Book Write-Up: Biblical Doctrine, by John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue

John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Study of Bible Truth. Crossway, 2017. See here to purchase the book.

In this nearly 1000-page book, Pastor John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue extensively go through biblical doctrine. The topics covered in this book include the inspiration of Scripture, the nature of God, Christology, the Holy Spirit, the nature of human beings, sin, salvation, angels, the church, and eschatology. Not surprisingly, considering this is a book by MacArthur, it embraces the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, TULIP, cessationism, the pre-tribulational rapture, and pre-millennialism.

Here are some items, which are a mere sample of what I got out of the book:

A. MacArthur and Mayhue acknowledge that there is no perfectly accurate manuscript of the Bible on earth. Still, on the basis of such passages as Psalm 119:89, which states that God’s word is fixed in the heavens, they believe that there is a perfect version of the Scriptures in heaven. Over time, the jots and the tittles of the law and the prophets are being fulfilled (Matthew 5:18).

B. MacArthur and Mayhue appeal to Acts 19:14-16 and Jude 8-10 in arguing for cessationism, the idea that God no longer performs miracles through human agents. In these passages, unqualified people presume to cast out or to rebuke demons. Whether that supports cessationism is a good question. When those men in Acts 19 presumed to cast out demons, the time of miracles had not yet ceased, even in MacArthur’s reckoning; the apostles performed them, after all. At the same time, Acts 19 may demonstrate that not just anyone can perform miracles.

C. MacArthur and Mayhue hold that the miracles of the first century were designed to confirm the truth of the Christian message. Indeed, they cite biblical passages in which people are amazed after seeing Jesus or the disciples perform miracles. Nowadays, according to MacArthur and Mayhue, the Bible is sufficient by itself, for II Peter 1:16-21 states that the prophecies of Scripture are even surer, more certain than the Transfiguration. There are reasons that Scripture is conceivably preferable to the Transfiguration: Scripture is available to a lot of people, whereas the Transfiguration was only witnessed by Peter, James, and John; Scripture also conveys more detail and context than a brief miraculous event. But is II Peter 1:16-21 necessarily saying that we no longer need miracles to confirm the faith, since Scripture is enough?

D. Related to (C.), what support for the Christian faith do MacArthur and Mayhue offer? They are rather skeptical that classic apologetic arguments can lead a person to the God of Jesus Christ, plus they contend that God in Scripture hardly ever attempts to defend his credibility: he just speaks authoritatively, and that’s that! The inner witness of the Holy Spirit is also instrumental in bringing people to faith.

E. MacArthur and Mayhue argues that the tongues of I Corinthians 14 are human languages, like the tongues of Acts 2. They draw parallels between the two chapters: in both cases, outsiders are baffled by what they are hearing, as observers in Acts 2 think the disciples are drunk, and Paul fears that people hearing tongues in I Corinthians 14 will think that the Corinthian Christians sound like barbarians. Of course, MacArthur and Mayhue think that people speaking in tongues in these passages do so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; they were not merely trained to speak foreign languages. The implication may be that Christians in I Corinthians 14 are getting carried away with a gift that God gave them, using it in inappropriate ways and settings. On the basis of I Corinthians 14:21, which quotes Isaiah 28:11, MacArthur and Mayhue conclude that tongues are a sign to the people of Israel, perhaps that the Gospel is going to the Gentiles.

F. Overall, MacArthur and Mayhue effectively survey different Christian perspectives, discuss what they consider to be their strengths and weaknesses, and offer their conclusions. Their discussion of when the soul enters the body comes to mind as an excellent example. Their discussion of preterism, however, was a little lacking: one can read that section and wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would want to become a preterist! MacArthur and Mayhue contend that preterism is wrong because Christ did not come back in the first century, and the cataclysmic heavenly signs of Matthew 24:29 did not occur then. MacArthur and Mayhue ignore that preterists have answers to these arguments: God’s “coming” can refer to a divine act of judgment (see Genesis 11:5-7; Exodus 12:12), which is what occurred in 70 C.E., and heavenly signs are not necessarily literal but are used to describe even historical events of divine judgment (Isaiah 13, which concerns the fall of Babylon). At the same time, MacArthur and Mayhue inspire a good question: when do preterist arguments become a stretch? Matthew 25 occurs after Matthew 24, and it depicts God judging the nations and sending some people to hell. Can that cogently be interpreted as a first century event?

G. There are cases in which MacArthur and Mayhue let the Hebrew Bible be the Hebrew Bible, rather than projecting their Christian beliefs onto it. They interpret “Elohim” (plural), for example, not so much in reference to the Trinity, but rather as a way to express God’s awesomeness: God is too great to be expressed in the singular. At other times, MacArthur and Mayhue think that Jesus in the Hebrew Bible is unavoidable: the Angel of the LORD in the Hebrew Bible, for them, is not a mere messenger but is a member of the Godhead, since this messenger receives worship and has the power to forgive sins (Joshua 5:13-15; Exodus 23:21; Zechariah 3:3-4), which are divine prerogatives. MacArthur and Mayhue also interpret Daniel 9 in light of the New Testament, without considering non-Christian interpretations (i.e., that it relates to the time of the Maccabees). That is understandable, since they are Christians, and they present a fairly decent case that the Book of Revelation envisions the seventieth week of Daniel 9 to take place in the eschaton.

H. MacArthur and Mayhue observe details in Scripture that appear to support their positions. In favor of their Calvinist belief that divine grace is what causes a person to have faith, they refer to Acts 18:27, which refers to people who came to believe through grace. That does not mean that Christians were never under divine wrath, for they were before they believed; Ephesians 2:3 makes that clear, as MacArthur and Mayhue contend. MacArthur and Mayhue embrace infralapsarianism rather than supralapsarianism: they hold that God’s predestination of some to life and some to damnation logically follows his predestination of the Fall. They refer to Romans 9:22-23, which presents God forming vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. Wrath and mercy presume the existence of sin, which came as a result of the Fall, so, for MacArthur and Mayhue, God’s predestinating choice in Romans 9 logically follows and assumes the existence of the Fall.

I. MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as “soul” and “spirit.” They acknowledge nuance in the words: nephesh in the Old Testament, for instance, can refer to a person, but also to what gives the person life.

J. MacArthur and Mayhue say that impeccability, the idea that Christ was unable to sin, is the majority position within Christianity. Why would Christ be tempted, though, if he was unable to sin (Matthew 4; Luke 4; Hebrews 4:15)? Is not the temptation a waste of time? Can Jesus even be tempted, if he was unable to sin? MacArthur and Mayhue refer to this point of view but do not successfully respond to it.

K. Related to (J.), there are times when MacArthur and Mayhue chalk things up as mysteries. In explaining passages that appear to suggest that Jesus is the savior of all, MacArthur and Mayhue meticulously go through those passages, look at their contexts, and they conclude that the “all” in those cases are specifically believers rather than everyone, in accordance with their belief in TULIP. At the same time, they deny that God desires or delights in the death of the wicked, since such a notion would contradict such passages as Ezekiel 33:11. They say that God may have two desires: God would like the wicked to be saved but chooses the option that brings God more glory, which includes the damnation of the wicked. Ultimately, they settle on saying that we see in Scripture that God desires the repentance of the wicked, but also that God chooses the specific people who will be saved and does not select everyone.

L. MacArthur and Mayhue make the interesting point that John the Baptist, in baptizing people, was implying that the Israelites were not truly part of the people of Israel and needed to become Israelites through baptism. Baptism, after all, was a Jewish rite by which Gentiles converted to Judaism. And John in Matthew 3:9 warns the Israelites not to place their trust in Abraham being their father. History rarely comes into play in this book, but there are key moments when it does, with profound results.

M. MacArthur and Mayhue argue that II Peter 3:10 does not depict God destroying the old heaven and earth then creating a new one, but rather God purifying the old one (cp. Malachi 4). David Jeremiah makes a similar argument in a book of his I am reading, The Book of Signs.

Overall, this book is an interesting, edifying, and biblically-based work on biblical doctrine. In contrast to many of MacArthur’s works, this one lacks anecdotes. But it draws heavily on the details and implications of Scripture. Some discussions are more interesting than others. I, for one, thought that the book spent more time than I liked on divine simplicity. Even in that discussion, however, MacArthur and Mayhue are unafraid to tackle tough questions, such as the question of whether divine simplicity (i.e., God does not “possess” attributes because they are who he is, and God does not consist of parts) contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. This book is a rewarding read.

I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.

Book Write-Up: I Saw Poland Betrayed, by Arthur Bliss Lane

Arthur Bliss Lane. I Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador Reports to the American People. Western Islands, 1965.

Arthur Bliss Lane was U.S. ambassador to Poland between 1944 and 1947. His book, I Saw Poland Betrayed, was originally published in 1948. It was later republished by the ultra-conservative John Birch Society as part of its Americanist Library.

I expected this book to be a right-wing attack on the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, alleging that President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. This right-wing view was challenged by William F. Buckley, Jr., who pointed out that the Yalta agreement actually affirmed that Poland would be independent and would have free elections. Stalin, however, double-crossed Roosevelt, to Roosevelt’s chagrin.

Lane’s book differed from my expectation. Lane acknowledges that the Yalta and Potsdam conferences agreed that Poland would be free and independent. The problem was that these agreements had significant loopholes. The Soviet presence in Poland was already established and significant after World War II, and Yalta and Potsdam did nothing to counter that. Poland was also deprived of its richest land, compromising its independence and economic viability. When the Communists triumphed in Poland’s corrupt election, even over progressive competitors, the U.S. accepted the results.

Why did the U.S. betray Poland, according to Lane? Essentially, it was a failure of nerve. FDR did not want to go to war with Russia over Poland. Lane never mentions Communist infiltration in the U.S. Government, but he does bemoan that liberals do not take Communism as seriously as they did Nazism. Communism and Nazism are totalitarian ideologies pursuing world domination, but liberals saw the latter, not the former, as a threat to be stopped. Lane sees the Soviets as sinister and untrustworthy: they even let the Nazis slaughter Poles to weaken Poland and make it vulnerable to a Soviet takeover.

Lane is slightly unclear about what the U.S. should have done instead. He shrinks back from suggesting that the U.S. should have gone to war with the Soviets, for there were diplomatic options. One such option was to cut off aid to Poland, as long as it supported Communism. At the same time, Lane observes that the U.S. had military superiority shortly after World War II and asserts that it should have used it to protect Poland from the Soviets.

Lane’s discussion of Hitler, the Holocaust, and Jews stood out to me, in light of Alt-right people I have been reading and hearing. Hitler is portrayed as a brutal despot seeking world domination, whereas Alt-right thinkers tend to assert that he merely sought land that formerly belonged to Germany or that contained a significant number of Germans. Lane notes that the Jewish population of Poland declined precipitously after World War II, and he attributes that to Nazi gas chambers. Lane accepts a former Nazi’s testimony that the Nazis used Jewish corpses to create soap, a charge that mainstream historians have since disputed. Lane also disagrees with anti-Semitic accusations that were made in Poland, such as the idea that the Communists in Poland were mostly Jews coming from Russia and that Jews were preferred by the Soviet-influenced UNRRA.

The book is not exactly an on-the-ground account of Poland’s fall to the Soviets. It takes place mostly in the backrooms, among movers and shakers. It could get technical, but it is useful in that it lucidly lays out objections to the Yalta and Potsdam agreements.

Book Write-Up: Book Burning, by Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas. Book Burning. Crossway, 1983.

Cal Thomas is a conservative syndicated columnist. In 1983, he was the communications director of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.

I first learned of this book as a teenager, when I was reading books in the Opposing Viewpoints series. The Opposing Viewpoints series featured articles from different perspectives, right and left. One of the books, “Censorship,” had a predictable article criticizing right-wing censors, as it discussed the 1970’s textbook protests in Kanawha County. Is that not what enters many people’s minds when they hear “censorship”: the religious right? But then the book included an article alleging that the left, too, practices censorship. This article was an excerpt from Cal Thomas’s Book Burning.

Book Burning undertakes four tasks.

First, Thomas explains why freedom of speech is important. In fact, Thomas regards it as a Christian virtue. He summarizes John Milton’s Christian defense of it, favoring it over John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian defense. People need not fear exposure to competing ideas, Thomas argues, for only those who lack confidence in their own ideas desire to censor other ideas. Thomas prefers to ground freedom of speech in theism rather than utilitarianism because utilitarianism lacks a solid basis for morality, making free speech merely a good idea that could become dispensable; theism, by contrast, regards free speech as a God-given right. Thomas supports diverse ideas in public libraries, akin to the Fairness Doctrine that existed for radio and television.

Second, Thomas defends the Moral Majority against the charge of censorship. As Thomas points out, not every right-wing troublemaker who tries to censor a book officially represents the Moral Majority! But Thomas also sifts through right-wing rhetoric and activity to distinguish what is legitimate from what is wrongheaded. As far as Thomas is concerned, a book should not be censored just because it contains illicit sex and violence, for sin is a part of life. But a book that is appropriate for a teenager or an adult may not be appropriate for children, who may lack the critical faculties to evaluate what they are reading. Thomas also distances himself from the right-wing nostalgia for the days of the Founding Fathers: Thomas does not want to go back to those days, but he would like to see religion and traditional values at least acknowledged in public libraries, public schools, and the media.

Third, Thomas argues that the left engages in censorship. References to the traditional family, traditional gender roles, and Christianity are omitted from public school textbooks, even though many Americans embrace these things. Book reviewers, public libraries, bookstores, and the New York Times’s bestseller list marginalize or ignore Christian books, even though Christian books outsell some of the books that they do choose to acknowledge. The national news media is baffled by evangelicalism, as when Jimmy Carter claimed to be “born again.” And movies and TV programs fail to depict Christianity positively, choosing instead to depict Christians as hypocrites or as nutcases.

Fourth, Thomas offers advice on what conservative Christians can do. This includes becoming part of the system so as to influence it from the inside, but also challenging the system from the outside.

On whether Thomas’s concerns are still relevant thirty-seven years later, my answer is “yes” and “no.” On the “yes” side, children are exposed to sex and violence at an early age, through television and the Internet. The entertainment media promote acts of which Thomas and conservative Christians disapprove, such as homosexuality and premarital and extramarital sex, at a more intense level than was the case when Thomas wrote this book. Not only traditional gender roles, but also the very concept of gender, have been challenged. On the “no” side, religion has become more included in the mainstream media. TV shows and movies, even outside of Christian media, have explored the spiritual side of life in a sympathetic manner. Religious books, even conservative Christian ones, are included on the New York Times’s bestseller list.

This book is a thoughtful defense of free speech from a Christian conservative perspective. I have four critiques, though.

First, I could not recognize Thomas’s allegation that public libraries and bookstores marginalize or ignore Christianity. Perhaps that is because I grew up in the Bible Belt, where Christian and conservative books filled the shelves of public libraries and bookstores. I recall even seeing some of the titles that Thomas recommends (donated by the local right-to-life group).

Second, Thomas seems to conflate public schools teaching children about religion with public schools promoting religion. The former is fine; the latter, legally-speaking, is a no-no. I recall a liberal social studies teacher I had who included a unit on religions. He asked if what he was doing was legal, and he replied “yes”: he is allowed to educate students about different religions, since religion is a part of life, but it is wrong for him to try to encourage his students to convert to Judaism. Thomas, at least in this book, fails to recognize that line, for he responds to the removal of religious rituals from public schools by saying that religion is a part of life and thus should be studied.

Third, related to the above item, there is some ambiguity in Thomas’s book about where he wants Christianity to be in the American system. Does he support pluralism, in which Christianity is appreciated and acknowledged among a diverse array of viewpoints? Or does he want Christianity to have a more prominent and dominant role? He points out, after all, that Christianity is a part of America’s heritage.

Fourth, Thomas’s discussion of the Christian basis for free speech perhaps would have been stronger had he addressed censorship in the Bible, which the Bible endorses. There is not much tolerance in the Bible for idolatry, for idolaters are to be killed. So much for freedom of speech and religion.

Book Write-Up: Jeremiah, by Derek Kidner

 Derek Kidner. Jeremiah. IVP Academic, 1987, 2021. Go here to purchase the book.

Derek Kidner was Warden at the Tyndale House theological library in Cambridge, England. This book is a reprint of his 1987 book, The Message of Jeremiah. It is largely homiletical yet quasi-scholarly in that it discusses historical background and context.

I decided to read this book because I wanted to see how Kidner, as a Christian scholar, would address questions I have had about Jeremiah that have perplexed me as a Christian. (Nowadays, I have largely put these questions on the shelf and not worried about them so much, but I am still curious as to how Christians address them, and if there is a way to account for them while credibly accepting a robust model of the divine inspiration of Scripture.)

Examples:

—-What is a Christian to do with Jeremiah’s prophecies that were not fulfilled, according to historians? Jeremiah predicted that Babylon would conquer Egypt in a devastating fashion, negatively impacting the Jews who unwisely fled to Egypt, and that Babylon itself would be conquered in like fashion. Neither took place, according to historians. Moreover, Jeremiah predicted that the Jews would be in exile for seventy years, but their exile was shorter than that: about fifty years. And, while Jeremiah forecast a glorious spiritual, national, even eschatological restoration for Israel after seventy years, her actual restoration was not that glamorous.

—-Jeremiah 33:14-26 predicts, not only that God would restore the Davidic dynasty and that it would be permanent, but also that God would do the same for the Levitical priesthood. Does that contradict the Christian view, exemplified in Hebrews, that the Old Testament priesthood is null and void because Christ is now the high priest of the new covenant?

Kidner, to his credit, attempts to address these questions. The conditionality of prophecy on human repentance (Jeremiah 18:7-8) plays a significant role in his attempt, as when he says that God shortened the exile and lessened God’s punishment of Babylon out of mercy. In the case of Babylon, Kidner speculates that God may have reduced the severity of her punishment due to Nebuchadnezzar’s repentance in Daniel 4. Kidner also states that the destruction of Babylon recurs in the Book of Revelation, meaning that an eschatological fulfillment may yet occur.

In some cases, Kidner seeks to maintain that the prophecy, as stated, actually came to pass. Nebuchadnezzar may not have decimated Egypt but he did manage to replace her Pharaoh with someone more pliable. Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar weakened Egypt, setting the stage for Persia to further decimate her decades later. And, while Nebuchadnezzar himself did not wipe out the Jewish refugees in Egypt, the Elephantine papyri indicate that Jews in Egypt suffered persecution, and a fragment from 400 B.C.E. anticipates the destruction of the Jewish community.

Regarding Jeremiah’s prediction of a permanent Levitical priesthood and whether that jibes with Christian belief in Jesus as high priest, Kidner raises various considerations: the existence of priestly converts to Christianity in the early church (Acts 4:36; 6:7), Isaiah 66:21’s extension of the priesthood to Gentiles, and the fulfillment of the priestly role by Christ and believers. Kidner also holds that Jeremiah 30:21 presents a Davidic king who would also serve as priest, which is what Jesus is: a priest-king.

On the glorious and eschatological dimension of Jeremiah’s prophecies of restoration, Kidner states that Jeremiah’s vision outstrips what happened in Judah’s historical restoration, as Jeremiah seeks to focus the readers’ attention on the Jerusalem above, not merely the earthly Jerusalem.

Is this convincing? I am not inclined to dump on it. A person who seeks to read Jeremiah from a faithful conservative Christian perspective, while accounting for critical challenges, may find Kidner helpful. Personally, in terms of whatever Christian perspective I hold these days, I am open to there being some grain of truth, somewhere, in what Kidner says. Indeed, Old Testament prophecies may have been fulfilled in a spiritual or non-literal fashion, and hopes manifest in Old Testament prophets, such as Gentiles coming to know the God of Israel, have been realized in the Christian church.

Doubts still linger, however. What Kidner says about the seventy years ignores the biblical assertion that the Jews indeed were in exile for seventy years (see II Chronicles 36:21; Zechariah 1:12; 7:5), whatever history says to the contrary. Jeremiah seems to say that Nebuchadnezzar would decimate Egypt, not that Egypt would be decimated decades later by someone else. Conditionality may be a factor in why prophecies were not historically fulfilled as written, but when does that answer become an ad hoc rationalization?

Some of Kidner’s solutions were predictable, while others raised considerations that were new to me. Overall, the book has a dreamy and homiletical tone, and much of what Kidner says was forgettable to me. But, where he went out on a limb and addressed critical challenges, he did rather well. 

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.

Book Write-Up: F.D.R., My Exploited Father-in-Law, by Curtis B. Dall

Curtis B. Dall. F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-in-Law. Christian Crusade Publications, 1968.

Curtis B. Dall was a stockbroker and the first husband of Anna Roosevelt, the daughter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Christian Crusade, the publisher of this book, was a right-wing, anti-Communist group, in the vein of the John Birch Society.

Here are some thoughts and observations about this book:

A. This book is not exactly a juicy, firsthand, behind-the-scenes account of FDR’s relationship with one-worlder conspirators. Dall essentially had the customary right-wing critiques of FDR—-that FDR sold Eastern Europe to the Communists in World War II and at Yalta. But Dall also happened to know the man, not deeply, mind you, but as an in-law who interacted with FDR and occasionally advised him. Because Dall had an affable relationship with FDR, he tended to give FDR the benefit of a doubt, thinking that FDR was manipulated by one-worlders, Communists, and international bankers rather than being an evil man in his own right. This book still provides an anecdotal account of Dall’s impressions of FDR, FDR’s family, FDR’s advisors, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Bernard Baruch, based on his interactions and experiences with them. Dall contrasts the public beliefs about these people with his own experiences of them. He personally liked FDR, Eleanor, and FDR’s mother but had a rather testy relationship with FDR’s advisors, including Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, and Louis Howe. (According to wikipedia, however, Eleanor in her correspondence with Anna manifested hatred towards Dall.) Dall also talks about his interactions with Commander George Earle, who sought in the last days of World War II to create an alliance with anti-Nazi Germans so as to block Soviet incursions into Europe, only to be rebuffed by FDR. And Dall interviews Admiral Husband Kimmel, who was blamed for the Pearl Harbor attack and insisted that FDR had prior knowledge of it, yet stripped the American base at Pearl Harbor of its defenses, all in an attempt to get America into World War II. Parts of this book are Dall’s speculations about what is going on behind the scenes, but parts, such as his interviews of Earle and Kimmel, contain a lot of facts. In addition, Dall’s interactions with Baruch are an insightful look into how power and influence work, and how one’s manipulation of power can negatively impact the lives of people elsewhere in the world (i.e., China, whose economy was ruined due to Baruch’s attempts to raise the price of gold).

B. There are areas in which Dall overlaps with John Birchers and Christian Crusaders, and areas in which he diverges from them. Like Gary Allen (John Bircher), he believes that the international bankers are using Communism to take over the world, which would then be handed over to them. Dall takes swipes at the NAACP, believing that it is part of a Communist plot to foment racial tension. The Council on Foreign Relations is a culprit in the conspiracy, yet Dall states that most CFR members are merely in it for the status; the true conspirators are higher up in the organization. Dall goes a little further than John Birchers do. Colonel House is treated by John Birchers as a culprit, and, while Dall agrees with that, he speculates that House declined in influence among the Insiders due to the failure of the League of Nations. Dall speculates about the origins of the CFR: John Birchers say House started it, whereas Rose Martin claimed Allen Dulles did. Dall regards it as a post-World War I attempt to consolidate globalist control of American foreign policy, after the failure of the League of Nations. The international bankers initially supported Hitler but then turned on him. John Birchers never officially criticized Zionism, but Dall does. Although he acknowledges that Morgenthau was anti-Zionist, the conspirators, in his telling, were definitely Zionists. Dall states that powerful Jewish interests agreed with Britain to get America into World War I, in exchange for Britain giving them the state of Israel (Balfour Declaration). The place of Zionism in one-worlder beliefs or in the machinations of the conspiracy is never explored. While Dall admits that Joseph Kennedy was opposed to American entry into World War II, he believes that Jewish power sought to use the Kennedys as an Irish front for its own machinations, to divert attention from Jewish power. Whereas John Birchers and Christian Crusaders tended to blame Oswald for the Kennedy Assassination, since Oswald was a Communist, Dall distrusts the Warren Commission and believes in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Dall also speaks highly of Huey Long, whom he believes was assassinated by leftist interests. Huey Long opposed globalism, which John Birchers would like, but he also embraced ideas that would be repulsive among right-wingers: heavy taxation on corporations, sharing the wealth, and increased state spending. Not surprisingly, wikipedia says that Dall was active in the Liberty Lobby, which was populist and anti-Zionist.

C. Dall was a stockbroker, and he does manifest knowledge of economics in this book, in terms of offering an explanation of what causes what and why. Like John Bircher types, he is critical of the Federal Reserve and its creation of fiat money. Where Dall is a little ambiguous is in his view on Wall Street. On the one hand, he seems supportive of it. FDR's campaign consulted him, seeking information about what is wrong with Wall Street, in order to create a boogeyman that FDR could oppose. Dall could not think of anything negative. Yet, on the other hand, Dall is critical of the international bankers and New York finance, who, presumably, are part of Wall Street. 

Book Write-Up: Does God Exist?, by W. David Beck

W. David Beck. Does God Exist? A History of Answers to the Question. IVP Academic, 2021. Go here to purchase the book.

W. David Beck has a doctorate from Boston University and is emeritus professor of philosophy at Liberty University.

This book is about the classical arguments for the existence of God: the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological arguments.

Gary Habermas’s endorsement of the book is essentially my impression as well: “Finally! A single volume that contains as a historical narrative a compendium of arguments pertaining to God’s existence—-pro-con, and from most religious perspectives—-all under one cover. Fantastic!”

Indeed, this book summarizes the various versions of each argument for God’s existence, as well as critiques of those versions. The chapter about the cosmological argument even includes a Hindu version from the Upanishads!

IVP’s web site places this book in the “intermediate” category, and that is probably where it belongs. There were places in which the book was over my head, yet, as someone who has read introductory philosophy, I often had a general idea about what the chapters were about. A fuller appreciation of this book may entail concentration on the part of the reader and, even then, a novice or even one at an intermediate level may get lost, at times.

Overall, Beck agrees with the classical arguments for the existence of God. What is noteworthy is that he still does so, after summarizing and critiquing the critiques of those arguments. Those who blithely dismiss the classical arguments as obsolete and antiquated would do well at least to give Beck’s book a reading.

To my recollection, some of Beck’s conclusions were not too profound. He defends the cosmological argument by differentiating between conceptual infinity (as exists in mathematics) and actual infinity, the latter of which is impossible for the cosmos, explaining why it needed a beginning and, thus, a creator. That makes sense. The chapter on the teleological argument dismisses the relevance of alternate universes by saying that there is no evidence for them but also that, even if they do exist, they fail to undermine the teleological argument. The chances of everything coming together for human existence even in one universe are small, explaining the need for a creator. There, I am not as convinced. I sympathize with a critic of the teleological argument whom Beck quotes, who essentially says that, the more universes there are, the greater the chance that at least one of those universes can have life and order, without needing a divine explanation.

But, of course, there may be nuances that I am missing here.

Some elliptical parts of the book that stand out to me:

—-Beck summarizes the debate between Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston, author of the legendary series of books A History of Philosophy, and Bertrand Russell, who wrote the bluntly titled Why I Am Not a Christian. Russell, in disputing the cosmological argument, expresses problems with such concepts as contingent and necessary being and sufficient reason. Beck seems to think that Russell is being evasive and pedantic, but, were I to understand what Russell is saying, would I see merit in his points?

—-Perhaps a gaping hole in my understanding concerns Beck’s treatment of the ontological argument. A common objection to the ontological argument is that concept does not mean reality: just because the greatest being one can conceive must exist to be the greatest being, that does not mean that this greatest being exists. Beck says, and shows, that this objection is attacking a strawperson, that Anselm never suggested that concept means reality. What, then, is the ontological argument?

The last chapter briefly summarizes and suggests resources about other arguments for the existence of God. Beck does not go into the “ins” and “outs” of these arguments, but he likely does not intend to do so, at least not here. Some of what he suggests piques my interest, as his reference to scholarly sources that address the question of what religious experiences are authoritative and which are not. Another question in my mind concerns the universal argument for God’s existence: surely philosophers and scholars who support this argument realize that there are religions in the world that lack a concept of a supreme deity. How do they account for that?

The book is excellent for reference precisely because it is comprehensive, which is why I will keep it rather than donating it to the Goodwill.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest.