Most Helpful Customer Reviews
50 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Useful Reference Work on Different Views of Free Will, January 16, 2003
This review is from: Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Paperback)
Sproul's book "Willing to Believe" is different from his other books that expound on, and defend, Calvinism such as Chosen by God and Grace Unknown. In this book he focuses primarily on the nature of the human will as it has been defined by prominent thinkers throughout Church history, especially as it is related to the topics of sin and salvation (regeneration primarily). As Sproul shows, the Calvinistic understanding of the human will has its roots in Augustine and the distinction between freedom (defined as "the ability to choose w/o external constraint") and liberty (defined as "the ability to choose righteousness"). Liberty is lost because of the Adamic Fall; however, freedom as defined above is not. The two terms, liberty and freedom, are not considered synonymous as they are for many today which is one of the reasons for misunderstanding from critics. Also, Augustine isn't consistent in his use of terminology, as Sproul mildly points out, and therefore at times "seems to deny all freedom to the will of fallen man" (pg. 63). This inconsistency is seen, for example, in Sproul's quote on pages 63 - 64 from the Enchiridion where Augustine states that man, by the evil use of his "free-will" destroyed both it and himself. Later in the same quote Augustine uses the term "true liberty" in reference to freedom from sin thereby implying that "liberty" is synonymous with "free will" with the only difference being the adjectival term "true". One must understand that Sproul "helps" Augustine be consistent. What Augustine calls "true liberty" Sproul simply calls "liberty" in contrast to "freedom" in general in accordance with the above definitions. Now, notice the definition given for "freedom." This is not the popular libertarian definition assumed by many, which is another source of misunderstanding. Libertarian freedom is sometimes defined "the ability to do otherwise." This definition and view of freedom is held by Christian thinkers such as Norman Geisler, author of "Chosen But Free." Luther embraced Augustine's distinctions in his debate with Erasmus. So also did Calvin, Turretin and later Jonathan Edwards. Edwards provided further exposition on the Augustinian-Calvinist distinctions and affirmed that the will always chooses according to the strongest desire (motive, inclination, etc.), regardless of whether that desire is good or evil (this view is denied by those who hold to a libertarian view of freedom). In line with Augustine's doctrine of original sin, Edwards held that man is born with a sinful nature and his will is in bondage to it until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner (assuming, of course, that the sinner is one of the elect) thereby freeing the will to believe in Christ and produce fruits of righteousness. According to Calvinism, regeneration logically precedes faith and is the cause of it. The five major thinkers: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, and Edwards form a consistent and complementary historical stream. In contrast with this stream, Sproul presents the following six thinkers who represent in greater or lesser degrees, the representative historical opposition: Pelagius, Cassian (a Semi-Pelagian), Erasmus, Arminius, Finney, and Chafer. Although Sproul gives a good overall presentation of various positions and thinkers on the topic at hand, I feel that he could have better explained some of the issues that lend to misunderstanding. Another example is Sproul's mention of the classic distinction between original sin and actual sin. I've noticed that some who use the term "actual sin" in reference to sinful activity mistakenly think that original sin is not an actual type of sin but merely a potential to sin. Yet Adam, before the Fall, had the potential to sin, but he didn't have a sinful nature that caused him to sin. This is so even though, as Sproul explains, Augustine believed that Adam and Eve fell before they ate the fruit. In other words, "the first actual sin was committed by creatures who were already fallen" (pg. 53). Sproul should have cleared up this misunderstanding regarding original sin (the sinful nature). Also, I'm surprised that Sproul didn't once reference John Wesley, especially since much of what passes as "Arminianism" today is influenced more by his views than those of Arminius himself. Reformed Arminianism must be distinguished from Wesleyan "Arminianism". For those who want to know the differences, see "Four Views on Eternal Security," edited by J. Matthew Pinson. Also, I recommend studying Mortimer J. Adler's book "The Idea of Freedom" which some consider to be the definitive 20th century study on the issue. Although I'm not a Calvinist, I enjoy reading Sproul's books and learned much from "Willing to Believe." This is essential reading.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
47 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
THE MISSING INGREDIENT: grace alone, January 21, 2000
Because of the fall, we inherit original sin from Adam. The question is, how fallen are we? Sproul, arguing from Augustine, the Reformers, Jonathan Edwards, and the Scriptures says that we are so fallen that we will not choose God. There must be a work of grace from God before a person will turn to God. Rather than start from scratch, Sproul relies on almost 2000 years of theological history. Pelagius, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Jonathan Edwards, and dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer's views concerning "free will" are considered. The concern of Sproul(which is a concern of Reformed theology in general) is that God get all the glory for salvation. Evangelicals agree that salvation comes by Christ alone and faith alone. Sproul maintains that grace alone is the missing piece of good theology. The ordo salutis(order of salvation) is crucial to understanding a debate in recent years between dispensationalists and reformed evangelicals. When one understands that dispensationalists put faith(a move of man and God;synergistic) as the initial step in salvation whereas the reformers put regeneration first(a move of God;monoergistic), then light is shone on why the two groups have had this debate. Even though many dispensationalists consider themselves Calvinists, Sproul shows inconsistencies in their views that do not square with Calvin or Luther, but rather with Armimian theology. A concluding chapter summarizing the biblical case for the Reformed view would have been helpful. Sproul delivers sufficient information to build his case. However, a biblical summary could have delivered the knockout punch more completely. Nevertheless, both Arminians and Calvinists will benefit from Sproul's grasp of these issues. He is charitable to those he disagrees with, generating more light than heat.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
39 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Pelagius confounded..., May 28, 2000
This book has revolutionized my theological understanding, and has been instrumental in dislodging my former Pelagianistic orientation. I picked it up as a project to be refuted, and in the process, I was devastated by cogent argumentation from Sproul and, as he demonstrates, some of the greatest minds in church history. At one particular point in the book, he lists the salient points of Pelagianism and I found myself nodding yes to every point as I read. Up to that point I considered myself a sort of Arminian "on steroids". I was as bigoted against reformed theology as one could be; yet, by the time I finished this book, I was mortally wounded! This magnum opus on free will is powerfully relevant to the watershed of contiguous doctrines which touch its theme and are under attack in our time. To those who foster Pelagian or semi-Pelagian (Arminian) viewpoints, this book is of crucial importance. Even if you don't subscribe to the positions which are here contained, you will need to consider it and formulate your arguments over against this trenchant analysis. Here is one of Reformed theology's most brilliant, passionate defenders and his arsenal is impressive...you'll see!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
