Book Review: hand in Hand

I grew up attending a Reformed church (RCA) and went to an RCA college, so Calvinism, which is often seen to stress God's sovereignty, is a part of my religious DNA. As I moved around for school, I subsequently attended Baptist, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, and non-denominational churches who each placed different levels of stress on God's sovereignty and human choice, respectively.

A few years ago, I more fully embraced a Calvinistic identity. I frequented reformed blogs (e.g., Challies, Desiring God), read books by reformed writers (e.g., John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul), and even attended reformed conferences. In fact, I would go so far as to say everyone else (e.g., Arminians) were wrong, though admittedly, I never bothered to actually read what they were writing.

 In fact, the Internet breeds a religious subculture of people who spend innumerable hours debating Calvinism versus Arminianism. A year or two ago, I began to recognize the ugliness Christian brethren can have for one another when they hold different theological viewpoints. I stopped actively referring to myself as "reformed" in my thinking because I think the terms "Calvinist", "reformed", and "Arminian" carry too much baggage.

I suspect Randy Alcorn had similar feelings, so he wrote hand in Hand: The beauty of God's sovereignty and meaningful human choice (2014) to attempt to explore this difficult topic. Alcorn grew up in an Arminian church but now has more Calvinist leanings and he recognizes that in each camp, there are God fearing, Bible believing Christians though their sense of balance may be different. He argues that the Bible teaches both God's sovereignty and what he calls meaningful human choice and we cannot sacrifice one at the cause of another.

Although the whole book was well researched, humble, and engaging, I particularly enjoyed his chapter "Voices from the past share timeless truths." In this chapter, he references numerous theologians through the history of the church, identifying their common ground--Arminians talking about God's sovereignty, and Calvinists talking about human choice. 

hand in Hand is an important book regardless of your theological frame of reference. It is a call to faith grounded in God's Word rather than a theological system. It is also a call to unity between believers. Regardless of your viewpoint, I would strongly recommend this book.

Book Review: A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

Keith Mathieson wrote this short book, A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture, essentially as an extended explanation of RC Sproul's response when questioned about the age of the universe. Briefly, Sproul's five minute response concluded with "That's a long way to say I don't know how old the earth is."  His preceding explanation dealt with the fallibility of interpretation of both nature and scripture despite the infallibility of God's special and general revelation. Mathieson expands on Sproul's explanation even further.

One of the important points that Mathieson makes is that we often make inaccurate assumptions about differences between Christians. When discussing a difference he had with some friends over eschatology, he wrote, "my friends there could not grasp the fact that my difference with them was a difference of interpretation, not a difference over the authority of God's word."

I appreciated how Mathieson referenced the earlier battle over geocentrism as a way to look at current controversies. Most Christians would agree that Luther and Calvin are within the pale when it comes to general orthodoxy on major issues. Most Christians would also deny that the sun revolves around the earth.  Yet both of these men had very strong words for heliocentrists. In fact, Calvin described heliocentrists as "stark raving mad" and "possessed by the Devil." Mathieson rightly surmises, "the main point Dr Sproul was making by pointing out these past mistakes Christians have made in the interpretation of general and special revelation was to remind us of the possibility of contemporary mistakes."

I also agreed that "many scientists jump to the conclusion that if somebody is wrong it has to be the theologian" and that "many Christians jump to the opposite premature conclusion that if somebody is wrong it has to be the scientist, yet "both scientists and theologians are fallible."  Humility is a necessity. 

This was a good introduction to the issues. Even if you are not Reformed, this is a good discussion for anyone interested.

It is free on Amazon.  Go get it. 

Book Review: Lectures on Calvinism

Eric Johnson, who is a friend of mine and the founder of the Society for Christian Psychology, has been deeply influenced by Abraham Kuyper and has recommended him to me with some regularity. I have also discovered the influence of Kuyper on several of the people who have affected my thinking including Francis Schaeffer and Chuck Colson. The Stone Lectures on Calvinism were recommended to me as a good place to start with Kuyper. 

Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch theologian, but he was also a journalist and primer minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905.  He was deeply influential in a number of areas, likely reflecting his broad biblical worldview.  He delivered the six Stone Lectures on Calvinism at Princeton in 1898.  The lectures were entitled: 1) Calvinism: A life system, 2) Calvinism and religion, 3) Calvinism and politics, 4) Calvinism and science, 5) Calvinism and art, and 6) Calvinism and the future. 

Kuyper attempts to demonstrate that John Calvin never intended his writings to be merely for church or religious life, but rather, to be a whole life system. In other words, Christians were to have a faith that affects all of life.  His prescience of the future was remarkable. The things he observed happening or believed would happen are in full swing in America today.  He wrote, "If this battle is to be fought with honor and with hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in modernism, the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power." He saw the implications of modernism and the importance of having a robust response.

Near the end, he makes an observation of the "Christian" church and his indictment is right on.  He writes, "A theology which virtually destroys the authority of the Holy Scriptures as a sacred book; which sees in sin nothing but a lack of development; recognizes Christ for no more than a religious genius of central significance; views redemption as a mere reversal of our subjective mode of thinking; and indulges in a mysticism dualistically opposed to the world of the intellect,—such a theology is like a dam giving way before the first assault of the inrushing tide. It is a theology without hold upon the masses, a quasi-religion utterly powerless to restore our sadly tottering moral life to even a temporary footing." He calls the church back to its roots, to realize that it is to affect all of life, a call that is sorely missing in many churches today.  Even if you are not a "Calvinist" per se, I would commend this book to you. 

Staring at the sun

If, at midday, we either look down to the ground, or on surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth, is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus, too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect on what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness, will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom, will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy, will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

-John Calvin, Institutes, 1:38-39

Book review: For Calvinism

About a week ago, I posted a review of Against Calvinism, which is a part of a two book set. I have now finished the second book, For Calvinism (2011) by Michael Horton.  Before I proceed, I should confess a few biases. First, as I have studied, the Calvinistic understanding of God's sovereignty in salvation makes more sense to me than the Arminian position defended by Roger Olson in Against Calvinism.  Second, Michael Horton is one of my favorite authors and speakers.  Certainly, these things affect my perspective on these books. 

So, having stated that, from what I could see, Horton seems to depend upon scripture to a greater degree than Olson did to establish his arguments for Calvinism.  While Olson found Calvinism logically inconceivable and morally reprehensible, Horton tries to describe what Scripture says.  I find this to be true of most Calvinists (e.g., John Piper, Charles Spurgeon)--they try to account for all of Scripture.  Further, although Olson dealt almost exclusively with TULIP (a term Horton doesn't care for), Horton moves beyond to consider more broadly Reformed beliefs and doctrine.  As a general defense of TULIP, I prefer Sproul's Chosen by God, yet this is a fine volume in that regard as well. 

A drawback of the book, and of reformed theology in general, seems to be an overreliance upon the creeds and confessions. Although I generally agree with early creeds and much of reformed confessions (Heidelberg, Westminster), they are not to be the grounding for our belief.  God's word is. 

On the whole, I would commend these two volumes.  Although I still think Calvinism is the best explanation for all of Scripture, Olson argues his point well.  Horton, as always, is a humble, wise, and articulate defender of confessional Calvinism.  4 stars. 

A conversation about Calvinism

Michael Horton and Roger Olson have recently put out a pair of books, For Calvinism (Horton) and Against Calvinism (Olson). I have both of the books, but I have yet to read them. I have appreciated Horton's ministry through the White Horse Inn for a few years and he has, in some ways, shaped my thinking. I know less of Olson, a theology professor at Baylor University, except to say that I am familiar that he is one of the most vocal advocates for Arminianism today.

Today, on the way to work, I listened to a 2 part "conversation" between Horton and Olson regarding the topic, "For or Against Calvinism." It was encouraging to listen to these two brothers in the faith discussing their dissenting views on this issue. I wish more theological conversations would happen in this way.  Here were a few brief takeaways.

• There is much overlap between them.  They appear to agree on the majors. 
• Olson was a gracious, intelligent advocate of Arminianism. I have read his blog in the past, but I found him more endearing and less adversarial in this setting.
• Horton seemed to rely upon the biblical evidence more than Olson, who seemed rather to make his arguments based more upon his belief in what, or who, God should be. For example, he cited John Wesley, who claimed that Romans 9 cannot be saying what it appears to say and so there must be another explanation. 
• Both men seem to agree that there is a lack of Arminian theologians throughout history. At one point, Horton mentioned Jacob Arminius and John Wesley and Olson quipped, are there any others, showing his hand that "his team" may lack a strong, or at least visible, tradition.

In the end, I have a deeper appreciation for Arminianism, but a continued confidence in Calvinism.

You can listen to Part 1 here and Part 2 here. 

Reading Christians

I suppose I could have gone in several directions with this post. For example, I could have written about the practice of discerning or understanding other Christians, about Christians who read, or about reading things written by Christians. Although all worthy blog fodder in their own right, it is this final point I am interested in right now.

In the past several months, I have ramped up my reading, always hungering for more. In a desire to know more about God and His will for me, I spend much of my free time searching out and reading books, blogs, and articles about God in addition to His holy word. I have become increasingly aware, that despite my frequent encouragement by Christian writers, I am too often frustrated by what I read, so I started asking myself why.

I have pinpointed a few things that have contributed to my annoyance. Fundamentally, I often forget that, unlike God's word, Christian writers are fallible. Even those attempting to elucidate God's word with the utmost care are fallen sinners who write with error. In today's information age, anyone with Internet access has a pulpit, without a requirement that they actually think or analyze scripture (I say this, fully recognizing the irony that I am writing this in an un-reviewed blog). In ages past, writers faced scrutiny by their peers and if their writings did not pass muster, they did not persevere, if they even managed to see the light of day. I also see evidence of people pursuing worldly agendas before God's will and subsequently bending God's word to fit their desires.

I initially came up with several rules to circumvent my annoyances:

• 1) Read only books put out by Crossway publishing company--Crossway is the primary publishing portal for such thinkers as John Piper and Mark Driscoll, dubbed the leaders of New Calvinism. They write in a refreshingly direct way, leaning strongly on the Bible, which they recognize as inerrant.
• 2a) Avoid any book written or endorsed by Brian McLaren--McLaren is a leader of the emergent movement and is most recently notorious for his decision to celebrate Ramadan this year to demonstrate solidarity with the nation of Islam.
• 2b) Avoid any book with "emergent" in the title--See point 2a above. There is a tendency, I believe, for the emergent church to place a strong focus on re-interpreting God to be cool, hip, and relevant and in the process, twisting the Gospel.
• 2c) Avoid any books published by Windblown Media--Windblown Media is most well known for publishing The Shack, a piece of Christian fiction which has exploded with massive readership and has led people to say such things as "this book has been life changing and caused me to re-think God." More recently, Windblown has been recognized for their book So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore?, which suggests that the Bible does not recommend involvement in any kind of institutional church (for those who agree with this, I would encourage reading the New Testament).
• 3) Be selective in which blogs I read and never read the comments--There are many Christian blogs out there with no editorial oversight (you are now reading one). Some of them show deep thought, some are political soapboxes, and some are just poorly written. Even worse, the comments often demonstrate no humility or wisdom, but much venom.

As I pondered these "rules," I believed they had some merit, but are mostly absurd. Rather, I think a different approach is beneficial.

First, the Bible should be pre-eminent as it is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. We need to read the Bible first and read it most. It is to be our primary source of information about God and our lives in Him (2 Timothy 3:16). Use a literal translation (e.g., ESV) rather than a paraphrase (e.g., The Message) for most of your Bible study. Second, pray for spiritual discernment (Ephesians 5:6-11), seeking to understand what is consistent with the Bible and what is not.

I like how John Calvin described how to deal with the world (including its writings) in his Institutes:

• For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any book, however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written, are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly.

In other words, we are to use God's word as a lens through which to view our world, including the things that we read about God written by others. Put another way, we should act as the Bereans who "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11).

In sum, I believe there are worthwhile Christian writings out there, but I also believe that we need to carefully consider the veracity of what we read, consistently praying for discernment and regularly checking what we read against the scriptures.

II Thessalonians 2:11-12: Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Tonight, a friend asked me to read these verses and give my impression. This is a hard passage. I don't claim to have the right take on this, but what I have arrived at came from pondering the passage, but also reviewing a few commentaries (particularly John Calvin's) on the subject.

I think it is first important to say that we need to be careful not to analyze the verse by itself, which should be true of all of our Biblical study. We need to consider the context.

1. In the preceding verses of 2 Thessalonians 2, we read about the coming of the man of lawlessness (i.e., the antichrist), who figures importantly here.
2. With the antichrist as the backdrop, in verse 3 we read of people who "let themselves be deceived." An even stronger statement appears in verse 10 where it says "because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." In other words, it suggests that these people possess a knowledge of the truth, yet are engaging in willful, volitional rejection of God.

Now, consider verse 11 carefully. It begins with "therefore." In other words, because of or as a consequence of their refusal to love the truth, God deluded them. God takes an active role in responding to their rejection of Him.

This line of thinking intrigues Calvinists and makes Arminians squirm. It provides a key to the doctrine of reprobation, which is an extension of predestination (see Romans 8:29 among others). If God elects some to His kingdom, there are also then non-Elect, or the reprobate (Romans 1:28). An amazing thing about this verse to me is that it allows for both free will and predestination.

So bottom line, God rejects (in fact deludes) those who reject Him.

What do other people think?