Here’s a new book as a PDF that is “available [to the whole world] for a limited time as a free download“:

Paul Hartog. A Word for the World: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement. Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2009. 72 pp.

I haven’t read it yet, but I’m sure that it’s worth a careful look.

Paul Hartog is an associate professor at Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary (Ankeny, Iowa). He has earned MA and MDiv degrees in theological studies (Faith), an MA in history (Iowa State University), a ThM in Ethics (St. Andrew’s Theological College), and a PhD in New Testament and Early Christianity (Loyola University, Chicago). He has also ministered as an assistant pastor in Baptist churches in Slater, Iowa, Romeoville, Ill., and Grimes, Iowa.

Feedback welcome.

This two-minute clip from The Princess Bride is my favorite light-hearted illustration of the Arminian view of human depravity (an issue integrally related to prevenient grace):

This is the notable part of the exchange:

“Well it just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. . . . Now mostly dead is slightly alive. All dead—well, with all dead, there’s only usually one thing that you can do.”

“What’s that?”

“Go through his clothes and look for loose change.”

Recommended resources:

1. William W. Combs, “Does the Bible Teach Prevenient Grace?” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 10 (2005): 3–18.
2. John Piper, “Total Depravity,” in “TULIP” (a nine-part seminar available in audio and video), 2008.
3. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 229–46.

Phil Johnson wrote a lucid article in 1998 that those using the term “hyper-Calvinism” would do well to read:

Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it “hyper-Calvinism” is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.

Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. . . .

A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”): 

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
2. OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
3. OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
4. OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
5. OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message

Read the whole thing.

HT: JT

“Time to Speak Up” is a bold, timely, provocative, sane word from Kevin Bauder that accomplishes at least three goals:

1. refutes Danny Sweatt’s recent diatribe (cf. “An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving“)
2. assures young fundamentalists that “Sweatt does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism”
3. challenges fundamentalist leaders (esp. in the FBF) to face this Calvinism-phobia (of which Sweatt’s diatribe is symptomatic) directly and promptly

Update:

1. John Piper comments on Bauder’s article: “Good Breeze from a Fundamentalist Neighbor“
2. Justin Taylor in “Fundamentalism 101“: “Slandering fundamentalists is something of an acceptable pastime for evangelicals (not to mention the wider Christian commnunity and culture). But since slander is sin, we’re better off showing respect (even when we critique) and seeking to learn what we can.”

My friend A. J. Gibson is a missionary in Monterrey, Mexico. Why?

A. J. explains in a comment he posted re Chris Anderson’s perceptive “Advice for My Angst-Ridden, Non-Calvinistic Friends” (which weighs in on the issue I raised in “An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving“):

Excellent comments, Chris. I’m a missionary for several reasons.

1. Because I believe with all my heart that God has a chosen people in Latin America and that he’s given me the privilege to help call them out from the nations for his name.
2. Because my theology tells me that God’s glory is the chief end of all his eternal decrees and that the greatest thing I can do in this life is live to that end.
3. Because many years ago I tearfully and brokenly read Piper’s Let the Nations Be Glad and my man- (and self-) centered worldview was devastated by the beauty and greatness of the God I found there. Never in all my years growing up in fundamentalism had I heard or read such words. I decided that I had to tell others about Him.

Soli Deo Gloria

(BTW, in the interests of historical accuracy, those Latin words were the battle cry of a group of flamboyant Calvinist leaders whose ministries continue to bear fruit 500 years later.)

A good word from Kevin DeYoung:

Here are the two most important things you need to know about the rise of the New Calvinism: it’s not new and it’s not about Calvin. . . . “Please God, don’t let the young, restless, and reformed movement be another historically ignorant, self-absorbed, cooler-than-thou fad.”

Read the whole thing.

Cf. my review of Collin Hansen’s Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists.