Dr Bradley G. Green reviews “More Calvinistic Than Calvin?”

A review of the book
“More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Hardline Reformed Theology & The Malaysian Church”
authored by Hwa Yung, Lee Soo Tian, Lee Tat Yan and Lim Kar Yong.

Reviewed by Bradley G. Green
Professor of Theological Studies, Union University
Visiting Professor of Philosophy and Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Senior Fellow, Newton House, Oxford

---

It is a pleasure (but also a sadness) to review More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Hardline Reformed Theology & the Malaysian Church (Faith Books, 2023). The book is clearly written to warn or express concern about a certain group of Christian believers in Malaysia, centered in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley. Full disclosure: This particular group of Christians are friends of mine. I have travelled twice to Malaysia to speak on behalf of these folks. The organizations in question are Christ Evangelical Reformed Church (hereafter CERC) and the Gospel Growth Fellowship (hereafter GGF).

The book is most certainly not a dispassionate analysis of a certain theological movement or organization. Rather, it is a rather fairly highly pitched, rhetorically ramped up critique of CERC and GGF.

The authors claim that their goal is to advance the unity of the Christian church in Malaysia—certainly a laudable goal. And the problem that needs to be addressed, the authors argue, is the division or conflict caused by CERC and GGF.

The book consists of seven chapters. While the book is co-written by four authors, only chapter one, "Why This Book?," attributes the chapter to a particular person—in this case Hwa Yung. [1] As footnote 1 on page 5 notes, this chapter is attributed to Hwa Yung because of "the nature of the content." The chapter recounts some correspondence between Hwa Yung and GGF, who had requested to republish an essay from Hwa Yung that GGF found beneficial. To recount every back and forth throughout this chapter (and the entire book) would be rather tedious. But a few highlights are in order.

Chapter 1: Why This Book?

First, Hwa Yung writes that he expressed concern to GGF that all of the speakers and advisors were "orang putih" (p. 6). As I learned from my Malaysian friends, "orang putih" would essentially mean something like "westerner." Again, full disclosure: I serve as an advisor in Christian Education for GGF. And I guess I should also admit to being an "orang putih." Hwa Yung proceeds to lament/note that he was never thanked for granting permission to republish his essay (p. 6).

Second, Hwa Yung throughout this chapter (and this runs through the whole book, generally) repeatedly maligns and attributes self-serving motives to GGF, and pictures CERC/GGF in the worst possible light. GGF was "less than innocent" (p. 7) in how they presented themselves. Hwa Yung and his co-authors have also chosen to repeatedly speak of CERC/GGF as advocates of "a rather rigid or hardline version of Reformed theology" (p. 7), "exclusivist and divisive" (p. 8), "not as faithful to the Bible as they claim to be" (p. 8), not being "truthful" (p. 8), of advancing "a rigid and exclusive Reformed theology" (p. 10), which is "propagated aggressively" (p. 10). Especially the charge of being "rigid" and "hardline Reformed" is repeated numerous times throughout the volume.

Third, Hwa Yung expresses concern that besides simply republishing his essay, GGF also posted Hwa Yung's picture on social media with language that may have implied his support of GGF (pp. 7-8). Fair enough. If GGF made a blunder, they should apologize. If they did not respond in a timely manner to Hwa Yung's correspondence, they should have.

Fourth, on the final page of the first chapter (p. 12) Hwa Yung throws an odd and uncharitable jab at the object of his concern. He writes about "long wordy and hours-long sermons," and quotes the Apostle Paul's words when he writes that he tried to speak "in demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that your faith may not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." Hwa Yung, unfortunately, then notes that such "long wordy and hours-long sermons" (CERC is clearly in view) "are likely to tell us more about the former [presumedly, "the wisdom of men"] than the latter [presumedly, "the power of God"]. This is an uncharitable and unfair remark.

Chapter 2: The Historical Emergence of Reformed Theology

Chapter 2, "The Historical Emergence of Reformed Theology," is a 12-page, basic, introduction to the origin of Reformed theology. Twelve pages is rather short to map out in any great detail the "historical emergence of Reformed theology." Much of the account is fairly non-controversial, but the author at times writes that Reformed theology emphasizes predestination to such a great extent that it becomes the "controlling center" (p. 17) or "starting point and controlling principle" (p. 19) of Reformed theology. As Richard Muller has shown in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, it is unlikely that predestination functioned this way in either the first-generation Reformed or the Reformed Scholastics. [2] Michael Horton echoes the same sentiment that the emphasis of God's sovereignty and predestination ‘can hardly be considered a central dogma from which the whole system is deduced, especially when it is not even mentioned in his summary of the Christian faith (the Geneva Catechism). Nevertheless, God's sovereignty and predestination became a way of explaining or criticizing Calvin and Reformed theology, by friend and foe alike.' [3]

In the last couple pages of the chapter, the author then turns to the focus of the book: "a hardline version of Reformed theology" (p. 22). Here we get a definition of sorts of "the hardline Reformed position" (p. 24): (1) those who hold to the TULIP of the Reformed tradition; and (2) those for whom in "practice, this is asserted in a manner that encourages and promotes division and breakdown of fellowship with Christians who do not share the same theology" (p. 24). And the chapter simply ends. The reader is clearly left to conclude that CERC/GGF are guilty, especially, of this latter tendency.

Chapter 3: An Overview of Reformed Theology

In Chapter 3, "An Overview of Reformed Theology," the author attempts to give a big-picture vision of Reformed theology. The author begins well, suggesting that Reformed theology is constituted by at least four key features: (1) the priority of Scripture; (2) the confessions of faith; (3) the scholastic method of theologizing; (4) the centrality of the doctrine of God (pp. 25-26—these four are a fine start, but undoubtedly a tad lean, and the author will add more details a bit later in the chapter). But the author soon shows a serious misunderstanding of Reformed theology. The author suggests that many Christian groups (e.g. Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, and Pentecostals), could affirm these four principles but: "It is only when those in the Reformed tradition teach God's sovereignty in such a manner that completely denies human freedom that other Christians have difficulty with such a position" (p. 29). For someone to write such a sentence, sadly, reveals a true lack of understanding of Reformed theology, and it is unfortunate that the co-authors would let such a sentence go in to print. Now, it is most certainly the case that Christians have debated questions of divine sovereignty and human freedom or responsibility, and have debated questions of divine agency and human agency. But it is most certainly not the case that the Reformed have taught "God's sovereignty in such a manner that completely denies human freedom." As just one example, one might turn to the Westminster Confession of Faith 3.1 ("Of God's Eternal Decree") [4] , which reads:

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

I have highlighted a key component. Notice what the Westminster theologians are arguing in the highlighted section: (1) the "will of the creatures" is not destroyed (no "violence" is "offered"); but also: (2) the "liberty or contingency of second causes [i.e., human willing and acting] is not "taken away"; rather, such "liberty or contingency of second causes" is "rather established". Now, the Reformed might be wrong, but basic Christian charity at least requires summarizing their position fairly. And it is worth noting that the Reformed (here the Westminster divines are our particular example) actually argue that God's eternal, wise, will, in ordaining "whatsoever comes to pass," is not only compatible with human freedom, but actually establishes it. Someone might certainly reject Reformed theology because one is dissatisfied with how the Reformed construe divine sovereignty and human freedom or responsibility. But the sticking point is most certainly not that the Reformed deny human freedom or responsibility.

The author goes on to suggest that Reformed theology can also be understood by two additional principles: (1) the five "solas" of the Reformation; (2) the theology summarized by TULIP. Much of what the author says here is fairly conventional, but some oddities surface. The author describes "Scripture alone" as asserting that the Bible is ‘the sole source of doctrines' (p. 31). However, Barrett whom the author cites in his book describes Sola Scriptura as "only Scripture, because it is God's inspired Word, is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church" (God's Word Alone, 23). [5] For a helpful articulation of the authority of Scripture, one might look at the Cambridge Declaration, especially since the solas are not merely something to compare with Roman Catholic beliefs. Instead, all Protestants must desire to uphold the authority of the Scripture and God's holy gospel. [6]

The author moves on to summarize the traditional TULIP of Reformed theology. Much of this again is generally uncontroversial, but the author continues to betray his misunderstanding of basic Reformed theology. The author writes: "Reformed theologians who hold to a strict predestinarianism allows no place at all for human freewill. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to speak of those who are not saved as being morally responsible for their own condemnation." (p. 35). As noted above in the reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith, this is a poor way to state things. The Reformed generally argue that persons are simultaneously "bound" by sin (the lost person is truly enslaved to sin, and the will is bound), and that every lost person does what he or she wants. What becomes more and more clear as one reads this book is that the real object of the authors' critique is not something called "hardline Reformed theology." The authors seem to be a bit agitated about Reformed theology itself. For a better understanding of TULIP, I commend to you The Gospel Coalition's free course as a good place to start. [7]

On the last page of the chapter the author makes a vague reference to the tendency, "in some circles," due to a certain understanding of Reformed theology, to have a sense of "spiritual superiority" (p. 36).

Chapter 4: A Response to Reformed Theology

Chapter 4, “A Response to Reformed Theology,” is devoted to exploring the strengths and weaknesses of Reformed theology. While praising many strengths of the Reformed tradition, the author asserts that his concern is “some concerns arising out of a hardline version of Reformed theology, one which presents itself in exclusive terms as the highest and truest expression of biblical revelation and the Christian faith” (p. 38). I am unsure if the authors of this book are aware, but it is fairly common amongst various Reformed thinkers to say something like: “The Reformed faith is the truest distillation of Christian theology,” or the like. For example, Reformed theologian Loraine Boettner (1901-1990), in his The Reformed Faith, wrote: “Christianity comes to its fullest expression in the Reformed Faith.” B.B. Warfield (1851-1921), who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary for many years, could similarly write, in his essay “Calvinism Today”: “For what is Calvinism but the theistical expression of religion, conceived as absolute dependence on God? Wherever we find religion in its purity, therefore, there Calvinism is implicit.” Likewise, Warfield could write, in his essay, “What is Calvinism?”: “For Calvinism is just religion in its purity. We have only, therefore, to conceive of religion in its purity, and that is Calvinism.” But the author of this chapter has just listed B.B. Warfield as a proponent of Calvinism who apparently is not “hardline.” James Packer himself, who is held up as a model theologian in this book, can write:

Calvinism is a whole worldview, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavor to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of his will. Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own Word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible—the God-centred outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. [10]

Again, as is seen throughout this book, there is (though very likely unintentional) a shell-game going on. Historic Calvinism is contrasted against “hardline” Calvinism (the former good, the latter bad). But the authors seem clearly to simply be criticizing Calvinism itself.

The heart of the rest of the chapter is to offer criticism of double predestination and limited atonement as well as a certain use of logic in theology, and then to attempt to offer a better way forward. There is simply no tactful way to summarize what the author does in the last half of this chapter: it is theologically irresponsible. The author states that "the strongest argument for double predestination is based on logical deduction" (p. 41). There would be a measure of truth in this: in theologizing one is trying to work out the various entailments and implications of Scripture. As the author points to on p. 41, even a well-known Reformed theologian like Wayne Grudem can note that the term "double predestination" is not a particularly helpful term [10]. But then the author proceeds: "The point being made is that a hardline view of predestination, which emphasizes God's sovereignty so strongly that leaves no room for human responsibility..." This is simply an irresponsible statement. If someone is actually saying something like this, reference should be given to a source. Historic Reformed theology has articulated its own understanding of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. One may like this understanding or not, but no responsible Reformed theologian (including, as far as I know, no persons associated with CERC/GGF) articulate their understanding of these issues so as to leave "no room for human responsibility".

But the authors are engaging in an unfair and irresponsible maligning of other believers. It is clear that the object of criticism in this book is CERC/GGF, ostensibly proponents of "hardline" Reformed theology. Then, when the authors summarize this "hardline" Reformed theology as excluding "human responsibility," without giving sources, this is simply unfair and irresponsible.

Oddly, the authors turn to William Carey (1761-1834). In a meeting related to missions, some "hyper-Calvinists" apparently did not agree with Carey that Christians should go to the ends of the earth for the purposes of evangelism. One of these opponents of Carey said to him: "Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he'll do it without consulting you or me" (pp. 42-43). The author of the chapter then writes: "That is the clear logic of double predestination!" (p. 43). To the reader who is unaware of the history and the theological issues here, this may seem convincing or powerful. In reality, it is neither. In fact, William Carey was himself a Calvinist. This is clearly seen in his writings, including his An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (1792). [11] In fact, it was Carey's theological beliefs (i.e., Calvinism) that arguably drove Carey to so passionately support and advocate for foreign missions. Indeed, William Carey has been dubbed the "Father of Foreign Missions". For further argumentation, one can see Timothy George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey [12], as well as C.J. Moore, "William Carey: The Calvinist ‘Father of Modern Missions," Journal of Biblical Missiology, May 24, 2021. [13] This is all to say, William Carey, as a Calvinist, was opposing a certain group of hyper-Calvinists—a minority position (to put it mildly) within the Christian tradition that does indeed argue against evangelism. As Timothy George has written: "Like Bunyan before him and Spurgeon after him, he was an evangelical Calvinist." [14] Indeed, Carey could write: "[We] are firmly persuaded that Paul might plant and Apollos water, in vain, in any part of the world, did not God give the increase. We are sure that only those who are ordained to eternal life will believe, and that God alone can add to the church such as shall be saved" (quoted in A.H. Oussoren, William Carey: Especially His Missionary Principles; from Moore, "William Carey"). [15] But our authors are again engaging in an irresponsible and unfair kind of "guilty by association" and confusing of the issues. Our authors do not mention Carey's Calvinist commitments. Thus, it seems clear that Carey was a firm believer in sovereign, divine, unconditional election. And this belief served as a coherent part of his overall passion for missions. If the authors of More Calvinistic Than Calvin want to show why double predestination would somehow trump the evangelistic effort, while Carey's Calvinistic affirmation of sovereign, divine, unconditional election would not trump the evangelistic effort, they have failed to do so. Again, it seems like the real target of the authors is simply traditional Calvinism.

The authors then move on to offer a brief summary and rejection of limited atonement, or what is sometimes called “particular redemption”. This section is too short to really get to the heart of the issue. But one should note: many persons who are clearly Reformed happily admit that this is perhaps the toughest component of the Calvinist system. But again, the book is odd here. The authors essentially argue that logic, not Scripture, leads one to affirm limited atonement. There is clearly a measure of truth here. But why then do the authors turn in the very next chapter (Chapter 5) to portray J.I. Packer as the paradigmatic (better) example of Reformed theology? I must assume that the authors know that Packer has penned perhaps the most well-read, and likely most cogent defense and explication of limited atonement ever written. This is Packer’s “Introduction” to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Is Packer also guilty of “ignoring” “the clear New Testament references to Christ’s atonement as being effective for all...” (p. 45)? Is Packer also guilty of “speculation and false teaching” (p. 45)? Packer is quite forthright on his own understanding of the issues:

Certainly, Arminianism is “natural” in one sense, in that it represents a characteristic perversion of biblical teaching by the fallen mind of man, who even in salvation cannot bear to renounce the delusion of being master of his fate and captain of his soul. This perversion appeared before in the Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism of the Patristic period and the later Scholasticism, and has recurred since the seventeenth century both in Roman theology and, among Protestants, in various types of rationalistic liberalism and modern Evangelical teaching; and no doubt it will always be with us. As long as the fallen human mind is what it is, the Arminian way of thinking will continue to be a natural type of mistake. But it is not natural in any other sense. In fact, it is Calvinism that understands the Scriptures in their natural, one would have thought, inescapable meaning; Calvinism that keeps to what they actually say; Calvinism that insists on taking seriously the biblical assertions that God saves, and that He saves those whom He has chosen to save, and that He saves them by grace without works, so that no man may boast, and that Christ is given to them as a perfect Saviour, and that their whole salvation flows to them from the Cross, and that the work of redeeming them was finished on the Cross. It is Calvinism that gives due honour to the Cross.

The last six pages of the chapter attempt to provide a "way forward" on the question of "Predestination-Human Responsibility". Sadly, our authors again continue to be unfair, and also to engage in sweeping generalization. The authors write: "Hardline Reformed people think that they have got everything neatly tied up because they have a coherent logical doctrinal system on the subject" (p. 46). Sadly, no reference or source is given here.

What the authors do here is essentially say there are two emphases: (1) the emphasis on divine sovereignty and (2) human responsibility. The "way forward" should actually emphasize both of these biblical strands. I assume the authors understand that the "way forward" they are suggesting is simply that of traditional Calvinism. This assumption seems warranted when they turn to a lengthy quotation from J.I. Packer's book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, in which Packer affirms "man's responsibility for his actions," as well as "the sovereign Lordship of God over those actions" (p. 49). So, here our authors are actually suggesting that Calvinism (or at least Packer's articulation of it) is the best "way forward" on the question of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I am fairly certain that all, or virtually all, of the persons associated with CERC/GGF would happily affirm Packer's understanding of these things as outlined in Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. [17]

Chapter 5: Principled Yet Generous: A Paradigm for Life in the Body Exemplified by J.I. Packer

Chapter 5, "Principled Yet Generous: A Paradigm for Life in the Body Exemplified by J.I. Packer," puts forward Packer as a good example of a theologian. This chapter sits a bit strange in the book, as it does not necessarily advance the argument of the book. Its purpose, it would seem, is simply to hold up Packer as a role model, in contradistinction to those with a "hardline attitude" (p. 53), or "advocates of a hardline Reformed theology" who believe "that they are right and that others are wrong" (p. 53), or those with a "combative attitude," or "hardline Reformed people" (p. 54). But again, the appeal to Packer is strange. Packer himself was a stalwart advocate of "limited atonement," yet was the author of the book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which our authors hold up as a "better way forward" on questions of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. [18] So, which is it? Does a belief in limited atonement push someone to not believe in evangelism, or is limited atonement quite compatible with a belief in evangelism? If Packer is the model, a positive "paradigm," then it seems that we have a model of theological work in which (1) a belief in limited atonement is quite compatible with (2) affirmations of human responsibility and evangelism. It is also worth noting that Packer was quite happy to affirm at least a form of "double predestination." For example, in two chapters in his book, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs ("Election: God Chooses His Own"; "Predestination: God Has a Purpose"), Packer offers affirmations of a form of both predestination to eternal salvation, as well as reprobation. [19] So, in "Election: God Chooses His Own," Packer writes: "Reprobation is the name given to God's eternal decision regarding those sinners whom he has not chosen for life. His decision is in essence a decision not to change them, as the elect are destined to be changed, but to leave them to sin as in their hearts they already want to do, and finally to judge them as they deserve for what they have done." And, in "Predestination: God Has a Purpose," Packer can write: "[It] has become usual in Protestant theology to define God's predestination as including both his decision to save some from sin (election) and his decision to condemn the rest for their sin (reprobation), side by side." [20] (Again: I suggest Packer is affirming a form or reprobation. Or at least he is noting that is a part of traditional Reformed theology). And we might ask, would Packer count as an example of being orang putih? Why, in the first chapter, does the author express such concern that the speakers and advisors associated with GGF are orang putih, when the "paradigm" of a theologian (Packer) would most certainly fall into the same category? Packer, CERC/GGF and I are proudly part of a very long line of traditional Reformed theology, regardless of ethnicity.>

Chapter 6: Reformed Theology and the Supernatural

Chapter 6, "Reformed Theology and the Supernatural," likewise seems to distract from the general flow and argument of the book. The argument of the chapter is that many Reformed thinkers either (1) reject the legitimacy of certain spiritual gifts or supernatural realities existing in the present stage of church history, or are least (2) rather skeptical about the legitimacy of certain spiritual gifts or supernatural realities existing in the present stage of church history. Other Reformed thinkers (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J.I. Packer, the authors suggest) were more open to various gifts today. The authors lament that "a hardline Reformed position" is not as open to various gifts today.

This chapter does not really advance the argument of the book. Persons who would consider themselves "Calvinist" have often taken positions on the nature of the gifts in the contemporary church. Thus, Sam Storms (a Calvinist) is generally more open to the gifts today, [21] while Thomas Schreiner (also a Calvinist) is more skeptical of the place of such gifts in the contemporary church. [22] At the heart of the Reformation was a certain picture or symbol: An open Bible with either fire or a dove above the Bible. The fire and dove both symbolized the Holy Spirit. At the heart of the Reformation—and of Reformed theology in particular—was the essential place of God's Word and God's Spirit. Any legitimate heir of the Reformation would want to affirm that God always works through Word and Spirit. To play the Word and Spirit off against each other is a disaster, and should be strongly discouraged. Christians of good will can disagree over the place of the gifts in the contemporary church, but we should all affirm that Word and Spirit always work together, and should never be torn asunder.

Chapter 7: Conclusions

In "Conclusions," Chapter 7, the authors try to draw the various strands of the book together. The first part of the chapter does that, essentially repeating in summary form the argument of the first six chapters. The authors conclude that "hardline Reformed thinkers have ended up more Calvinistic than Calvin!" (emphasis in original). This is not a surprising conclusion, as the authors have repeatedly spoken of "hardline Reformed" or "rigid" Reformed, etc. It is unfortunate that the authors have provided so little documentation from CERC/GGF up to this point, though they do provide some such documentation in this concluding chapter.

At this, even the patient reader has likely tired at the repeated mention of "hardline Reformed" theology and the like. But our authors are not done. The authors write that they will try to focus on two key questions (p. 89):

1. "does CERC assert its position in a hardline manner?"
2. "is a hardline Reformed theology justified in thinking of itself as the most adequate expression of the gospel or doctrine of salvation?"

One must ask a basic question at this point: Why, on page 89 of a 98-page book do the authors raise the first question: "does CERC assert its position in a hardline manner?" when in fact the entire book has asserted or assumed this very proposition for 89 pages?

The authors adduce four pieces of data to support a strong "yes" to question 1. That is, CERC most certainly does assert its position in a "hardline" manner. These four data points are odd. In the first, in a CERC-related Facebook post, someone posted: "Biblical theology is the way you can read God's Word." For those of us who love or teach Biblical Theology, is this not virtually self-evidently the case? Can one advocate this in an arrogant or haughty way? Most certainly. But should one therefore not share with others something like: "Hey, as I have studied the Bible from cover-to-cover, I have discovered that there is one central storyline. Beautifully, Jesus Christ and his life and work are the high point of the story! And I have discovered that the whole Bible fits together in an amazing way." That such a viewpoint is disparaged is odd.

In the second piece of evidence, a person testifies that CERC does not think CF (Christian Fellowship, a collegiate ministry) should be inter-denominational. Maybe someone at CERC did say this. Perhaps folks should simply sit down and talk. Perhaps there is room in Malaysia for multiple collegiate ministries.

In the third piece of evidence, someone testifies that he was taught at CERC that "CERC is the only true church in the Klang Valley that preaches the gospel" (p. 91). If this person was taught that, the leaders of CERC should ask themselves who taught such a thing, and work to make sure this is not taught.

In the fourth and final piece of evidence, one person testifies that a CERC Growth Group leader responded to the charge that the church taught that "if you are not Reformed, you are not a Christian" by positing on Facebook Charles Spurgeon's quote: "Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else." Again, if CERC is teaching that "if you are not Reformed, you are not a Christian," then the pastoral leadership should take this reality seriously, and seek to rein in such teaching.

The authors conclude from these four pieces of evidence that "it appears clear that CERC affirms its Reformed position in an exclusive manner" (p. 91). This is, to put it mildly, an overreach.

The authors then turn to the second question: "Is a hardline Reformed theology justified in asserting that it is the most adequate expression of the gospel or doctrine of salvation?" (p. 91). In a particularly odd move, the authors assert that to quote Spurgeon ("Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else?") is "quite out of place" (p. 91). Why? Because Spurgeon was an avid cigar smoker. The authors ask: "Does that then justify all members of CERC to smoke a cigar as a good and healthy Christian lifestyle?" (pp. 91-92). This line of questioning comes out of left field, and is simply puzzling. It is quite common when engaging in argument or persuasion to refer to an authority or respected figure of some sort (here Spurgeon) to strengthen one's case. It is of course logically fallacious to then conclude that one must engage in each and every activity that the authority or respected figure engaged in. The authors then note that in context Spurgeon has prefaced his remark about Calvinism by saying that "I have my own private opinion..." (p. 92). It is striking that the authors in this section adduce no evidence whatsoever for their (apparent) conclusion that one must answer "no" to the question, "Is a hardline Reformed theology justified in asserting that it is the most adequate expression of the gospel or doctrine of salvation".

The book closes with two charges. First: "to reproduce in the Malaysian church what characterized the historic Reformed tradition at its best" (p. 96). The authors then list some of the great Reformed thinkers and theologians and pastors who are worthy of emulation:

• John Calvin
• J.I. Packer
• Jonathan Edwards
• Abraham Kuyper
• Richard Baxter
• John Bunyan
• George Whitefield
• William Carey
• Charles Simeon
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones

This is a fine charge, and a fine list of Reformed persons. I suspect CERC already looks to these persons as heroes of sorts of the faith. I know for a fact that a least some of these persons are admired greatly by CERC.

The second charge is to various Christian leaders and pastors in the Klang Valley who might be concerned with the work of CERC. The authors ask a simple question (on page 97 of a 98-page book—probably a bit late in the game): why are so many young persons attracted to CERC? Their answer: because of the rich and deep teaching and exposition of the Bible. This is almost assuredly correct, given my own some association and experience with CERC on two different trips to Malaysia. The authors appropriately charge other Christian leaders and pastors to faithfully teach and expound God's Word—a good charge.

I have offered reflections and criticisms throughout this review as we have looked at each chapter. This book had the potential to open up a good conversation. Hopefully those conversations can still take place. It sounds like they need to take place. The book would have been strengthened if the authors better understood Reformed theology, and engaged in significantly fewer sweeping generalizations, and ceased the repetitive use of "hardline Reformed," "rigid," etc. Simply name-calling or using terms like "hardline Reformed" numerous times does not make an argument. Particularly troubling is waiting until the final pages to actually bring in a few actual data points of what some folks associated with CERC have actually done or said. Even then, simply pointing to the four brief examples (two of them from unpublished sources) is simply bad form. Every ministry has room to learn and improve. While I think CERC need not be particularly concerned with the vast majority of this book-length critique, doubtless CERC and its pastoral leadership can use such a written attack to engage in some honest self-evaluation, re-group, and continue the important gospel work they are doing. I look forward to my next trip to Malaysia to do what I can to help with this important ministry.

---