Customer Reviews

Why I Am Not an Arminian

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

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Although I do not find much in Calvinism with which I can agree, I found this text to be an excellent starting point to studying the theological and biblical foundations of Calvinism. I would have given the book one more star, except that I found the historical section way too long. It really did not add much to understanding the foundations of Calvinism, and it really should have considering the length of the chapter on historical theology.

You also need to purchase Why I Am Not a Calvinist. Both books provide a balanced view on the subject, we used both books as text books for a Bible study class.

This author is a good communicator and explains Calvinist doctrine better than most. He convinced me of the validity of Limited Atonement, for example, one I'd wrestled with for years. Recommended.

Robert Peterson and Michael Williams seek to answer the question as to why they are not Arminians in this book length treatment of the subject. This is not a difficult read although it is, no doubt, difficult subject matter. So the fact that history, theology and biblical studies permeate the text, one should not fear approaching it, as it is very accessible. Of course the title gives away its thesis, and moreover early on in the book that becomes abundantly clear as to what the authors intend, namely to steer all readers clear of any Arminian notions concerning God's ways, and to set forth the plain scriptural view of "Salvation is of the Lord" as believed in history as the orthodox position.

It is balanced in its appeal to historical debates, such as the free grace debate between Augustine and Pelagius in the early fifth century, and later the differences of definition between Calvinists and Arminians concerning several aspects of salvation that came to a head at the end of the Synod of Dordt in the seventeenth century. Chapters interspersed throughout the book deal with such doctrines as predestination, perseverance, freedom, inability, grace, and atonement. This is where the bulk of the authors' arguments center on the Bible's emphasis.

They present several passages in favor of what has become known as the "Calvinist" position. However, it is important to see their approach as a Calvinist view and not the Calvinist view! It is a foregone conclusion that any Calvinist that reads this book will find many, if not most, of the arguments compelling, and moreover, the conclusions to be the exact ones they espouse. But as a recovering Arminian myself, still ever learning and coming to greater and greater amounts of truth, I have a few places in the text where I wish things would be different. This does not take away the great value of this book, however. I just need to make it clear that this is not the last or best word on the subject!


For the biblical teaching on predestination, which so often is the focal point of many disputes, the writers' present well reasoned arguments citing several texts. From Abraham's election in Genesis 12, through Israel's election in Deuteronomy 4, 7, 10, & 14, the foundational OT basis is established. When embarking on the NT, they point to a few passages in the synoptics, with the bulk of their gospel support coming from the gospel of John 6:35-45; 10:26-30; 15:14-19; 17:2, 6, 9-10, 24. It is abundantly clear once one has studied this array of texts that "Arminian views of election do not fare well in light of the Gospel of John," (p. 51). In Acts the authors argue citing 13:48 & 18:9-10, showing ordination prior to belief and selection prior to evangelization respectively. The true teaching of scripture regarding election is, without doubt, clinched with the emergence of Paul's testimony. Here Peterson and Williams bring out the big guns of Romans and Ephesians. Calvinist election is shown to be the only result, maintaining a credible reading of Romans 8:28-30; 9:6-24; Ephesians 1:4-5, & 11.

In my estimate, the mistake is made when the authors add the notion of freedom within this argument! For example, they state: "Paul thus sets God's absolute sovereignty (Romans 9) side by side with genuine human freedom (Romans 10)" (p. 64). This is capitulating to the Arminian where we can least afford it. Precisely they go on to tie this concession of scripture's alleged teaching on freedom to the idea of our responsibility. Thus these two Calvinists are in principle agreeing with all Arminians that freedom is necessary for responsibility. Of course, the authors go on to define this freedom as a "compatibilistic freedom" but they will be halted in their tracks by all Arminians, as these writers have given here the qualifier, genuine! Opponents to Calvinism will see through this charade and begin to insist that only libertarianism or incompatible notions of freedom qualify as genuine, and as a ground for responsibility, if indeed some sort of liberty is actually required to constitute humans as responsible. I prefer to affirm that God's absolute sovereignty in reality renders man's freedom impossible, and the true ground of our responsibility is merely our creatureliness. We are accountable-which is what responsibility really means- to God our creator. We are under obligation to do His bidding. Responsibility does not require ability (freedom, libertarian or otherwise), it merely requires existence as a creature made in God's image. Dogs and rocks are not responsible/answerable to God, they will give no account on judgment day; the sons and daughters of Adam will all do so.

In another section of the book where Peterson and Williams are discussing grace there is another component where I must raise a red flag! Although I am surely in the minority here, it bears repeating that truth is decided by biblical and theological exposition and not by counting noses or any other body parts. It is a widespread view among many reformed thinkers that God has two types of grace: first, saving grace, which is really what this book is all about, and second, common grace. This latter is introduced into this book by the authors in another attempt at quieting the Arminian opposition, or to show the tacit agreement of reformed and Arminian persons on this matter (see pp. 189-90). This becomes problematic as this idea of common grace becomes fused with the doctrine of the atonement as they assert both good and bad theology in the same breath. ". . . [A]lthough certain benefits of Christ's death come to everyone [the context demands all without exception] and although God adopts a posture of love toward a world [the context demands a world of men and women without exception] that hates Him," state the authors', "Christ's atonement was designed not merely to make salvation possible, but actually to secure the salvation of those whom God has chosen" (p.202). What is positive is the explanation of the design or intent of the atonement, namely its limited intent to save the elect. What is not good is the misuse of John 3:16 to imply that there is a saving posture to all men without exception, and that there are saving benefits that proceed directly from the work of atonement that are also designed for all men (without exception). This, again, is a capitulation to Arminian exegesis of these passages and compromises the Calvinist view at the heart of the Atonement-its substitutionary nature, even as the authors are seeking to expound this very truth. This is curious indeed! If this were not enough, the penmen, explicitly say this in the same chapter. They give up the very ground they have fought so hard to win. "We agree, therefore, with the Arminians that John 3:16 and similar texts speak of God's love for every person. We understand," note the writers, "these passages to teach that God assumes a saving posture toward his fallen world" (p.212). The problem with our Calvinist friends is that they speak of both these aspects of God's love as "saving love of God for human beings," and "God's gracious posture toward a world that hates him." (212). No wonder Arminians sense this to be double-speak, and question the sincerity of God's love for the non-elect in this scheme. What do Peterson and Williams do in this matter? "When asked how we reconcile these passages with those that teach God's special love for the elect," explain the authors, "we admit that our theology contains rough edges" (212, emphasis added). Rough edges! This is not just rough edges-this is blatant contradiction. This is an incoherency and inconsistency that is ultimately to be projected onto God himself, as this is the content of His Word!

Clearly, this is not sufficient as a defense against Arminianism. We must be bold in our declaration that "God is angry with the wicked everyday", and that "the wrath of God is poured out on all ungodliness and wickedness," that is, on the ungodly and wicked people. We must re-assert that "God hates workers of unrighteousness" and His saving love is of one kind and it terminates on only one people, His people, the elect and only upon them. Let us do away with this misunderstanding of God's providential ordering of all things as if it were His grace-common to all! No, no, a thousand times No! God's grace is special, selective, and saving. It is according to His own purpose and for His own glory. His wrath and just judgment of all the unsaved wicked will serve that same glory. God does not have to love all, in some undefined, unspecified, and uneffective love for all people, to show His justice; He will show it clearly in both the justiication of unworthy sinners saved by grace, and, in perishing sinners worthy of condemnation, all according to His eternal plan.

Do I commend this book? Yes, I do. It is helpful where they get things right, and that is most of the time. I would, however, also recommend that one read along side this book the texts by R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty, and Gordon Clark's The Atonement as a complimentary and corrective approach to these errors of Peterson and Williams.

Theodore Zachariades.

Good read. Makes you think. Does it really matter? As long as eternity with G-d is where I am going, it really does not matter what you think.

This book is very one sided, and the claims it uses for Calvinism are weak and under developed. Try another book it will help you in your search for truth much better!

There are many unambiguous scriptures with inductive and exegetical reasons to demonstrate that what these authors above contend is erroneous. I get tired of reading the same old talking points.

But of course, even if it could be miraculously proved that Calvinism is actually exegetically correct, I just couldn't help but to believe it false because I was predestined to not be Reformed!