The Bible Keeps Women Down

Al Mohler, the President of the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the world, has an interesting article on his website entitled: "Hard to Believe? Biblical Authority and Evangelical Feminism." Mohler makes reference to an article in the 2010 edition of Sojourner's magazine by Anne Eggebroten entitled: "The Persistence of Patriarchy." It seems that Eggebroten, who teaches Religion at California State University (Northridge) paid a visit recently to Mohler's good buddy's church, John MacArthur's Grace Community Church in Southern California. MacArthur, of course, is one of the best known leaders of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. His church is a "mega-church;" he has authored numerous books, and has his own school (The Master's College and Seminary). Molher calls MacArthur "one of the most respected and influential preachers of our times, with perhaps the most widely-disseminated ministry of exposition in the history of the Christian church."

So, what did Eggebroten find in her visit to MacArthur's little empire? “God is male, all the pastors, deacons, and elders are male, and women are taught to live in submission to men.” She should have expected as much because she had already visited the church's website. There, I had listened to Anna Sanders lecture women on how to live in submission to their husbands. “We need to beat down our desire to be right and have our own way,” she had said, citing John Piper, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, and Martha Peace—all authors published in the last decade. “It’s his way, his rights, his expectations, and his plans. … Be a helper.” Eggebroten ran into a woman with a degree from the school where she teaches. She asked the lady: “Is women’s submission to their husbands stressed in this church?” The answer, of course, was yes.

Molher calls Eggebroten on the carpet for being surprised at what she found. He says:

Anne Eggebroten’s article represents what I call a “National Geographic moment” — an example of someone discovering the obvious and thinking it exotic and strange. It is like a reporter returning from travel to far country to explain the strange tribe of people she found there — evangelical Christians believing what the Christian church has for 2,000 years believed the Bible to teach and require. So . . . what is so exotic?

I actually agree with Mohler. Why should anyone be surprised that a church that takes the Bible as literally the Word of God would put women down? The Bible clearly does that and so anyone who wishes to follow the Bible will also do that. Eggebroten says:

Here’s the question: Is God permanently committed to the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently, when education and voting were opened to women? Or does the vision of Paul in Galatians 3:28—“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”—take precedence?

Mohler rightly calls her on "sloppy exegesis" here. He says:

In Galatians 3:28 Paul is clearly speaking of salvation — not of service in the church. Paul is declaring to believers the great good news that “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” [verse 26]. He concludes by affirming, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” [verse 29]. To read Galatians 3:28 the way Eggebroten reads the verse, you would have to believe that the Apostle Paul was in direct contradiction with himself, when he restricts the teaching office to men in letters such as 1 Timothy and Titus.

The reality is, as Mohler says, Paul is not contradicting the overall teaching of the Bible on women. It does actually reflect the "the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently." Eggebroten would like to find a change in perspective on this subject from Paul but she is misguided. In addition to the passages that Mohler cites, Paul also told women to be silent in the church and learn from their husbands (I Cor. 14:34-35) as well as implying that women are more easily deceived than men and need to allow their husbands to make important decisions while they concentrate on motherhood (I Tim. 2:12-15). This was the role of women in ancient cultures (and today in fundamentalist churches) and so, one should not be surprised to find the Bible supporting it.

Mohler is correct when he says: Paul is not liberating the Church from the Bible. In the end, that is the real issue. There are Christians who would demand to be liberated from the Bible? Now that is what really should be shocking. That is why I think liberal Christianity also fails. It wants to try to reinterpret the Bible to agree with modern culture and it is simply not possible without tearing out huge sections of the Scripture. The Bible, reflecting the culture in which it was written, reduces women to an inferior position to men. If one believes the Bible is the Word of God, then one must follow this teaching.

Forget about Noah’s Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood

Forget about Noah’s Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood is the title of an article in the May 2010 edition of The Bible and Interpretation by archaeologist Robert Cargill.

His article is prompted by all of the hullabaloo sparked by the claim of certain evangelicals last week to have located Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat.

Cargill writes:

The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives. . . .

Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts. These earlier accounts include the 17th century BCE Sumerian flood myth Eridu Genesis, the 18th century BCE Akkadian Atra-Hasis Epic, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which are some of the earliest known examples of a literary style of writing. The most complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh known today is preserved on 12 clay tablets from the library of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (685-627 BCE). This extant Akkadian version is derived from earlier Sumerian versions. In the story, Gilgamesh and his companion, a wild man-beast named Enkidu, travel the world on a number of quests that ultimately displease the gods. After the death of Enkidu, Gilgamesh embarks on a journey to learn the secret of eternal life by visiting the immortal flood hero, Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh how the god Ea (equivalent to the Sumerian god Enki) revealed the gods’ plan to destroy all life with a great flood, and how they instructed him to build a vessel in which he could save his family, friends, and livestock. After the flood, the gods repented for destroying the world and made Utnapishtim immortal.

These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith, but retained characteristics such as the destruction of nearly all living things via a flood, the salvation of a select few people and animals by the construction of a boat, and the regret of the deity for the flood, prompting a promise not to do so again. Thus, like many of the early stories in Israel’s primordial history, the flood story appears to be an adaptation and integration of a previously known myth into the theology of Israel (emphasis mine).

Cargill concludes his article thusly:

Some claims like the flood and the six-day creation are neither historical nor factual; they were written to communicate in an pre-scientific literary form that god is responsible for the earth. It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood. It is time for Reformed Theological Seminary to concede that Bruce Waltke has a point. It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make. And it is time for people to stop looking for Noah’s ark.

If Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, and other conservative Christians, continue to insist that the earth was created in six literal days and that Noah's flood was a global flood, and that if either one is forsaken, Christianity crumbles; then, they are setting themselves up for disaster. As they bury their heads deeper and deeper in the sand, they are becoming less and less relevant to the real world. I see that as a good thing.

"Original Sin" and Infant Salvation--Part Two

This post is a continuation of yesterday's discussion of "original sin" and infant salvation.

You will often hear evangelicals talk about the “age of accountability.” The fact is that it is not a biblical term but one invented by evangelicals to try to explain how God can allow children into heaven even though they are born sinners. Usually the notion is that God does not hold them accountable for their sins because they didn’t know any better. John MacArthur, in a sermon on Infant Salvation, argues that the term ought to be “condition of accountability” because in his view there is no definite age in which a person becomes accountable—it varies from individual to individual. He says:

…we’re not talking an age of accountability–get this in your mind–we’re talking about a condition of accountability! Get the word “age” out of this discussion. We’re talking about a condition of accountability, not an age. Who qualifies then, in our discussion, as an infant or a child who, dying, is saved–who dying, instantly goes to heaven? Who are we talking about? Answer: those who have not reached sufficient, mature understanding in order to comprehend convincingly the issues of law and grace, sin and salvation. It’s not an age; it is a condition. From child to child, it varies, and, as I said, you have to include in this those who grow up mentally disadvantaged, mentally disabled, mentally retarded so as never to be able to have a sufficient, mature understanding and a convincingly comprehensive grasp of law and grace and sin and salvation. This is not an age; this is a condition. That’s who we’re talking about: people in that condition where they cannot, in a mature way, understand and comprehend convincingly these issues.

So, MacArthur believes that any mentally challenged individual, someone who doesn’t have “a comprehensive grasp of law and grace and sin and salvation,” is not condemned by God (even though they were born sinners as a result of original sin) but will be granted admission to heaven. How does he defend this idea from his sole authority for such beliefs, the Bible?

He begins by citing three OT passages. First, he cites Psalms 139:16 and says:

God is intimately involved in every little life, every life. It’s not just a chain of procreative acts that He inaugurated; He is there in every single conception. These are precious thoughts because this indicates to us how precious every life is. Every life is so precious that God knows it all, plans it all, guards and protects it all, never loses sight of anything…and they must matter to him. They must matter to him. We could conclude from that alone that since God is by nature a Savior and since God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance and since God would have all men to be saved, there’s every reason to believe, just from that alone, that a caring God who created that life to begin with, who superintends and guards that life, who knows intimately everything about that life–should that life perish physically in its infancy, there would be every reason from that Psalm alone to trust the grace of God, who is by nature a Savior, in behalf of that life.

I think its a huge stretch to say that infants go to heaven on the basis of this Psalm. In addition, if God cares so much about the little ones, why does he order his people to slaughter them (in Deut. 20:16; Joshua 6:21 and in I Sam. 15:3)? And why just two Psalms (137:9) prior to this one, did he say regarding the Babylonians: Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!? Doesn't sound to me that God cares about all little children.

Second, he goes to Job 3:16-17, which says: Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child, as infants who never see the light? "There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest . On the basis of these two verses, he concludes: Job understood that dying as an infant would bring one to rest and one would escape the pain of suffering. He certainly didn’t believe that infants that die go to hell and some eternal torment, but rather had the confidence that they enter into rest . That is some very poor exegesis, Mr. MacArthur, there are least two problems with his conclusion. First, there is no doctrine of eternal torment anywhere in the OT, so of course, its not here. Second, if the stillborn infant goes to heaven on the basis of this verse then so do the wicked, because v. 17 says: There the wicked cease from troubling .

Next, he goes to Ecclesiastes 6:3-6 to argue for infant salvation. He says: Solomon laments. He laments that a stillborn child is better off than a person who lives a thousand years twice and doesn’t enjoy the right things. He says, “What’s the point of living two thousand years if you don’t ever enjoy true goodness? You’d be better off a stillborn child.” . Surely MacArthur knows that he is on shaky ground to base any kind of major doctrine on Ecclesiastes. The book of Ecclesiastes is typically viewed, even by evangelicals, as being from the viewpoint of man apart from God. It is how things appear to man "under the sun" (i.e., apart from God). What the author is here saying is that life is meaningless (KJV, "vanity") to the man "under the sun". Even if one lived for two thousand years, he would never find meaning "under the sun." From that standpoint, it would be better never to have been born.

At this point, MacArthur feels the need to trumpet his Calvinism. He says:

You see, it’s only pure, true, reformed soteriology–salvation–only pure, true, reformed soteriology can account for the fact that fallen, sinful, guilty, depraved children who die with no spiritual merit, die with no religious merit, die with no moral merit of their own, can be welcomed by a holy God into eternal glory! Only pure, reformed theology can allow for that because only the purist theology believes that salvation is all by grace! How were you saved? By what? Grace! You say, “Well, if God just takes all the babies to heaven, that’s just grace!” Right! But how were you saved? By law? What do you want? Law for babies and grace for you? You had no more to do with your salvation than a helpless infant.

What MacArthur is failing to take note of, however, is that the Scripture says that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). Over 150 times in the NT, it is said that a person is saved through faith . He does not explain how an infant or a mentally challenged adult can exercise faith . Therefore, he is going beyond the Scripture (extra-Biblical) to argue that infants go to heaven. Now maybe that doesn't matter to those of us who are agnostic or atheist but it should matter to those who claim like MacArthur does, to believe what he believes because the Bible teaches it. The truth is that MacArthur cannot stand the notion that little infants go to hell, so he has to pretend that the Bible teaches they go to heaven.

He anticipates my objection: You say, “But, but, but, but, but they didn’t believe! They didn’t believe!” They couldn’t believe. They couldn’t believe. And so in grace and mercy and sovereign election, through the sacrifice of Christ and his resurrection freely applied to them, they are ushered into God’s kingdom.

First, where does MacArthur find what he just said in the Bible? He doesn't. He finds it in the books of his favorite Calvinist theologians. Second, if infants are saved because they "couldn't believe," as MacArthur argues, then why aren't those who have never heard the name of Jesus automatically saved? They couldn't believe either. Paul himself said in Romans 10:13-14: For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? A person cannot believe in someone of which they have never heard. So, if MacArthur is right, then all those who have never heard are on their way to heaven as well. Consistency would demand it.

Then MacArthur goes to Rev. 20:11-12 to argue that people who go to hell, go there because of their evil deeds. He proclaims: Scripture always, always connects eternal condemnation to the sinner’s deeds–works–always. In John 8:21 and 24, the most significant damning work, Jesus says, “Because you believe not in me, you will die in your sins and where I go, you’ll never come.” The greatest of all the sinners’ evil works is unbelief, unbelief. And unbelief is always singled out as the primary damning sin. But if what he just said is true, then how are infants saved? Because as MacArthur has already told us: "they can't believe."

He then goes back to the OT to try to substantiate his point. He refers to Jonah 4:11 and states regarding Nineveh: There are people there, God says, who deserve compassion because they don’t know the difference–they don’t know the difference between their right and left hand. He’s speaking of those who are infants or those who are mentally incapable of understanding truth. God says they deserve compassion because of that condition. Isn't it passing strange that God didn't think the children of the Canaanites nor the children of the Amalekites deserved any compassion. What has happened? Has God's moral sensibilities evolved? (I think its obvious that the moral sensibilities of the writers of Scripture have evolved). If the entire Bible is inspired, as MacArthur thinks, then why does God care about the innocent children in Jonah 4 but not in Joshua 6 or 1 Samuel 15?

In MacArthur's second sermon in his two part series on Infant Salvation, he begins by stating that his view on the mentally underdeveloped being automatically saved by God does not apply to the "heathen." He states:

Now, just briefly to recap what I said last week to sort of get you in the flow, we asked the question: who are we referring to when we talk about these infants, these little ones, these children who die and are saved? And the answer is this: those who have not reached sufficient, mature understanding to comprehend convincingly the issues of sin and salvation. Let me say as a footnote that does not apply to the heathen. Adult heathen are caught up in the Romans 1 passage: “When they know God, they glorify Him not as God, become empty in their imaginations, create their own gods, and worship the creature more than the Creator.” We’re not talking about them; we’re talking about those who have not reached sufficient, mature understanding to comprehend the issues of sin and salvation. I told you there is no age of accountability, but there is a condition of accountability and it is true for children and it is true for some adults who are mentally retarded or handicapped.

I think MacArthur's position is contradictory. He says that infants are not condemned because they do not "comprehend convincingly the issues of sin and salvation" . However, neither do the "heathen" nor any of the unregenerate in his system of theology. According to 1 Cor. 2:14, the unbeliever cannot understand spiritual things which would of course include the "issues of sin and salvation" to use MacArthur's words. The passage says : The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The Calvinist likes to use the analogy of trying to explain a beautiful sunset to a blind person as being similar to trying to explain the need for salvation to an unregenerate man. If this is true, how could God hold the unregenerate man culpable for not believing any more than we could hold the blind man culpable for not being able to visualize the sunset?

MacArthur once again goes to the OT to try to establish that children are innocent. He cites Deut. 1:39 and explains:

God basically said to them, “You’re not going in the land. You’re not going in because of your willful rebellion, because of your willful sin, but your little ones who you said would become a prey if you went in and took the land, even though I told you I would fight for you and with you; your little ones who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they’ll go in and I’ll give it to them and they’ll possess it.” What God is saying is, “Your rebellion…your rebellion…causes you to forfeit this blessing. I’ll give it to them because they don’t bear the same culpability that you do.”

If MacArthur is right in what he is saying here, then we do have a particular age in which God begins to hold people accountable, its the age of twenty. Listen to Numbers 14:29-31:

your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and they shall know the land that you have rejected.

This is not really important for my discussion except to point out once again that Mr. MacArthur is not really taking into account all that his Bible teaches but is cherry-picking the parts that he likes.

He now turns to Jer. 19:4-5 and states:

God viewed them as innocent even though they’re not baptized babies of “believing parents”; these are the children of idolaters! They would be outside the faith of Israel, even though they would be Jewish people. They would be outside the will of God! They would be, essentially, pagan Jews who are worshipping idols, burning their babies! And even the burned babies of idolaters are viewed here as innocent. That is God’s assessment of them.

So, the babies of these idolaters are innocent but the babies of the Canaanites and the Amalekites were not? Why doesn't Mr. MacArthur see the contradiction?

Finally, MacArthur turns to the only passage in the Bible that may give some credence to his notion that babies go to heaven. Its the story of the child born to David and Bathsheba as a result of their adulterous affair. David prays and fasts for the child but it dies anyway. As an aside here, its once again contradictory to say that God would not kill the innocent but then here he kills the child of David and Bathsheba. Did the child sin? No, the parents did. Why then should the child be killed?

At any rate, after the child dies, David says: While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, "Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?" But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me (2 Sam. 12:22-23). MacArthur's argument is that David knows he is going to heaven when he dies and the baby will be there waiting for him. That sounds good but is it really the teaching of the passage? First, the OT's teaching about the afterlife is pretty scarce and its pretty obscure. Many passages state that everyone both good and bad go to the same place, namely Sheol. The full blown concepts of heaven and hell don't really appear until the NT probably due to the influence of Persian religions. Second, even if David is saying that his child will be in heaven, MacArthur could not within his theological system apply this same principle to all children. At best it would apply only to children of believers (which is precisely what many Reformed theologians teach but MacArthur rejects). Third, it would seem that a doctrine that would have so much practical and pastoral value, that children who die go to heaven, would be taught much more clearly than it is here and would be in multiple passages in the Bible not limited to one obscure passage buried in the middle of the OT.

Perhaps in anticipation of an objection like mine, MacArthur turns now to the NT. He cites the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:14: "So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." Okay, but according to 2 Peter 3:9, its not God's will that anyone perish but according to evangelicals like MacArthur many will perish. So, I don't see that this verse does anything to support his contention that babies automatically get "instant heaven" as he calls it.

As his final argument, MacArthur turns to Matthew 19:13-14 in which Jesus blesses little children. Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." He argues that Jesus is here clearly saying that the kingdom of heaven will be populated by children who have died before reaching maturity. But is that really what Jesus is saying? Look at the parallel passage in Mark 10: 13-15: And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." (cf. Luke 18:15-17). MacArthur cites the only one of the three synoptic gospels that leaves out the statement of Jesus that one must become like a little child in order to enter the kingdom. Jesus is not saying that children automatically go to heaven if they die (maybe they do or maybe they don't but that is not the point of his teaching), he is saying that one must become as humble and unassuming as a little child in order to enter the kingdom (cf. Matt. 18:2-4).

So, there you have it. MacArthur has examined every passage in the Bible that could be used to support his notion that children and the mentally underdeveloped get "instant heaven" when they die. Did he prove his point? I don't think so. The simple fact is that the Bible nowhere states that children who die in childhood automatically go to heaven. Evangelicals desperately wish that it did. It seems like it should say so but sadly it doesn't. To complicate matters more, strict Calvinists such as MacArthur who emphasize original sin and total depravity have to explain how these babies, even though depraved and wicked in their view, cannot be condemned by God when they die. Basically what Mr. MacArthur and his friends have to do is to eisegete a few passages in the Bible and then conclude that because their God is so loving and kind, he must accept all children and mentally underdeveloped folks into heaven. They know intuitively that it would be wrong to condemn such people. Their intuition is correct. But we also know intuitively that it would be wrong to condemn to eternal hell people who never even heard the name of Jesus. We also know intuitively that its wrong for God to hold all of us culpable for what Adam supposedly did thousands of years ago. We also know intuitively that its wrong to punish an innocent person in the place of a guilty person. Yet, MacArthur and his evangelical friends will ignore these intuitions but they can't ignore the intuition that babies don't deserve condemnation. At least they do have some semblance of a heart.

Grasping at Straws Part Eight--Evangelicals Defend Genocide

A large percentage of contemporary evangelical Christians consider themselves to be Calvinists, meaning (among other things) that their theology emphasizes the total depravity of man and the absolute sovereignty of God. As a result of being the Creator, the Calvinist God owns his creation and is completely free to do with it whatever He pleases. As Paul is reported to have said in Romans 9:20-21: But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? (ESV)

Today, I want to look at John Calvin's take on the genocidal commands issued by Yahweh.

In his commentary on Joshua, which by the way was the last book written by Calvin before his death, he said with regard to chapter 6, verse 20:

The indiscriminate and promiscuous slaughter, making no distinction of age or sex, but including alike women and children, the aged and decrepit, might seem an inhuman massacre, had it not been executed by the command of God. But as he, in whose hands are life and death, had justly doomed those nations to destruction, this puts an end to all discussion (emphasis added).

Just as Paul had before him, Calvin argues that God has a right to do whatever he pleases and that this puts an end to all discussion of the topic. So, basically God can do anything and man must accept it as being good and right because God did it. If man questions God's actions, he is showing his rebellion against the ruler of the universe.

Calvin continues:

We may add, that they had been borne with for four hundred years, until their iniquity was complete. Who will now presume to complain of excessive rigor, after God had so long delayed to execute judgment? If any one object that children, at least, were still free from fault, it is easy to answer, that they perished justly, as the race was accursed and reprobated. Here then it ought always to be remembered, that it would have been barbarous and atrocious cruelty had the Israelites gratified their own lust and rage, in slaughtering mothers and their children, but that they are justly praised for their active piety and holy zeal, in executing the command of God, who was pleased in this way to purge the land of Canaan of the foul and loathsome defilement’s by which it had long been polluted.

Calvin gives us the old albi which is still used by evangelical apologists today that God was long-suffering and patient with the Canaanites as he allowed their sin to go on and increase for 400 years. As I have said before, I fail to see how someone delaying his criminal act in any way excuses the act once he does it. If I deal patiently with my neighbor's offenses for 40 years before I finally lose patience and kill him, am I any less guilty of murder?

In addition, there is no indication except the Bible writers own claim that the Canaanites sins had increased greatly over 400 years. What were their sins exactly anyway? Sexual sins and human sacrifice. Well Yahweh himself was practicing child sacrifice during this time in Egypt (Exodus 12:29).

Calvin comments on Joshua 10:40:

Here the divine authority is again interposed in order completely to acquit Joshua of any charge of cruelty. Had he proceeded of his own accord to commit an indiscriminate massacre of women and children, no excuse could have exculpated him from the guilt of detestable cruelty, cruelty surpassing anything of which we read as having been perpetrated by savage tribes scarcely raised above the level of the brutes (emphasis added). But that at which all would otherwise be justly horrified, it becomes them to embrace with reverence, as proceeding from God.

I think Calvin is to be commended for his honesty. While so many evangelical apologists try to downplay the atrocity of the Canaanite genocide, Calvin sees it for what it really is. He says it surpassed anything done by savage tribes acting like brute beasts. He is correct, but then suddenly, it becomes okay because God ordered it.

He continues:

But as God had destined the swords of his people for the slaughter of the Amorites, Joshua could do nothing else than obey his command. By this fact, then, not only are all mouths stopped, but all minds also are restrained from presuming to pass censure. When any one hears it said that Joshua slew all who came in his way without distinction, although they threw down their arms and suppliantly begged for mercy, the calmest minds are aroused by the bare and simple statement, but when it is added, that so God had commanded, there is no more ground for obloquy against him, than there is against those who pronounce sentence on criminals.

Calvin goes on to say that even the children deserved the fate Yahweh commanded for them. He writes:

Though, in our judgment at least, the children and many of the women also were without blame, let us remember that the judgment-seat of heaven is not subject to our laws. Nay, rather when we see how the green plants are thus burned, let us, who are dry wood, fear a heavier judgment for ourselves. And certainly, any man who will thoroughly examine himself, will find that he is deserving of a hundred deaths. Why, then, should not the Lord perceive just ground for one death in any infant which has only passed from its mother’s womb? In vain shall we murmur or make noisy complaint, that he has doomed the whole offspring of an accursed race to the same destruction; the potter will nevertheless have absolute power over his own vessels, or rather over his own clay.

Calvin is consistent in the application of his theology. Rather than being guilty of sentimental compassion for the children and infants, he takes a bold stand with his God. Total depravity due to inherited sin, a foundational point in his theology, drives his conclusion. Every human being including those only one minute old deserve nothing but death and damnation from Calvin's thrice holy God.

He writes:

Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God (emphasis added) (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.1.8).

So for Calvin, and many of his followers today, the infants of Canaan just got what they deserved. Never mind that they didn't choose to be born into the world much less to be born to the Canaanites. Never mind that they had not even developed enough intellectually to talk or make any kind of moral decisions. Nope, they were dirty, rotten, sinners odious and abominable to God, according to Calvin and not only deserving of physical death but eternal damnation as well.

Is it any wonder that some have said that Calvin's god is worse than the devil? Yet, many popular evangelical authors and pastors today are adherents of Calvinism. Men such as John MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and a host of others. While these men are too diplomatic to state matters as bluntly as Calvin did, they nevertheless believe the same doctrines.

A problem to be faced by Calvinists and others who insist that "God's ways are not our ways" and the reasons for his actions are illusive to us (i.e., "God works in mysterious ways") is that if this is the case, how can we be sure that we can know anything about such a God? If his actions are mysterious and beyond our comprehension, then how can we say anything with any degree of certainty about Him?

As Ronald Goetz points out in Joshua, Calvin, and Genocide (Theology Today, vol. 32, no. 3; Oct. 1975, 263-274):

How can we speak of the ethical relevance of divine justice if we assert its subsistence in deeds which violate all the canons of human justice? Why bother to speak of God's essential being at all? Must we assert that God is just or, for that matter, loving? Can we not simply say that God is and doesn't give a damn whatever we think? Calvin would never wish to go in this nominalistic direction, for it would entail, among other things, an eventual denial of the very possibility of theology-a denial of any analogy between God's being, revealed in divine acts, and our categories of experience and comprehension. Nevertheless in appealing a priori to the incomprehensible fiats of God, on the one hand, and in so manifestly failing to make sense out of appeals to human conscience as justifying God on the other, Calvin lays out the ancient problem of evil in terms which are especially acute. These terms emerge from within and not outside the "theological circle" and in such a way as to open the question: "Can theology, to say nothing of theodicy, be justified at all?" If the acts of God tell us nothing of who God is, but only reflect mysterious illusiveness, then the divine revelation shows us only the divine incomprehensibility.