More by Samuel Miller on Creeds and Confessions

Receive our blog posts in your email by filling out the form at the bottom of this page.

It was earlier this year that Log College Press announced the publication of a new edition of Samuel Miller on The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions, a bicentennial tribute (originally published in 1824) to a classic work on an important topic. Meanwhile, we have been reviewing some recently digitized materials, which include The Watchman of the South (edited by William Swan Plumer and The Presbyterian (beginning in 1831, and edited by James Waddel Alexander in 1832-1833). Among the many interesting materials we have located in the pages of these journals is a 5-part series of articles by Samuel Miller titled “Creeds and Confessions” that appeared in first in The Watchman of the South (August-September 1838) and was republished in The Presbyterian (September-October 1838). Written in the midst of the church that split the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) between the Old School and the New School, Miller brings his earlier-published arguments in favor of the imperative both to have sound creeds and confessions, and to maintain an appropriate standard of subscription to the same to bear on the questions that were being discussed with great fervency at the time.

The third article in the series is of particular interest because it examines the question of departures from the orthodox creed in an ecclesiastical context. Appeals to higher judicatories, and review of lower court rulings by the supreme judicatory are addressed by Miller, along with — by way of example — the question of secession in the American political context. The fifth and final article Miller delves into the specifics of what sort of level of confessional subscription is required to achieve its desired purpose of maintaining a defense of the truth, as the church is called to do, while balancing the individual consciences of some who might have scruples about “lesser” points of doctrine addressed in the creed.

Throughout this series Miller writes as a “teacher and watchman on the walls of Zion” who is concerned to protect the body of Christ from dangerous error. He assures the reader that the points he is making in his case for creeds and standards of subscription are just what he has taught for two and a half decades prior at Princeton Theological Seminary — that is, they are no new teachings, but rather he is standing on solid precedent. The historical examples of prior ecclesiastical bodies such as the Council of Nicaea and the Westminster Assembly and their efforts to fence out Arianism and Arminianism are discussed in some measure and referenced to show why confessional boundaries are needed.

Both sets of articles are now available on Log College Press to members of the Dead Presbyterians Society and can be found on the Early Access page. They are presented to the reader in raw form, which means that the title page of each issue precedes the article in question, and there is much contemporary material around Miller’s articles that may also interest the reader who appreciates the historical context of the day (for example, there is discussion of a New School convention held in Farmville, Virginia, including a letter by George Addison Baxter regarding his assessment of that convention).

These articles have never been republished since 1838 to the best of our knowledge and therefore will be of interest both to readers who appreciate the careful and sound theological scholarship of Samuel Miller, and those who share his concern and passion for the church as the repository of Biblical truth. Tolle lege!

Cleland Boyd McAfee: The Man Who Coined the TULIP Acrostic

Receive our blog posts in your email by filling out the form at the bottom of this page.

Although many [1] credit Loraine Boettner (1901-1990) in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932) with originating the acrostic for the Five Points of Calvinism known as TULIP [2] it is believed that the true originator was instead Cleland Boyd McAfee (1866-1944), who did so in 1905. We are thankful to Wayne Sparkman of the PCA Historical Center for highlighting this important footnote to church history in the past.

William H. Vail wrote a 1913 article in The Outlook which describes McAfee’s TULIP lecture, delivered before the Presbyterian Union of Newark, New Jersey, in the context of others who have written about the Five Points of Calvinism. Here is McAfee’s version of TULIP according to Vail:

And here is Boettner’s 1932 version for comparison:

The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistable (Effacious) Grace; and P, Perseverance of the Saints (source: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932), p. 60).

We can see that Boettner modified McAfee’s list slightly as to the meaning of the U in TULIP, but otherwise retained McAfee’s usage.

McAfee would go on to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA) in 1929. His legacy may be studied from various perspectives — including his authorship of a famous hymn: Near to the Heart of God — but his TULIP acrostic, which rightly (see Boettner [3]) or wrongly [4} has certainly left its mark on history.

Note: This is an updated edition of a post published previously in 2018.

1. See, for example, Roger Nicole, Foreword to David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas & S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented (1963, 2004), p. xiv.
2. An allusion to the 1619 Canons of Dort, formally titled The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands.
3. Boettner employs the acrostic with great effectiveness albeit with this caution: “Let the reader, then, guard against a too close identification of the Five Points and the Calvinistic system. While these are essential elements, the system really includes much more. As stated in the Introduction, the Westminster Confession is a balanced statement of the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and its gives due prominence to the other Christian doctrines.”
4. See, for example, Richard A. Muller’s negative assessment of the TULIP acrostic in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (2012), p. 58ff.

Click here to join the Dead Presbyterians Society

Resources on Calvinism at Log College Press

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ." (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon no. 98, New Park Street Pulpit 1:100)

It is no novelty, then, that I am-preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here and there a heretic of no very honorable character might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren - I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God’s own church. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon on Election 1:551)

Although Calvinism (which Charles Spurgeon has described as “the gospel, and nothing else”) permeates the works of American Presbyterians on numerous topics, and we have pages dedicated to the topics of Systematic Theology the Westminster Standards, there are particular resources on Calvinism to be found at Log College Press which we aim to highlight today. These may be worth bookmarking for future study by the student of the doctrines of grace.

Calvinism is also known by the acrostic TULIP, which is intended to make the so-called ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ easier to remember. It was the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) in The Netherlands which articulated the Calvinistic Five Points in response to the Arminian Remonstrants. And it was Loraine Boettner who popularized (and modified) the TULIP acrostic summarizing those Five Points in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932), but it was Cleland Boyd McAfee who is believed to have coined it in the first place c. 1905. We have noted this previously, but it is worth mentioning again.

The history of McAfee’s utilization of TULIP as an aid to teaching the doctrines of grace was perhaps first recorded by William H. Vail in an important 1913 article as was discussed previously here. What’s particularly interesting about Vail’s historical study of the Five Points is that is draws from multiple authorities, including the Synod of Dort, Jonathan Dickinson, and several living (at that time) leading clergymen.

William H. Vail’s chart showing the Five Points of Calvinism compared historically. A represents the list derived from Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge; B comes from Dr. Francis Landey Patton; C is from Dr. Hugh Black; D is from the Rev. George B. Stewart; and E is from the Rev. Isaac N. Rendall.

The Five Points, says Mr. Vail, “as formulated by the Synod of Dort, according to two authorities, are as follows:

1. Personal, Gratuitous Election to Everlasting Life.
2. Particular Redemption.
3. Depravity, Native and Total.
4. Effectual Calling, or Re generation, by the Holy Spirit.
5. Certain Perseverance of Saints unto Eternal Life.

1. Divine Predestination.
2. The Redemption of Men through the Death of Christ.
3. Total Depravity.
4 Redemption through Grace.
5. Perseverance of Saints.”

The list from Jonathan Dickinson is as follows:

1. Eternal Election. Ephesians i. 4, 5.
2. Original Sin. Romans v. 12.
3. Grace in Conversion. Ephesians ii. 4, 5.
4. Justification by Faith. Romans iii. 25.
5. Saints' Perseverance. Romans viii. 30.

The TULIP list from Cleland B. McAfee, as noted by Vail, is as follows:

1st, T stands for Total I)epravity.
2d, U “ “ Universal Sovereignty.
3d, L -- “ Limited Atonement.
4th, I -- “ irresistible (, race.
5th, P -- “ Perseverance of the Saints.

Jonathan Dickinson covered this ground in The True Scripture Doctrine Concerning Some Important Points of Christian Faith (1741).

Robert L. Dabney wrote on The Five Points of Calvinism (1895) [not yet available at Log College Press] and identified them as follows:

1.. Original Sin
2. Effectual Calling
3. God’s Election
4. Particular Redemption
5. Perseverance of the Saints

The works by Dickinson and Dabney have been republished by Sprinkle Publications in 1992 as one combined volume.

Loraine Boettner in 1932 wrote: “The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability ; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace; and P, Perseverance of the Saints.” This has become the standard meaning of the TULIP acrostic.

Other resources to be found at Log College Press which concern Calvinism either historically or theologically considered include:

• Ashbel Green Fairchild, The Sovereignty of God, Especially in Election; The Great Supper: or, An Illustration and Defence of Some of the Doctrines of Grace; and What Presbyterians Believe;

• Abel M. Fraser, Calvinism: A Bible Study;

• John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism;

• A.A. Hodge, Calvinism;

• Samuel Miller, Introductory Essay to the Thomas Scott’s Articles of the Synod of Dort (available in print here); Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (available in print here); and Mole-Hills and Mountains, or The Difficulties of Calvinism and Arminianism Compared;

• Nathan L. Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free: Or, The Doctrine of Divine Foreordination and Man's Free Agency, Stated, Illustrated and Proved From the Scriptures;

• W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed - A Defence of the Westminster Standards;

• William D. Smith, What is Calvinism?; and

• B.B. Warfield, Calvinism and Calvinism: The Meaning and Uses of the Term; and Calvinism.

There are additional works on the subject that Log College Press hopes to add in the future such as Robert Hamilton Bishop, An Apology For Calvinism; and Samuel A. King, Presbyterian Doctrines, as Contained in the Five Points of Calvinism. And many more are already on the site relating to the thought of both John Calvin and Augustine. Also, be sure to consult, David N. Steele, et al., The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented.

It is a core belief of historic Presbyterianism that people who are saved are saved by grace alone and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9). This is a reflection of both God’s sovereignty and man’s inability to save himself. The works referenced above concerning the doctrines of grace, and many more not mentioned by name here, are resources to take up and study by those who wish to better understand historic doctrine, which is, in the words of Spurgeon, “no novelty…no new doctrine,” but simply the fundamental teaching of God’s Word on soteriology. To God be the glory!

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Presbyterians and the Revolution

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

In 1876, on the centennial anniversary of America’s birth as a nation, William Pratt Breed published a volume titled Presbyterians and the Revolution, which examined the historic connection between Presbyterianism and resistance to tyranny.

As Breed notes, Calvinism has imbued a spirit of civil and ecclesiastical liberty into the freedom-loving peoples of Switzerland, France, Scotland, England, the Netherlands, and the American colonies, not to mention the Waldenses and others. Presbyterians have long stood at the forefront of the struggle for “lex rex,” or limited, just government, in opposition to tyranny both in the state and in the church. The heritage of the Scottish Covenanters and French Huguenots in this regard contributed much to the American Presbyterian witness on behalf of Biblical liberty.

Here is the Table of Contents for Breed’s work:

1. Presbyterians and the Centennial

2. Presbyterianism A Representative Republican Form of Government

3. Presbyterianism Odious to Tyrants

4. Presbyterians Spirit in Harmony With That of the Revolution

5. The Westmoreland County Resolutions

6. The Mecklenburg Declaration

7. Presbyterian Zeal and Suffering

8. Formal Action of the Presbyterian Church

9. Declaration of Independence and Dr. John Witherspoon

10. Organization of the Confederacy

11. Monument to Witherspoon

Breed quotes from a classic work by Ezra H. Gillett (History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States) to show how closely allied Presbyterianism and the cause of American liberty were:

To the privations, hardships and cruelties of the war the Presbyterians were pre-eminsntly exposed. In them the very essence of rebellion was supposed to be concentrated, and by the wanton plunderings and excesses of the marauding parties they suffered severely. Their Presbyterianism was prima facie evidence of guilt. A house that had a large Bible and David's Psalms in metre in it was supposed, as a matter of course, to be tenanted by rebels. To sing "Old Rouse" was almost as criminal as to have leveled a loaded musket at a British grenadier.

Breed quotes Gillett further to list the heroic sacrifices of Presbyterian clergymen who served and suffered during the war. Among the names listed are John Rodgers, Azel Roe, Jacob Green, Henry Pattillo, David Caldwell, William Tennent III, Hugh McAden, Alexander MacWhorter and many others. We shared an honor roll of Presbyterians who served the cause of American liberty last year as well.

Breed pays special attention to the role of John Witherspoon, who was the only clergyman to sign the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

The Calder statue of John Witherspoon at the Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (photo by R. Andrew Myers).

All of these names — their stories, their service, their sacrifices — recalled to mind by Breed, are worthy of remembrance today, just as they were in 1876. The cause of freedom, both civil and ecclesiastical, is always linked to the right honor of Christ the King, who rules the nations. The record of American Presbyterian contributions to civil liberty constitutes a noble history, though filled with flaws and inconsistencies, but that history is sometimes shrouded in mist, and is in danger of being forgotten. Presbyterians and the Revolution is book worth reading, especially on this Independence Day.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Daniel Baker on what it means to be a Calvinist

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

Daniel Baker was the author of a tract on God’s sovereignty which teaches that the dominion of God’s kingdom extends to all creation and that His omnipotent power governs all actions and events providentially. It is an excellent, brief argument for a Biblical doctrine which Calvinists are known to affirm. Baker also tackles the controversial word “Calvinist” head on:

3. The government of God extends^ not only to all things^ but to all events; not only to all creatures, hut to all their actions. I am aware that we are here launching into the deep ; but the Bible is our chart. It is a good chart, and we need fear nothing.

Reader, I am a Calvinist, so called; not that I embrace all the dogmas of the great Genevan divine, but certainly those that are embraced in the standards of our Church, and the longer I live, and the more carefully I examine the subject, the more thoroughly convinced am I, that the system, usually termed Calvinistic, is firmly based upon the Bible, and will stand the "test of scrutiny, of talents, and of time.” Nay, I will go further, and say that the system needs only to be correctly understood by all the true people of God to be received and loved. I repeat it, I am a Calvinist, but I am no fatalist!

He goes on to elaborate on what this means.

I hold to the sovereignty of God, and also to the free-agency of man, and whilst I believe that God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, yet it is in such a way as "thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence done to the freedom of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." It may not be possible for me to discriminate between the human and the divine agency; nor can I tell where one colour in the rainbow terminates, and where another begins; yet do I know that these colours are different, and both in the rainbow! I may not be able to reconcile the free-agency of man with the fixed purposes of God which I believe; nor can I reconcile the free-agency of man with the foreknowledge of God, which all must believe; suffice it to know that both doctrines are taught in the Bible, and I know that the Bible is true. Do I trample upon reason? I deny it — I have a syllogism. It is this. My heavenly Father says that these doctrines are all true. My heavenly Father never tells lies, and therefore these doctrines are all true! But can they ever be reconciled or explained? I believe they both can, and will be, when God gives the key! Suppose, for a moment, that you were utterly unacquainted with your twofold existence, as consisting of soul and body. Now, whilst believing yourself to be a simple, and not a compound being, suppose I should say: "You are a mortal man, and must soon die ;" and the next moment should pronounce you an immortal being, and affirm that you can never die, but must live for ever! Would you not say, that I spoke very absurdly, and used very contradictory language? But, should I add, wait a little, and you will have the key, and then all will be plain, and you will see that all is true, and there is no absurdity, no contradiction whatever; methinks you would reply, "No, sir, no key will answer, none can reconcile things so perfectly contradictory, 'mortal,’ and yet at the same time 'immortal!" must die! and yet, will not, cannot die! the thing Is absurd. It cannot be! But when you are let into the secret of your twofold nature — O, now! there is no difficulty at all! Even so, in relation to the sovereignty of God, and the free-agency of man, we find it difficult to reconcile these things now, because the key is wanting. In a future state the key will be given, and then there will be no difficulty at all. In the mean time let us remember, that the Bible is suited to our probationary state. We need our faith tried, as well as any other grace, or virtue. And now our grand inquiry is, What does the Bible teach? for

“This is the judge that ends the strife,
Where wit and reason fail;
My guide to everlasting life,
Through all this gloomy vale.”

That the government of God extends, not only to all things but to all events; not only to all creatures, but to all their actions. In other words, that the providence of God is, in some way or other, concerned with all that is done or transpires on earth, is manifest from very many passages of Scripture. The strongest, I think, are those which assert the providence of God in cases where, least of all, it might have been expected.

Thus, in the 127th Psalm, we find it thus written: "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." And again, "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof, is of the Lord." But there is another passage of Scripture, perhaps, yet more remarkable; inasmuch as it asserts the providence and purpose of God in a case involving sin, dreadtul sin! The passage referred to is found in Acts ii. 23: "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." The crucifixion of Christ, by envious and wicked Jews, was certainly a crime of great magnitude; and yet the apostle Peter tells us expressly that it was " according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” The explanation of the matter is simply this: God knowing all things, foreknew what evil passions would be waked up in the bosom of the Jews by the life, and doctrines, and reproofs of our Saviour, and he also knew full well to what a murderous deed those evil passions would lead, if not restrained. For wise and benevolent purposes towards our race, God determined, not to restrain those evil passions, but to leave the Jews, (as of course he justly might) to the freedom of their own will — leave them to act out their own depravity; purposing, as I have said, to overrule the whole matter to the accomplishment of great ends. God was certainly under no obligation to exercise a restraining influence upon those wicked Jews; and if He foreknew what crime they unrestrained would commit, his "foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, which had proved no less certain unforeknown;" hence the apostle Peter, at the very time that he speaks of the crucifixion of Christ as being according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, nevertheless, charges home all the guilt thereof, upon the wicked Jews. Observe his language! "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

The case of Joseph also, is precisely in point. He was hated by his brethren, and by them sold into Egypt. This was a great sin; and afterwards, when in trouble, they freely confessed it. "And they said, one to another, we are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear, therefore is this distress upon us. And Reuben answered, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child, and ye would not hear, therefore, behold also, his blood is required." Thus, all who had a hand in selling Joseph, acknowledged, and felt that they had acted freely, and they writhed under the stings of an accusing conscience. Yet, when Joseph made himself known unto them, and they were greatly troubled at his presence, what said Joseph unto them? "I am Joseph, your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now, therefore, be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life. Ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to save much people alive." There needs be no difficulty. The case is simply this. God being infinitely wise, knows how, in perfect consistency with the perfections of his character, to make use of all instrumentalities, good and bad, for the accomplishment of his wise and benevolent purposes. Certain things God brings to pass by a positive agency. Other things he simply permits to come to pass. And, let it be remarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, mean the same thing. Napoleon Bonaparte, when a child, wished to go to a certain place, but was forbidden by his mother. Being headstrong, he persisted in going. "Well, my son," said his mother, "you may go, but remember! it is not with your mother's approbation." And thus God oftentimes permits things which, so far from commanding, he forbids, and highly disapproves. He permits sometimes because he would not interfere with the free-agency of the creature. He permits, sometimes, because he purposes (as in the cases already mentioned) to overrule the evil intended for good; and sometimes he permits, in a judicial way as a punishment for sins previously committed. Hence the language of Paul in reference to the heathen and their abominations: "Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them aver to do things which are not convenient."

And now let it not be forgotten, this is all that is meant by a certain passage in our Shorter Catechism, which has been much caviled at, viz. "The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." In other words it may be stated thus: By the decrees of God, we mean no formal legislative enactment, (as, "Thus it shall be," and "thus it shall not be,") but, simply the calm and settled purpose of an infinitely wise and gracious God, to bring to pass; or permit to come to pass whatsoever does come to pass, for the glory of his name. Does any one ask, what is the difference between bringing to pass and permitting to come to pass? I answer, God brought to pass the incarnation of his Son; He permitted to come to pass his crucifixion. The difference is as wide as the east is from the west. Our doctrine, then, is simply this; By positive and permissive decrees, God, in wisdom and in love, manages the affairs of the universe, directs and controls all things, and all events, all creatures, and all their actions. It must be so, for suppose an event to take place without the divine permission; for example, then, it must be either because God is not aware of it, or cannot prevent it. If not aware of it. He cannot be omniscient; if He cannot prevent it, then he is not omnipotent; and then, of course, in the last case, "there must be a power behind the throne greater than the throne itself," which thought would be frightful! No, our doctrine is true, that the government of God extends not only to all things, but to all events, not only to all creatures, but to all their actions. In other words, that a Divine providence is concerned, in some way or other, concerned "in all the good and ill that checker human life."

Is further proof demanded? Permit me to quote a very remarkable passage found in Isaiah xlv. 7; "I form the light, and I create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." What! the Lord create evil? Yes! but in such a way as casts no stain upon his moral perfections; but, on the contrary, will furnish new matter for admiration and praise. Hence, the language of joy and gratulation which immediately follows. "Drop down ye heavens from above! and let the skies pour down righteousness. Let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation. Let righteousness spring up together; I, the Lord, have created it." But how does God create evil. As he does darkness. The first sentence explains the last. Observe the language; I form the light, and I create darkness. How does God form the light? By a positive influence, pouring radiance around How does God create darkness? By withholding this radiance. Even so, by a positive influence, God makes peace, and by withholding that influence, creates evil, that is, permits it. In this, is God the author of sin? No more than the sun is the source of darkness, although its absence occasions that darkness.

Thus, as Baker explains, the Bible teaches — and so does Calvinism — that the sovereignty of God extends to all creatures and their actions in such a way that God is not the author of sin, but overrules all sinful actions to His glory and the good of His people. Read Baker’s full tract on The Sovereignty of God Explained and Vindicated here.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

William H. Vail's Five Points of Calvinism Historically Considered

We have previously noted here on this blog that the first person known to have coined the TULIP acrostic is Cleland Boyd McAfee (1866-1944), who did so in 1905. Following up on earlier research by Wayne Sparkman of the PCA Historical Center, which cites a 1913 article in The New Outlook by William H. Vail as the source for this historical reference, we have recently added Vail and his June 21, 1913 article to Log College Press. The article is a brief, fascinating survey of TULIP’s origins and how other Presbyterian and Reformed theologians historically understood and made use of the Five Points of Calvinism (from the Synod of Dort to Jonathan Dickinson to contemporaries of Vail).

But also of interest to our readers is to know the answer to the question: Who was William Henry Vail? He lived a rather remarkable life. Born on August 4, 1845, in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, he first studied at Blair Academy (founded as a Presbyterian institution), and then went to Princeton (at that time known as the College of New Jersey), from which he graduated in 1865 (his senior oration topic was on William the Silent). He further studied at the College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, from which he received his M.D. in 1868. He practiced medicine from 1869 to 1886. Later in life he served as Secretary and Treasurer of Blair Academy; as a director of the Belvidere National Bank and of various railroads; as a member of the Board of Trustees of Lincoln University (Pennsylvania); and as a Presbyterian ruling elder and Sunday School Superintendent.

Founded in 1854, Lincoln University is regarded as the first degree-granting black college in America. In 1898, Dr. Vail, who had received a large inheritance, donated the funds to construct Vail Memorial Library (in 1972 the building was converted into an administrative office building and renamed Vail Memorial Hall), which is a lasting reminder of his legacy to that institution.

He maintained an active involvement in ecclesiastical and alumni affairs, participating in the 1912 Princeton Centennial Celebration. In 1915, at the age of 70, to celebrate his 50th reunion, he walked 50 miles from Newark to Princeton, New Jersey. A 1935 New York Times article highlighted the fact that Vail was the oldest living auto driver in New Jersey. The picture we have of him shows him walking in the 1937 Princeton P-rade. At the time of his death on December 31, 1943, he was at 98 the oldest living Princeton alumnus. He attributed his longevity to brown eggs, brown sugar, whole wheat bread, baked beans, and walking.

Such is a brief sketch of our author. To return to the article, which is both of historical significance in documenting TULIP’s origins, and important as an historical survey on the Five Points of Calvinism, it is now available for you to read for yourself. Be sure to check it out here.

The Man Who Coined the TULIP Acrostic: Cleland Boyd McAfee

Although many credit Loraine Boettner (1901-1990) in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932) with originating the acrostic for the Five Points of Calvinism known as TULIP, it is believed that the real originator was instead Cleland Boyd McAfee (1866-1944), who did so in 1905 (whose TULIP was a slightly different version than that of Boettner). More widely known for his study of the King James Version of the Bible, and other works, McAfee is a 19th century-born American Presbyterian worth getting to know. Visit here for more information on his life and works. 

Note: This blog post was originally published on January 24, 2018 and has been very slightly edited.