Review of David Allen's The Extent of the Atonement

Recently Jeff Johnson posted a review of The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review by David Allen at the Founders Ministries blog. Jeff offers a succinct description of the book, as well of the strengths and weaknesses he has identified in it. For example, when discussing the strengths of the book Jeff asserts that:

Though this is not the only historical survey of the doctrine of the extent of the atonement, it is the only comprehensive survey of the topic. From Irenaeus (AD 130-202) to David Schrock (b. AD 1980), and with almost every notable theologian in between, Allen has provided us with a valuable catalog of the history of the extent of the atonement. Therefore, I am thankful, first of all, for now having such a resource available for my own study on the subject.

However, when discussing the weaknesses of the book, Jeff asserts that:

Allen is mistaken when he limits the extent to sufficiency alone. He is wrong when he says: “For all who affirm limited atonement, the atonement can only be sufficient for those for whom it is efficient.” This is not true for the majority of 5-point Calvinists who have affirmed that actual (extrinsic) sufficiency extends to all universally.Consequently, the extent of the atonement includes more than just its sufficiency. For 5-point Calvinists, limited atonement means limited efficacy. Thus, to disprove limited atonement, as it is presented in the Canons of Dort, Allen has to do more than disprove the limited extent of its actual sufficiency. Allen has to do something more difficult, he has to disprove the limited extent of its inherent efficacy. Without making the distinction between the two sides of the extent of the atonement, Allen muddies the waters a bit. And this, I think, is a real weakness in the book.

I hope these two excerpts will inspire our readers to check out the entire review as well as Jeff's own excellent book He Died for Me.

Bob Schilling Reviews 'He Died for Me'

In a Facebook thread earlier today, Bob Schilling posted this brief, but helpful, review of Jeff Johnson's most recent book He Died for Me:

Having read the book, I'd recommend it to all as a title that challenges some modern assumptions among those who love the doctrines of grace. While defending the free offer of the gospel to all people, Johnson, a committed Calvinist, revisits the implications of the time-proven "Lombardian formula" - the famous statement articulated by Peter Lombard (1096-1164), that Christ's death is "sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." Universal sufficiency and limited efficacy.

Pastor Johnson deals with Theodore Beza's (Calvin's successor) revision of the formula which was also later adopted by men like John Owen, Francis Turretin and A.W. Pink. They revised the sufficiency to be a "hypothetical sufficiency" - that is, Christ's death is not actually sufficient for all men, but would have been, if God had so intended it to be. You see both sides of this debate at the Synod of Dort, and language that delegates could take in both directions: the classic position, an extrinsic sufficiency, a real sufficiency for all men; or an intrinsic sufficiency - an atonement of infinite value, not a universal scope. Both could subscribe to the language used at Dort: "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, and is of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

Chapters 10 and 11 I found very helpful. Chapter 10 is a helpful critique, with the aid of many Reformed theologians, of John Owen's quantitative view of the atonement and his famous "trilemma." Owen's position, says Johnson, and many others - proves too much. The death of Christ does not immediately save anyone. Redemption, though accomplished on the cross, must be applied through faith. Even the elect, prior to their conversion are under the wrath of God (John 3:36; Eph. 2:3); they are not united to Christ personally, until they are justified through faith. "It is possible for Christ to be a sufficient sacrifice for unbelievers without the sacrifice being automatically applied to them" (pg. 126).

The "Case for Universal Sufficiency," chapter 11, is especially powerful. In preaching the Gospel, we are preaching the cross. We can't disjoin the death of Christ from the good news we are preaching to them. More than that, God is making His "appeal through us" (2 Cor. 5:20). On what basis is God promising eternal life and salvation to all people, if Christ has not in any sense died for them? "For this reason, John Bunyan was right when he said, 'For the offer of the gospel cannot, with God's allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that be taken away, there is indeed no gospel.'" (pg. 142)

The Reformed Tradition has a healthy diversity, and a cornerstone of Reformational thought is to be always examining what we believe in the light of the clear teaching of Scripture. Calvinists need to be more aware of the legitimate breadth of orthodoxy by those committed to our historical confessions.

There's lots of good material in this small book - I hope that many will pick it up and read through it carefully.

I couldn't agree more. As I have stated in a previous post on this blog, Jeff's book convinced me. Previously I would still have classified myself as being in the High Calvinist ranks, although allowing for common grace to be a benefit of the atonement for all mankind, until my conversations with Jeffrey Johnson as he worked on finishing the book, followed by my reading of the book when it was finished. It was reading the book with an open heart and mind, though, that won me over and moved me to the Moderate Calvinist camp. A subsequent conversation with Curt Daniel only helped to reinforce my newfound position. The seeds had already been planted, though, as a result of articles Bob Gonzales had written some years back and which are now being rewritten and posted again on his new blog. I now look back with astonishment that I had actually missed so much in my prior reading of men such as Charles Hodge. As Curt put it in my aforementioned conversation with him, I have finally given my Calvinist soteriology some needed "fine tuning." I had been heavily influenced by Owen early on in my development (although I took issue with his exegesis here and there), and I followed his mistake in not seeing clearly the difference it makes when we recognize that election does not flow from the atonement but precedes it. What an obvious point! But I missed its significance until I had my "Owen glasses" removed by Jeff's Scriptural observations.

He Died for Me by Jeff Johnson

Jeff Johnson's new book, He Died For Me, is now available in paperback. Jeff describes the book as essentially about an “in-house debate among Calvinists,” and that it is. But I think even non-Calvinists would learn a great deal from this book. It is an excellent introduction to the historical debate concerning the efficacy and sufficiency of the atonement that anyone interested in the issue ought to read. Whether one agrees with Jeff’s final answer or not, he or she will certainly come away with a better understanding of the issues, both biblically and historically, and, no doubt, a better understanding of his or her own position as well. As for me, I approached the book with a fairly high degree of skepticism, but I was surprised by it in several ways. First, I was surprised to discover that I did not understand the historical background of the debate nearly as a well as I thought I did. Second, I was surprised to discover that I hadn’t been nearly as consistent in my thinking on the matter as I thought I had been. And, third, I was surprised that the book won me over. Jeff convinced me of his position. In addition, the book is written in a very clear and accessible way. So, for all these reasons, I highly recommend it. Even if you are not convinced by Jeff’s own arguments in the end, you will certainly learn a lot from the book. However, you may just end up being as surprised as I was. You may just end up agreeing with it! Be sure to buy your copy now

Churches, Get a Calvinist Pastor! by Tom Nettles

Earlier today the Founders Ministries blog posted an article by Tom Nettles entitled Churches, Get a Calvinist Pastor! Here are the reasons Tom listed that churches should seek Calvinist pastors:

1. A Calvinist firmly believes in the divine inspiration of Scriptures.

2. A Calvinist firmly believes the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

3. A Calvinist firmly believes the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

4. A Calvinist firmly believes in religious liberty.

5. A Calvinist firmly believes in missions and evangelism.

6. A Calvinist firmly believes in Christ-centered preaching.

7. A Calvinist firmly believes in holiness of life.

8. A Calvinist firmly believes in regenerate church membership.

I recommend reading the article, with which I happen to agree, because I am convinced that the Doctrines of Grace are revealed in Scripture.

Sam Waldron's Interview with Dr. Curt Daniel on Hyper-Calvinism

Sam Waldron recently posted a four part blog series containing an interview with Curt Daniel concerning the issue of Hyper-Calvinism. Here are the links to each post:

Interview with Dr. Curt Daniel (part 1 of 4)

Interview with Dr. Curt Daniel (part 2 of 4)

Interview with Dr. Curt Daniel (part 3 of 4)

Interview with Dr. Curt Daniel (part 4 of 4)

As the interviews reveal, Curt wrote his doctoral dissertation at the University of Edinburgh on “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill” back in 1983. Curt has expert knowledge of the issue, as well as of the history and theology of Calvinism in general. In fact, I also highly recommend checking out Curt's teaching series on The History and Theology of Calvinism.

James White Offers a Timely Rebuke to Calvinists Who Are Inconsistent and Ungracious

Sadly, there are far too many inconsistent Calvinists who need to hear this rebuke! The booklet James mentions -- "The Practical Implications of Calvinism" -- may be downloaded for free here.

Free eBook of Old Paths by J.C. Ryle

I have discovered that Monergism.com has made available the free eBook of Old Paths: Being Plain Statements On Some Of The Weightier Matters Of Christianity. You may download it here in ePub, .prc (Kindle) or .pdf formats. Here is a selection from the preface, in which Ryle explains his purpose:

“If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” - 1 Corinthians 14:8

The volume now in the reader’s hands consists of a series of papers, systematically arranged, on the leading truths of Christianity which are “necessary to salvation”.

Few, probably, will deny that there are some things in religion about which we may think other people hold very erroneous views, and are, notwithstanding, in no danger of being finally lost. About baptism and the Lord’s Supper, about the Christian ministry, about forms of prayer and modes of worship, about the union of Church and State, about all these things it is commonly admitted that people may differ widely, and yet be finally saved. No doubt there are always bigots and extreme partisans, who are ready to excommunicate everyone who cannot pronounce their Shibboleth on the above-named points. But, speaking generally, to shut out of heaven all who disagree with us about these things, is to take up a position which most thoughtful Christians condemn as unscriptural,narrow, and uncharitable.

On the other hand, there are certain great truths of which some knowledge, by common consent,appears essential to salvation. Such truths are the immortality of the soul, the sinfulness of human nature, the work of Christ for us as our Redeemer, the work of the Holy Ghost in us, forgiveness,justification, conversion, faith, repentance, the marks of a right heart, Christ’s invitations, Christ’s intercession, and the like. If truths like these are not absolutely necessary to salvation, it is difficult to understand how any truths whatever can be called necessary. If people may be saved without knowing anything about these truths, it appears to me that we may throw away our Bibles altogether, and proclaim that the Christian religion is of no use. From such a miserable conclusion I hope most people will shrink back with horror.

To open out and explain these great necessary truths, to confirm them by Scripture, to enforce them by home, appeals to the conscience of all who read this volume. This is the simple object of the series of papers which is now offered to the public.

The eBook was actually produced by the folks at PreachtheWord.com, who have done a good job creating a very mice-looking and easily navigated eBook. They also have a number of other such sources freely available here.

"Jonathan Edwards on Freedom of the Will" by Philip Fisk

Immanuel Baptist Church, where I serve as the primary teaching elder, has been privileged to support Phil and Cindy Fisk in their ministry at the Evangelical Theological Faculty (ETF) in Leuven, Belgium. May God bless their ministry and the ministry of ETF!

Phil recently defended his doctoral dissertation at ETF, and you may watch his defense in the video above. His dissertation is entitled Jonathan Edwards on Freedom of Perfection: Establishing the Shift Away from the Classic-Reformed Tradition of Freedom of the Will. I highly recommend watching the defense in its entirety. It is both fascinating and informative. If you're at all like me, it will make you want to learn more and to get a copy of the dissertation and read it for yourself. The book will be available in the fall of 2016 as a part of the series New Directions in Jonathan Edwards Studies, by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Given the defense above, I suspect that it will become essential reading for anyone interested in the theology of Jonathan Edwards. I also suspect that, even if many still side with Edwards' view, they may be forced by Phil's work to acknowledge that they stand outside Classic-Reformed theology when they do so. I think I certainly need to study the issue again in a much deeper way and to reassess my own view in the light of Scripture.

After messaging with Phil, he has stressed that it should be kept in mind while watching the video that he is only making the claim that Edwards turned from the classic-Reformed tradition on the topic of "freedom of the will," not on other topics, such as union with Christ, the Covenants, etc.

I'll be sure to let our readers know when the book is available for purchase.

James White Responds to Adam Harwood's Challenge to Reformed Theology

Dr. Adam Harwood, the Associate Chair of Theology and the McFarland Chair of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary located in New Orleans, Louisiana, recently delivered a sermon at Truett-McConnell College, in which he directly challenged specific points of Calvinistic theology.

 

In this sermon, it is my view that Dr. Harwood demonstrates -- to put it mildly -- a very poor understanding of what Calvinists actually believe, and that he consistently misrepresents our point of view. Here is the video of that sermon:

Dr. James White, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has offered the following response:

Needless to say, I am in agreement with James White here, because he correctly understands and proclaims the teaching of Scripture concerning our salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The New Vs. The Old Calvinism

I am young (at least I still feel young) but I consider myself an Old Calvinist. I am constantly reminiscing about my ole skateboarding days and I still enjoy snowboarding. Admittedly, I may dress a little younger than my age, and currently I am thinking about getting back into skateboarding. In other words, I am grasping onto my youth. So why do I call myself an Old Calvinist? Well, it’s not because I think I am old. Rather, I prefer to call myself an Old Calvinist because I want to differentiate my understanding of Calvinism from the contemporary movement known as the New Calvinism. In the last two decades, the 5 points of Calvinism have amazingly become popular within a large segment of mainstream Christianity. Within my lifetime, Calvinism has gone from unacceptable, to acceptable, to cool. It is not that I am not deeply thankful for this movement and its leaders, for I rejoice to see what God is doing with my generation of Christians. Yet, even though I consider myself to be a young, cool Calvinist, due to some of the concerning features of the New Calvinism, which I will outline below, I prefer to be identified as an Old Calvinist.

Yet, what is the difference between the New and the Old Calvinism? Is it even possible to differentiate between them? If it is possible, it is certainly not easy. For instance, in a recent address on the New Calvinism, John Piper presented the 12 key features of the movement (see here). Yet, these 12 features could have easy been identifying various features of the Old Calvinism. In this address, Piper failed to identify what is “new” about the New Calvinism.

Granted, it is not easy to differentiate between New and Old Calvinism for many reasons. One, there is no clear and single mark of distinction between them. Some have said, “non-confessional vs. confessional,” others have said, “non-Presbyterian vs. Presbyterian,” and still others have said, “charismatic vs. non-charismatic.” Yet, none of these single distinctions (or any other single distinction) is fully adequate in explaining how these two groups differ from each other. Because there a lot of overlap between the two groups, there doesn't seem (at least to me) to be a single mark but a collection of marks that separate the two groups from each other. Two, it is hard to distinguish the New and Old Calvinists from each other because there doesn't seem to be even be a concise collection of marks that separate them. For instance, “charismatic,” “young,” and “non-confessional” may be some of the marks of the New Calvinism, but not all New Calvinists are charismatic, young, and non-confessional. Three, not only is it impossible to neatly identify distinguishing marks, there are some who are in transition. Some New Calvinists are moving closer to becoming Old Calvinists. Because of that, these Calvinists do not fit neatly into either of the groups.

With these difficulties in mind, here are what I believe to be some of the more notable distinctions between New and Old Calvinism. Admittedly, as an Old Calvinist, I emphasize the extremes of New Calvinism (as personified. for example, by Mark Driscoll) not only to help make the dissection between the two groups more clear, but also to highlight my concerns about the New Calvinism. I understand that not all self-claiming New Calvinists are as radical as I am representing the movement here.   

1.     Hip Vs. Non-Hip

I am Old Calvinist, but that doesn't mean I am a dork, at least I hope not. I prefer to dress in style (though I don’t plan on buying any skinny jeans anytime soon). No doubt, there are many unfashionable Old Calvinists. But not all of us Old Calvinists who read the Puritans seek to dress like the Puritans. Even John Owen dressed more flamboyantly than his rather drab Puritan friends. The difference, therefore, is not an issue of style, but the emphasis placed upon style. And this seems to be the heart of the matter. Though fashion is not the issue for us Old Calvinists, it does seem to be one of the characteristics, if not a distinguishing mark, of the New Calvinism. Fashion is one of the many ways, for the New Calvinists, to market and contextualize their message. When on stage, it is cool to preach in a Mickey Mouse printed T-shirt and to lead worship with a new pair of sparkly kicks. In other words, nerds need not apply. All joking aside, seeking to be “hip” does not seem to be accidental but purposeful within the New Calvinism.

2.     Branding Vs. Falsely Labeled 

One of the reasons fashion seems to be such an integrated part of the New Calvinism is because of the high emphasis the New Calvinists place upon marketing and branding themselves. For the sake of getting the gospel out to as many people as possible and attracting people to their places of worship, image is everything (at least an important thing). Churches now have marketing teams consisting of graphic designers and computer programmers, all to help create a recognizable brand. At least one Calvinistic mega church has copyrighted their name and logo, threatening legal actions against those who infringe upon their branding (see here). Branding and marketing works. For instance, Starbucks sells a lot of coffee not only because they have good tasting coffee, but also because they have done a good job of creating a recognizable and popular brand. I feel cool (maybe even rich) when I order a latte from Starbucks. Even better is when I can plop myself down in one of their comfy, leather chairs, open my Apple laptop and gaze around at all the cool people in my black, square framed glasses. Only if I had a pair of skinny jeans my experience would be complete. Who feels proud of wearing generic shoes or carrying around a 7-Eleven cup of coffee? I know I don’t. In the same way I was willing to pay a little extra for the North Face Jacket logo because of its popularity. Similarly, the New Calvinism has done a good job of marketing itself and their leaders. Popularity has a natural pull to it. We consciously or unconsciously like to follow the crowd. Which sounds more exciting, attending a mega church with a celebrity pastor or visiting a country church with a bunch of old people? Who is to say that the worship is more sincere and the preaching is better at the big box mega church? The logo on the coffee cup, so it seems, goes a long way in pulling in the masses. Old Calvinism, on the other hand, has placed less attention to such strategies (maybe because they had less money to allocate to such an expense). In fact, it was quite the opposite for many of the Old Calvinists. The generation of Calvinists that preceded us knows what it feels like to ostracized by friends and family, blackballed by their denominations, and run out of their churches. Although it is now fashionable to wear Jonathan Edwards T-shirts, back in the day it was less than favorable to hold to the theology of Jonathan Edwards. The New Calvinists are considered cool, Old Calvinists were often falsely labeled.   

3.     Beer, Tattoos, and Sex Vs. Ice T, Suits, and Mum’s the Word

If branding the church as being hip and fashionable is important to the New Calvinists, then what is more hip than brashly talking about sex, getting a little ink, and cracking open a bud? Don’t miss understand me, it is not that the Old Calvinists are against sex, tattoos, and drinking beer per se, but like fashion in general, they don’t see the need or value in placing their emphasis upon these things, especially the things that are considered social taboos. If anything, rather than putting a spotlight upon their liberties, for the sake of the weaker brother they are careful not to flaunt their liberties. While the New Calvinists may think that the Old Calvinists are legalists who do not know how to properly contextualize their message, Old Calvinists are concerned that the New Calvinists are more worried about how the secular culture views them than they are in keeping themselves above reproach. If criminals naturally clean up their image by hiding their tattoos and getting a clean shave before they go before the judge, it makes sense that the Old Calvinists are concerned when they see this new generation of Calvinists have little to no regard to the negative impression they may or may not be making. Thus, it is not about tattoos and suits as much as it is about positive and negative impressions of one's moral character.                

4.     Young Vs. Mature

Old and New Calvinists come in all ages, but it appears that the New Calvinism glories in youth rather than placing the lion's share of the honor upon the elders of the church. In many cases, the elderly are often marginalized and their preferences pushed to the side. Everything is aimed at reaching the youth. The New Calvinism seems to boast in their youth and restlessness. Of course, youth has a certain appeal and attraction to it. I know I would rather watch young kids grind their skateboards than watch senior citizens rock in their rocking chairs. The only time we see older people in ads is in the sale of medicine, cans, and Depends. This is because youth, good looks, and vitality sells. We are living in a youth-crazed culture, and the New Calvinists seem to have marketed themselves by utilizing what sells.

5.     A Few Celebrities Vs. a Lot of Unsung Heroes 

The New Calvinism is known for a few mega churches with their well-known celebrity pastors while the Old Calvinism is known by a multitude of smaller churches pastored by unknown pastors. This may be a bit of an overstatement, but it, nevertheless, emphasizes a true concern. Fame and popularity is not sinful, but it definitely has its dangers. It is especially dangerous for those who pursue it. It is easier for those entering into the ministry to glamorize their future and have false expectations. A successful ministry, even among Calvinists, is now marked by large book contracts, conference speaking, and leading a mega church. Yet, it is not the amount of Twitter followers but faithfulness that impresses God. It is a strange time indeed when pastors, especially Calvinistic pastors, are now considered as celebrities. Their books, personalities, and preaching are marketed to the masses. For instance, which celebrity pastor does not have his own para-church organization (or internet site) devoted to promote and propagate his “ministry”? I guess it is not self-promotion when you have a staff that does it for you? It is sad when you hear of a celebrity pastor reminding his staff, “I am the brand.” Of course, the church benefits from their pastor’s popularity. We are naturally drawn to famous people. Why else do mega churches open up satellite campuses? Apparently, a virtual celebrity has more appeal than an unknown in-house minister does. Yet, how does this help prevent the “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos” spirit that is in us all? Do these celebrity pastors really think that they can minster better from a distance than other ministers can in person? Is it biblical to have a Bishop ruling over multiple congregations? Are these pastors seeking to build a kingdom around their own personality and ministry? Are churches willing to prop up a man for the sake of numerical growth? I, for one, find this concerning. It is not that “small” is necessarily better, but it is not safe or wise to create idols among our spiritual leaders. I know that we all desire to be famous, but this is something that we must all resist. It is not easy to decrease. The Old Calvinists know by experience, however, that ministry is more like digging a ditch than walking down the red carpet under the spotlight. Faithfully serving in obscure locations and small congregations is the norm, but somehow the New Calvinism has created a false imagery of the ministry by placing the spotlight upon a few elite preachers, who when they come together are able fill to large stadiums. Sadly, it is not always the most gifted who rise to top, but the ones who have received the most publicity.    

6.     Pragmatic Vs. Consistently Calvinistic

With such emphasis being placed upon branding, which is often masked as contextualization, the New Calvinism seems to place a lot of its energy upon pragmatic church growth strategies. If churches are going to continue to grow and steal members from other congregations, then they need to be more innovative and hip than the new church plant down the road. A church cannot stay stagnant, for it needs to recast itself every few years. Pragmatism and church growth has been a priority for Arminian churches for years, but now it has became more and more of a priority in Calvinistic churches, which I think is somewhat of an oxymoron. Thankfully, not all of the leaders of the New Calvinism are equally given to pragmatic strategies, but the commercialism that seems to identify the New Calvinism, nevertheless, seems somewhat superficial. It is not as if the Old Calvinists do not desire numerical growth, but they seem more content to be patient, realizing that “unless God builds the house, the builders labor in vain” (Ps. 127:1). Biblical success is not found in the number of Twitter follows and the size of the congregation but in faithfulness as a steward of God’s Word.     

7.     Vision Casters Vs. Stewards

Yet, with numerical growth being such an emphasis within New Calvinism, pastors are now called to be “vision casters,” although I am not 100% sure of what that means. I suppose that “casting a vision” is communicating an arbitrary objective, likely involving numerical growth, and then motivating the people to get behind this goal until the objective is reached, and then starting the process again by casting a new vision. I am not sure where this is outlined in Scripture, but surely they wouldn't take Proverbs 11:27 out of context? Rick Warren, a self-claiming Calvinist, abandons Scripture altogether when he talks about the importance of “vision casting” (see here). Warren states that if pastors are not successful in growing a church it’s because either their “dreams” or their faith are too small. According to Warren, the pastor first needs to dream big, really big. Second, the pastor needs to have faith in God for the fulfillment of his dream. Yet, is this not the same thing as “name-it-and-claim-it” theology? Where does Scripture promise us a “big” church or the fulfillment of our ministry “dreams”? Do our dreams create reality? Warren encourages us to dream big and then tells us that our dreams are revelations from God—yeah right! This is presumptuous at best. This is secular and worldly philosophy integrated into the church, and I think it stinks. I guess I would make a poor Pastor of Vision because, although our church is going through a period of growth, I remind the saints at Grace Bible that we may or may not continue to grow. It might be that we decrease in size. I remind them that God is the One in charge of these matters, for it is He who gives the increase. Our responsibility is to remain faithful regardless if we grow or shrink in size. The Lord is not going to judge us by the standards of the world (how large or small our congregation may or may not be), but He will judge us on our faithfulness. Long ago, I had to die to my expectations and “dreams.” Why then are pastors encouraged to dream big and then pump up the people week after week to help them reach their dreams. This sounds a bit narcissistic if you ask me. The goal of the pastor should not be rallying the troops to get behind their dream, but rather should be remaining a faithful steward to the responsibilities that are outlined in Scripture. 

8.     A Stage Vs. a Pulpit

I guess we should not be surprised that the church is looking more and more like a place of entertainment, a theater, when the focus has been turned away from a God-centered approach to a man-centered approach. But I am surprised that Calvinistic churches are following suit. Let us pull down the steeples, take out the old wooden pews, and remove that big, ugly pulpit. Those archaic furnishings do not set the right ambiance. We need a stage, lots of stage lighting, and theater seating. Don't you know that a pulpit gets in the way of the band? Again, as an Old Calvinist, I personally could care less whether a church building has a steeple or not. I would prefer to sit in a comfortable chair than in an old wooden pew. Even so, I am concerned that the strategic removal of the pulpit and turning the sanctuary into a theater communicates a major shift in the wrong direction.

9.  Commercialized Vs. Free

With marketing, branding, and celebrity comes big money. Conferences are not cheap. They cost money…especially when food is involved. Thus, it is not as if Old Calvinists do not publish books and are against charging a registration fee for a conference, but things seem to have gotten out of hand. All the Bible conferences I grew up attending, which were a huge blessing, were free. Lodging, food, and preaching were all offered free of charge. Free will offerings (yes I said, “free will”) more than compensated for the expense of the event. God's people are generous. Well, you may say, “those conferences didn't have the big names on the schedule.” Yes, but many of the scheduled preachers preached just as powerfully and without requiring a five to ten thousand dollar honorarium. I believe preachers should be highly compensated, but many of the big names will not commit to speak until a certain amount of compensation is agreed upon beforehand. But it’s worth it, the big names draw in more people, and more people means more registration fees, and more registration fees means more money. The celebrity should not be exploited, right? Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that money is the motive behind these conferences. I really don’t think it is. I am also deeply thankful for John Piper's personal practice (see here). I am just concerned that Christianity is becoming too commercialized. In the seventies, skateboarding was merely a hobby, but in the eighties the sport become so popular that the top skaters became rock-star celebrities that demanded big money for the use of their “image.” Skateboarding became commercialized with big money and big industry taking over the direction of the sport. No longer were skaters merely skating for the fun of it but because they were professionals. Popularity is great, but it comes with a price. You may disagree with me, but I hope you will at least agree that we need to be careful here.

Conclusion

I would suppose that some would argue that the difference between the New and the Old Calvinism is the different emphasis placed upon contextualization, being “missional,” and engaging the culture. This certainly has some truth to it, but in seeking to become more contextualized and culturally engaging, it appears that the New Calvinism has become more popular, commercialized, and pragmatic along the way. As I stated in my introduction, it is not easy to clearly differentiate between the New and the Old Calvinism. Not everyone who claims to be a New Calvinist would nicely fit into the picture I have painted, and I know I also highlighted the more concerning elements while passing by many of the positive elements of the New Calvinism. I would remind you before I close, that I truly am thankful for the New Calvinism. Yet, as long as these concerns exist, I remain happy to call myself an Old Calvinist. Why don’t you join me?

SBC Calvinism Advisory Team Seeks Unity on Essentials

On June 3 The Baptist Standard posted an article entitled SBC Calvinism study calls for trust, dialogue in which it was reported that:

An ad-hoc task force appointed to study Calvinism’s impact on the Southern Baptist Convention says the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient guide for orthodoxy in the nation’s second-largest faith group behind Roman Catholics. "We should call upon all Southern Baptists to promote the unity we share within The Baptist Faith and Message and, while recognizing that most Southern Baptists will believe and teach more than what that confession contains, we must never believe or teach less," the 16-member task force says in a 3,200-word report published online at SBC Life.

An informal advisory group appointed by SBC Executive Committee head Frank Page, the task force will not report officially to the convention, but Page is expected to reference it in his report to messengers at the SBC annual meeting scheduled June 11-12 in Houston.

Page named the group last year amid statistics showing that recent seminary graduates embraced a rigid Calvinism at percentages far higher than the people in Southern Baptist pews. Convention leaders worry that young pastors bringing those views into churches can be divisive, particularly if the congregation is unaware of the differences between the two views.

They also fear division among pastors and denominational leaders, as rumor mills circulate reports both of Calvinists trying to “take over” the convention and of qualified scholars being denied teaching jobs because they adhere to Calvinist views.

The committee, chaired by Union University President David Dockery, included both Calvinists, who emphasize God’s sovereignty and downplay free will, and others who accept parts of Calvinism, such as mankind’s fallen state and belief that a truly saved Christian cannot fall from grace, but not ideas like God predetermines who is saved or damned and that Jesus died only for the elect. Read more ...

Today (June 11) The Baptist Standard posted a followup article entitled Advisory team seeks to avert SBC split on Calvinism in which it was reported that:

Growing disagreements over the role of Calvinism will make the Southern Baptist Convention stronger, not weaker, as long as its focus remains on evangelism, members of an advisory team commissioned to study the topic told hundreds in Houston June 10.

But whether the rest of the convention sees it that way will depend on churches, pastors and individuals deciding to trust Baptists with whom they disagree on the subject, team members said.

"I sense an extreme level of anti-Calvinist" sentiment across the convention, said SBC Executive Committee President Frank Page, who convened an advisory team made up of Calvinist and non-Calvinist Southern Baptists.

"I deal with an anti-Calvinism that is beyond harsh," Page, a self-described non-Calvinist said during a question-and-answer session attended by at least 300 at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston. "Trust is hitting a new low."

That can be overcome only if Baptists on either side of the theological debate speak "not at each other, but to each other," Page said.

The Q&A session centered on the team’s seven-page report, "Truth, Trust, and Testimony in a Time of Tension," which lays out the differences in the views of election and salvation held by each side, and concludes those views can co-exist if everything else is Bible- and Christ-centered. Read more ...

Concerning the "Truth, Trust, and Testimony in a Time of Tension" report, R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, stated:

This statement speaks volumes about the ability of all Southern Baptists of good faith and good will to work together eagerly and enthusiastically. As the statement affirms, these tensions have been present within the Southern Baptist Convention from the very beginning of our life and work together. We are people who take theology seriously. But we are also people who take seriously our joy and privilege in working together in service to the Great Commission. We also made a bold statement of support for and agreement in The Baptist Faith and Message. We are a confessional people, gladly affirming together the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I am thankful for every member of this task force and for the privilege of working together in this process and on this historic and timely statement. 

For more from Albert Mohler on the statement see his blog article here.

I hope you will join with me in praying for the peace of our SBC brethren as they seek to proclaim the Gospel to a lost and dying world.

An Elephant, Rock Star Mega-Church Pastors and Discernment

I am perplexed! No, I am troubled! I am concerned, or maybe I am just a "hater." I pastor a small church, so who cares what I am, how I feel, and what I have to say. I am sure I am just jealous, or a fundamentalist, or a failure. Whatever I am, I am sure I will not be classified as "discerning."

Why am I troubled? Because Reformed Christianity appears to have fallen victim to the Hollywood pop culture where a few celebrity mega-church pastors have more influence upon younger Christians than a multitude of ordinary pastors who remain faithful and unknown. It is difficult to sound the alarm (Hey! There’s an elephant in the room and he kind of smells) because of the likelihood of sounding jealous, but the elephant has gotten so large and stinky that it's hard not to say something. This is not to say that it's wrong to pastor a mega-church or have a large following, but it is dangerous to place a person on a pedestal just because he pastors a mega-church and to fall all over ourselves in seeking to win their approval and a few of their internet followers. Credibility should never be based upon how many twitter followers a person has, but upon how faithful a pastor is with the truth. As said in the intro of the Mike Corley Program, “…the messenger does not validate the message, but rather the message validates the messenger.”

Human nature desires fame, envies those who are famous, and seeks the friendship of those who are famous. It is amazing how fame subconsciously and quickly warps our perspective and judgment. The most undeserving and despicable famous person in Hollywood may be Paris Hilton. Not even a fan of hers (I don’t like her at all), I thought I had great bragging rights after I ran into her in London. I remember eagerly and shamelessly walking back to the hotel so I could tell my friends. As if somehow the value and worth of my life went up some degree due to running into someone who is famous. Silly, I know, but this is human nature. We want to be famous or at least connected with those who are famous. I think it is because if we can get near to those who have the spot light we may somehow get out of the shadows. Even famous people do not seem exempt from the influence of this phenomenon. Have you not noticed that famous people befriend, date and marry other famous people? Maybe it's because famous people think that being connected to other famous people will bring more popularity for themselves, as though two famous people coming together brings each a broader fan base than they would have had on their own. Whatever the case, fame has a gravitational pull on all of us, and I am afraid that the church along with her discernment is being sucked into its black hole. Here is some of the refuse the elephant is leaving behind in the church, and I personally believe it smells.

1. Reverse Fundamentalism

We can't use discernment and question the actions of various well known celebrity pastors without being judged as a fighting fundamentalist or just flat out jealous of their success. We can be more liberal than they are, but we dare not be more conservative. If we happen to be more conservative, we are automatically villainized as belonging to the fundamentalist camp that only wants to fellowship with the King James Only Advocates. For instance, Steven Furtick, who is a mega-church pastor in Charlotte North Carolina went on this rant:

All of a sudden I am the hater because I take a more conservative and cautious approach to the ministry. I could believe the prosperity gospel and be a muddled modalist and be tolerated and even accepted with a cool, manly fist bump (as was the case with Driscoll and T. D. Jakes in the Elephant Room 2), but I dare not question the methodology of a pastor who pastors a mega-church or I will be labeled as a hater. Even worse, I may be threatened to be arrested, as was the case for our Lutheran friend Chris Rosebrough when he attempted to attend the Elephant Room 2 conference (see here).

The point is that we are charged with being haters because we voice our concerns, but our voices are the ones that are being cut off from the conversation.

2. Jumping on the Bandwagon Just because There is a Long Boarding Line

Have you ever gone to Walmart and counted the people wearing jackets with the little words "North Face" stamped in the corner? Probably not, but I have, and you would be amazed at how many people want a jacket just because of that little logo. Everybody seems to have one, and that seems to be the reason why everybody wants one, me included! Don't say that it's the quality, because I can go get a Snozu jacket, which is just as nice at T. J. Maxx's for half the price. Yet without that North Face logo, a Snozu jacket just doesn't seem as cool. If the herd of people were not wearing North Face jackets, I am sure I wouldn't feel so tempted to buy one. The point is, it's human nature, so it seems, to follow the crowd without really examining why.

The growing mega-church and celebrity pastor phenomenon seems to be under this spell as well. Grab people’s attention by talking about sex and the use of controversial and slightly seditious methodology, and then the momentum of the crowds rushing in will do the rest. People want to go where all people are going. If you stopped and asked them why North Face, why this church? The honest answer would likely be, because it’s cool, and it’s also where all my friends or potential friends go. The right music, the right aesthetics, the right web-design, and throw in a bigger than life personality for the pastor and then presto—you have created the perfect combination for a mega-church, and the rise of the latest celebrity pastor. But, if we step back and ask why is Paris Hilton so famous? What has she really done to deserve such a large fan base? Besides some questionable behavior and a little bit of charisma, there is no substantial reason for her to be so popular. She is not the prettiest girl, she can't sing, she is not much of an actor, but for some reason she is famous. In the same way, many of these celebrity pastors have nothing substantial to justify such a large following. I am not saying that they have no spiritual gifting, but I know many obscure pastors who are more knowledgeable, spiritually gifted and devoted who remain out of any national or international spotlight. Martin Luther, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and even contemporaries like John Piper, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur have something unique about their spiritual gifting that sets them apart. These men deserve a broad hearing. Yet, other than their personal charisma and charm there is not much that makes ministers like Rick Warren and Steven Furtick worthy of such attention within the Reformed community. My point is, the most faithful, the most gifted and the most devoted pastors do not always equate to the most famous in the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, fame has the tendency to warp our judgment, for in many cases the most faithful and gifted pastors are overlooked, while the celebrity pastors grab all the headlines. Carl Truemen rightly noted:

One thing that is so striking about the rise of celebrity in the wider world is that it has been accompanied by the rise of the myth of the polymath. Thus, a pop star who can write a song that becomes a hit also becomes a person who is consulted about things like gay rights, Third World Debt and global warming. They are no more qualified (and in some cases much less qualified) than you or I to offer such advice; but we are never asked because we have not written a pop hit or starred in a movie. We now see this phenomenon in the evangelical world: fame and a big church make you competent to speak all over the theological map.

There has been a downgrade in the Reformed Community. I was afraid of this back when Mark Driscoll was introduced as a Calvinist. For years, Calvinism was despised and marginalized by mainstream Christianity. Pastors were run out of their churches and they sacrificed greatly for their faithful stance for the truth. Now with the rise of this neo-Calvinism, God's sovereign grace is cool and fashionable. Yet it appears that this new form of Calvinism is only cool when it comes to Jonathan Edwards screen-printed T-shirts, but has nothing to do with one's methodology of ministry. The famous Calvinistic ministers of old where known for their commitment to truth in all facets of life, but these new Calvinists are known for how fast they can grow a church and cumulate a fan base by marketing themselves as cool and providing a multi-sensual worship experience. Worse yet, these young Calvinists, who know little to nothing of the hardships of the previous generation of Calvinists, are telling that generation to get out of the way, for they have discovered a better and less offensive way to do ministry.

3. Mega-Pastors' Gravitation Toward Each Other

It’s weird, but it does seems that the larger the objects the greater their gravitational pull. Mega-church pastors seem to attract other mega-pastors, regardless of their doctrinal stance. I love John Piper and think his books (especially his book on missions, Let the Nations be Glad) are excellent! With that said, I am disappointed with his endorsement of Rick Warren. I am sure we can learn something from Rick Warren, but whatever we may be able to learn from him we could learn from someone else without all the seeker sensitive baggage. The question I have is why? Dr. Piper, why Rick Warren? Whatever the reason, if Rick Warren was not so popular I am almost certain that Piper wouldn’t be so drawn to him. But worse than John Piper’s association with Rick Warren is the latest Elephant Room fiasco. The mega-church pastor T. D. Jakes is treated as a hero even though he will not take a firm position on the Trinity, and even though he perverts the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ by preaching a man centered health and wealth gospel.

It almost seems as bad as this mock conversation below:

“Okay Benny Hinn, get ready! I am sure you’ll be the next celebrity who will be welcomed into the fold. Maybe by reaching out to you, our Reformed celebrity pastors may be able to win some of your audience and followers over to Reformed Theology.”

“You’re crazy, Jeff,” the mega-church pastors may respond back to me, “don’t you understand that unity is not about Reformed Theology, it’s about the gospel!”

To which I would replay, “Is it?”

In which they respond, “Well, okay, it’s technically not about the gospel because we accepted T. D. Jakes and his prosperity gospel.”

To which I would reply, “Well, since it’s not about the gospel, at least you celebrity pastors may be able to broaden your fan base by reaching out to these other celebrity pastors.”

Finally they agree, “What a good idea! Your right, Jeff! Hey, Benny Hinn come on over and bring us some of your followers.”

4. Multi-Sight Campuses

I wonder why mega-church pastors are not willing to plant new churches rather than feeling the need to open various satellite campuses. I understand that any given locality has its limitations, and people are willing to drive only so far, but what are the reasons to divide a local body when starting a new work seems to be more in line with the biblical pattern? Do these mega-pastors think so highly of themselves as to think that no other preacher is as capable? Are they unwilling to share the glory? If it’s the people who would rather have a famous virtual pastor than an unknown pastor who is present, then are not these mega-church pastors unwilling to teach their followers of the danger of exalting a man? Is it about building a kingdom that is centered around a mega-church personality? Is it all of a sudden acceptable to have a bishop pastoring multiple flocks? Is it biblical to divide a local body, or can it even be called a local body? How do you effectively pastor a flock in an off site location? It seems slightly better than handing a group of people a pile of recorded sermons and then telling them that I am happy to be your Shepherd who watches over your souls. I am sure there may be some good motives mixed in with opening satellite campuses, but I can't help but think it’s not about reaching more people (planting local churches could do that), but about ego and building a fan base. I know I am a "hater" for bringing up such concerns, but all this celebrity Christianity seems to be getting out of control.

There is an elephant that has squeezed into the church and hardly anyone wants to admit it. Maybe it’s because we're scared that we will be judged as envious or overly scrupulous. Also, if I am seeking popularity among young teenage girls, the last thing I want to do is vocalize any criticism towards Justin Bieber. In the same way, if I want to broaden my ministry opportunities, and if everybody loves these mega-church personalities, then the last thing I should do is offend the followers of Mark Driscoll. I think it's the desire to be famous which is a large part of the problem, and the elephant in the room is so big it's time for us to say something regardless of what it may cost us.

Arthur W. Pink - Predestination Now Available

For those who have wondered what happened to Dr. Belcher of late, he has been busy working on books and speaking engagements. After having recently published his latest Journey book (A Journey in Dispensationalism), I am pleased to tell you that he has now also published a new, updated edition of his book Arthur W. Pink---Predestination.

For those who would like a foretaste of what the book has to offer, Dr. Belcher has graciously made available both the Table of Contents and the Introduction to the book for your consideration. First, here is the Table of Contents:

Arthur W. Pink---Predestination

by Richard P. Belcher

(An analysis of the doctrine of predestination in the writings of A. W. Pink)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I

A. W. PINK'S DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION IN GENERAL

CHAPTER I---A Definition of Predestination . . . . . . . . . . 9

Concerns All Things: He Has Ordained Whatsoever Comes to Pass!

Extends to All Events and Creatures!

Extends to the Nations and History!

Extends to all Events!

Extends to All Men and Every Aspect of Their Lives!

Extends to the Lives of the Wicked!

CHAPTER II---Positive Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Is by the Most Wise and Holy Counsel of His Will!

Is Free from Any Cause or Influence Outside of Himself!

Is Unchangeable!

CHAPTER III---Negative Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Does Not Make God the Author of Sin!

Does Not Cause the Will of the Creature's Actions!

Does Not Destroy the Contingency of Causes!

Does Not Deny Human Responsibility

Is Not Based on the Prescience of Future Events!

PART II

A. W. PINK'S DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION IN PARTICULAR

Chapter IV---Election and Reprobation in General . . 63

Definitions

The Order of God's Decrees

The Goal of Election and Reprobation

The Number of the Elect and Reprobate Is Certain

Summary

Chapter V---Election in Particular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

The Time of Election: Eternity Past

The Ground of Election---God's Purpose and Will

The Union of Election---with Jesus Christ

The Goal of Election---God's Glory

The Goal of Election for the Elect---Everlasting Glory

Summary

Chapter VI---Reprobation in Particular . . . . . . . . . . 104

A Definition of Reprobation

Biblical Support for Reprobation

Summary

PART III

Chapter VII---Analysis and Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Pink and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith---Agreement

Pink and Scripture---Disagreement

Concerning God's Freedom

Concerning Election and God's Other Attributes

Concerning the Man Christ Jesus As the First Recipient of Election

Concerning the Elect's Super Creation Relation with Christ from Eternity Past

Summary

ENDNOTES

Following is the complete text of the Introduction:

Introduction to the Book

Arthur W. Pink---Predestination

by Richard P. Belcher

In a previous work the present writer attempted to set before the public the life of Arthur W. Pink. In many ways that life was a paradox. Pink was a popular preacher and public minister in his early days, but he spent the last seventeen years of his life in virtual seclusion and isolation. So withdrawn was he in those latter days that he died in obscurity with few noticing or caring. His entire life and ministry during those years of seclusion centered on the production of his monthly periodical titled Studies in the Scriptures. This was a magazine he had started in 1922 and that he had maintained on a shoe-string existence with dogged perseverance. At his death it appeared Arthur W. Pink would soon be forgotten, as few had valued his person or his writings.

The paradox was reversed again and completed, when just a few years after his death, he was vaulted to prominence and esteem in a manner never afforded him in his life. That which lifted him to recognition and appreciation was the publication of his writings that previously had only been read by the faithful advocates of his periodical. Now his books (see several bibliographies listed on the Internet) have been printed in great number by several publishing companies. They are found on the shelves of nearly every pastor's study, and also in the collections of numerous laymen.

This is not to say that every pastor or layman agrees with Pink's writings. There is a central theme running through his works that was partly responsible for his lack of popularity during his lifetime. That central theme is the doctrine of predestination. A reader does not progress very far into any of his books until he is confronted with references to election or predestination or discussions of these subjects. For example, in what was probably his earliest book, he mentions the subject of predestination on the first page of the introductory chapter. In what was probably his last work, the subject is introduced on the second page of the introductory chapter. In the remainder of those two books and in his other works, the subject surfaces again and again, giving clear evidence that the doctrine of predestination was a key doctrine in the theology of Pink, even perhaps the central and foundational doctrine.

No one will deny the controversial and difficult nature of the subject of predestination. It is a very difficult doctrine to understand or to explain. It is no wonder that men often balk with questioning minds when they read Pink's works and are faced continually with references to the subject. Often Pink makes passing reference to the doctrine, as he applies a verse or section of Scripture. At other times he goes into a lengthy discussion of the subject, as he expounds a text. Because of the centrality of the doctrine in Pink's writings, and the numerous references to predestination, it is a common statement by new readers of Pink that they like his writings, but do not agree with his strong view of election and predestination.

When this writer has heard that statement, he has wanted to ask the speaker if he knew exactly what Pink believed on the subject of predestination. In the few instances he has raised this question, he has been assured by the speaker that Pink was some kind of fatalist or hyper-Calvinist. The present writer then wondered if the speaker could define these strong terms which he had pinned on Pink. A correct definition of fatalism clearly excludes Pink from that category, because fatalism is a blatant determinism without an all-wise and righteous God working His will. Pink indisputably recognized an omniscient and righteous God in his doctrine of predestination, so he was not a fatalist!

Hyper-Calvinism is a little more difficult to define in a way that would be satisfactory to all. In fact it would be impossible to define it in a manner that would be acceptable to all. The present writer would define hyper-Calvinism as a view of predestination that would deny or minimize the human responsibility to repent and believe the gospel, because of an inability to do so in light of the doctrine of the total depravity of man. Furthermore, hyper-Calvinism would deny the necessity of a universal offer of the gospel to all men, because it is felt that God will call out the elect in His own time and manner. Thus hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of our applying the means to accomplish the will of God, because it is felt that the will of God will be accomplished---regardless of human means!

Therefore, we have many questions to ask as we read Pink and seek his view of predestination---not just the ones already mentioned, but even others. To name several, we shall look for answers to the following questions as we study Pink's writings. Did he deny that all men have a responsibility to repent and believe the gospel? Did he deny our responsibility to offer the gospel to all men? Did his view of predestination make God the author of sin? Did he believe that God's decree of predestination brought force on the will of the creature? Did he teach a view of predestination that destroyed the contingency of causes? Did he believe in single or double predestination, that is, a predestination of the elect only or a predestination of the elect and the reprobate? Was he committed to the view of infralapsarianism (the decree of God to elect some followed the decree of God to allow the fall of man) or was he supralapsarian (the decree to elect preceded the decree to allow the fall)? Thus, we could continue to ask many questions of Pink's view of predestination.

The point is that one cannot say he agrees or disagrees with Pink on the subject of predestination until he understands his view. Even then, it may be one will agree with some points of his view and disagree with others. The purpose of this work is to set forth clearly Pink's convictions on the subject, because the present writer is fearful that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have at times misunderstood him.

We will deal with Pink's doctrine of predestination under two main headings. First, we will define his view in a general manner and clarify this definition further by some positive and negative statements. The second main division of this work will deal with Pink's view of predestination in the areas of election and reprobation. The conclusion will summarize Pink's doctrine in this area and test it against one of the well-known Baptist confessional standards. One already familiar with that confessional standard will notice terminology and phraseology from these documents throughout this work, even perhaps in the outline, as it unfolds. This is intentional, because in its earliest form these thoughts were expressed in a doctoral dissertation, which compared Pink's view of predestination with the Westminster Confession of Faith.

It is truly the hope of the writer that his presentation of Pink's view of predestination will carry the warm and encouraging practicality for the Christian in his daily life, as it did for Pink. He was not a writer and theologian, who coldly set forth a doctrine in a dead and mechanical way. Rather, all he wrote was for the purpose of feeding the people of God. Theology not applied was an abomination to him. He obviously applied this doctrine of predestination to his own life. It was the foundation that enabled him to remain faithful through his many discouragements, especially the apparent failure of his pulpit ministry. This was the doctrine that kept him at his desk writing twelve hours a day, six days a week, even though few at that time cared to read what he wrote. He was convinced he served a sovereign God, and it was his duty to obey Him, even when he could not understand all God was doing in and through his life.

One final word to the reader is necessary before we proceed---a word of caution and warning. We are entering a very difficult subject area, an area which raises many questions and controversies. May we allow the Word of God to speak to us. May we constantly weigh what Pink says on the subject against the Word of God. This would be his desire for us. And if, when our task is finished, we do not agree with Pink, may we not allow our disagreement with him or with one another to divide us in the body of Christ. No one will ever find anyone who will agree with him in every minute detail of theology, especially in the area of predestination.

As you can see, Arthur W. Pink---Predestination is as much a Biblical and theological study of the crucial doctrine of predestination as it is a study of Pink's view of it. Pink's view of predestination is the focus of the book and the lens through which the Biblical doctrine is viewed and revealed to the reader, but at the same time the reader gets a solid overview of all the various aspects and issues of the doctrine. This book helps the reader to get a clearer understanding of a man who is often misunderstood, but whose legacy has helped to lift many pastors and churches out of the anti-theological, anti-Calvinist doldrums that have plagued them for so long.

You can order the book from Richbarry Press, c/o Dr. Richard P. Belcher, 105 River Wood Dr., Fort Mill, SC 29715. The cost of the book is $8.00 plus postage.