Customer Reviews

Perspectives on Election

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I want to commend the publishers of PERSPECTIVES ON ELECTION: FIVE VIEWS. They allowed each viewpoint equal amount of pages to present their arguments for their respected position and then allowed a brief response by each of the other authors on the view at hand. This made for quick reading and (as one reviewer before me put it) this allowed for the reader to wrestle with the doctrine of election themself.

The doctrine of election debate is hardly new. It has been wagging for nearly 1000 years in the Church but sadly the debate is often full of rage and not godly love and respect. Not so in this book. While none of the authors completely close the argument, they do a good job of helping the reader see the various positions.

I give this book a five star rating and hope that more Arminian-Calvinist books such as this one come out soon.

If you are looking for a book that gives wonderful and exhaustive presentations on different understandings of the Biblical concept of Election, this is the book for you. If you are wanting exhaustive and well thought-out responses to each presentation, you will be sorely disappointed as most of the responses take up only a page or two.

I have chosen to give this book 5 stars because the publisher and editor did not choose inexperienced but well-respected, established and prolific theologians to present their respective view. The book mostly leaves it up to the audience to decide which view of election they find Scripture supports the best, and this is what a good book that presents different viewpoints should do, namely give a little guidance but allow/force the audience to think for itself and make up its own mind about the issue at hand.

A great book for those who want to think their way through the issue, and a welcome addition to my theological library.

I will try to be brief, which is difficult when looking at the subject the book discusses. One could speak forever about these topics, but brief I shall be.

Bruce Ware (Infralapsarian-Election to Salvation), Robert Reymond (Supralapsarian-Election to Salvation) and Jack Cottrell (Historic Arminian-Election to Salvation) truly write excellent and thorough works on the three traditional views of the Christian church on the nature of the Doctrine of Election. Each paper needs to be read by a church which today couldn't hope to tell you anything about this immensely important truth for the body of Christ. I commend each writer for their convictions and for the fairness and irenic spirit they use towards one another during the majority of their dialogue (Reymond occasionally is a bit perturbed).

What I do question from the book is allowing Clark Pinnock (Vocational, Corporate, Inclusive) to speak on behalf of the traditional Corporate view of the Arminian side. I question this because of his completely unbiblical view of openness in relation to God's foreknowledge. I believe his position on this essential attribute of God drastically undercuts the reality for opting for a Corporate View of Election. I wish someone who had an Orthodox view of God's foreknowledge had been given the chance to write on this view for the benefit of the Church. Someone like William W. Klein (not Arminian) comes to mind. At least a well-known Arminian like Robert Shank to posit the Arminian view of Corporate Election would have been advisable here.

I feel having Pinnock set forth the view makes this view look completely foolish because of his view on God's foreknowledge. Pinnock has been given enough publishing space in a multitude of other books to show his views on God's foreknowledge, I would have to agree completely with Dr. Reymond here that it is time for conservative, Protestant publishers to stop giving him (and others) such a freedom to teach their views. Clearly this is difficult for most publishers since whats 'New' is what sells.

Though this view is not new (as explained by Cottrell in his essays), what seems new is more attractive than what has already been taught. Does this always mean its wrong? Of course not, but it does mean we all must use discretion. Having said all that, I think much of what Pinnock said was good and biblical (so please don't just react initially). What I viewed as biblical was his views on the vocational/corporate degrees within election. But his views on foreknowledge really took away the ground the view may have gained, a serious mistake.

Thomas Talbott (Universal Reconciliation) is a strong advocate for his position and probably one of the most well-known currently. He holds to many biblical views regarding scripture and its authority, which normally you wouldn't think possible for someone holding to his views on election. His position is essentially an irresistible drawing of all people to Himself, through this life and through a post-mortem time as well. This is very reminiscent to Barth's 'Triumphant Theology', though nuanced slightly in certain areas. This is not to say I agree with him, but Talbott needs to be read for sure. I feel the other writers respond fairly to him and answer his arguments well, though I, too hold to a primacy of the single Election of Jesus as the essential focus of the Doctrine of Election (similar to Barth), yet disagree in how that plays out in the atonement/propitiation.

Overall, this is an excellent work. I cannot recommend books like these highly enough because THESE are the issues Christians need to be wrestling with, praying about, seeking the Spirit in guidance about. These truths are essential, yet rarely preached and even more rarely understood, and to what consequence? A dire lack of growth and maturity in the church. This is a must-read for every Christian. And yes, that was as brief as I could be.

I love these sorts of "theological perspectives" books. I'm an amateur,
but motivated, reasonably intelligent and old enough know that I don't
have all the answers and neither does anyone else. I would expect a book
like this to have a tone for an audience that would include a person
like me. For the most part, this book does. The essays by Ware, Cottrell
and Talbott are excellent and informative. I have never heard a defense
of universalism and Talbott did an admirable, albeit mostly
philosophical job. Another reviewer questioned the place of Pinnock in
this volume. Perhaps there would be a better choice of viewpoints to
include than Pinnock's but he raises some important issues even if his
essay reads as if he were a bit tired or rushed when he wrote it.

My biggest complaint was the inclusion of Reymond. His essay delves into
Calvinistic minutiae that are out of proportion to the broad scope of a
survey like this. He cites the Institutes as much as he does Scripture
and nearly comes unglued in a rebuttal when Calvin is personally
challenged. Worse, his attitude is equally narrow, ranging between smug
self-satisfaction and holy warrior intransigence. He feels completely at
ease inviting his co-authors to sit down and let him straighten them
out, as if the only possible reason any intelligent person wouldn't be
an equally zealous Calvinist is for want of a little more illumination.
Please. As for Reymond's declaration that Pinnock is not fit to be
allowed into evangelical discussions without a certified chaperone, I say
if open theology is so obviously unbiblical, why are the Calvinists so
afraid of it? I for one, am tired of self-appointed theological
gatekeepers telling me what I can and cannot discuss and read about. If
it doesn't ultimately pan out, so be it, but in the meantime Reymond
would do well to read this book again, with open mind this time, and
worry a lot more about the gaping holes in his system that his
co-authors ably revealed. Minus one star.

Reymond might have worked as an author if the editor had kept his eye on
the ball and his rein on the submissions of his contributors, insisting
that the substance and tone be kept in line with the purpose of the
book. In one response, I think part of a paragraph must have been lost
or maybe edited out to maintain a length limit, but it should have been
rewritten. Maybe these faults can't be laid on the editor, but I want to
dock someone another star, so he gets the blame.

In summary, this is a worthwhile book, but it could have been a great
book. An example of a better book in a similar format is
The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views.

it is really great that in this day and time we see such refreshing views of tough theological subjects such as election...great job to the authors

My apologies for the low rating. I'm sure it's a very fine book. But it wasn't a good choice for me and I wanted to alert anyone who might have (like me) misunderstood the words "a quick read" in one of the previous reviews. As an average "woman in the pew," I've become uncomfortable with my church's Calvinist teachings (and the conclusion it leads me to: that God creates some people to be doomed because they cannot come to salvation without his choosing to open their eyes) and was looking for another viewpoint that is biblically supported.

However, after a long day of wrestling with kids, I don't have the mental stamina to wrestle with this book! Too many big words! Apparently, I need some sort of "Election for Dummies," lol.

This may well be the book for you. Be sure to read the "look inside this book" section (particulary page 4) before you decide. I think I'll have to set this one aside until my kids have grown up and left home.