Customer Reviews

Why I Am Not a Calvinist

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Along with Peterson and Williams (_Why I am Not an Arminian_), Walls and Dongell write with an irenic style as they engage perhaps the most controversial theological issue to face the Christian Church: Arminianism versus Calvinism. And they are to be commended for their equanimity. Of course, the controversy extends beyond the walls of the Church. Free will and determinism are volatile subjects within many different disciplines across academia, even in Geography! In this set of books published by InterVarsity Press, however, the discussion is delimited to Christian Theology.

Walls and Dongell do a good job of representing the beliefs of their opposition: That of Calvinism. They quote Calvinist sources frequently and not only that, the references are of the mainstream variety (e.g. Drs. R.C. Sproul Sr., D.A. Carson, Paul Helm, John Feinberg, etc.), which tends toward the minimization of straw-man argumentation and caricature. Their use of _The Westminster Confession of Faith_ and John Calvin's _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ is even-handed as well.

By their own admission, Walls' and Dongell's thesis is as follows: "In a nutshell, our case against Calvinism is that it doesn't do justice to the character of God revealed in Scripture." (2004, p. 220) On the final page of their book, they say, "Our reasons [for not being Calvinists] are not merely biographical or personal, but rather they are theological, philosophical and most of all biblical." (2004, p. 221)

This second statement creates a problem for me, particularly where Walls and Dongell mention biblical reasons as the greatest impediment to their acceptance of Calvinism. The reason being that their book is minimally exegetical. Yes, there is a chapter called "Engaging the Bible," where Walls and Dongell present biblical texts that are favourable to the Arminian position, and where they engage passages that are Calvinist strongholds, such as John 6, Romans 8-9, and Ephesians 1. However, when you read the book as a whole, or even just peruse the table of contents for that matter, it becomes clear that Walls and Dongell spend a great deal of time - I would say the majority of their time - attempting to demonstrate the philosophical inconsistency of the Calvinist position. I would hazard a guess that Walls, a professor of philosophy of religion, wrote a great deal of this book himself.

Not that there is anything wrong with scrutinizing a theological position by the standard of the laws of logic and such. As Walls and Dongell state, to ignore the consistency of a theological position is simply to posture piety and no more (cf. p. 155). That said, I believe Walls and Dongell are being overly gratuitous when they claim biblical reasons as the greatest impediment to their acceptance of Calvinism. Simply put, as good as their book is, its claim to fame will not be the biblical exegesis contained therein.

On a more positive note, Walls and Dongell really offer a wake-up call to Calvinists. For example, they point out weaknesses and inconsistencies in the argumentation employed by such Calvinistic greats as Packer, Sproul Sr., Carson, and Piper. Sproul Sr., for instance, is shown to waffle back and forth between a compatibilist and libertarian view of human freedom as it suits his fancy, though in all fairness to Sproul Sr., he has probably done so inadvertently.

Also, Walls and Dongell clearly point out where the great divide exists between Arminians and Calvinists. An uninformed Calvinist may think his or her position differs from that of the Arminian because he or she affirms God's sovereignty over everything whereas his or her opponent does not. But this is not the case. The issue is not whether God is in control of everything - this is not distinctive to Calvinism but fundamental to Christian Theology in general - but how it works out in the details. As Walls and Dongell echo on more than one occasion, God is in control of everything "in some sense."

One of the strengths of Walls' and Dongell's book is the clarity with which they explain philosophical concepts and positions such as "hard" determinism, "soft" determinism (compatibilism), libertarian freedom, Molinism, the Openness view of God's sovereignty, contradiction, paradox, mystery, etc. This emphasis, however, may not go over well with readers who may be looking for a more biblically-backed defence of Arminianism and who have little or no interest in philosophy.

Though admittedly _Why I am Not a Calvinist_ should be more of an offensive, than defensive, book as indicated by the title alone, Walls and Dongell could have been perhaps more convincing if they had of offered a more "positive" presentation of Arminianism, not just an exposé of Calvinism's weaknesses. For example, Walls and Dongell feel that Calvinism, at the level of practical theology, is incapable of meeting the needs of a person wrestling with assurance of salvation due to the fact that it is difficult for the Calvinist to assure a person in that position that God loves him or her. However, the reader is not even introduced to the problem relating to assurance of salvation that is inherent in the Arminian schema, which is due to its denial of eternal security.

Overall, I enjoyed _Why I am Not a Calvinist_. But I would use discernment when recommending the book. If someone were looking for a book that offers primarily an exegetical challenge to Calvinism, then I would not recommend Walls and Dongell. However, if someone were looking for a philosophical critique of Calvinism, I would not hesitate to put this work forward.

Regardless of one's stance on the issue of Arminianism and Calvinism, it is refreshing to see two opposing sides engaging one another in a way that is consistent with Christian Theology regarding how fellow believers are to interact with one another in intramural matters.

Many reviewers here make excellent points.

As an Arminian, I read this book hoping to find a solid evangelical stance of Arminianism that made a strong defense of Biblical Arminianism. As pointed out below.. This book has two major problems--
1. The chapters on philosophy truly did help clarify the various highly confusing Calvinist positions, and possible alternatives, however, the case must be won in the Bible not by philosophy, and this book is more philosophy than Bible.
2. Though it is unclear if they hold this view, they show sympathy for the Openness position. This unbiblical view of God is dangerous to the Arminian worldview, dangerous to the church, etc. This could present a problem if you wanted to give this book to an astute Calvinist because it would tend to confirm their suspicions. These leanings show when they present three possible views of God's knowledge, they have critique for Both Calvinism and Molinism (which is probably most Arminian viewpoint as held by people like William Lane Craig), but only defend Openness. It's sad that two scholars from the flagship Arminian seminary (Asbury) show this sympathy.

On the other hand, this book does an excellent job at clarifying the philisophical issues, and the one long chapter focusing on the Bible text is actually quite good, and has the best treatment of Romans 8:29-30 that I've read. If the rest of the book had followed these lines, and had made at least one strong statement against Openness, it would have been a 5 star book.

In retrospect, while I was disappointed when I bought this book for the two reasons listed above, I'm very glad that this was published. Not only does it help sort out a lot of issues -- confusing and inconsistent Calvinist philosophy, and seemingly ironclad Scripture points, but more importantly it gives Arminians a publishing voice again. Calvinists, for whatever reason have dominated the publishing and popular mind so much in the past twenty years, that my entire generation is turning in that direction, almost for lack of a clear alternative. Hopefully Arminians are becoming more aware that they must "publish or perish" as the old adage goes.

Grace, Faith and Free Will by Picirilli is a solid Biblical defense of Reformed Arminianism. More Recently Roger Olson's "Arminian Theology" is setting the gold standard for academic treatment. This book is still best in the market as a first cut to give to a friend who is undecided, and not heavily theologically educated. Then follow up with further discussion, and maybe one of these other two.

I agree with the last guy. I was highly impressed with this book! It examines the logic and philosophy of Calvinism. I think Calvinism needs to be engaged on a philosophical level as well as a Biblical one. The reason for saying this is my experiences with Calvinists are that they are highly philosophical (the ones that really understand their position), and appeal to philosophical arguments in addition to their Biblical arguments. Many have asserted that Augustine was heavily influenced by philosophy. This is why (I think anyway) Calvinists take the universal atonement texts and turn them into limited atonement texts to maintain philosophical consistency even though there exegesis of these verses is obvious to no one but themselves. If you find yourself debating philosophical issues instead of Biblical exegesis then this book is for you. I disagree with a previous reviewer suggesting that this would not be a good book to give Calvinists. The authors bring into the discussion some of the material from leading Calvinist scholars like Screiner/Ware (The Grace of God...), Paul Helm, D.A. Carson, Packer, R.C. Sproul etc. This was really insightful taking a close look at the logical consistency of their positions. This book was not a bashing Calvinism book. Very level headed.

It is certainly true that the books main focus was not biblical exegesis, devoting one chapter to this. But their exegesis of Romans 9 was hard to beat, and although I wished there was more detail on their discussion of John 6 they did make some good points.

As far as open theism goes the authors did not say what their views were on this topic. They simple looked at the different foreknowledge perspectives and looked at what are some of the problems raised by each view. Open theism I think fit naturally into the discussion without the authors promoting it.

Also as a reviewer noted there is a Calvinist who goes around to seemingly every non-Calvinist book and gives it a low rating. Looking at the comments would suggest this person has never read these books.

As one who is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, I found Why I Am Not a Calvinist a serious yet respectful challenge to Reformed theology. The book's endorsements include a professor of philosophy at Calvin College, which itself is impressive given the usual acrimony associated with debates between these theological camps.

Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, both seminary professors, quickly zero in on the central issues in this age-old debate: God's character, how He expresses His sovereignty and whether He makes a bona fide offer of salvation to everyone. They then proceed to make their case in a thoughtful, logical and biblical manner.

A major criticism of Calvinism is that it goes beyond what scripture says. The result is a theology that requires speculation about hidden purposes and ingenious interpretations of scripture, so that whosoever will actually means whosoever can; all, any and everybody are code words for the elect; and the world, well, it really isn't the world.

Throughout the Bible God calls on people to repent, yet according to Calvinists He withholds the grace from some that makes it possible for them to do so. "In other words," the authors write, "the true intentions of God cannot be discerned from his words" (p. 57). A scary thought, indeed.

Walls and Dongell make a persuasive case that a truly sovereign God could have created the world in any way He wished, including giving man a free will, and still be sovereign over His creation. In fact, one could argue that non-Calvinists hold to a higher view of God's sovereignty because they understand that "Less control is not the same as less sovereignty if God chooses to have less control" (p. 145).

Toward the end of the book, the authors address one of Calvin's more interesting teachings: that the reprobate may respond to the gospel, exercise faith in Christ and sincerely believe they are of the elect, when in fact they are not. Rather, "They are deluded by a false hope" (p. 201). The "proof" of one's election therefore becomes the production of holiness and perseverance until death, rather than the assurance that comes from faith in Jesus Christ as one's personal savior and acceptance of His gift of eternal life.

As Walls and Dongell point out, Calvinists cannot know for certain they are part of the elect, and therefore know whether they are truly saved, until the day they die. "This dreadful possibility is what haunts Calvinists who struggle with the assurance and certainty of salvation" (p. 202). Put another way, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you may be saved.

Even Calvin acknowledged that the question of whether one is truly elect is a crazy-maker: "But what proof have you of your election? When once this thought has taken possession of an individual, it keeps him perpetually miserable, subjects him to dire torment, or throws him into a state of complete stupor" (quoted in Elect in the Son, p. 210).

Sure doesn't sound like the abundant life Jesus promised, does it? Nor does such theology square with verses like I John 5:13, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

Why I Am Not a Calvinist raises important biblical and philosophical questions about Calvinism, and I highly recommend it to those interested in a well-reasoned rebuttal of Reformed theology. It deals with some of the most difficult passages in scripture straightforwardly and contextually, harmonizing them with the entire word of God, yet the book is written so that non-theologians can readily understand it.

While I don't agree with the authors on every point, I am impressed with the book's overall tone, which serves as a model for how reasonable, fair-minded Christians with differing theological persuasions can have constructive dialog with one another. (For a more in-depth though less congenial critique of Calvinism from a non-Arminian perspective, I also recommend The Other Side of Calvinism by Lawrence Vance.)

Critics may not like or agree with what the authors have written, but they will be hard pressed to make a credible case that Walls and Dongell don't understand Calvinism.

The author is not in the attack mode although this book will make a 5 point calvinist hyper-ventilate. Facts about calvinism are presented in a fair and biblical way by a writer who writes like a genleman in presenting his views.I would recommend this book to anybody who is interested in calvinism pro or con since it is always nice to get a sane civil view on any subject.

I found this book to be an excellent rebuttal of Calvinism. Their exegesis on Romans 9-11 is the best offered. However, while I found the book able in its ability to point out why Calvinism is more 'fiction' than 'biblical fact,' I found myself wanting the authors to declare what Arminianism is as a theological system rather than just describe why one should not be Calvinistic.

Two more relevant points:

1. Their chapter on interpretation could have been better. I found that the authors could have summed the ideas of that chapter up in a page.

2. The authors do a fantastic job at demonstrating why piety alone is not enough to explain the significant contradictions found in Calvinistic theology epecially when it comes to such ethical issues such as the "Problem of Evil" and the consequences of believing in a "Limited Atonement." One cannot at every turn describe this issues as 'mysteries,' and expect to be taken seriously. Good did not provide a Scripture full of mysteries that we cannot understand, but a guide for how to figure out some of the mysteries in our lives as well as in the world around us.

The best book since Shank's books, Life in the Son and Elect in the Son --only this book is far better and shorter. This is one of those books I wish I'd written-but I couldn't have, even on my best day-they were the guys to write it. It is hard to convert a Calvinist away form their position. I was a five pointer in college and during half of seminary, but did convert-I switched for the reasons outlined in this book. Walls' philosophical approach is helpful, and Dongell is always strong in making biblical arguments. Sure, the book is not enough to persuade most Calvinists to switch (God Himself could not do that... well, er, I suppose, being sovereign, God might be able to do it, but it would be hard even for God). --Keith Drury Associate Professor of Religion, Indiana Wesleyan University

Jerry Walls' and Joseph Dongell's "Why I Am Not a Calvinist" (2004, 228 page paperback) promises to be a classic in Arminian theological studies. With this text the two professors present a persuasive up-to-date Arminian study.

The right now assumptions in this book make it refreshing and interesting. The professors present each issue with a contemporary scenario for in-the-present application. The approach is enlightening and invigorating.

In six chapters the professors engage Calvinist theology with regards to Scripture, human freedom, divine sovereignty, predestination, election, and contemporary Christian life. Perhaps, the most helpful aspects of this text are the authors' reflections about the various scriptures historically claimed by Calvinist thinking (Proverbs 21:1; 1 John 4:8-10; Jeremiah 13:15-17; Romans 8:29-30; Galatians 6:7-8; to name only a few). Walls and Dongell proffer Arminian counter biblical balance for each. Introducing "common grace", "hard determinism", "soft determinism", etc., they helpfully broaden the classic Arminian mix for today's "I'm not a Calvinist" crowd.

The book's downside is its technical presentation. Although interesting, the authors' arguments are often drawn out (chapter two is 52 page, for example) and cumbersome. The professors are convincing, but should be reminded that in this on-line age brevity is the basis of brilliance!

This book is recommended to all Arminian readers, Calvinist thinkers, and anyone interested in right-now Arminian theology.

In "Why I am Not a Calvinist", Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell offer a critique of Calvinist theology and a defense of Arminian theology. Their book is written in a friendly tone- thankfully avoiding the vitriolic language and irresponsible exaggeration that often feature prominently in these types of work. While recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on this important topic, Dongell and Walls provide a strong Biblical and philosophical defense of Arminian doctrine.

In the first part of the book the authors try to engage the most critical Scriptures that have relevance for this topic. They focus only on absolutely critical concepts; thus, for example, they have no discussion about eternal security because some Arminians actually agree with Calvinists that true believers never fall away from grace. Instead, they deal with the three strongest scriptural arguments in favor of Calvinism. These are;

1. The sovereignty of God.
2. The gracious nature of salvation.
3. The reality of divine election.

On the sovereignty of God, Walls and Dongell point out that the Calvinist understanding of this doctrine leads to severe tensions in much of Scripture. It implies restricted love, which cuts against the grain of many passages that not only affirm God's universal love for all but also His desire for all to be saved. Moreover, it implies irresistible grace, which is actually a major tenet of Calvinist theology. However, the Scriptural testimony actually documents people rejecting God's stated wills and commands. One particularly poignant example is found in Jeremiah 13, where God declares that He will weep if Israel does not turn. These types of passages don't mesh well with Calvinist teachings.

On the gracious nature of salvation, the authors show that, even though contemporary Arminian thought often diminishes the effects of the fall and grants a great deal of power to unaided human will, historic Arminianism does not do so. The authors demonstrate that Arminianism is perfectly consistent with a strong view of human sin and fallenness.

On the reality of divine election, the authors look at the major proof texts cited by Calvinists to support their theology and try to demonstrate that these texts all have plausible Arminian interpretations.

In addition to an analysis of the relevant Biblical materials, Walls and Dongell offer an important discussion on the topic of free will. They define and distinguish libertarian, determinist, and compatibilist accounts of freedom, and argue persuasively that the libertarian account is intuitively superior, necessary for moral responsibility, and implicitly supported by Biblical passages. This is an important discussion for the debate and I am glad that the authors chose to engage in it.

Near the end of the book, the authors offer some important critiques of Calvinist theology. First, they question Calvinism's ability to coherently understand the existence of evil. Second, they question Calvinism's ability to explain why some persons are lost, given the Biblical affirmation that God desires the salvation of all. Calvinist theology has difficulty explaining this issue because, since it affirms that the decision of salvation is entirely up to God, it seems that His desire for the salvation of all would entail that all men were saved. Finally, the authors argue that Calvinism is difficult to live out in the Christian life.

Overall, Why I am Not a Calvinist is an excellent work. Unfortunately, the authors failed to engage adequately with all of the relevant Biblical texts. Nevertheless, they make a strong case for Arminianism and against Calvinism. For those who are interested in the issues of salvation, predestination, and free will, I strongly recommend this book, as well as the companion volume- Why I am Not an Arminian- for a solid overview of the issues, written in a friendly and irenic spirit.

This book is excellent! Not only are a number of compelling biblical reasons provided against Calvinism, a number of relevant philosophical arguments are raised against it as well. I've noticed that a number of the reviews impugn the value of such philosophical reflections, insisting that everything be settled on biblical exegetical grounds. Despite the high view of the Bible such an insistence demonstrates, I think that's a little simple-minded, in all honesty. Suppose the Bible told us to lie. Should our attitude in such a case be that lying is okay? Should we ignore our moral intuitions to the contrary just because the Bible said so? How would we ground our conviction in the truth of the Bible when it shows such disregard for the truth? On what principled grounds would we choose to believe in the Bible before some other piece of alleged revelation? God presumably gives us adequate evidence and philosophical resources to be justified to believe in scriptural authority. But if so, why not believe he can also help us interpret the Bible correctly by giving us the right philosophical assumptions to bring to our study? If exegesis reveals contradictions in scripture or teachings that stand at odds with inviolable moral intuitions, then either the exegesis is wrong or we have grounds for rejecting the veracity of the Bible.

Calvinism is based on a bad reading of the Bible. Little wonder C.S. Lewis characterized it as sneaking a bad god in through the back door. And no mystery why Calvinism can be shown predicated on such bad philosophy as the following: continuing to call God "good" when he unconditionally elects some to hell; and such a "good God" COULD have saved everyone without violating anyone's free will on their view!; Calvinists call "biblical tensions" or paradoxes what are just the contradictory elements in their own faulty interpretations of scripture; Calvinists engage in the most egregious forms of equivocation, stretching language beyond its breaking point, by calling their conceptions of God good when there's nothing recognizably good about it; Calvinists say we deserve hell while at the same time casting God as the sufficient cause of all of our actions....in other words.....they embrace a compatibilist view of freedom, notoriously inadequate to undergird ascriptions of deep moral responsibility, yet they think it adequate for someone to be relegated to an eternal hell! Example after example of confusion, evasion, and dishonesty characterize Reformed theology.

It's a shame that segments of the church refuse to see this and insist on embracing such a warped view of God. It's clear that Augustine overstated the implications of divine sovereignty in his debates with the Pelagians, yet his mistake has become virtually sacrosanct theology in the minds of Calvinists today. (And ironically, the Calvinist refusal to believe God has the prerogative to grant human beings real libertarian freedom LIMITS God's sovereignty!) What's at issue isn't the Christian standing of Calvinists. Nonetheless, hard-edged Calvinism is horrible theology that's done untold damage to the witness of the church in this world, casting God as nothing less than monstrous, rendering Gospel preaching irrelevant, making God the author of sin, however much Calvinists bristle at such charges.

Defenders of Calvinism need to answer this book, not act like they can neatly avoid bringing to bear our deepest moral intuitions and philosophical reflections in exegesis. Their own biblical analysis is rife with philosophical assumptions of their own, few of which can be defended with much cogency. This book serves as both a powerful, gracious biblical and philosophical corrective to such theology.