55 of 62 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not the strongest presentation for Calvinism, September 1, 2004
This review is from: Why I Am Not an Arminian (Paperback)
I wanted to give this book more than 3 stars, but in the end I couldn't. I approached this book expecting a very biblical defense of Calvinism,in accord with the title of the the book. Instead, I found a book that outlined the Arminian position very well, but when it came to counter defense against that position, the author's own arguments were on the weak side. Some would think that's because the Calvinist position itself is weak, but that would be untrue. Almost all of the author's defense (on any of the subjects outlined) came from the texts in John 6,John 10,and John 17. If these three text did not specifically address the issue of a given chapter,then he reasoned on the basis of deductions taken from them.
When the author addressed the issue of Freedom, or specifically free will in a person, he was quick to say God's sovereignty, as understood in Calvinism, does not render human's as puppets. But then, in presenting the Calvinist view of freedom, he failed to truly specify how freedom and the Calvist idea of sovereignty truly co-exist. The most it came down to was we are free to do as God has ordained we are to do. The author did not explain at all how what he called, "secondary causes", play into freedom or sovereignty. Nor, how one makes a choice that is truly free when one's life is decreed to the minutest detail.
The same was true for Grace, and whether it was irresistable or resistable. In beginning his defense of irresistable grace (or invincible grace as the author puts it) he says "Another misconception concerns the fact that many sinners successfuly resist God's grace and die in their sins. How can Calvinist say that God's grace is irresistable? The answer is we dont teach that God's grace is irresistable for all rather, God's grace is irresistable only for God's people." Yet this would mean God gives his grace to all. The very grace which is the specific means of salvation. Yet, the author pointed out earlier, in his arguments on Election, that God passes by those He has not chosen to save. It was not clarified how He passes by men leaving them in sin and yet gives saving grace (the vehicle of salvation) at the same time.
His weakest argument of all was on Limited Atonement. And he had to admit it in a way that was startling, given the title of the book. On the issue on John 3:16, which presents God's saving work on a worldwide basis, the author states, "We agree therefore with Arminians that John 3:16 and similar texts speak of God's love for every person. We understand these passages to teach that God assumes a saving position toward His fallen world. When asked how we (Calvinist) reconcile these passages with those that teach God's special love for the elect, we admit that our theology contains rough edges." I guess so if that's the best you could counter the Arminian claim of unlimited atonement with. I did agree with the author's conclusion on a governmental view of the atonement which is a view blasphemous to the atonement.
To the author's credit his defense of unconditional election and perseverance were good and his presentation of historical data in his chapters on Augustine and Pelagius and Arminius and the Synod of Dort were very enlightening. In fact his arguments on unconditonal election made me search further into the subject. It is the inability to carry what is presented there, in the earlier portion of the book, through to a consistent biblical argument that in my opinion was the shortfall of this book.
One last thing. The author's introduction and his tone taken (very conciliatory and as a brother in the Lord ought to write) should be required reading for anyone wanting to voice a theological opinion in media today.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great Companion Volume, November 10, 2008
This review is from: Why I Am Not an Arminian (Paperback)
In "Why I am Not an Arminian", Robert Peterson and Michael Williams present a tough critique of Arminian doctrine and a solid defense of Calvinist theology. Unlike so many other writings on this divisive topic, this work is irenic and good-natured. They make clear near the outset that Arminians are brothers and sisters in Christ. While clearly stating their view that Arminian theology makes serious doctrinal errors on important theological points, they wisely refrain from making the overblown charge of heresy. In the introduction, they write,
"You see, calling someone a heretic is serious business. Heresy is not merely doctrinal error; it is damnable error. The heretic so mangles the gospel of Jesus Christ that it no longer communicates the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Heresy is such a corruption of the grace of God in Christ that it invalidates either Jesus as he Savior or grace as the way of salvation. The Arminian tradition does neither. The Arminian Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh to save sinners and that the saving work of Christ comes to the sinner by way of the grace of God received through faith. Whatever issues relevant to salvation we disagree upon, let us agree on this: the Calvinist and the Arminian are brothers in Christ." [13]
The authors are wise to understand the distinction between heresy and incorrect doctrine, and they should be commended for recognizing, in no uncertain terms, that Arminian theology is within orthodoxy.
Despite their charitable attitude towards their ideological counterparts, Peterson and Williams pull no punches in their critique of the Arminian tradition. They begin their work with a brief history of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius. Both of these thinkers endorsed monergism- which is the view that only one agent acts authoritatively in salvation. While Augustine defended divine monergism, with God being the sole actor in salvation, Pelagius defended human monergism (note: there is some debate about this point. Pelagius's works are only available in bits via critiques from other writers like Augustine, who is not known for being charitable when quoting opponents. Nevertheless, Pelagius certainly focused much more attention on human effort in salvation than did Augustine). Pelagius was condemned in 417. Soon after, the so-called Semi-Pelagians John Cassian and Vicent of Lerins defended the view that human nature is weakened but not disabled by sin. However, the first step towards God is taken by man, though grace is still needed if salvation is to be attained. This view defends synergism, the view that there are two actors in salvation- both God and man- working together.
This discussion is important not only because it sets up the historical context of this debate, but also because it reveals a fundamentally unfair charge made by many anti-Arminians that Arminian theology is Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. As a matter of fact, Arminian theology affirms that sin has so corrupted the human nature that God must make the first move to make individuals receptive to the Gospel. This view is actually a modification of Augustine and so is called Semi-Augustinianism by Peterson and Williams. This is the view that was affirmed in the Synod of Orange in 529.
In addition to the historical overview, however, Peterson and Williams focus a great deal of attention on important Biblical passages that touch on the core differences between Arminians and Calvinists. They have good discussions on predestination, perseverance, and irresistible grace. Unfortunately, however, I think that they seriously botch the issue of free will.
To begin, they assume that free will is the foundation of Arminian theology. "...for Arminius and the Arminian tradition, human freedom is axiomatic. Because of this the freedom of the human will serves as a kind of grid through which all other notions and doctrines must pass in order to be accepted. That which might qualify or question human free will must be rejected. The assumption of the unblemished integrity of human free will leads Arminian theology toward indeterminist incompatibilism: divine sovereignty and true human freedom are incompatible, and human beings are free; therefore, God cannot sovereignly govern human history, events or personal destinies." [137-8]
First of all, I think this is a caricature of the Arminian position. As Roger Olson points out, God's goodness and justice are actually axiomatic for the Arminian position. Arminian theology protects God's character by denying that He has anything to do with evil, instead attributing this evil to the sinful choices of free creatures. Moreover, Arminian theology takes seriously the Biblical affirmation that God desires the salvation of all men. While it may be true that some Arminians advocate the view because they want to salvage indeterministic free will, it is unfair to label this issue as the `axiomatic, non-negotiable' factor in Arminian theology.
Secondly, Peterson and Williams make the classic false dichotomy between libertarian human freedom and divine sovereignty. It is simply silly to say that Arminian theology entails that God is not sovereign, since He sovereignly decided to create free human agents. If God freely decides to create agents who can freely decide what they will do, His sovereignty is not limited but rather enhanced. Indeed, Calvinism often seems to deny the very possibility that God could decide to create agents with libertarian free will, which seems to be a limitation on God's freedom itself. In any case, the Molinist account of divine foreknowledge and providence adequately demonstrates that God can sovereignly order the world through free creatures.
Thirdly, the authors seem to imply that libertarians believe that we can literally always choose otherwise. But this is a crass oversimplification of the view. Few libertarians contend that every choice we make is completely free.
Finally, the authors contend that the Bible supports a compatibilist understanding of freedom, but they never defend this view philosophically. While I respect the author's focus on Scripture, I doubt that Peterson and Williams can allay the suspicions of libertarians like myself who believe that so-called compatibilist freedom is a vacuous concept. Moreover, all of the scriptural passages cited by the authors to demonstrate how God molds history and works all things towards His ends through human free choices simply supports the Molinist view that is often advanced by Arminians.
Nevertheless, other than a weak discussion on the nature of freedom, Peterson and Williams do a marvelous job explaining their disagreements with Arminianism and offering the Calvinist alternative. Their book should be praised for its irenic spirit and civil tone, as well as for its formidable scholarship. I recommend that you read this book along with the companion volume- "Why I am Not a Calvinist" by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell- for a good overview of this important debate.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
I really enjoyed this one..., November 18, 2005
This review is from: Why I Am Not an Arminian (Paperback)
I have had classes with both of these fins scholars, and really enjoyed the experience. I thought this defense of their theological standpoint was very good.
At central issue to the Reform belief system is that there is a tension between human responsibility and divine sovreignty. These two gentlemen are well-equipped to argue this point.
I found their exposition of the main points of their theological stance to be straightforward and solid.
Interestingly, rumor has it the autthors did not want to title this book in the negative, but rather "Why I am a Calvinist." they were persuaded by the publishers to use the more combatative title.
Both men exude grace in their own lives, and it came out in their writing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
