine intervention. Law and order begin with a cooperative determination to have the best and safest for society. And even before this, there is a need for a moral base. Without a sufficient moral base any society is doomed. Historically, morality has derived from the religion of the society. This has been true of both pagan and so–called “Christian” societies. Any attempt at morality without a religious base is completely arbitrary and often unjust and inequitable.

     God has ordained the family and the church. Human government among fallen, sinful mankind is a necessary evil without a morality which derives from the Word of God. The uniqueness of America stems from its base in the Bible. Although never a truly “Christian” Nation, the influence of the Bible gave us the greatest nation in the history of the world. It influenced that “group of old white men” who gave us the Constitution and its Amendments.

     Apart from the Bible, morality, society and government are all arbitrary, as are its laws. The State becomes both “Parent” and “God.” Totalitarianism becomes a necessity as fallen, sinful man cannot rule himself or others equitably. All, then, must submit to arbitrarily a totalitarian government enforced by the use of arms—a police state.

     The Lord God has graciously given to our nation and society time after time of revival and spiritual awakening: the first occurred c. 1734–1750 under Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and others. This mighty work of God gave the Thirteen Colonies the moral impetus for a new nation. And this new nation reflected much of this biblically–based morality in its foundation.

     This new nation then experienced several spiritual revivals and spiritual awakenings from 1793 to 1840, delivering it from the baneful influences of English Deism, French Skepticism and German Rationalism. Even during the great financial crash of 1857, revival came (c. 1857–1859), and its force spread to the Britain, bringing revival to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. There was a great revival among the Southern Armies during the War between the States (1861–1865). There were spasmodic revivals during the last part of the 19^th century. At the beginning of the 20^th Century, the Welsh Revival reached our shores about 1905 and made a deep impression on our country.

     It has been 115 years since the Lord poured out His Spirit upon our land and people. We have sunk lower than ever before religiously, morally, ethically and socially. What now? Where are those who truly see that the root cause of our present unrest, violence and attempts to overturn our social order is SIN—and our hope is in Divine intervention. Can our past speak to us of hope in this time? Are we a praying people? Do we realize that we need God to “rend the heavens and come down…to make Thy name known to Thy adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Thy presence.”? (Isaiah 64:1–2).

MRI Meditation

MRI Meditation

Over the last couple of weeks, I have become frequently reminded of my mortality. Let me briefly recount the ways:

·         Two Saturdays ago, I had the privilege, the honor, of conducting the memorial service for a preacher friend that I've known for 25 years. His name was David, and he pastored a church in Redondo Beach was a fine man.

·         Last Tuesday, I had the privilege of taking my wife to Vada’s birthday party, celebrating her 100th birthday with her daughter and son-in-law and the many friends at the facility she lives at. Several church members also went there and I very much enjoyed myself with her.

·         On Saturday last, my wife and I attended the birthday party of a fine Christian woman who was a member of the first church I served as pastor thirty-five years ago. She celebrated her 80th birthday.

So, I have been reminded and reminded and reminded of mortality and the advance of age.

Now a separate line of thought. Several months ago, I began noticing certain sensations on the soles of my feet. I made an appointment with a neurologist who checked me for diabetic neuropathy. He concluded that the sensations on the bottoms of my feet (which are not painful) were not diabetic neuropathy. Whew!

The neurologist wondered whether or not the sensations in my feet were a consequence of a long-ago back surgery that I had, when my L5 lumbar vertebrae was fused to my sacrum in January 1969. I was a 19-year-old kid who had a weightlifting accident several years earlier, was subsequently discharged from the United States Air Force Academy because of it when it was discovered I was no longer ejection seat qualified or even flight qualified. That diagnosis resulted in me taking a discharge.

I decided to get the extreme back pain taken care of once and for all by checking into St. Vincent's Hospital in Portland, Oregon for the fusion surgery. From then to now, it has been what 51 years and the neurologist wondered if perhaps there was a connection between the back surgery and the sensations now occurring in the bottoms of my feet in my 69th year since neuropathy was ruled out as a cause of the symptom.

So today I went to get an MRI. When the narrow bed that I was on was pushed into the MRI machine, I experienced the very close quarters for the first time in my life. “Ah,” I thought to myself. “This is why they asked me so many different times if I was claustrophobic.” Of course, some people are so claustrophobic they can't take the confinement of an MRI machine. Additionally, I had not before been aware of how loud the noises are when an MRI machine is operating.

While lying still (hard for an itcher and scratcher like me to do), it suddenly dawned on me that sometimes people are diagnosed with stage IV cancer as the result of an MRI scan, having had no pain or any other noticeable symptoms. Imagine. Inside an MRI machine for about 20 minutes pondering the possibility that the doctor might diagnose me with cancer. Is that what is causing the weird sensations in my feet, cancer destroying that part of my lower spine that no longer has sensations due to the surgery fifty-one years ago?

At the time, the surgeon informed me that two very long scars would remind me of the back surgery, but that the incisions were unnecessary for the fusion. Rather, it was the protocol in 1969 to kill nerves to alleviate pain following the surgery. Hence, the long incisions. It ran through my mind that addressing a potential pain issue then might leave me without symptoms of something far worse now. The mind does wander.

I won't know anything for two or three days. The neurologist has to get the MRI results, and I have to make an appointment to see him. But in those few minutes in the MRI machine, I was reflecting on how much closer I might be to eternity than I imagined myself to be at the age of 69 without cancer.

Understand, I don't know whether I have cancer or not. I don't know whether there's anything there. The doctor is just taking a shot in the dark about something going on in my lower back as a result of my surgery long ago that might now affect the soles of my feet.

But the entire experience was orchestrated by my gracious Father to cause me to think about eternity. It is always good to ponder eternity. And what thoughts ran through my mind as I pondered those things, I would like to share with you. I was overwhelmed with peace. I was overwhelmed with gratitude. I was overwhelmed with contentment. I was thankful to the Lord for the opportunity that He has given me to serve Him for many, many years.

For a long time, I have had the privilege of ministering to people I love and care about, and I want to reflect in this Musings of a Gospel Minister what kind of feelings run through the mind of an old preacher who ponders how close he is to eternity, by the grace of God, and the comfort of God, and the blessedness of the indwelling Spirit of God. It's not a bad feeling. It's a comfortable feeling. And it's a confident feeling knowing that to be absent from the body is to be present with my glorious Lord.

I surely hope that should some occasion come into your life shortly where you ponder your mortality as I did this afternoon, that God gives you the comfort of mind and soul that He gave to me.

Bless you, preacher.

Our job this late in life is to finish well.

By the grace of God, I hope you finish well.

My friend David finished well.

I want to finish well.