Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Review of Iain Murray’s “Evangelicalism Divided”

by

evangelicalism-divided.jpg

Iain H. Murray. Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000. Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 2000. x + 342 pp.

Iain Hamish Murray (b. 1931) has authored over two dozen books on historical theology from a Reformed perspective. His mentor was David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, whom Murray assisted at Westminster Chapel from 1956 to 1959 and about whom Murray wrote a stirring two-volume biography (vol. 1, vol. 2). In 1957, Murray co-founded the Banner of Truth Trust, which has published his many writings and for which he serves as Editorial Director.

Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided traces the new strategy by prominent American and British evangelicals such as Harold Ockenga, Edward Carnell, Billy Graham, John Stott, and J. I. Packer from about 1950 to 2000. He concludes that their strategy failed to fulfill what it promised but instead compromised the gospel itself. What follows summarizes the eleven chapters: [Read more…] about Review of Iain Murray’s “Evangelicalism Divided”

C. J. Mahaney and Matt Schmucker Interview Mark Dever

by

I just thoroughly enjoyed listening to this MP3 in which C. J. Mahaney and Matt Schmucker interview Mark Dever:

“Life and Ministry with Mark Dever: The tables turn as C. J. Mahaney puts Mark Dever in the hot seat and interviews him.”

dever.jpg

Mark Dever


mahaney.jpg

C. J. Mahaney

[Photos by Timmy Brister]

The interview took place on June 6, 2007. As usual with conversations involving Mahaney and Dever, this is hilarious (e.g., C. J.’s ribbing Dever about his intellectual childhood, lack of athletic abilities, and wearing a tie and carrying a briefcase to high school), fascinating (e.g., I didn’t know that D. A. Carson delivered a letter from Carl Henry to Dever in England that asked Dever to consider pastoring Capitol Hill Baptist Church), and edifying (e.g., Dever’s faithfulness to and love for God’s word and people).

Cf. two previous posts, T4G Video and T4G 2006 MP3s, as well as the following two entries on the MP3s page of my recommended resources:

Instone-Brewer Reviews SESB

by

David Instone-Brewer just posted his review of the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible for Logos‘ Libronix Digital Library System.

“Overall conclusion: give away your paper BHS + NA27 and buy this. An extraordinary conclusion for someone who doesn’t like Libronix, but this is an extraordinary product which is more usable than the paper versions.”

Update: Cf. Phil Gons’s review and assessment of the SESB.

Goldsworthy: “The Eclipse of the Gospel in Evangelicalism”

by

Note: This post, which contains lengthy direct quotes, is published on this blog with the permission of InterVarsity Press, UK.

__________

I recently enjoyed reading Graeme Goldsworthy‘s Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006; 341 pp.), which I reviewed for a forthcoming issue of JETS. Cf. Phil Gons’s convenient compilation of links related to the book.

The book’s Table of Contents clearly indicates its logical progression, and this post highlights chapter 12: “The Eclipse of the Gospel in Evangelicalism” (pp. 167–80). The metaphor recognizes “that eclipses are not always total and can even be partial enough to pass unnoticed by all but those trained to look for them” (p. 90). I found chapter 12 to be the most interesting, insightful, convicting, and controversial, and what follows briefly summarizes it.

Introduction: Hermeneutical Perfectionism (pp. 167–68)

Evangelicalism has been guilty of eclipsing the gospel with “hermeneutical perfectionism.”

“Hermeneutical perfectionism is something that is tempting to all of us who believe that truth is knowable. Those who adopt a thought-out and definite position on any matter will have the conviction that they are right. No one holds to a position that they believe is wrong. But thinking that we are right about key issues does not mean that we think we have all the answers in interpreting the Bible, or that our position is infallible. It should not mean that we think we have arrived at the ultimate truth about all matters biblical. In fact, the hermeneutical spiral is a recognition that we must constantly submit our thinking and doing to the light of Scripture. The Reformers understood this when they acknowledged that the Reformed church is always reforming. In this chapter I do not want to appear to be attacking groups who understand their evangelicalism differently from the way I understand mine. I recognize that I must submit to the scrutiny of Scripture as much as any other. Nevertheless, I want to highlight some ‘evangelical’ hermeneutical perspectives which I believe are not consistent with the gospel, and which we are all quite capable of adopting.

“These inconsistencies in our thinking are often taken on board because they are part of the tradition or subculture in which we have been nurtured. . . . The hermeneutical perfectionist will not contemplate the need to reassess some treasured approaches to the Bible.”

The rest of the chapter surveys eight evangelical aberrations that approach Scripture naively.

1. Quietism: Evangelical Docetism (pp. 168–69)

Loosely defined, Quietism is

“the tendency to overspiritualize and dehumanize Christian existence, including the way we use the Bible. We have seen it in the ‘let go and let God’ holiness piety. Overall, it is an inclination to downplay the function of our humanity in life, as if our relationship to God is almost entirely passive. It leads to strange aberrations, for example, in the matter of guidance. . . . The human characteristics of the biblical documents are ignored. Historical and biblical-theological contexts are regarded as irrelevant. If a text ‘speaks to me’ in whatever way, the careful exegesis of it is dismissed as cerebral intellectualism. The gospel is neatly eclipsed by what exists beneath a veneer of spiritual commitment.”

2. Literalism: Evangelical Zionism (pp. 169–71)

This section reveals Goldsworthy’s covenant theology and amillennialism (which, for what it’s worth, I don’t share).

“Some evangelical literalists use what is sometimes referred to as the ‘slippery slope’ argument—that is, a claim that failure to adopt this particular approach will lead to certain disaster. Thus we are told that if we do not interpret the Bible literally, the text can be made to mean anything we want it to mean. Hermeneutic chaos is predicted as the inevitable result. Yet literalism has seldom proved to be much protection against such a tendency. [Ouch!] . . .

“The New Testament clearly does not support such a simplistic hermeneutic as literal fulfillment of prophecy. . . .

“If the gospel is our hermeneutic norm, then while it is true that the interpretation of the New needs an understanding of the Old, the principal emphasis is on the way the gospel and the New Testament as a whole interpret everything, including the Old Testament. The literalist must become a futurist, since a literalistic fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy has not yet taken place. Christian Zionism not only reshapes the New Testament’s view of the future, but also affects the present period in which such a future is anticipated.”

3. Legalism: Evangelical Judaism (pp. 171–73)

“Legalism is something to which we are all prone, because it is one of the key tendencies of the sinful human heart. At its base it is an assertion of our control over our relationship to God. It is a soft-pedalling of the greatness of God’s grace to sinners. On the surface it may appear to be an exalting of the law, however the law is understood. Yet when we examine the nature of legalism, we find that the opposite is true. Once we imagine that we can somehow add to God’s grace or establish our righteousness by our deeds, we have in fact dragged God’s law down to our level of imperfection. If salvation is by faith in Christ plus some form of obedience, the gospel is diminished to the extent that we add to the principle of Christ alone. . . .

“Legalism is a subtle thing. Those who do not place the same emphasis on the law will be branded as antinomians, as against law, even lawless. But it needs to be emphasized that recognizing that God requires us to honor his laws and to be lawful is not the same as being legalistic. Sometimes the problem is cultural. Young converts often find themselves in a subculture that is strong in its spoken and unspoken taboos. In becoming more mature in the faith, they may realize that the safety of legalism needs to give way to the more risky business of being responsible to work out in the light of Scripture what is acceptable behavior. All behavioral norms need to be owned, or disowned, on the basis of their consistency, or inconsistency, with the gospel. Legalism is attractive because it is safe. It is easier to have a set of rules agreed on by the wider group than to have to make responsible decisions for Christian living. . . .

“The legalism I am concerned with here is a more uniformed piety that has not really reflected in any concerted way on the relationship of grace to law, of gospel to works. However, even largely unthought-out positions reflect a hermeneutic, and such unreflective evangelicalism can eclipse the gospel.”

4. Decisionism: Evangelical Bultmannism (pp. 173–74)

“A key evangelical belief is that people must be called to make a decision concerning the claims of Christ. Thus when people decide that Jesus Christ has indeed lived and died for them, they are often said to have made a decision for Christ. There are plenty of grounds for challenging people to repent and believe the gospel. That is not in dispute. . . .

“I have experienced and witnessed the effects of calls to ‘decide for Jesus’ that have been made when almost no reason had been given why anyone should so decide. Rudolf Bultmann applied his existential philosophy in such a way that for him the historicity of the events of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth is not the central issue. What matters is the telling of the story, which may or may not be historically factual, and the way this story helps us in our self-understanding and authentic decisions in life. While not endorsing Bultmann’s philosophy and historical skepticism, there are evangelicals who are so earnest in calling for decisions for Jesus that they seem to forget to tell people why they should decide for Jesus. . . . It seems that the decision can become everything. . . .

“The problem is not the call for a decision. The error of decisionism is to dehistoricize the gospel and to make the decision the saving event. To that extent it expresses an existential hermeneutic.”

5. Subjectivism: Evangelical Schleiermacherism (pp. 174–76)

“Friedrich Schleiermacher is regarded as the father of liberal Christianity. . . . [He propounded] a whole system of theology that centered on the notion of a feeling of absolute dependence on the divine. . . . From time to time one encounters evangelicals who are convinced of the centrality of Christ and the authority of the Bible, but who nevertheless seem to operate primarily on the basis of feeling. Schleiermacher’s ‘feeling’ is not simply subjective emotion, but rather intuitive feeling. In the same way, evangelical ‘feeling’ is not necessarily purely emotive, but may be an intuitive conviction that is popularly expressed in terms of what a person feels to be the case. . . .

“The problem arises when we assume the meaning and significance of words that are translated from Hebrew and Greek as ‘happy,’ ‘blessed,’ ‘rejoice,’ ‘peace,’ etc. We easily read into them meanings that are insufficient or misleading. . . .

“Here we have two related problems affecting evangelical hermeneutics. The one is eisegesis, reading into the text an assumed meaning rather than trying to ascertain how the word is used in the biblical text. The other is allowing the importance of emotion, and an idea of Christian experience, to dull the objectivity of the word. It is in fact a form of reader-response hermeneutics in which the reader, often under the guise of being led by the Spirit, determines the meaning of the text. Gospel-centered hermeneutics sees Christ as the determiner of meaning.”

6. “Jesus-in-my-heart-ism”: Evangelical Catholicism (pp. 176–77)

“Many evangelicals use the evangelistic appeal to ‘ask Jesus into your heart.’ The positive aspect of this is that the New Testament speaks of ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’ (Col. 1:27); of Christ dwelling ‘in your hearts through faith’ (Eph. 3:17), and the like. It speaks of the Christian as having ‘received Christ the Lord’ (Col. 2:6). But it also makes clear that Christ dwells in or among his people by his Spirit, for the bodily risen Jesus is in heaven. Furthermore, there are no examples or principles of evangelism or conversion in the New Testament involving the asking of Jesus into one’s heart. In many cases this practice represents a loss of confidence in faith alone, for it needs to resort to a Catholic style of infused grace to assure us that something has happened. . . .

“When the legitimate subjective dimension of our salvation begins to eclipse the historically and spiritually prior objective dimension, we are in trouble. The New Testament calls on the repenting sinner to believe in Christ, to trust him for salvation. To ask Jesus into one’s heart is simply not a New Testament way of speaking. . . .

“Once again, we see that it is not always an outright error that we are dealing with. Rather, it is allowing something that is good and necessary (Christ present by his Spirit) to eclipse something that is of prior importance (faith in the doing and dying of Christ) and upon which the good thing we emphasize actually depends. The result can be disastrous.”

7. Evangelical Pluralism (pp. 177–79)

“I would suggest that an important hermeneutical question, if not the crucial one, is this: does God say contradictory or incompatible things in Scripture, or is it that some things may appear to us as contradictory or incompatible because we do not fully understand them in relation to the ‘big picture’ of the Bible? The fact that we can and do err, and that no interpreter of the Bible other than God himself is infallible, does not mean that God did not speak a unified truth in his word. If pluralism means that the Bible does not speak with the one voice of the Holy Spirit, then it is in error. But if it means that the gospel message, or even a specific text, may have different applications in different situations, I can see no problem. . . .

“If the descriptive and synchronic study of the Bible [i.e., systematic theology] is not checked by the diachronic holistic approach based on the recognition of the unity of the word of God [i.e., biblical theology], it can lead to a revision of the sense of the authority of the Bible.”

8. Evangelical Pragmatism (p. 179)

“Evangelical aberrations are often a dehistoricizing of the gospel. When the gospel is reinterpreted primarily as how God does good and useful things in our lives now, a pragmatic hermeneutic may take over. This can take many forms, but the same basic problem is the constant of these aberrations. Good and important biblical truths are allowed to crowed out the central truths of the historic events of the gospel. Theologically speaking, this usually involves allowing the present experience of the Christian, rather than the finished work of Christ, to become the hermeneutical norm. It means focusing on the continuing work of the Spirit at the expense of the finished work of Christ. It undermines the centrality of our justification in Christ. . . .

“Evangelical pragmatism takes on many forms and may include any or all of the matters already mentioned. Pragmatism is the view that what works is true. It ignores the issue of how we determine what kind of results we should look for. Thus, if it feels good it is true; if it brings people to church it is valid and right; if we get the numbers and a good cash flow our methods are correct. We conclude from good results that we must be acting biblically. Once again, it need only be said that the gospel hermeneutic does not necessarily support these views. Pragmatism is really a hermeneutical framework that is used to determine not so much the meaning of texts, but the meaning of events. . . . It is at its core a trinitarian error and a form of religious humanism.”

Goldsworthy’s Assessment (p. 180)

“The irony of modern evangelicalism is that many of its aberrations have occurred because of a siege mentality and an attempt to ward off the effects of the Enlightenment. When evangelicals become reactionary, they can often flee unwittingly into the arms of another enemy waiting in the wings. Most reactionary moves tend to compound the problem. Pietism and quietism were earlier reactions to either doctrinal or critical sterility. Other aberrations were simply attempts to protect the importance of personal faith, conversion and regeneration. . . . How easy it is for us, while priding ourselves on being people of the Book, to be quite unquestioning about cherished beliefs and practices in the interpretation of the Bible. . . .

“In modern evangelicalism we could mention current usage of the words that are quite far removed from their main function in the New Testament. . . . Other problems arise when a hermeneutical approach exalts doctrinal categories by muting the dynamics of biblical theology. Those matters raised in this chapter should move us to be more diligent in allowing the gospel to shape our hermeneutics, even if this means appearing to be somewhat tiresome in our questioning of some of the traditions of our evangelical culture.”

A Reminder from Kostenberger for Young Scholars

by

I just stumbled across Andreas J. Köstenberger‘s editorial for the March 2003 JETS (pp. 1–3). It’s a wise and humbling reminder for young scholars and scholars-in-training.

Introduction:

“I still remember vividly a Canadian summer over a dozen years ago that put my scholarly career into a much-needed historical perspective. The reason I would like to share this with a wider audience is my conviction that such a bird’s eye view is vital for anyone working in academia. Not that scholarship is the only, or even most important, kingdom ministry. Very likely, God’s final verdict on what were the most valuable and vital contributions to his cause in this world will differ from ours, and there are many viable (and probably more important) ways to serve our Lord other than through scholarship or writing. Nevertheless, there are some of us whom he did in fact call to such ministry, and I believe that we would do well to reflect on our place in the larger scope of things from time to time. Perhaps this editorial can be of use at least for some of our younger scholars. In this regard I do share Millard Erickson’s concern (expressed in his presidential address in the present volume) that we be of help if we can, and while I am not quite as ‘chronologically gifted’ as he is, please indulge me as I share how I learned to see my scholarly calling in proper perspective” (p. 1).

During summer 1989, Köstenberger read some weighty books on the history of biblical interpretation, and he “learned several lessons” (p. 1):

“Feeling the weight of history on my shoulders, it dawned on me that the best I could realistically hope for (and probably not even that!) was to appear in a footnote when future histories of biblical scholarship would be written. Now some may say this is entirely the wrong focus-away with such morbid introspection and self-centered navel-gazing! And they would be right to a certain extent. . . . Yet despite these objections there remains something to be said for perspective. How would I like to be remembered? What kind of legacy do I want to leave for my children, for those who look to me for guidance, and even as a scholar? These seem to be legitimate concerns, and ones that may well guide one’s choices in the present” (pp. 1–2).

“The times are mostly gone (if they were ever here) where any one individual can single-handedly carry scholarship in a given field on their shoulder. We are part of a community of scholars who together seek to advance knowledge and grow in our understanding” (p. 2).

“Beyond this there are, of course, causes which one may hold dear and to which one may devote part of one’s time and energy. This may be the advocacy of egalitarianism or complementarianism; the promotion or defeat of open theism; the launching of a new Bible translation; or the championing of any number of other issues. Personally, I must confess that I have become increasingly leery of the way in which my scholarly energies may be diverted by involvement in these kinds of issues. To begin with, speaking as a scholar, what often goes hand in hand with defining an ‘issue’ is both a high degree of polarization and a process of politicization. Both tendencies, I submit, are at odds with the ethos of true scholarship: a scholar will resist polarization, because issues rarely are as black and white as they may be made out to be; and politics is rarely the servant of truth (the stuff of politics is compromise), nor is political power or clout the best way to settle an issue. So, for my part I say, let us be careful not to be diverted from our genuine scholarly contribution by getting unduly embroiled in issues that may better be left to others to resolve (even though it is of course important for the Christian community at large to address these kinds of issues responsibly)” (p. 2).

“If we do not want to be remembered primarily for exaggerated claims or bold—but long since discarded—hypotheses, we will want to be careful and allow our conclusions to be constrained by the available evidence to support them” (p. 3).

Conclusion:

“Let us therefore write with a sense of history and perspective. Let us select our topics of research deliberately and advisedly, and let us work with a clear and conscious purpose” (p. 3).

Review of “Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals”

by

On March 4, 2005, I reviewed the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals for Dr. David Beale’s “History of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism” course at BJU Seminary, and earlier this week I lightly updated the review.

____________________

Timothy T. Larsen, ed. Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003. xvii + 789 pp.

1. Overview

This nearly 800-page tome is a mini-library of condensed biographies. This practical reference tool contains biographical sketches for over four hundred outstanding evangelicals in alphabetical order.

1.1. Theologically, they are part of the identifiable network of evangelicals. Larsen defines an evangelical according to Bebbington and Noll’s standards. In Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, Bebbington proposed that there are four essential characteristics of evangelicals: “conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism” (BDE, p. 1). Noll’s Between Faith and Criticism “uses a thoroughgoing descriptive approach, arguing that the evangelical community is a readily identifiable network and that therefore those who can be seen to be a part of that network are the proper subjects of studies in evangelicalism” (BDE, p. 1).

1.2. Denominationally, the evangelicals generally include those with an interdenominational influence.

1.3. Chronologically, they stretch from John Wyclif to those born by 1936. Larsen’s rule of thumb is that it encompasses evangelicals from John Wyclif (ca. 1330-1384) to John Wimber (1934-1997) via John Wesley (1703-1791).

1.4. Geographically, they are generally limited to English-speaking people in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Exceptions include Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Menno Simons, Arminius, and Spener.

1.5. Vocationally, they include pastors, preachers, evangelists, theologians, missionaries, and authors.

1.6. Historically, they include evangelicals who are the most well-known and about whom readers are most likely to seek information (pp. 1-2).

2. Contributors

Timothy Larsen is the work’s general editor, and the consulting editors are David Bebbington and Mark Noll. Over two hundred scholars contributed to the work including Sinclair Ferguson, John Frame, Ward Gasque, Timothy George, Michael A. G. Haykin, J. I. Packer, Philip Graham Ryken, and Douglas A. Sweeney.

3. Negative Features

The negative features are relatively minor compared to the positive ones.

3.1. The work includes no pictures. It would be pleasant to see at least one picture of the person by his entry.

3.2. It excludes some people who deserve to be included in a work like this. It omits, for example, Henry Ward Beecher, Andrew Bonar, A. J. Gordon, William Grimshaw, John Henry Jowett, J. B. Lightfoot, Asahel Nettleton, John Paton, and James Stalker.

3.3. Some entries exclude key information. For example, R. W. Dale embraced conditional immortality. John Stott publicly renounced the separatism of Lloyd-Jones on October 18, 1966. Van Til vehemently opposed Gordon Clark’s apologetics.

3.4. Some of the entries are not as up-to-date as the publication. For example, H. M. Jones’s entry on Selina Hastings, the Countess of Huntingdon, mentions “her most recent biographer” as Schlenther, whose work was published in 1997. This overlooks Faith Cook’s excellent work Selina: Countess of Huntingdon: Her Pivotal Role in the 18th Century Evangelical Awakening (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 2001).

4. Positive Features

4.1. It is a handy reference. The last three pages in the book include an index of the 400 articles in alphabetical order with the page number where their entries begin. It is arranged efficiently for pastors and teachers to consult in order to include biographical illustrations in their preaching and teaching. (Even more efficient is the electronic version available from Logos Bible Software.)

4.2. It contains most of the major influential figures in church history from Wyclif to the present. These include Arminius, Bavinck, Baxter, Berkhof, Berkhouwer, Beza, Bonar, Bullinger, Calvin, Carey, Carmichael, Carnell, Chafer, Colson, Cowper, Cranmer, Cromwell, Crosby, Dabney, Dale, Darby, Edwards, Fee, Finney, Fuller, Gaebelein, Gill, Graham, Haldane, Havergal, Henry, Charles and A. A. Hodge, the Countess of Huntingdon, Hus, Ironside, Bob Jones Sr., Kantzer, Knox, Kuyper, Ladd, Latimer, Lindsell, Lloyd-Jones, Luther, McCheyne, Machen, McIntire, McLaren, Martyn, Mather, Melanchthon, Menno Simons, Merle d’Aubigné, Meyer, Moody, Morgan, Henry Morris, Leon Morris, Moule, Müller, Andrew Murray, John Murray, Watchman Nee, Newton, Ockenga, Orr, Owen, Packer, Pierson, Pink, Rice, Riley, Rutherford, Ryle, Ryrie, Sankey, Schaff, Scofield, Scroggie, Shedd, Shields, Simeon, Spener, Spurgeon, Stoddard, Stott, A. H. Strong, Studd, Sunday, W. H. G. Thomas, Torrey, Tozer, Van Til, Vine, Walvoord, Warfield, Watts, John and Charles Wesley, Whitefield, Wilberforce, Wimber, Winthrop, Wyclif, Zinzendorf, and Zwingli.

4.3. It is relatively thorough. Many biographical reference works contain entries that are severely brief containing perhaps one or two small paragraphs. This work, which divides each page into two columns, averages about two large (10 x 6.5 in.) pages per entry. The entries for some of the more prominent evangelicals are three to five pages in length (e.g., John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Charles Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and J. I. Packer). They survey the person’s life and include the date of major events (birth, death, teaching positions, pastorates, major books, etc.) and key people and places in his life. Each entry ends with a few of the most useful sources for further study.

4.4. It contains interesting facts and anecdotes. For example, Louis Berkhof “is the single most influential theologian within the Christian Reformed Church, having trained virtually all its ministers over a period of nearly forty years” (p. 46). C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer had a father-son relationship: Chafer became a Bible teacher at Scofield’s urging and encouragement; Scofield wrote the foreword to Chafer’s first book in 1915; Chafer dedicated his book Grace to Scofield in 1922 after Scofield’s death; Chafer became the pastor of Scofield’s former church in 1922 and renamed it Scofield Memorial Church in 1923 (pp. 136-137). Chafer “opposed the direct solicitation of funds, insisting that the school live by the ‘faith principle’ of George Müller,” which “resulted in chronic shortages and accumulating debt” (p. 137). Charles Trumbull was Elisabeth Elliot’s great-uncle (p. 207). Both Charles Finney and J. C. Ryle married three times (pp. 226-228, 574). Charles Hodge married Benjamin Franklin’s great-granddaughter (p. 304). Bob Jones Sr. never graduated from college (p. 335). Lloyd-Jones “never gave an altar-call or appeal and refused to cooperate with the evangelist Billy Graham” (p. 373). Neither J. Gresham Machen nor Charles Simeon ever married (pp. 393, 614). G. Campbell Morgan “did not believe in ‘a hell of literal fire’” (p. 442). John Owen’s first work was A Display of Arminianism in 1642 (p. 494). J. I. Packer as a junior librarian “stumbled across the works of John Owen,” and “this discovery of Puritan theology marked a turning-point in his personal and academic life” (p. 497). Packer also has a “lifelong love for Dixieland jazz” (p. 497). Scofield divorced and remarried (p. 589).

The Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals is an unusual, invaluable collection of 400 brief biographies. Pastors, teachers, and lay people will profit immensely by consulting it often.

Andrew David Naselli
March 4, 2005; Greenville, South Carolina
Updated August 27, 2007; Deerfield, Illinois