Classic Literature Book Review

 The Brothers Karamazov

It's long, and it's better than War and Peace, but I'm still not sure why I should care about any of these people. They are all insufferable. If this book reveals something significant about the character of the Russian people, it was lost on me.

Christian Book Review

 The Nicene Creed: Studies in Comparative Christianity

This short book contains three essays that relate to the Nicene Creed: one each from a Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox perspective. The Protestant essay contains useful information: it gives a rundown on which church denominations and movements accept the Nicene Creed and why. I found both the Catholic essay by Cattoi and the Orthodox essay by Fortuin to be inscrutable. They are academic theological works that I don't have the background academic knowledge to even begin to decipher.

The book contains:

• Frank John Papatheofanis: Introduction to the Nicene Creed
• Julius (Rex) Gurney III: Protestantism and the Nicene Creed
• Thomas Cattoi: Why Nicaea? Classical Trinitarian Theology and the Development of New Doctrinal Formulas
• Robert F. Fortuin: Divine Mercy as "Immanent Transcendence" According to Nicean Metaphysics

Christian Book Review

 We Believe: The Nicene Creed (Leader's Edition)

This is a fantastic small-group study guide about the Nicene Creed. It includes a lot of Bible reading so that it's obvious that the doctrines summarized in the Nicene Creed are drawn directly from the Scriptures. It's got ten chapters, each broken into three sections, for a total of thirty units. There are two chapters introducing the Nicene Creed, one chapter on God the Father, three on Jesus, one on the Holy Spirit, and three on the church. My gut tells me that each unit could take 15 to 30 minutes to work through, depending on the nature of the group, which means each chapter could potentially be covered in one session.

If and when I teach the Nicene Creed, I'll use this resource. I read the Leader's Edition, which contains a few extra readings and additional study questions, but it does contain the entire content of the participant's version.

Christian Book Review

 Faith of Our Fathers: A Study of the Nicene Creed

I'm looking for a small-group study guide about the Nicene Creed. This book is organized in such a way, but the content is disappointing. The author doesn't stick to the subject at hand—the Nicene Creed and how it defines orthodoxy—but often goes on harangues against modern society that are disconnected from the Nicene Creed. Don't get me wrong—there is plenty about the Nicene Creed in here—but I would not use this as a small-group study for people who don't already have a familiarity with the Nicene Creed and with basic Christian doctrine.

On the other hand, it does have an excellent chapter on the history of the Council of Nicea and the principle people involved. I will definitely use this as background material if and when I teach on the Nicene Creed.

Adventure Fiction Book Review

 Tarzan: The Lost Adventure

The unfinished manuscript found after ERB's death was given to Joe R. Lansdale to complete. The story does not have the charm that I so enjoy from ERB's work, but this is likely ERB's fault, not Lansdale's. His writing quality markedly declined later in life. The parts of the story I most enjoyed were 100% Lansdale: the gladiatorial showdown in the arena and the fight with "god" Ebopa (the Stick That Walks). The parts that bored me to tears were straight from ERB's manuscript: the various safaris traipsing through the jungles, their paths crossing and recrossing, the capture-escape-recapture plots—these are the worst of ERB's tendencies. Also, there are too many characters, and they are not adequately distinguished.

This is not a strong story altogether. Still, it's not half bad, and there were parts I enjoyed. It's telling, though, that I put this book down part-way through and didn't pick it up again for weeks.

Christian Book Review

 The Nicene Creed: An Introduction

This is an excellent book on the Nicene Creed. It has a short chapter on each part of the Nicene Creed, explaining every word and clause. I was looking more for a small-group study guide, which this isn't—this would be better used for personal devotion or individual study.

Christian Book Review

 Faithful Politics: Ten Approaches to Christian Citizenship and Why It Matters

Faithful Politics gives a framework to understand Christian approaches to political engagement, with a focus on American politics. Cruz starts with a discussion of the concept of dual citizenship: Christians are citizens of the kingdom of God and citizens of an earthly state. She then reviews various Scripture passages that shed light on how to engage politically. Then she presents ten approaches that Christians have used to interact with politics and the state. Eight of them are (or can be) faithful expressions of a Christian worldview. However, the other two—Dominionism and Christian Nationalism—Cruz argues are not compatible with a Christian worldview and must be rejected.

A couple of nitpicks: Cruz has picked some poor terms. I don't know if this is her doing, or whether these terms are already in use in the field. But using both separatism and separationism invites confusion. Further, calling one view Historical Baptist Separationism when many Baptists don't subscribe to that view, and many who do hold to it are not Baptist—well, that's confusing. Similarly, labeling two views as Calvinist when, again, many Calvinists follow other models, and many who follow those models aren't Calvinists—confusing.

In the discussion of Dominionism, Cruz spends a lot of time talking about Christian Reconstructionism (which she distinguishes from Dominionism) so it makes me wonder if both Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism should be treated as separate approaches.

And finally, Cruz doesn't do a great job of defining Christian Nationalism. That term is thrown around so much and applied to so many things that it's hard to separate what Cruz is actually talking about—which is clearly unchristian and unbiblical—with the larger category of "Christian Nationalism" which encompasses everything that the left-wing in American politics dislikes about religion. I wonder if she should have picked a different term (maybe Christian Nationalistic Syncretism?) to lessen the confusion.

• Political Engagement in the Bible
• Three Separatist Approaches: Keeping the Kingdom Out of the Country
  • Anabaptist Separatism
    • Anabaptist Radical Isolation
    • Anabaptist Prophetic Witness
  • Evangelical Strategic Withdrawal
• Two Separationist Approaches: Keeping the Country Out of the Kingdom
  • Historic Baptist Separationism
  • Two Kingdoms Separationism
• Social Gospel Approaches: Bringing the Kingdom Into the Country
  • Social Gospel
• Two Calvinist Approaches: Keeping the Country Under the Kingdom
  • Direct Christian Influence
  • Principled Pluralism
• Dominionist Approaches: Invading the Country to Establish the Kingdom
  • Dominionism:
• Christian Nationalism: Eroding the Distinction Between Kingdom and Country
  • Christian Nationalism:

---

Political Engagement in the Bible

Cruz takes us through a brief survey of the biblical passages that speak to how we should approach politics and the state. Here are a few of the passages she references:

• Jeremiah prophesied to the people in exile under Babylon, that they should "seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile"
• Daniel served Babylonian and Persian kings faithfully, but kept strong boundaries and was willing to break the law in order to obey God.
• Esther used her influence with the king to change policy for the good of God's people.
• Paul asserted his rights and privileges as a Roman citizen
• Peter teaches us to be subject to human governmental authority as a witness to the world and as an act of obedience to God (1 Peter 2:12-17)
• Jesus taught that there are limits to the loyalty we give to earthly rulers when he said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and give to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21.
• In Romans 13, Paul instructs Christians to obey government authorities, who have been instituted by God to establish justice.
• By contrast, in Revelation 13 John teaches us to resist an unjust government, even to the point of death.

Three Separatist Approaches
Keeping the Kingdom Out of the Country

Anabaptist Radical Isolation
Arising out of (but not limited to) the anabaptist movement of the 16th century, this approach is a deliberate choice to not participate in civic life: no voting, no holding public office, no serving in the military. Pacifism is a hallmark of this approach. The radical isolation variant of the anabaptist approach is seen in such groups as the Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites. They separate themselves from the broader society to keep the faith pure, and they are largely unconcerned with what goes on in the rest of society.

Anabaptist Prophetic Witness
Also arising out of the anabaptist tradition is the separatist approach as a prophetic witness. There is a level of non-participation in civic life, but this is always done with a view to act as a witness to the culture at large. Some people may vote or even hold public office. Unlike the radical isolationists, those who view their lifestyle as a prophetic witness are more likely to live within the rest of society instead of in isolated communities. They are likely to engage in social good works like sit-ins, outreach to the poor, etc., but not in politics directly and certainly not in partisan politics. Active involvement in politics is not a part of this approach.

Evangelical Strategic Withdrawal
Some Evangelicals withdraw from civic involvement because the wider culture holds unbiblical and unchristian values. This withdrawal is for a different reason than the anabaptists, although some of the results may be the same. E.g., homeschooling instead of public schools. Evangelicals tend to still attempt to influence the government, but this is an intentional opting-out for a specific reason: the culture has become too unchristian. Rod Dreher's Benedict Option falls under this category: he calls for Christians to strategically retreat into intentional communities of believers, because we've lost the culture war and it's no longer possible to be a patriotic, engaged American citizen and be a faithful, Bible-believing Christian. It's a strategic withdrawal, because it's in response to the current culture and current political situation. It's not considered an approach for all situations like the anabaptist separatism.

Two Separationist Approaches
Keeping the Country Out of the Kingdom

Historic Baptist Separationism
This is the "separation of church and state" sort of approach. The state's role is to "safeguard free exercise" of religion and otherwise leave religion alone. From a Christian perspective, then, this means Christians do seek to influence government, but always with a view that such influence should protect and promote the free exercise of religion for all individuals of all denominations, sects, and religions.

Baptist separationism is rooted in the doctrine of "soul competency" or "soul liberty" which rejects the idea that morality can be coerced. Rather, true Christianity can only flourish when individuals have the liberty to choose it of their own free will. In this approach, the government should have no authority or influence over religious worship. Individuals are free to engage in politics and civic life, but must keep in mind that the government has no authority to dictate, establish, encourage, or otherwise privilege one form of religious expression over another. In fact, Christians should resist government encroachment into matters of religion, even when it's in favor of our own religious group.

The main reason for a separation of church and state is that this is the only way to ensure freedom from religious persecution and to encourage the flourishing of true Christianity. It grew out of the Baptist movement because the Baptists were persecuted by the official state churches in Europe.

This view is most prominently displayed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to free exercise of religion and prohibits the establishment of a state church.

Although this approach comes from Baptist roots, it is not limited to Baptists, nor do all Baptists adhere to this approach.

Two Kingdoms Separationism
The Two Kingdoms approach is similar to historic Baptist separationism in that it also sees separate spheres of authority for the church and the state. Unlike Baptist separationism, which focuses mostly on religious liberty, the Two Kingdoms approach has a different theological framework. Martin Luther developed the Two Kingdoms view as a way of understanding God's sovereignty: God established the church to govern over men's souls, and the state to govern over men's bodies. Therefore, the church has the sole authority to rule over morality, worship, and other spiritual matters. The state has the sole authority to establish justice, ensure peace, and punish evildoers. If the church exceeds its authority and attempts to wield the sword of justice, we must resist it. If the state exceeds its authority and attempts to limit the manner of religious worship, we must resist that.

Crucially, here, the Two Kingdoms approach does not see governmental authority as deriving from the consent of the governed, as it is in the American democratic system. Instead, the state's authority comes directly from God. In this sense, Two Kingdoms theology is at odds with the American system of government.

On the other hand, the Two Kingdoms approach plays out practically in much the same way that historic Baptist separationism does. E.g., both approaches allow people to be active in politics and government. Similarly, holders of both views refrain from trying to establish or promote their religious convictions through government policy. However, a historical Baptist separationist will refrain from doing so out of a conviction that such a policy would violate religious liberty, whereas a person holding the Two Kingdoms view would refrain because to do so would mean encroaching on the boundaries of the God-ordained authority of the church. Same result, different theological underpinnings.

The Two Kingdoms approach has not had a large impact on American history, but the related Calvinist Principled Pluralism approach has had more influence.

Social Gospel Approaches
Bringing the Kingdom Into the Country

Social gospel
The social gospel runs with the idea that "being the hands and feet of Christ [entails] bringing about the Kingdom of God through transforming the material world." The idea is that Christians should make this world more like heaven through "personal and social righteousness." This plays out in charity and social work, but also through government policies like workplace safety laws, social welfare programs, and political reforms (like the Civil Rights movement) to achieve social justice. Prominent examples of the social gospel approach are the Civil Rights movement in the United States and liberation theology in Latin America. In the United States, the social gospel approach was based on liberal theology and on a postmillennial eschatology. As such, those who follow a social gospel approach are much less concerned about the supernatural and the miraculous events described in Scripture. The inspiration of Scripture, the historical truth of miracles, and even the literal truth of the resurrection, are de-emphasized and sometimes discarded entirely.

The social gospel approach is also a feature of the evangelical left and of mainline Protestant churches in the USA, and of liberation theology and Mision Integral in Latin America.

Two Calvinist Approaches
Keeping the Country Under the Kingdom

Direct Christian Influence
Not all who hold this view are Calvinist, but its roots do come from John Calvin's teachings. Cruz describes the Direct Christian Influence model as a "politically conservative corollary to the social gospel." Its adherents believe Christianity is "the best foundation for American law and culture, so they believe it is biblical and desirable for Christians to try to legally establish Christian values." The Direct Christian Influence model differs from the Historic Baptist Separationism model in that it believes America was founded as a Christian nation, and that Christianity should continue to be privileged, promoted, and maintained. At the time of the founding of the United States, many of the states had officially established churches, and the Direct Christian Influence model sees that as desirable—in contrast with the Historic Baptist Separationism view that rejects such establishment.

This worldview believes the continued success of America depends on it remaining a Christian nation; failing to remain Christian would mean a cessation of God's blessing on the nation. This is where we get a significant push from Christians to influence government policy on abortion, to uphold biblical family values, to end no-fault divorce, and to return Bible instruction and prayer to the public schools. It's these markings of Christian virtues that make America a Christian nation and ensure God's continued blessings on the nation.

Principled Pluralism
Meanwhile, the related Principled Pluralism sees God's common grace as a foundation for civil government. Instead of trying to establish biblical Christian values into law, the Principled Pluralism seeks to influence government along the lines of natural law, which (being part of God's common grace) will never contradict or go against biblical Christianity. Thus, while the basis of laws are not specifically Christian, they are compatible with it, while also being compatible with many other religions and worldviews. In practice, this shakes out very similarly to the Historic Baptist Separationist model or to the Two Kingdoms model. The Principled Pluralist may talk about various spheres of authority, such as family, church, school, marketplace, and government—and that "government's role is to be an agent of common grace by enforcing justice, but it should not encroach on the church's sphere by demanding particular beliefs or moral convictions from its citizens."

If I can summarize the difference between the Direct Christian Influence view and the Principled Pluralism view, it's that the Direct Christian Influence thinks civil government should be modeled on special revelation (that is, biblical Christian values) whereas the Principled Pluralism thinks civil government should be based on general revelation and common grace.

Dominionist Approaches
Invading the Country to Establish the Kingdom

Dominionism
"Dominionism, also known as the Seven Mountains Mandate or Kingdom Now theology, espouses the idea that Christians need to gain dominion over the spheres of society, including the sphere of government, to establish the Kingdom of God on earth." (p156) Cruz links Dominionism closely with Christian Reconstructionism (which came from RJ Rushdoony) and with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement. It is a distinctly post-millennial worldview. Dominionism finds the American system of government (liberal democracy) to be incompatible with Christian teaching, and seeks to make everyone acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and to establish a government that upholds Christian values and ushers in the new millennial reign of Christ.

Cruz criticizes both Christian Reconstructionism and the New Apostolic Reformation for having shaky theological foundations, poor hermeneutics, and a faulty understanding of authority. Further, she points out that Dominionist views have "provided theological justification for religiously motivated violence and domestic terrorism." (p172)

I'm unconvinced that Cruz has demonstrated that Dominionism is unbiblical. I agree that it's wrong—I am fully convinced that Christian Reconstructionism is based on a complete misreading and misapplication of the Scriptures, that the New Apostolic Reformation is founded on a faulty interpretation of the Bible and a movement-wide tendency to credulity, and I find that any view based on postmillennialism is prone to abuse. But I don't think that Dominionism per se is unbiblical. At least, Cruz didn't present anything that sealed the deal for me. Don't get me wrong—I strenuously oppose Dominionism and intend to work against it. But is it unbiblical? I don't see that Cruz has demonstrated that.

Christian Nationalism
Eroding the Distinction Between Kingdom and Country

Christian Nationalism
And now we get to the Christian nationalism chapter. This is a tough one, because the term Christian nationalism is thrown around so much that it's become essentially meaningless in this current political moment. Many who call themselves Christian nationalists are nothing of the sort, and many who are accused of being Christian nationalists are not. But let's see how Cruz defines the term.

Nationalism is an ideology that defines group membership based on real or perceived shared cultural, historical, or kinship traits. … Christian nationalism regards Christianity as the trait that ought to unite a nation. … Significantly, the "Christianity" in Christian nationalism refers to culture, history, and morality, not necessarily the theological tenets of Christian orthodoxy. Because this version of "Christianity" is malformed and misappropriated, it is not an option for faithful Christian political engagement. Christian nationalism is not a version of Christianity with which we can simply agree to disagree; rather, it is a political ideology that sacrifices core Christian convictions on the altar of power. Christian nationalist ideology is, therefore, not compatible with Christian orthodoxy. (p177-178)

The key point here is that the "Christianity" of Christian nationalism is cultural and historical, not theological. Further, the "nationalism" part of the ideology is exclusionary: the entire ideology is built around defining who is part of the group and who is not; that is, who is a true American and who is not. This is antithetical to the message of the gospel that "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, NIV2011).

Christian nationalism uses the symbols and trappings of true Christian faith, but adherence to the faith is optional: "The single strongest predictor of Christian nationalism is not orthodox Christian theology or regular church attendance; instead, 'the strongest predictor of Chrsitian nationalism is identifying oneself with political conservatism.'" (p183, quoting Whitehead and Perry, Taking America, p13)

Christian nationalism is a theological error, its fruits are bad, and many of its adherents and proponents are not even committed, church-attending Christians. It is, at its core, an unchristian movement.

Unlike my pushback on Cruz's chapter about Dominionism, here I fully agree with her: the form of Christian nationalism that she has defined certainly exists, and it's a false ideology that no Christian can faithfully embrace.

Science Fiction Book Review

 Network Effect

Book five.

Christian Theology Book Review

 Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

Why an Arminian theology book?
I find Calvinism unconvincing, and Arminianism makes sense to me. I figured it was time to read a book explaining Arminianism and defending it against Calvinist criticism. Olson most particularly points out that Arminians do not start from an a priori assumption of free will. They start from the goodness of God as revealed in Scripture, and libertarian free will is a natural conclusion. Yes! I've been saying for years that I don't have a problem with the Calvinist idea that God in his sovereignty does not give humans free will to do good if that's how God chose to do it, but that when I look at the Bible I see plainly that God chose to do it differently. He chose to give us free will.

And another thing! Arminians generally treat Calvinists with respect and recognize that it's within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but Calvinists often don't extend the same courtesy. That's a poor witness. Arminianism was and is an orthodox Christian theology, and it should be treated as such.

What is Olson doing?
Olson's book is not a defense of Arminian theology per se. Rather, it is a response to ten specific misunderstandings of Arminian theology. (Although misunderstandings may be an overly-charitable characterization; many of these are just lies that Calvinist theologians and preachers have pushed.)

For each myth, Olson explains why it is not true, and he cites the writings of Jacob Arminius and various other prominent Arminians throughout the centuries. Olson effectively uses the words of Arminians themselves to put to rest the charges (lies) leveled by Calvinists. It's hard to continue to believe a myth when Arminius and generations of Arminians after him all explicitly deny those myths, and clearly teach a theology that contradicts them. In particular, Olson often cites:

• Jacob Arminius
• Simon Episcopius
• Hugo Grotius
• Philip Limborch
• John Wesley
• Jon Fletcher
• Richard Watson
• Thomas Summers
• William Burton Pope
• John Miley
• Charles Finney
• H. Orton Wiley
• Thomas Oden

No true Scotsman
Olson must continually mention that some who claimed Arminianism actually departed from the teachings of Arminius and taught something unfortunately close to semi-Pelagianism (e.g., Limborch and Finney) while others have departed entirely into Arianism and liberal theology. Olson denies that those teachers represent classical Arminianism, while noting that many prominent Calvinists have encountered Arminian theology only in these twisted forms. They've never read Arminius or any writings of faithful Arminians. That is part of the reason for this book: to make people aware that classical Arminianism—as taught by Arminius, Wesley, and many others—is an orthodox, faithful theology that is Christian, Reformed, and evangelical.

---

Introduction
Olson starts by defining a lot of terms.

• Calvinism - "shared soteriological beliefs" of people who follow John Calvin. His theology focuses on God's sovereignty, and its particular beliefs can be summarized by TULIP: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.
• Reformed theology - broader than Calvinism but often confused with it, this theology encompasses Calvin and many of his Reformation contemporaries
• Arminianism - a framework developed by Jacob Arminius; a "Protestant theology that rejects unconditional election (and especially unconditional reprobation), limited atonement, and irresistible grace because it affirms the character of God as compassionate, having universal love for the whole world and everyone in it, and extending grace-restored free will to accept or resist the grace of God, which leads to either eternal life or spiritual destruction"
• Arminianism of the heart - the original Arminian theology as taught by Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and others. It does not deny total depravity. It is doctrinally orthodox.
• Arminianism of the head - a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian theology, which is rooted in "an Enlightenment-based emphasis on free will that is most often found in liberal Protestant circles" which "denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation."
• synergism - "any theological belief in free human participation in salvation." Arminianism is an orthodox, "evangelical synergism"
• monergism - a broad term, but it "especially means that God is the sole determining agency in salvation."
• Pelagianism - a heretical version of synergism that "denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives."
• semi-Pelagianism - a heretical version of synergism that "embraces a modified version of original sin but believes that humans have the ability, even in their natural or fallen state, to initiate salvation by exercising a good will toward God."
• free will - Calvinists believe in compatibilist free will (that is, free will which is compatible with determinism) which means a person is not able "to do other than what he or she in fact does." By contrast, Arminians believe in noncompatibilist (libertarian) free will which is "the agency that allows persons to do otherwise than they do."
• predestination - Arminians believe in conditional predestination (God predestines according to his foreknowledge) whereas Calvinists believe in unconditional predestination (God foreordains when he predestines.)
• common grace -
• prevenient grace - God's gift that restores the human ability to cease resisting the gospel. Prevenient grace restores human free will.
• Remonstrants - an early group of Arminius's followers, notably including Simon Episcopius, who produced a document (the Remonstrance) summarizing Arminian beliefs.

Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
Jacob Arminius and most of his faithful followers fall into the broad understanding of the Reformed tradition; the common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism is significant.

Reformed theology is a disputed term, but Olson points out that Arminius considered himself Reformed and believed his theology was a branch of Reformed theology, as did many of his contemporary Reformed theologians. Only later did his theology get pushed out as Calvinists redefined the boundaries of Reformed theology and now consider Arminianism as a departure from Reformed theology, not a form of Reformed theology. Olson points out that Arminianism has significant areas in common with Calvinism, and many scholars and theologians today and in history have recognized Arminianism as being at least closely related to Calvinism and Reformed theology. It is in no ways the opposite of Calvinism or Reformed theology. There is only the barest difference between Arminius and Calvin in most respects.

This actually rings true to me. As I was reading this book and hearing Arminius, Wesley, and others describe their theology, it was difficult at times to distinguish it from what I hear from Calvinists. Arminianism is not Calvinism, but it seems pretty close.

Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is Possible
In spite of common ground, Calvinism and Arminianism are incommensurable systems of Christian theology; on issues critical to both sides there is no stable middle ground between them.

Calvinism and Arminianism are not compatible. Of the five points of Calvinism, Arminians absolutely reject three of them. Arminians accept total depravity (T), reject unconditional election (U), limited atonement (L), irresistible grace (I), and have a variety of opinions about perseverance of the saints (P).

Thus, Olson points out that those who claim to be two-point Calvinists (accepting total depravity and perseverance of the saints) are nothing more than classical Arminians.

At the heart of the incompatibility between the two theologies is which view of God predominates: "Contrary to popular belief, then, the true divide at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian debate is not predestination versus free will but the guiding picture of God: he is either primarily viewed as (1) majestic, powerful, and controlling or (2) loving, good, and merciful." (page 73)

Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option
Classical Arminian theology heartily affirms the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy and promotes the hallmarks of evangelical faith; it is neither Arian nor liberal.

Arminians deny the heresies of Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelegianism, humanism, and they deny that Arminianism is an inevitable slippery slope to liberal theology. Arminius affirmed the supremacy of Scripture, as did Wesley. Both affirmed the trinity and the divinity of Christ. By all measures, Arminianism is both within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and orthodox Protestantism.

Ah, but what about the Calvinist charges that by denying monergism the Arminians also deny justification by grace through faith alone? "But what if a person (e.g., John Wesley) heartily and warmly teaches the former while denying the latter?" (94) Olson points out that Arminians strongly deny that the two are linked, and that the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace offers the explanation. If Calvinist critics do not accept this explanation, well, that explains why they are Calvinists, but it does not mean Arminians have denied any fundamental Reformation doctrine.

Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will
The true heart of Arminian theology is God's loving and just characters; the formal principle of Arminianism is the universal will of God for salvation.

Arminianism starts with God's goodness. Free will is a downstream consequence of that, not the starting point. Arminians believe that unconditional election (as Calvinists teach) implies double predestination and makes God the author of evil, which is impossible due to God's goodness and love, which is a primary motif of Scripture.

Clearly Calvinists disagree. But the Arminian sees God's goodness in Scripture, and then recognizes that it is only free will that allows a theology that does not make God a sinner. Goodness and love are the start. Free will is never the point. It's only a consequence, an effect, a conclusion from the evidence.

No Arminian starts with free will. Classical Arminianism is not an argument from humanism or Enlightenment thought.

Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God
Classical Arminianism interprets God's sovereignty and providence differently than Calvinism without in any way denying them; God is in charge of everything without controlling everything.

"The only thing the Arminian view of God's sovereignty necessarily excludes is God's authorship of evil." (p116) "God permits and limits them without willing or causing them." And here is where Olson explains various categories of God's providence.

• preserving or sustaining providence: God's upholding of the created order. E.g., gravity. Even deists believe in sustaining providence.
• concurring providence: God's "consent to and cooperation with creaturely decisions and actions." Every deliberate action, even lifting one's hand, is enabled by God's concurring providence.
• governing providence: God's control over the world, including moral choices and actions. Calvinists say God's governing providence is de facto over every choice. God determines it all. Arminians say God's governing providence is de jure but only partly de facto—he has the right to control and determine everything, but he chooses to allow human free will.

In short, Arminians reject the Calvinist view of total de facto governance because that view of God's sovereignty makes God the author of evil, and anything that makes God the author of evil would by consequence make God's character morally ambiguous at best. Arminians believe that if we do not have free will (as the Calvinists believe) then this would mean God "plans, guides, and directs" sin to happen.

Arminians believe that God controls everything, except he gives humans the free will ability to choose sin. "God is the cause of everything but evil, which he only permits." (120) This leads to the idea that although God does not cause evil, he—in his divine providence—concurs with a human's choice to sin. Or, we can talk of God's antecedent and consequent wills. The antecedent will is when God wills to allow human beings the free will to choose sin. His consequent will is when, after humans choose to sin, God concurs in their decision rather than withdraw his concurrence to their free will choice.

It seems all a bit muddled, but the point is this: Arminians do not deny the sovereignty of God. They just believe that the Calvinist version of sovereignty makes God out to be evil. In the Arminian view, God in his sovereignty has allowed human beings the free will to choose sin, which he permits. That is, "sinful and evil acts are never planned or decreed by God; God only decrees to allow them." (p126) That sounds like a distinction without a difference unless free will is real, and we really could choose to not sin (with the help of prevenient grace.) This brings us once again to the two kinds of free will:

• compatibilist free will or philosophical free will: the Calvinist view, which is that we have free will to do what God has already predestined or predetermined for us.
• libertarian (noncompatibilist) free will: the Arminian view that we have actual free will, as in we actually could choose to do something different than we did.

Open theism
There seems to be a conflict between God's foreknowledge and free will. One way to solve this is open theism, which denies God's timelessness and, in a sense, denies that God does actually know the future before it happens. That's not the way classical Arminianism goes. Classical Arminians do generally believe in the timelessness of God, just like Calvinists.

Arminians hold a high view of God's sovereignty. They believe "God's voluntary self-limitation" explains why God is not the author of evil. Arminians believe that in the Calvinist framework, God is the author of evil and thus God is not good. Obviously Calvinists don't see it that way. But Arminians cannot help but see in Calvinism a system that makes God out to be evil. This is manifestly untrue, so Calvinism fails. (In the Arminian view.)

Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology
An optimistic anthropology is alien to true Arminianism which is thoroughly God-centered. Arminian theology confesses human depravity, including bondage of the will.

Arminians believe God's prevenient grace grants us the libertarian free will to accept the offer of salvation. Therefore all the glory is God's, none is ours. The Arminian view is more that we have "freed will" rather than "free will." God frees our will by his prevenient grace. Arminius writes, "No man believes in Christ except him who has been previously disposed and prepared by preventing or preceding grace." (p145)

So, Arminians do believe in original sin and total depravity. They also believe that God's prevenient grace frees our will from its natural fallen state, allowing us to choose what is right.

Crucially, though: in the Arminian view, original sin does not include condemnation. There is no guilt for original sin, only for actual sin—which is inevitable.

Calvinists respond that universal prevenient grace is a denial of original sin and total depravity. One can understand that point of view, but the Arminian sees it differently, and it's important to remember that Arminians should be judged for what they actually believe and teach, not what Calvinists think are the logical conclusions of their beliefs.

Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace
The material principle of classical Arminian thought is prevenient grace. All of salvation is wholly and entirely of God's grace.

Arminians are big on grace. It's all about grace! We do nothing good without grace. "Humans are dead in trespasses and sins until the prevenient grace of God awakens and enables them to exercise a good will toward God in repentance and faith." (p159)

Prevenient grace has four aspects: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. In the Arminian view, the prevenient grace is not saving grace, but it awakens a person and frees his will to be able to respond to the gospel. Thus prevenient grace leads the Arminian to a three-stage view of the human condition: unregenerate, freed, and regenerate.

Calvinists sometimes respond to Arminianism by asking, "Isn't the bare human decision to accept and not resist God's grace and mercy unto salvation a meritorious work?" (p166) No! That decision is already the work of God's prevenient grace.

This is a fundamental point of disagreement. Arminians believe that salvation is all grace, but that grace is resistible. Calvinists respond that if grace is resistible, then salvation is no longer all grace. To which Arminians reply, "A gift that can be rejected is still a gift if freely received." This is a fundamental disagreement. Again, Calvinists say that the mere accepting of the gift of salvation is a meritorious good work, and Arminians disagree.

Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination
Predestination is a biblical concept; classical Arminians interpret it differently than Calvinists without denying it. It is God's sovereign decree to elect believers in Jesus Christ and includes God's foreknowledge of those believers' faith.

Calvinists believe God fore-ordains when he predestines. Arminians believe God predestines based on his foreknowledge. Further, Arminians interpret the biblical "unconditional election" as corporate, not individual. God unconditionally elects a people. The people consists of those who will believe.

From the Arminian point of view, they look at Calvinism and wonder, if God already preordains people's destinies, why Jesus was necessary? Does not the election and predestination, in the Calvinist sense, make Jesus an afterthought? Clearly Calvinists don't think so, but from the Arminian point of view, the Calvinist framework undercuts the necessity of Christ.

Molinism (middle knowledge) and open theism
Olson pauses for a brief discussion of Molinism (middle knowledge) and of open theism, which are two frameworks that seek to solve the contradictions between foreknowledge and free will. Middle knowledge is the idea that God knows what any given creature would do in any given situation. So, he "envisions every possible world, he knows intuitively what person X, who is endowed with libertarian free will, would do at any given moment and in any given situation." Olson points out that a number of Arminians view middle knowledge as being incompatible with libertarian free will, so it doesn't really solve the problem.

Open theism is the view that God does not know the future exhaustively. He cannot know it, because it hasn't happened yet. Olson points out that very few Arminians have adopted open theism.

Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
Classical Arminian theology is a Reformation theology. It embraces divine imputation of righteousness by God's grace through faith alone and preserves the distinction between justification and sanctification.

Arminians believe in imputed and imparted righteousness, as do Calvinists. Arminius distinguished justification from sanctification. Wesley did to, pointing out that "justification as imputed righteousness always results in inward transformation that produces works of love." (Olson's summation, p212.) Wesley rejected imputation of righteousness without transformation through inward righteousness, but he didn't confused or conflate the two. In Arminianism, there is no thought of a works-based salvation: justification is not sanctification, and sanctification is never the cause of justification.

This chapter had too many fine points of hairsplitting for me. The distinctions were hard to understand. I am satisfied that Arminius and his followers believe in justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement
There is no one Arminian doctrine of Christ's atonement. Many Arminians accept the penal substitution theory enthusiastically while others prefer the governmental theory.

Arminius taught penal substitutionary atonement. Grotius taught the governmental theory of atonement, as did many subsequent Arminians. But not all. Wesley, for example, taught penal substitution.

Olson takes pains to point out that the governmental theory is substitutionary, a fact Calvinist critics often fail to mention. It just isn't penal substitution. Jesus paid a penalty, but not the actual penalty, as a substitution.

Conclusion
In his conclusion, Olson restates what he said at the beginning. Don't attribute to someone a belief that he explicitly rejects or denies, even if you think it is a logical and necessary consequence of his beliefs. You can point it out and say it's the logical consequence, and you can point out that the other side is illogical in denying it. But don't claim the other side believes what they explicitly reject and deny.

Christian Book Review

 The Journey From Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible

This 1999 book traces the development of the Bible from the invention of writing, to the manuscript evidence, and to our modern English-language translations. There was a lot I already knew, but a lot of new information as well.

For example, I was aware that we have thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament, some dated within a hundred years or so of the original writings. I had not been aware that the earliest Old Testament manuscripts date to a couple hundred years BC, which puts them a thousand years or more removed from the time of their writing. Then again, we have pretty good evidence that the Old Testament text has been well-preserved, so it's not like we're unsure of its reliability.

I was surprised at the rapidity with which the early Christians translated the Bible into other languages. I was also surprised how many translations we know about through references in other writings but which were not preserved.

The influence of the Latin Vulgate translations also surprised me. I was aware of it, and knew it was important, but hadn't realized the effect it had, to the point where it was long considered more accurate and more inspired than the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Further, when viewed in its historical context, it seems odd that anybody would ascribe so much importance to the Authorized Version (King James Version). It was a monumental achievement and held a place in the English language for generations, but it was hardly static. It changed a lot from 1611 to the 1769 edition that some American fundamentalist Christians revere even to this day.

And finally, the book made me aware of many English translations that I was previously unaware of. I was particularly intrigued by the J.B. Phillips translation of the epistles, so I've ordered a copy of his New Testament. It's sort of like The Living Bible before The Living Bible, and if his translation of Philemon is any measure, I'm going to have a lot of fun reading it.

Christian Book Review

 Churches that Abuse

My thoughts
This 1992 book on abusive churches is big on examples. We get stories of many different abusive churches. This is helpful in one sense: it gives us a picture of what happens in high-control systems. We see how they operate, how they influence and manipulate and control their members. Reading so many different examples should, hopefully, allow us to recognize these abusive churches when we encounter them.

On the other hand, Enroth does not do a good job of explaining the systems at work. We get many examples, but it's often unclear what specific feature he is trying to highlight. So we get a broad view and lots of examples, but not enough framework to hang it all on.

Prior to reading this book, I'd read The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen, and that book gives a good conceptual framework for understanding abuse, high-control systems. I'd suggest reading that book first, then reading Churches that Abuse to supplement it.

---

1. Introduction
Abusive Churches: A View From Within
An example of an abusive church: Set Free Christian Fellowship in Anaheim, CA with Pastor Phil Aguilar. Abusive churches invariably have a high-control authoritarian at the top.

2. Fringe and Fanaticism
Abusive Churches Can Go Over the Edge
Donald Lee Barnett’s Community Chapel went off the rails with spiritual dancing, etc. They neglected the Bible and started focusing on experiences, getting into occult practices. Subjective experience became the test of truth, not the Bible. If so

“The tragedy of community Chapel goes back to a misplaced loyalty. People thinking that they were placing their allegiance in the ward of God were actually placing their allegiance in a man and his interpretation of the word of God. That is crucial to understanding why people were so easily deceived. they thought they were really obeying the word of God” p48

3. Past and Present
Abusive Churches Are Not New
Frank Sandford’s turn-of-the-century Shiloh cult in southern Maine. “Sandford was convicted because he withheld not only medical treatment, but faith healing as well” (p68)

4. Authority and Power
Abusive Churches Misuse Scriptural Authority
Church of Bible Understanding. “Control-oriented leadership is at the core of all such churches.” (p80)

5. Manipulation and Control
Abusive Churches Use Fear, Guilt, and Threats
Love-bombing, manipulation, fear, control, humiliation. Internal Surveillance and reporting systems help abusive churches keep their people under control. Cutting off family, friends, support systems. Prior approval and strict oversight of any dating relationships, or even outright bans on marriage, or arranged marriages.

6. Elitism and Persecution
Abusive Churches See Themselves as Special
Spiritual elitism. Make people feel they are special, have special knowledge, special revelation, special access to God’s work. They are insiders. And persecution is a mark of elitism. More suffering means more holiness, more spirituality. This allows leaders to brutalize people in order to purify them. It’s all a sham to control people.

7. Life-Style and Experience
Abusive Churches Foster Rigidity
Abusive groups descend into legalism, dictating the smallest decisions like dress, decor, etc. which must all be approved by the leadership. Enforced conformity of lifestyle.

8. Dissent and Discipline
Abusive Churches Discourage Questions
Groups use public humiliation and ridicule as discipline. Dissent is not tolerated. Strange discipline: children taken from their mothers, forced diets, forced fasting, beatings, forbidden to bathe. Members are discouraged or disallowed from reading or viewing outside criticism or outside material.

9. Exit and Adjustment
Abusive Churches Make Leaving Painful
Leaving is hard and emotional. There is a period of desocialization (leaving the group) and then resocialization into mainstream culture. The emotional needs during this time are high. It’s post-traumatic stress on par with rape victims or combat veterans. It can begin with numbness, a lack of feeling. This is a protective mechanism. Extreme fatigue and sleepiness. People develop antisocial and confrontational traits. They are still vulnerable and weak. “Vague and undefined anger is common at this point.” Complex feelings of loss, isolation, confusion. Difficulty trusting. “Depression is almost inevitable.”

An ex-member states: “It is an extremely important factor whether a person leaves an abusive-church situation knowing that the group was wrong, or believing that he was wrong and is now stunning against God.”

After the initial period, the post-group reality sets in. “Depression, frustration, and alienation.” The world is hard to manage. Guilt over wasted years. Self-condemnation. Avoidance for a time, because they aren’t ready to handle what they left. Shame, embarrassment. A job or career may be an anchor. Counseling can help.

Shame, embarrassment, doubts about God, inability or reluctance to trust people.

The group shuns those who leave, so people lose all their connections and friendships.

Leaving is hard, not allowed sometimes.

10. Discernment and Response
Abusive Churches Present a Warning
Abusive churches prey on the spiritually immature who do not recognize that what they are getting is counterfeit. They have zeal for God but no knowledge and little wisdom. The church asserts control through offering guidance and advice, and the new members quickly become unable to function without instructions from those in authority over them. The churches usually teach orthodox Christianity with maybe a few odd but not outlandish beliefs, though the behavior and practice doesn’t measure up.

“Authoritarian leaders are ecclesiastical loners. That is, they do not function well or willingly in the context of systematic checks and balances.”

11. Challenge and Change
Abusive Churches Will Always Exist
A warning that abusive churches are forming right now, that the tendency toward abuse is common, and that if it is noticed early it can sometimes be corrected. Enroth gives several examples of churches that seem to be making sincere repentance for their prior authoritarian ways. (Maranatha even shut itself down.)

Book Review

 Is the Negro a Beast? A Reply to Chas. Carroll's Book Entitled "The Negro a Beast" Proving that the Negro is Human from Biblical, Scientific, and Historical Standpoints

Schell's 1901 book is a response to a racist book published a year earlier wherein Charles Carroll argued that only pure-blooded whites are men, and everyone else is a mere beast created by God to serve mankind. Carroll's book advances a wicked idea and dresses it up with twisted history, twisted science, and twisted Scripture. Schell's book eviscerates Carroll's lies.

I am sure that my time reading Carroll's racist book and Schell's rebuttal was not well-spent. But when I get a stupid idea in my head (like reading a woke anti-racist book from 1901) I have to run it down to completion. So here it is.

I didn't take detailed notes, so the following are summary thoughts and unorganized notes.

---

Soul vs spirit
Schell draws a distinction between soul (which animals possess) and spirit (which only humans possess). I don’t agree with the distinction, but I take his point that whatever it is that God imbued humans with, the animals don’t have it. And apparently there is a distinction in Greek (see Hebrews 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:23).

And hey! Schell is talking about Hebrew and Greek, which is something Carroll never did. Did Carroll even know Hebrew or Greek? There’s no evidence in his book to suggest that he did.

According to Schell, animals have mortal bodies, mortal minds, and mortal souls. Humans have mortal bodies, but due to the infusion of a spirit, humans have immortal minds and immortal souls.

Schell points to belief in an afterlife and the worshiping of a higher power as evidence of an immortal mind, which consequently means an immortal soul, and thus is a human being. Even the remotest, most isolated and primitive tribes in Africa believe in an afterlife and worship gods, and thus they are human.

Argument from moral conscience
Schell makes a moral argument, that it is man’s conscience which prompts him to act morally, unlike Carroll’s claim that morality is a product of the mind. Schell rightly points out that animals have no moral intuition. “The Negro possesses the moral faculty the same as the Caucasian” and is thus clearly a man.

Just read the Bible: beast means wild animal
This is the best part of the book. Schell digs into the Bible and uses its plain meaning, which anybody can see, to display the sheer brazen lie of Carroll's claims. Schell eviscerates Carroll’s claim that the word “beast” in the Bible refers to the Negro. Simply looking at the actual Hebrew word, and the Greek translation of that word in the Septuagint, puts to rest Carroll’s lie. The word means literally a beast, a wild animal. Schell points out many references to “beast” in the Bible that can only possibly mean animal, so Carroll’s cherry-picked examples are shown to be worthless. Just reading the Bible plainly—even with no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek—is enough to sink Carroll’s claims. Indeed, Schell mainly just quotes Carroll’s examples, then reads ahead a few more verses to show how Carroll’s interpretation is ridiculous on its face.

Natural variation, not amalgamation
Carroll had argued that the various colored races of mankind (Malay, Mongolian, and Indian) were the product of mixed-blood descendents of white-Negro pairings, which he called amalgamation. (Side note: was this a common term in 1900?) Schell disagrees, pointing out a number of problems with Carroll's idea. Instead, Schell suggests that natural variation is the cause. While Schell is undoubtedly right, he spent quite a bit of time veering off into Larmarckian evolution (although he doesn't use that term). That's the idea that acquired traits can be passed to one's children. He also claims that a woman's actions and ruminations (mere thoughts!) can imprint characteristics upon the child in her womb, and mentions that he's seen it happen. So, there's that.

Ham
Schell also spends quite a bit of time arguing that dark-skinned people are the descendants of Ham. He looks at biblical, archaeological, and historical evidence to make the case. Fortunately Schell doesn't claim this is due to a curse, or that there is anything inherently inferior or problematic about dark skin. This theory of Hamitic origin directly refutes Carroll's claim that God created negroes in the garden of Eden. And while I disagree with Carroll, Schell's biblical linguistic evidence (and his other evidence) seems remarkably thin.

Civilizations
Schell points out that Carroll is lying when he claims no non-white civilization ever existed. There is ample evidence in the historical and archaeological record, which Schell provides.

The Gospel
I was heartened to see that Schell addressed Carroll's false gospel. According to Carroll, the gospel we should be preaching is the Plan of Creation: that God created man, created beasts (the Negros) to serve him, and charged man with ruling over the beasts and extending his dominion over the whole earth. Man failed to do that, instead amalgamating and filling the earth with mixed-blood offspring. So God wiped them out in a flood and started over. Unfortunately, Noah's descendents went right back to amalgamating and once again filled the earth with mixed-blood offspring. God had promised not to wipe mankind out in another flood, so he picked Abraham and started a nation who would heed his commands. They strayed into amalgamation, so God sent prophets to warn them, but the people didn't listen. Finally God sent his son Jesus to preach against the sin of amalgamation, but they killed him. Jesus's mission was a failure: the Christian religion that Jesus started soon descended into the same error, preaching that the negro was a man. The proper way forward for the human race depends upon 1) murdering outright every mixed-blood creature, 2) properly treating the negroes as beasts whose purpose is to labor for the pure-blooded Adamic man (that is, white men), and 3) extending dominion over the whole earth. Once that dominion spreads over all the earth, that will usher in the new millennial reign.

That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Schell points this out, and presents the true gospel. That we are sinners, that we broke God's law and are under judgment, that Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sin, and that if we repent of our sins and put our trust in Jesus that we will be born again and be forgiven for the sins we have committed. When we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit we will be "fully restored to God's image of righteousness and true holiness." (In classic Church of God understanding, Schell presents this baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, separate and distinct from the salvation which comes when we repent and believe.)

Overall thoughts
I'm relatively impressed with Schell's work here. He has grounded his case in Scripture, and it's a sound case. The parts that he grounded in history, archaeology, and science are good too, but limited by the understanding of the time. (This was published in 1901.) Finally, I see in Schell's words a true love for his fellow man, meaning every human being. That fruit of the spirit is absent entirely in Carroll's work.

Book Review

 The Negro a Beast, or In the Image of God

This book from 1900 is perhaps the most racist thing I've ever read. It angers me that a man claiming to be a minister of God would dare to write such words, and furthermore that he would twist the Scriptures to justify and support his dehumanizing ideas.

I only read this so I could understand the rebuttal published a year later by a Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) minister.

The following is a summary of the book's contents. It feels wrong to sanitize the language when the whole idea behind the book is so offensive, so I'll use the terms Charles Carroll uses (like negro, beast, and amalgamation) even though they are out of date and somewhat offensive.

Chapter 1
Man is a special creation, unlike anything else. He is made in the image of God, unlike the animals. This is at odds with the atheistic theory of Naturalistic Development which says that man is simply a species of ape. He leans heavily on 1 Corinthians 15:39 wherein Paul draws distinctions between various "kinds" of flesh, distinguishing animal flesh from human flesh.

Chapter 2
Chas. Carroll spews pages of anatomical "evidence" about hair quality, facial features, bone structure, and brain size to "prove" that negroes resemble apes more than they resemble white men. He presents sociological and academic findings as well.

Chapter 3
Carroll rejects the theory that black people are the cursed descendants of Ham or of Ham's son Canaan. He also rejects the "scientific" theory that men are highly developed apes, and that there are five so-called races of man, which are (from lowest to highest development): Causasians, Mongolians, Indians, Malays, and Negroes. He recalls again 1 Corinthians 15:39, pointing out that if we have rejected both biblical and atheistic attempts to classify Negroes as humans, the only answer must be that Negroes are merely the most advanced animals. Carroll argues that God created Negroes to work for Adam's race, as Adam, in his pre-fallen state, would surely not have been expected to work the soil, yet someone must till the soil and perform manual labor in order for Adam to carry out the command to "subdue" the earth. Hence, God created Negroes as servant creatures.

Chapter 4
More "scientific evidence" that Negroes are not part of the human race. Carroll tackles the argument that Negroes possess a moral faculty and thus must have a soul and be more than animals. Carroll responds that the moral faculty is a product of the mind, not of the soul, and thus is available to animals. Further, lacking a soul, no offspring of a Negro can have a soul, no matter how much "white" heritage is mixed in. There being no soul (only matter and mind) on the Negro side, whatever germ of "soul" exists on the "white" side has nothing to "attach" to, and thus forms no part of the resulting offspring. Carroll is just making things up here, he isn't even trying to cite sources. (The three "creations" being matter, mind, and soul.)

Chapter 5
Carroll connects Genesis, Jude, and 1 Corinthians 15 to argue that Cain's sin which caused God to reject his offering was taking a different flesh, that is, a Negro, as a wife. He also argues that the Levitical prohibition on bestiality is actually a prohibition of amalgamation, and a principle reason for its prohibition is that the resulting offspring would be of corrupted flesh. All products of interracial breeding are animals, not part of mankind.

Chapter 6
Non-white races are the result of interracial breeding, and are corrupted flesh. So now not only are Negroes mere beasts, but so are the Malay, the Indian, and the Mongol. As mere beasts they are "not included in the Plan of Salvation." He interprets Matthew 7:6, "neither cast ye your pearls before swine," as a command not to give the gospel to non-white races. "It is criminal to undertake to Christianize the negro" or "mixed-bloods." He brings in anthropological and archaeological "evidence" to prove that the non-white races are incapable of civilization, and that the ruins of ancient American civilizations were created by white men who later mixed into the other races and died out, resulting in the collapse of civilization on the American continents.

Chapter 7
Carroll looks at how the Bible distinguishes between cattle and the beasts of the earth, and decides this can only possibly mean that cattle refers to quadrupeds and beast refers to bipeds. He then takes some references to beasts of the earth devouring the flesh of dead men, and concludes this can only possibly refer to Negroes, because as everybody knows they are the only cannibals. Good gravy, this is cartoonishly racist. Carroll also says that the terms adultery and formication have been misunderstood—that adultery means illicit sex between whites, and fornication is sex between whites and beasts—that is, negroes and mixed-bloods. Finally, Carroll claims that the serpent in the Garden of Eden is not a serpent or a snake, but was rather a particular negro individual (a beast of the field) that Adam had given the name “Serpent.” This means the first sin was not in eating the fruit, but in listening to the negro rather than ruling over him. Thus negro equality is the sin which brought about the Fall.

Chapter 8
More wicked heresies. Carroll claims the Flood was God’s way of wiping the earth clean of mixed-bloods. Unfortunately mankind fell back into amalgamation and atheism and spread evolutionary ideas throughout the world. God being constrained by his promise to Noah not to flood the world again, he tried something new: he picked Abraham and made a nation of pure-blood men, who would then carry God’s message (about his Plan of Creation, which is that men of pure Adamic stock are to rule the negroes and have dominion over the whole earth) to the whole world. But Israel failed in this, and the world continued to intermarry with beasts. So God tried again: he sent them prophets, one after another, but the people still persisted in their “atheism, amalgamation, and idolatry.” So God sent his son to warn them. Rather than repent of amalgamation, the people killed him.

Carroll specifically and vigorously denies that Christ’s death was part of God’s original plan of salvation. It was only a last resort. The actual plan, which is yet to be realized, is the re-establishment of Man’s rule over the beasts (the negro and the mixed-bloods), then the development of Man’s dominion over all the earth, which will usher in the Millennium. Jesus’s death was a failure, because the Christian religion he established was quickly infiltrated by atheistic ideas, including and particularly the idea that negroes are human.

Carroll is not only preaching a racist message, he’s preaching a thoroughly unchristian gospel. There is no call to repentance for sin, there is no Law, no Grace, no forgiveness for sins through faith in Christ Jesus. No, the only gospel Carroll gives us is the gospel of white dominion.

Chapter 9
Carroll complains about all the crimes committed by negroes since they were freed after the Civil War, and opines that they were never enslaved, because as beasts designed to serve whites they were never free to begin with. He rails against spending money to educate negroes, he complains bitterly about money wasted on foreign missions to beasts and mixed-bloods.

Chapter 10
Carroll runs through his arguments once again, explaining why he thinks the negro is not a man. He also claims that in the book of Jonah, the sin of Nineveh was an improper relationship between pure Adamic men and their “beasts.”

Science Fiction Book Review

 Night of Masks

A real chore to read. It started out mildly interesting, but ended up with the hero stumbling around in the dark fighting monsters for two-thirds of the book. I lost track of what his goal was and where he was going pretty early on, and I don't think it was my fault.