Historiography: Rights and Wrongs

I am a pastor, not a professional historian. I am however an amateur historian, and have written history for publication, so I know a bit about how you do history. Sadly the discipline of Church history is either ignored or misunderstood by many evangelicals today. Historical ignorance is corrected by the injunction to "go and read a book", but there are those who know something about history, but do not understand how history is done

That was one of the worst things about the White-Pinto debate last week, that Chris Pinto demonstrated a thoroughly false historiography that is too common in certain circles. The word historiography in this context refers to the study of how we "do" history, and Pinto displays the view that certain historians of the 19th century form a "canon" (small 'c', note), a rule by which all other historians are to be judged. This isn't an uncommon view in certain circles, as witness the fact that there are still people who hold to the "trail of blood" view of Baptist history. Now of course when young Christians set out reading history, they will tend to go with the older writers, those of a viewpoint they themselves hold, and there is nothing wrong with that; a biography by a sympathetic author is always a far better read than a biography by an unsympathetic one, after all, and a history written by an atheistic Marxist intent on imposing his ideas of how things ought to have happened upon the record is going to be a pretty irritating read unless you are an atheistic Marxist (and even then...). But we must beware taking those favourite authors and saying, "If anyone disagrees with them, then so much the worse for the one disagreeing." As Christians who believe in the reality and objectivity of truth, our first commitment must be to that same truth, to what really happened, as opposed to what we would like to have happened. I don't just refer to the interpretation of history, what certain events mean, what motives lay behind a person's action, for example, but the actual historical record itself, who did what and when.

When we go any distance into the past beyond about a hundred years, our knowledge of history is based upon records, sources. As the knowledge of sources changes, so too our knowledge of the past does; to give one example, open a 19th century biography of John Knox such as Thomas M'Crie's famous work and it will tell you that Knox was born in 1505. More recent works, including the biography by Henry Cowan published in 1905, give the date as between 1513 and 1515, up to a whole decade later. Why is this? Because between M'Crie's writing in 1811 and Cowan in 1905 further research had been done on Knox, following M'Crie's lead. No historian is to be regarded ipso facto as having given the last word on a subject. Cowan notes that the traditional date of Knox's birth rested almost entirely upon a historian writing about 50 years later, in other words on a secondary source, while the later date is based upon Theodore Beza, who knew Knox personally, and other contemporary sources. Now M'Crie's work is a classic, and yet it is wrong on the date of Knox's birth because later historians were able to uncover data unknown to M'Crie. That is how history works, being based upon sources, the judgement of historians is liable to alteration if new sources come to light. There are also people who create fraudulent sources, which creates all sorts of havoc for historians. In E.C. Pike The Story of the Anabaptists (London, 1904) he refers to Goadby's Byepaths of  Baptist History and its reference to the graveyard at Hill Cliffe Baptist chapel, near Warrington, mentioning a gravestone dated 1357. It is quite certain that the stone in question had been fraudulently altered, firstly because its style was not 14th century, and secondly because old records exist that show what the original date on the stone was. In the effort to claim the name of "oldest" people have stretched points and flat out made things up. The temptation to exaggerate can be strong.

This being so, to claim that any historians, however orthodox their theology, are the canon by which all others are to be judged is just a demonstration of appalling ignorance of how history works. The great 19th century Church historians are not honoured by being treated as the be all and end all of history, as the men who gave us the infallible facts and interpretation, but by our following in their footsteps, taking up the trails that they blazed, developing the country they explored, exploring still further. Just because a particular interpretation of history is seen as favouring a particular theological position does not mean that, should the evidence force us to that conclusion, it may not have to be abandoned, as for example the claim that the Cathars and Paulicians were in any meaningful sense "reformers before the Reformation". Nor should we read back the excesses of the late Middle Ages into the age of Anselm, far less the age of Augustine. The historian must go where the evidence leads, not cling to Hill Cliffe as pre-Reformation when all the evidence shows it is of 17th century origin.

And the reader must recall that history is not an exact science; the reconstruction of what happened in the past is often straightforward, but sometimes it is not. In days past people were not so exact at keeping records as we are today, the exact date of an event was not seen as important in the way we see it - the event itself was what mattered. Historians of the past were men like us, capable of error, of being misled or of drawing false conclusions; that J.A. Wylie's estimate of the Cathars was in error does not mean that we should cast out everything he ever wrote, far less that we should all become Roman Catholics or something like that. But we should remember this: those writers were not infallible, and their writings are not inspired. And for us to treat them as such would be to do them a great disservice, for it would be to treat Protestant historians as though they were, in the field of history, infallible popes.

Conspiracy Mania

As one who still recalls the frequent bomb attacks by the Provisional IRA that were so marked a  feature of my childhood (all the more so since we lived close to a military base, though mercifully one that was never targeted), I cannot help but be variously amused and disgusted by the fact that certain persons in the US seem incapable of hearing about a terrorist outrage without immediately declaring that it is a "false flag attack". This makes no sense, of course, when no "flag" has been shown at all! So why do it? Well, the cynic in me (whom I must be careful not to feed too often) suggests that this is in order to boost ratings, but the alternative suggestion arises that in fact it is because the people who make these suggestions have so entered into the conspiracy mindset that to them all things must be linked to their notional conspiracy, in other words that they presuppose the conspiracy. It cannot be that there are real terrorists setting off bombs, it must be the conspiracy, it cannot be that anyone really decides in a moment of mental derangement to go into a school with guns, but there must be the conspiracy there behind it all.

And so begins the search for anything at all to "verify" this, anything that (to a totally untrained eye, mind you!) seems "wrong". And here we hit another problem; the "reality" that is at the back of the mind in these cases is oftentimes not reality at all, but fiction. Based upon the way well-rehearsed actors backed with state of the art special effects portray a scene, the conspiracy theorist assesses what he sees. Now reality, it is important to say, does not look realistic by the standards of Hollywood, for effects in action movies are bigger and more spectacular than the real thing, explosions are less destructive (unless they are CGI) than the real thing, while they are at the same time flashier, and guns all too often have unlimited ammo, or at least clips with wildly varying numbers of rounds in them (which is odd, as even blanks have to be fired from real guns with real magazines).

And there is another point to consider; we must postulate, must we not, that the conspirators cannot at one and the same time be diabolical masterminds and total idiots, that doesn't even work in Get Smart, let alone real life. A conspiracy that manages to fool most of the world must be very, very good. That means they will not make stupid mistakes that any fool could spot; thus anything that appears unrealistic must be considered very carefully, for it may very well be, so far from a sign that something is fake, a sign that it is not.

Not that the conspiracy maniac ever considers that, of course, for he is looking for confirmation, not for anything that could destroy his theory. And that is why the most insane suggestions have been taken up enthusiastically by otherwise sensible human beings, as witness those who bought the Sandy Hook Actors Conspiracy theory, a theory that, if thought about only works if we assume that Sandy Hook Elementary School either never existed, or that at least for the last decade the school was being set up for the shooting. For you see, whilst the TV viewer in California (say), has never been there, New England exists, Sandy Hook exists - if it did not, people would have noticed, and we would have to question the reality of everything, which way leads to madness. That means that the fake families would have to be introduced to the school as real, and so on and so forth. In reality it would have to be done in such a way that the fake families resembled real ones in every way. The alternative is only credible to someone who has not actually thought about it, or who has let Conspiracy Mania addle the brain.

And that is the real tragedy of all this - people abandoning critical thinking in the name of critical thinking.

What has Jerusalem to do with Hollywood?

Perhaps one of the more laughable (if it were not so serious) trends in modern evangelicalism is the Movie Sermon. These are sermons delivered in churches where the 'Text' is not from the Bible, but is rather the latest blockbuster movie from Hollywood or wherever. While R.F. Horton in his Verbum Dei proposed that the preacher might find a "Word from the Lord" in the newspaper, that isn't what these sermons are all about; instead they tend to be of the bait and switch method, and usually resolve themselves into a preacher who is barely able to exegete a Bible passage and who is more at home delivering a ridiculous parody of a self-help message with a straight face, unaware of how utterly parodic it is, attempting to draw some inane moral lesson from a piece of Hollywood fiction, or, in the worst cases, trying to draw some relationship lessons from James Bond. In that particular case, as someone who has actually read Fleming's entire output, and the dreadful continuation novels by John Gardner (In which the greatest surprise is that a character is who they claim to be), and Raymond Benson's first couple of continuation novels (when Bond fails to spot that the villain blatantly faked his own death and that the femme fatale is... well, one of the most obvious in history, it's time to stop reading), I find the idea of getting relationship hints from James Bond utterly hilarious on a number of levels. I mean, "long term relationship" isn't in the man's vocabulary. In the films it's made all the more inappropriate by the fact that Bond's marriage (in the hugely underrated On Her Majesty's Secret Service) is followed not only by the death of his wife, but that in the very next film he reverts to being Sean Connery. But I digress, so back to the point. And that is that either we are reading out of the film something glaringly obvious to begin with, or we are reading into it something that we decided we wanted to talk about anyhow and are merely glad of the excuse.

Personally I do not watch films or television looking for moral lessons - it usually detracts from the enjoyment of the actual thing that I am watching. That's not to say that most things don't have a point that they are trying to get across, even if it's something as inane as "don't be nasty to people" - we already knew that was a bad idea, thank you for reminding us. But you see, the big problem with the film sermon is that it ends there; it basically preaches morality, and usually a rather weak, milk-and-water version of that too. It becomes a gigantic Aesop, a moral message, and not a Gospel message. Well, I think that we can leave the Aesop to the film-maker; if the film's meant to communicate it, then it probably does a better job of it than we can, and we may be in the awkward position of pointing out the glaringly obvious, which is never a good idea.

No, as Christians we are supposed to preach the Gospel, we are meant to be about Jesus Christ and him crucified. And that is something that Hollywood does not do, on the whole. So that means that if we look at popular fiction (and I see no reason not to, within sensible limits), we shall be looking at it in two ways; first of all as illustration, and secondly, and more rarely, for echoes of the Gospel of Grace.

Illustration is fairly self-evident; a story in a film, or a scene in a TV show, illustrates a Biblical point, so why not use it to a congregation or audience who will know what you are talking about? Or it illustrates the hopelessness of mankind without the Gospel, or without the Word of God. There's nothing wrong with that, provided that the illustration does its job - that it illustrates, in other words.

The question of echoes is rather more complex; basically it is when a piece of popular fiction, perhaps all unknowingly, points to Christ, or to a truth that is really only opened up in Scripture. The most obvious example to me is the character who, rather than exercise power to destroy, suffers pain, even death, to redeem. The trouble with this is of course that by its very nature this point is hard to illustrate, because the examples always constitute spoilers, and we do not like them. This would be something deep and thoughtful, like the protagonist who must embrace the evil without becoming evil, who must suffer without being tainted, all to redeem those who are under the sway of the evil. And I am thinking of a specific thing here. Let's just say one of the more surprising Christ-figures in popular entertainment.

And here we come upon a very interesting point - namely that very few movie sermons, if any, deal with such things. The thoughtful, the intelligent, the challenging, all those are things you will not hear from pulpits where films and TV are taken as texts. Because that would be far too challenging, of course, for those who come to hear how they should emulate Captain America and not the Red Skull, because if the Church did not tell them that they might be confused.

Ecclesiastical Antiquarianism

I am not one of the 'New Calvinists'; as a committee member of the Sovereign Grace Union with shelves groaning with Banner of Truth books, and one who goes to the Banner Conference every year (apparently it's expected of the pastor at Bethel), I am most definitely one of the old Calvinists.

It is a fact (apparently) that there are various sorts of Calvinists; as more people discover the truths of Reformed Theology, the varieties of that theology increase, and these varieties are now cross-denominational. One trend that worries me is that a number of men are writing and speaking in a way that gives the impression that they believe the perfect model for a Christian society is 17th-century Holland.

One of the glories of Christianity is that it does not require a specific culture; while Islam tries to conform every culture it touches to Medieval Arabia, Christianity is varied in its cultural expressions, though united in doctrine. The Ecclesiastical Antiquarian (as I have dubbed him) disagrees with that, he sets up one particular culture as normative for Christianity and laments that we no longer live in that world.

Another sign of the Ecclesiastical Antiquarian is that he starts to adopt an antiquarian vocabulary; I do not mean in doctrine, for there is is a technical vocabulary there, but in describing other groups. In Medieval Constantinople the canons of historical writing were set by the Classical period, meaning that no vocabulary not in use then could be used, so that Arab invaders were called 'Persians' because the Arabs had not been foes in the Classical period. In the same way there are men who insist on referring to all Baptists today as 'Anabaptists', apparently on similar grounds. Do they call Muslims 'Mohammedans' as well? Times change, and labels that were used in the past (and never really appropriate, since the term 'Anabaptist' was used as a catch-all for diverse groups who agreed in nothing but the rejection of infant baptism) cannot be meaningfully resurrected today.

We live in a world where by and large it has been recognised that uniformity in religion is not desirable; it is at this point that Ecclesiastical Antiquarians are often least attractive, as they wistfully look back on a golden age of uniformity, forgetting that it was not so golden, and enforced by cruel laws.

The fact is that there never was a golden age; we look forward to that in the world to come.

Now, let me add that I am a hymn-singing, NKJV-using Independent who values our traditions, not some iconoclast who wants to introduce anarchy; but let us be moderate and remember that we are not living in the 17th century, or the 18th, or the 19th, or even the 20th.

How NOT to Revive the Churches

It is denied by no-one that the Churches in the United Kingdom are not what they once were. How are we to reach the masses? One common approach is to try to preach on practical subjects that will, it is thought, attract non-Christians. After all, doesn't everyone want to learn how to manage their time and money better, how to be a better parent or spouse, how to get ahead in life? Even granted that people do (and I'm not convinced by the argument), is this really what the Church is about? Don't we have a Divine commission? And if not, why bother in the first place? It seems to me that there are breat number of organisations that do life-coaching far better than I ever could, and life-coaching requires a one-on-one approach, it cannot be done to large numbers (I have actually received life coaching, so I know of what I speak). Motivational messages may help self-confidence, but again, aren't there conferences that do that sort of thing better than any Church can. No, the Church has a divine commission. God has spoken and given us a command to preach the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world. Abraham Taylor wrote in the 18th century that in too many pulpits, "The satisfaction of Christ was made nothing of, under pretence that He died to set us an example of patience, meekness and charity" (Quoted in Dale, English Congregationalism P. 555). Instead of preaching, "the great doctrines of the Gospel, and acquainting those who heard the word, on what foot, and by what aid, they must act in doing duty, a great deal of pains were taken to amuse them with mere moral babble, under the plausible name of practical preaching... as this way of preaching grew in use, Christ was very much left out, and some seemed to take pleasure, in being able to spin out an empty harangue, the length of an hour, without mentioning His name." It didn't work, and even if such an approach brings people in the doors, I have to ask a most unfashionable question - what's the point? What is the point in assembling a great crowd of people in a Church building on Sunday to hear a talk about how to manage your time and money? If Christ is not proclaimed, then frankly the talk or address had no business being given in a Church. The mission of the Church is to proclaim Christ. Not a 'Social Gospel' that is all social and no Gospel. We have a Saviour to proclaim. God pity us if we forget that and start talking about other things, until the poor people have to say, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him."

'Hazardous Materials' - First Impressions

I have received and begun to read Gail Riplinger's Hazardous Materials (see previous post). The first impression is that this is a big book - over 1000 pages. Opening it at random, I found page 845, and was instantly confronted with an egregious historical error about the Knights Templar. Turning back to the beginning of the section, I was amazed to find that Gail Riplinger actually believes The Da Vinci Code (better called the Da Vinci Codswallop) to be of some merit in its historical statements! Thus, on the basis of a work which contains no historical fact worth mentioning, we are told that, "The temples erected by the Knights were used for bizarre rituals of a Satanic nature" (P. 843). Not that she uses The Da Vinci Code as her only source. She also quotes Templar fantasists Laurence Gardener, Eliphas Levi, , Knbight and Lomas, and of course the work of Leigh and Baigent, as if these men had anything useful to say about the Templars. A leading British Historian has described Leigh and Baigent (and by extension all who hold their views) as "Fabulists", and this verdict is true! Missing are references to any credible work on the Templars, such as Helen Nicholson's The Knights Templar (Stroud, Sutton, 2001), Piers Paul Read, The Templars (London, Phoenix, 2003), Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994), and Michael Haag, The Templars: History and Myth (London, Profile, 2008). Each of these books exposes the fantasies of the works cited by Riplinger, and shows that the idea of the Templars as occultists is simply the product of over-active imaginations.

First of all, the charges against the Templars were not believed outside of France, and the Templars outside of France did not confess to the same charges that the French Templars did. Secondly, the Templars in France only confessed after hours, maybe days, of severe torture. Third, the Pope himself did not believe the accusations made by the King of France, accusations made, as all reputable historians now seem to agree, with the aim of seizing the assets of the Templars, who functioned as international bankers. 

As for the fantasies Riplinger retails, Read tells us that they are only the products of 18th-century imagination. The 'Masonic history' that Riplinger also quotes is pure fantasy. He quotes Peter Partner:

"The transformation of ideas about the Templars during the eighteenth century shows how far from stern scientific rationalism the men of the Enlightenment could wander. In the very body of Church history which was the prime target for rationalisation and demystification, eighteenth-century men found the Templars, and turned them into a wild fantasy which for mystagogy and obfuscation equalled anything that the old Catholic historiography could offer. So successful was the enterprise that to this day it is impossible to approach the Templars without encountering the remnants, or even the full and gaudy robes, of eighteenth-century prejudice." (Quoted in Read, P.303")

In other words, don't get your ideas about the Knights Templar from the Freemasons, or from the books at the railway station bookstall. Get them from real scholars and historians.

Rilpinger (or rather the fabulists she draws on) finds something sinister in the fact that, in the Temple Church in London, "The floor is frequently interrupted with effigies of the ancient Knight;s [sic.] Templar lying prostrate on the floor, rather than standing erect, as statues usually do" (Pp. 849-50). This is screamingly funny because, as anyone who has ever been to any number of English Medieval Churches knows, Medieval funerary effigies are always recumbent. So Ingham Priory (pictured), also contains several effigies of crusader knights in a recumbent position. But what does that matter to the conspiracy theorist? Umberto Eco wrote of a lunatic:

"For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."

Bravo, this witness is true.

Joking aside, how am I to trust a woman who believes such arrant nonsense about the Templars? I had hoped that the fantasies of Leigh and Baigent were their own refutation to Christians, and that the way Dan Brown (or rather the works he draws on) distort the history of the Bible would alert readers to the probability that they distort all the other history they meet - but obviously not. And this brings me to my main criticism of Riplinger's book. I can think of no book more likely to undermine the faith of the reader. In the name of defending the Bible she systematically undermines Greek and Hebrew study, telling us that, in effect, the Bible has been preserved instead in vernacular translations, some of which are secondary (i.e. translations of translations). A shallow, thoughtless reader might stop where she does, but a more thoughtful reader will go on thus: "If all Greek study tools today are faulty, then the tools available in the 1600s were still more faulty, therefore the AV is even less trustworthy than the modern versions, and we really have no idea how to translate the Bible. If we have to rely on translations of translations, then how can we be sure we do not end up with something like Chinese Whispers, with the final translation in fact bearing no relation at all to what was originally written?" Secondly, by quoting parts of books by Leigh and Baigent as if they contained fact (they do not), she encourages undiscerning Christians to read these works, which will plunge them into a morass of wild fantasy about Jesus, all denying His deity and the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible. Thus the thoughtful Christian may be led into atheism by this book! It does indeed contain 'Dangerous Materials'.

Nelson Price does not know what Calvinists believe concerning perseverence

The following is a complete refutation of a passage in the review article : 'A Review of Calvinism and Southern Baptists' by Nelson Price


In this article Nelson Price makes the following remarks:

"PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Southern Baptists are in general agreement on the concept of the security of the believer known as “once saved always saved” or preservation of the saints.

There is a slight semantic difference in what Calvinists believe on this topic. They believe in the perseverance of the saints.

(The following two paragraphs are a sidebar to the book review.)

Put side by side the difference becomes clear.

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CALVINIST
Preservation of the saints Perseverance of the saints
God does it Man does it
It is based on God’s promises It is based on man’s performance
It is absolute It is relative

Contrary to the concept of “it is all about grace” this last point actually means the Calvinists position on the subject is works based. This leaves some Calvinists hoping they have done enough good work. Baptist know for sure God has done a perfect work."

Nothing could be further from the truth than this disingenuous statement. The Calvinist does NOT believe that his salvation is conditional on his works. Let us see what official Calvinist documents have to say on the matter. We shall also look at two high Calvinists who no-one will accuse of Arminian tendencies.

First of all, let us see what the Westminster Confession, a document Dr. Price elsewhere regards as authoritative on the definition of Calvinistic belief, has to say:
"II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof" (article 17, identical to chapter 17 of the 1689 Baptist Confession)

The Synod of Dort, generally regarded as THE standard of Calvinism, reads: "Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end." (Fifth main Point of Doctrine, article 3) Article 8 says: "So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God's undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out." The synod condemns those, "Who teach that God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man's will whether or not he perseveres." (second error rejected under the fifth head of doctrine)

Article 11 of the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 reads: "We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare;60 and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."

Article 4 of the Sandy Creek Association reads: "We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost."

The First London Baptist Confession of 1644 reads: "Those that have this precious faith wrought in them by the Spirit, can never finally nor totally fall away; and though many storms and floods do arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon, but shall be kept by the power of God to salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being formerly engraven upon the palms of God's hands." (Article 22)

William Huntington, a rather eccentric preacher accused by some of hyper-Calvinism, wrote in his personal Confession in 1745: "I believe, that wherever the Spirit of God begins a work of grace, the carries it on. What God doth, it is done for ever, all his work is perfect; the Spirit is a well of living water in the believer, that springs up into everlasting life; the Comforter abides for ever, he shall never depart from the chosen seed, world without end."

William Gadsby, in his Catechism, writes of believers: "they shall never perish; but, in spite of sin, Satan, the world and the flesh, shall have everlasting life; for their life is hid with Christ in God, and because He lives, they shall live also." (answer to Question 92)

Dr. John Gill, in his reply to John Wesley (who DID believe that our continuance in gace is conditional on our works) writes: "Blessed be God, we have a better foundation for joy and comfort than all this; the true believer, though he lives by faith, does not live upon it... a believer lives not on his faith, but upon Christ, and the grace of Christ, faith brings nigh unto him. He has better things than uncertain precarious frames to live upon and recieve his comforts from; even the unchangable love of God; the unalterable covenant of grace; the faithfulness of God, who, though 'we believe not, yet He abideth faithful' (II Timothy 2.13); absolute and unconditional promises; Jesus Christ, the same to-day, yesterday, and for ever; His precious blood, perfect righteousness, atoning sacrifice, and that fulness of grace which is in Him.
"To conclude: if a man may be confident of one thing in this world, he may be 'confident of this very thing', that in whomsoever, whether in himself or in any other, God 'hath begun a good work,' he 'will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ' (Phil 1.9); and that 'all' the true 'Israel' of God 'shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation' (Isa 45.17); and that not one of them shall eternally perish." ('Sermons and Tracts by the late Reverend and Learned John Gill, D.D.' (London, H. Lyon, 1815) Pp. 99-100).
The Carter Lane Declaration of Faith and Practice, drawn up by Dr. Gill, says: "We believe, That all those who are chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified by the Spirit, shall certainly persevere, so that not one of them shall ever perish but shall have everlasting life." (article 9. Found On. P. 560 of the volume just referred to
If any Baptist may be said to have been a Calvinist, it is John Gill. In fact, Gill has been accused of being hyper-Calvinist. Yet Gill reprobated the very belief Price attributes to Calvinists as Arminian.

We see, then, that nine witnesses (and we could call dozens more) contradict Dr. Price. Seven of these are official statements of dorctine admitted by churches and two very high Calvinists. So why is Dr. Price so wrong? I can only assume that Dr. Price has not researched what Calvinists actually believe on this matter, but has accepted on second hand a bad criticism of the Calvinistic position. What Dr. Price has done is perpetuated a straw man. He has taken the word 'perseverence' and given it, not the meaning that Calvinists give it, but a definition devised by an unscrupulous anti-Calvinist in the past. This is a mean-spirited and just plain nasty way of dealing with someone you disagree with, and I am sorry that Dr. Price has been taken in by the word-games of the spiteful man who came up with this piece of nastiness. His criticism strikes at the Arminians, but it totally misses every Calvinist who ever lived.


I have already written to Dr. Price to make him aware of my concerns, and I have asked him to amend the article accordingly. If he does not do so, it evidences a refusal to be taught.

Tolerance and that sort of stuff

What is 'tolerance'? It used to mean putting up with what you did not like. I 'tolerate' the neighbour's irritating outside telephone buzzer, for example. But a new meaning has been introduced by 'postmodern' types. Now 'tolerance' means accepting evyone as equally valid. And there's a catch. According to this new definition of tolerance, such 'tolerance' is only to be extended to the 'tolerant'. Eveyone else is 'intolerant' and therefore not worthy of tolerance.
A clever wheeze, this. It's a classic case of newspeak (for which see George Orwell's 1984). Just as in 1984 the Ministry of Peace dealt with war, so this 'tolerance' is really intolerance given a new name. The old concept meant that, as Christians, we allowed other religions to exist, though we disagreed with them and sought to evangelize their adherents who are going to hell. In new-style 'tolerance' that is 'intolerant'. No, the 'tolerant' thing to do is say they are all going to heaven. And that is why so many Churches have stopped talking about the Wrath of God, about Hell and judgement. Well, not on my watch. If that's 'intolerant', then I'm intolerant. But I'm not looking to persecute anyone. Some of my forefathers were refugees who fled to England because of religious persecution in France. Others were Primitive Methodists who were stoned and assaulted in the streets because they were not Church of England. THERE is real religious intolerance.

And finally, those Catholics who chased my forefathers out of France, those self-righteous Churchmen who wrecked the chapel where my Primitive Methodist ancestors worshipped, they tolerated those who agreed with them. There's nothing surprising about that. Any man can love a man who agrees with him. It's loving your enemies that is Christian.