The publisher of Thomas D. Williams’ Can God Be Trusted? Finding Faith in Troubled Times sent me an early review copy of the book. I finally read through it today and now offer the following thoughts for anyone who might be interested. This review may be slightly peculiar in that I’m going to offer my thoughts on the actual book’s appearance and then simply list pros and cons of the content and appearance. It’ll be fun. Read on.

First Impression

The cover design is very unassuming. The background’s empty. Just white. Title at the top like you’d expect. A splash of red gives the subtitle and then the author’s name at the bottom. There’s nothing about the cover of this book that’s going to grab your attention. It’s all about the (scandalous?) title for this one. Why God in the title is over- and underlined is beyond me, which isn’t to minimize the importance of God by any means. I do find it quite tacky when author’s feel the need to append the title of their degree(s) to their name on the front cover. Nobody cares that you have a ThD. In fact, most readers probably think it’s a knock off a PhD anyways. There’s no reason for an author to include their degree(s) near their name on a book. Make a reputation for yourself by writing something worth reading and then we may check to see where you went to school and what degree you got, if we feel like it.

The book has no index. If you’re going to take the time to write a book worth anyone’s consultation, take the time to prepare or have prepared an index. Please.  The back cover gives no endorsements which to me is only of minimal importance.  I do appreciate a short bio of the author on the back of a book. That, however, is lacking here.

Cons

• No index
• Cheesy inset quotes with borders (you know the kind)
• ThD on cover
• Uses myriad Bible translations throughout the book (eight in all). Makes me wonder if he simply selected translations that fit the interpretation he wanted the text to have. Makes me uneasy.
• Borderline semi-pelagian at points (pp. 147-150).
• Synergistic view of God and man in salvation. E.g., “It is no exaggeration to say that he [God] depends on our cooperation for our own salvation…” (p. 166).

Pros

• Decent printing/typesetting/typography–what’s the best word?
• Catching chapter titles. Flicking through the table of contents is interesting enough to continue reading.
• Asks hard questions. For example, Chapter 9 “What To Do When God Lets You Down.”
• Addresses practical concerns (pp. 88-92). Can I trust God if he doesn’t bring me a spouse or if my wife and I are unable to have children?
• Quotes from a wide body of notable Christians including William Carey, Thomas Merton, Mother Theresa, St Augustine, C.S. Lewis and a pope or three among others.
• Illustrates points well. The story of the teacup on pp. 99-100 is exemplary.
• Not trite in the least. He lists God’s “nonpromises” to perhaps startle some readers out of a pet-god theology.

Who Should Read This?

Have you really struggled with trusting God and need practical pastoral guidance? If yes, read.

What Should I Read Instead?

John Piper’s Spectacular Sins, if you don’t mind a book that doesn’t pussyfoot (not that Williams does).

Can God Be Trusted?

Yes.

Overall Rating

6/10

Jonathan Edwards caused quite a hubbub with his congregation around the year 1749 after the death of the previous pastor, his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard who was “so great and eminent a divine” in Northampton. Edwards as the new pastor felt convicted to tweak the qualifications for full membership (i.e., taking the Lord’s Supper). Stoddard had led the church to practice an open communion, believing that the unbeliever could be converted in receiving the elements as had been his conversion experience. Edwards disagreed with such an open view of communion and attempted to lead the congregation back to what he considered a more biblical reception of the elements. But seeing as his grandfather was so well respected in not only the church but also in the community, Edwards was met with staunch opposition. Who do you think you are, Jonathan, to try and change what your sagacious grandfather had taught? He would eventually be relieved of his duties.

Edwards didn’t give up without a theological fight however. In 1749 he penned An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church. This was meant as a sort of tract for his opponents to read and see if they be not swayed to his understanding. It wasn’t especially well-received. Only about ten copies sold after it had been published and printed. People complained it was too difficult to understand (Edwards? Difficult to understand? Ha!). What was meant to assuage the debate and ill-will toward the humble preacher was largely brushed to the side in favor of siding blindly with his grandfather.

In the preface to An Humble Inquiry, Edwards makes a point concerning the adoption of another’s theological views which I believe should be well-heeded because much wholesale theological adoption takes place today. For example, without a doubt one of John Piper’s main effects on evangelicalism is the resurgence of Calvinism among my generation. Books have been written on this so-called “New Calvinism” (e.g., Young, Restless, Reformed). With such a rise in popularity of a theological persuasion comes the risk of its unexamined wholesale adoption. Do you believe in a limited atonement because the scriptural evidence leads you in that direction or because it’s the view of your favorite preacher and you like everything else he has to offer? If it’s the latter, Edwards has the following words of corrective caution to offer:

“I [Edwards] ought not to look on his [Stoddard's] principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it, as well as Nathan himself in his conjecture about building the house of God; nay, surely that I am, even to be commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would ill become me, to do otherwise; that this would be no manifestation of humility, but rather show a baseness of spirit; that if I [be not] capable to judge for myself in these matters, I am by no means fit to open the mysteries of the gospel; that if I should believe his principles, because he advanced them, I should be guilty of making him an idol. Also he tells his and my flock, with all others, that it ill becomes them, so to indulge their ease, as to neglect examining of received principles and practices…”

Edwards in making a case for the reasonableness of differing with his grandfather over the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper gives a word of caution that should find wider application.

John Piper is not God. His principles are not oracles. He can miss it. The budding theologian is to be commended for judging and examining a man’s theology and searching the Scriptures. Further, it’s not humble to say, “I believe in a limited atonement because that’s what Piper holds to”; it’s base, it’s stupid, Edwards says. (Of course, none would admit that they believe something simply because a favorite theologian believes or teaches it; but, trust me, that temptation is always there and it happens far too often.) The temptation exists because it’s easier to import wholesale someone’s theology whom you respect than to formulate your own based on a careful exegesis of Scripture. Edwards, however, warns against such indulgence of ease and neglect of examination. Moreover, great theologians will almost certainly be against such a wholesale adoption of their theology without prior examination..

Edwards concludes as much when he writes later in the same paragraph:

“Thus, I think, he [Stoddard] sufficiently vindicates my conduct in the present case, and warns all with whom I am concerned, not to be at all displeased with me, or to find the least fault with me, merely because I examine for myself, have a judgment of my own, and am for practicing in some particulars different from him, how positive soever he was that his judgment and practice were right.”

You would be confused if you took away from this post the idea that we needn’t bother with (eminent) theologians. Notice that in this post we are learning from Edwards, examining what he says, and finding that it makes sense. It would be backwards for me to say, “Because Edwards was the greatest theologian born on American soil, we should adopt what he has to say on such and such a subject” and not encourage the comparison of his thought with Scripture. Edwards would not want this, nor, if I may be allowed to speak for Piper, would John Piper. Guard against therefore blind acceptance of any particular minutia of theology because so-and-so believes it. That so-and-so believes it may be a good starting point, but don’t end there.

By the way, I love Piper and am very grateful to God for his introducing me to Calvinism (and Edwards!) through his sermons and books. I often here Piper bashing; that is, bashing of John Piper. I trust this post will not come across as such. It just so happens that he, however so unfortunate, immediately comes to mind as one from whom one may liberally adopt theology blindly, as has been my personal temptation. Other examples would be Paige Patterson (especially at SEBTS), Oprah (ha!), and Rob Bell.

The above quotations of An Humble Inquiry are from A Jonathan Edwards Reader (Yale University Press) page 180.

Mark Driscoll interviews “indigenous missionary to the hip hop culture” Lecrae about his background and hip hop music in order to showcase his new album, Rebel. This is a guy I’ve been listening to for a while. It’s great to see he’s getting exposure and getting interested in Reformed theology (surprised to hear that he’s been influenced by Piper?). Amen and amen.

I am pleased that the Southern Baptist Convention has organized the Building Bridges Conference that is to take place at the end of this month to discuss Calvinism. Moreover, it’s right that Nathan Finn should be giving an address on the misconceptions of Calvinism because of his irenic, Christ-like demeanor. I would like to contribute to the conversation and polling of opinions he has started over at his blog by adding some thoughts here and would encourage readers to do the same but by leaving thoughts at his blog (or here, too, if you must). Hopefully, my thinking on this subject here won’t add to the confusion of further mischaracterization.

An obvious place to lead in talking about misconceptions of Calvinism is the so-called five points of Calvinism. One could talk about the misconceptions of unconditional election, limited atonement, or total depravity. However, I believe this is granting too much and shows a misconception in itself, namely that Calvinism is simply five points. We will do well to remember that the five points of Calvinism were not first set forward by Calvinists as the Calvinist’s credo, but were five points of doctrine with which the followers of Jacob Arminius found disagreement. The five points of Calvinism may say more about Arminians than they do about Calvinists. Consequently, I believe it a misconception to think merely of Calvinism (the outworking of theology after Calvin) merely as five points. The five points of Calvinism are the five points at which there was found disagreement by another man’s followers at the Synod of Dort and do not encompass all that is theology done after the thinking of Calvin and the reformers, both magisterial and radical. (1) Calvinism is more than “Calvinism.” Calvinism entails a certain doctrine of God, an ecclesiology, a view of sacraments, and much more that I have yet to discover. Further, this may be one reason why many evangelicals are more comfortable, like I, of referring to their theology rather as reformed than Calvinistic, though not afraid of the term Calvinism.

The last sentence above reveals another misconception worthy of address. (2) Calvinists bearing the surname of John Calvin show their indebtedness to him, but (in many cases) no special attachment to or affinity for his person. In other words, accepting the name “Calvinist” is very much unlike accepting the name “Christian” in that, while the Christian does, can and should rightfully appropriate wholesale the Christ to life, the Calvinist does not and should not the person of John Calvin. Therefore, the argument that Calvin was not a Calvinist is useless and impotent because the Calvinist is not so much concerned with Calvin per se as much as doing theology after him. Nonetheless, was Jesus a Christian?

I will end with what I see as the most common misconception of Calvinism: that because God is sovereign in salvation (call it predestination or unconditional election) missions/evangelization is not needed. The misconception is that sovereignty in salvation and evangelization/missions are mutually exclusive. John Piper has done more than anyone that I know of to combat such misguided, incorrect, and ultimately unbiblical thinking (cf. Let the Nations Be Glad). (3) Piper shows that reformed thinking is not the abdicating of, nor antithetical to, missions but a continuously combusting engine driving missions not as an end but as a means to the greatest end of the glory of God in Christ Jesus. It is therefore a gross error to write off Calvinism in one stroke with statements like “If God predestines, why go?” as did one Methodist clergyman-to-be classmate in a history of Christianity course at my state university. Calvin quipped that to fail to proclaim the gospel was to leave Christ in the tomb.

I don’t normally like to post snatch or hat tip (“HT”) because I should make my blog my own, not just aggregate everyone else’s. However, my man John Piper has written words that encourage the soul and point to the magnitude of God’s gospel shining in the face of Jesus Christ in When Does God Become 100% For Us?. Reading the full article is well worth five minutes out of your busy life.

Here’s a foretaste:

“When did God become for us so fully that there was not any wrath or curse or condemnation on us, but only mercy?

The answer, I still say, is at the point when, by grace, we saw Christ as a supremely valuable Savior and received him as our substitute sacrifice and substitute righteousness. In other words, it happened at the point of justification. The implication of this is that all our works, all our perseverance, all our continuing faith and obedience does not cause God to be 100% for us, but is the result of his being 100% for us.”

That we would say with Paul (Romans 11:33-36),

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Drew,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I am still not convinced. I accept that the ways of God are a mystery but isn’t it partly that we are too ignorant and too stupid to understand his ways? I suppose what I’m saying is that he doesn’t want to be mysterious and we would know more about the mystery if we opened our eyes? Should we know where God was in that Amish atrocity a little while back in Pennsylvania, or in the 9/11 massacre? I’ve heard it said that the devil is still a powerful force in the world and influences people to do evil things? Do you think this is right? Wasn’t he just a “bogey man” invention to frighten people into doing as they were told, usually by the church?

You pose the question “Is it OK to question when struck with suffering? ” Do you think God minds when we question what he’s doing? Is it alright to be angry at God for letting some really bad thing happen. I’ve heard of famous and devout Christians being angry at God, but I can’t remember any names off-hand. Will he forgive people who are angry at him?

Jack

Jack,

I cede your point that the ways of God are a mystery partly because we are too ignorant. The question then is, Ignorant of what? The answer to that is: the Bible. Paul gives some very appropriate words for this discussion to a young pastor named Timothy. He says, “continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work ” (2 Timothy 3:14-17). In other words, to the extend that we are ignorant of the Scriptures we will be ignorant of God for in the Scriptures God has chosen to reveal himself, pulling back the curtain to allow humans to catch a glimpse at what he is up to. Furthermore, while it’s necessary to point to the Scriptures and affirm their sufficiency for informing humans about what we need to know, it’s also necessary to affirm that as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:9).

A Latin axiom sums this up nicely, “finitum non capax infiniti”, or the finite are not capable of the infinite. That is, because God is infinite we finite humans are unable to totally grasp him. If we were able to totally grasp who God is, then he wouldn’t be any bigger/better than us and therefore not God. It’s not that he doesn’t want to be mysterious, but rather that we’re only capable of so much. Fortunately, God has condescended to provide us sacred writings which provide us with the knowledge of how to be saved. Had he not come down to us in Jesus and the Scriptures, rest assured we would not have been able to reach up and demand anything of him. “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth” (Psalm 135:6).

Let me also add that it’s is really easy for us to assume that we have comprehensive knowledge of a situation and quickly judge a situation as completely senseless. For example, image that you were walking through a big building and came to a private room where men dressed in all white were holding down a man and sawing off his arm. Your reaction might be to turn around and run as quickly as possible to call the police so that they can come and stop these madmen from injuring this poor man. You assume you have full knowledge of what’s happening and quickly judge that this man is being tortured. Would it inform your decision if you knew that the men dressed in white were surgeons and that the man losing his arm was in danger of losing his life from gangrene that could spread from his arm to the rest of the body? You would still cringe at the sight of pain, but you would understand what must be done.

This is a simplified example which we can easily and readily understand with just a little bit more knowledge. There are those acts, however, that cry out for justice and it seems almost impossible to see any good that could be accomplished through them, or why God would allow such events to take place. You mentioned two examples: the Amish schoolhouse shootings and September 11th. What possibly could God see in permitting the Amish schoolhouse shootings? I think there is no better place to look for such an answer than in Scripture and how Jesus responded when confronted with a similar conundrum.Luke 13:1-5:

“There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

I want to cite for you at length John Piper’s commentary on this passage of Scripture in relation to another tragic event in the family of the Amish schoolhouse shootings and the tower of Siloam, the bridge collapse in Minneapolis on August 1 of this year. Note:

“Jesus implies [in the above passage] that those who brought him this news thought he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that those who didn’t die did not deserve to die. That is not what he said. He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God.

All of us have sinned against God, not just against man. This is an outrage ten thousand times worse than the collapse of the 35W bridge. That any human is breathing at this minute on this planet is sheer mercy from God. God makes the sun rise and the rain fall on those who do not treasure him above all else. He causes the heart to beat and the lungs to work for millions of people who deserve his wrath. This is a view of reality that desperately needs to be taught in our churches, so that we are prepared for the calamities of the world.

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.”

I have to admit that I have often thought that Jesus was merely side-stepping the question people really wanted to know amidst (seemingly) senseless tragedy. What people really want to know is why does such and such happen, but Jesus spins the event around and poses a penetrating proposition to each of us that unless we repent, we will likewise perish. The tragedy becomes a teaching moment and a moment in which to point people toward both their sinfulness and exhort them to throw themselves upon the mercy of God in whom alone rests salvation. Jesus turns the question around not to avoid answering it, but to shake the listener awake (the megaphone we talked about in the previous email) and address the more pressing issue: the eternal destiny of those who are still alive and the necessity to repent or perish. Jesus was capable of explaining to his listeners the mystery behind the events that took place, but he didn’t; rather he ultimately pointed people to God. Therefore, seeing that I am considerably less capable than Jesus, I will do the same.

Finally, you ask if I think God minds if we question what he’s doing. I think he minds if we question in an attitude of pride that questions because we think we know better than God. This is foolishness. The one knowing little questioning in pride and mockery the One knowing all! However, if the one knowing little, questions in an attitude of submission and humility, I believe it pleases God to see faith seeking understanding. It should bring one closer to God through prayer and studying the Bible. Also, considering Piper’s comments above, what right does the one knowing little have to question the One knowing all? I would be very careful about being angry with God for anger toward him could be a sign of rejecting him altogether, which is the only unforgivable sin.

I love books that you can gather the whole thrust of the work simply by reading the title. Not only this but the title alone speaks volumes. Right now, I know of only two examples:

• The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen [Link]
• God is the Gospel by John Piper [Link]

If I encounter more, I’ll be sure to add them to this list.