Rating: 
Summary: Very Selective
Review: Dr. Sproul's disscussion of predestination, election, the atonement, grace, free will and perseverence is very selective. He isolates a handful of passages which he analyzes like mad and then ignores the dozens and dozens of passages which clearly refute his position. Furthermore he completely ignores the fact that NO ONE in the first 400 years of Christianity every held to his beliefs!
Rating: 
Summary: A strong presentation of Calvinism
Review: Calvinism... The word conjures up images of a God who pulls the puppet strings of human beings, compelling them to do His will.However, many great Christians have held to what is now called Calvinism (e.g. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards). Sproul is careful to carefully define all his terms and presents a strong case for Calvinism from the Bible. His writing is generally easy to follow (occasionally, it becomes a little difficult) and he dispels many of the myths concerning Calvinism. To highlight what Calvinism is all about, it is necessary to understand the Calvinist (or Reformed) understanding of the spiritual condition of man. After the Fall, (by the way, Sproul defines original sin very precisely and accurately), humanity is spiritually dead... Only the active intervention of God will bring resurrect the spiritually dead. I could go on discussing what Calvinism is all about but you would best to read the book. For those familiar with TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints), Sproul does not deal with Limited Atonement in any detail (he said that it would require a whole book to properly delineate it). Sproul also ably deals with the charge of double predestination very well. Overall, I would recommend the book for anyone wondering what Calvinism is all about, whether you be a Calvinist or an Arminian.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautifully presented, but problems lurk beneath the surface
Review: In some ways, Dr. Sproul reminds me of Bill Clinton...he has such good communication skills and such a remarkable ability to relate to the reader that you WANT to believe him, even though you know he's not right in his conclusions. This book is well organized and very readable, and, I might add, convincing at first. But, on further analysis, it becomes clear that Dr. Sproul builds his entire argument on the basis of a very small sample of Scripture. For example, one entire chapter stems from a quite literal interpretation of the word "dead" in Ephesians 2:1; another chapter is little more than a lengthy opinion piece on Romans 8:28-30. Ultimately, it seems as if Dr. Sproul ignores most of the Bible in order to build a case on only those isolated verses that seem to support his position. He has raised the art of "proof-texting" to new heights with this tome. I think Dr. Sproul's biggest mistake in this book is to write as if his is the final word in the predestination debate. I don't begrudge him the right to present his views with an air of authority, but to claim that "this one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism" and "this should seal the matter forever" seems a bit too strong. Granted, Dr. Sproul admits early in the book that he may be wrong, but statements like those above make him a prime target for refutation (see Dr. Norman L. Geisler's "Chosen, But Free"). Perhaps Dr. Sproul would have been better served if he hadn't written with such a boastful tone. Long story short, I would recommend that you read this book, but I would not recommend that you believe everything you read in it.
Rating:
Summary: The Real Lexical Meaning of the Word "DRAW" in John 6:44
Review: There are numerous exegetical, theological, and philosophical problems with this book. I will examine only one error. John Wagner has noted it in his review, but I would like to enlarge on it. It deals with the lexical meaning of the word "draw" (helkou) found in John 6:44 and 12:32. Evangelical Arminians, in the same vein as Arminius and Wesley, would wholeheartedly agree with Sproul when he states that John 6:44 "teaches at least this much: It is not within fallen man's natural ability to come to Christ on his own, without some kind of divine assistance" (p.68). The disagreement would be over the meaning of draw and whether this divine assistance is irresistable or resistable and whether this assistance is given to only some people or to all people. There is a huge difference between being irresisibly compelled to come to Christ in faith and being graciously enabled to come to Christ in faith. Which position that Sproul takes is obvious..."Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it [draw] to mean 'to compel'" (p. 69). He goes on to argue for this meaning by appealing to two additional texts--James 2:6 and Acts 16:19. He points out that both of these texts translate the same Greek word helkou as "drag" and therefore John 6:44 cannot mean woo or attract as some Arminians argue (p.70). There are a couple of problems with Sproul's reasoning here. First, his procedure of looking at helkuo is an example of a word study fallacy know as "word-loading." This occurs when a person takes a meaning of a word in one context and then seeks to apply that same meaning into a different context. Sproul does this when he appeals to the use of helkou in James and Acts as justification for understanding draw to mean "drag" in John 6:44. Secondly, Sproul cites only one reference work for support of his definition. After investigating "Big" Kittel for myself, I was shocked to find that it did not agree with his conclusions. A. Oepke comments that in John's usage of helkou "force or magic may be discounted, but not the supernatural element" (2:503). Yet for Sproul's definition to hold up, Oepke should have said that John's usage of helkou clearly means "to compel" or force. When I turned to "Little" Kittel (the one vol. abridged edition of his 10 vol. work) I was shocked even further to see that it did not agree with Sproul's definition. Here is the complete entry for helkou as translated and abridged by Geoffrey Bromiley: The basic meaning is "to draw," "tug," or, in the case of persons, "compel." It may be used for "to draw" to a place by magic, for demons being "drawn" to animal life, or for the inner influencing of the will (Plato). The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5; 19:19ff; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic. (p.227) What? The compulsion is not automatic? But Sproul argues that it is an irresistible compulsion. Yes, helkou can literally mean drag or compel in certain contexts (John 18:10;21:6,11;Acts 16:19;21:30;James 2:6), but it is not the lexical meaning for the context of John 6:44 or 12:32. While Sproul confidently asserts that "linguistically and lexicographically, the word means to compel," the lexical evidence is not in his favor. Here is a sampling of the evidence: Walter Bauer in his Greek-English Lexicon notes that helkou is used figuratively "of the pull on man's inner life....draw, attract J 6:44" (p.251). The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek NT states that helkuo is used metaphorically "to draw mentally and morally, John 6:44; 12:32" (Mounce, p.180). The Greek-English Lexicon to the NT has, "met., to draw, i.e. to attract, Joh. xii. 32. Cf. Joh. vi. 44" (Hickie, p.13). The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT by Friberg and Miller says, "figuratively, of a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)" (p.144). The Greek and English Lexicon to the NT defines helkou to mean: "to draw, by a moral influence, John 6,44. 12,32" (Robinson, p.240). Calvinist Spiros Zodhiates writes in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible: "Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing by His love, not force (John 6:44; 12:32)" (p.1831). I could cite at least 8 more references that would agree with those above. From my research, I have not found a single reference work which defines helkou as drag or compel for John 6:44. Clearly, Sproul has not done his homework. Without warrent or justification, he has appealed to a single reference source that does not even support his Calvinist conclusions. He has, knowingly or unknowingly, ignored the overwhelming lexical evidence that militates against his reformed theology. To further compound his error, he has committed a basic word study fallacy in attempts to bolster his dogmatic assertions. It is indeed surprising to see a theologian of his caliber committing such obvious errors in his research and work. Sproul perpetuates his errors on "draw" in his other books and other Calvinists follow in his footsteps. Sproul and other Calvinists should abandon their use of John 6:44 to support their doctrine of irresistible grace since the lexical evidence is decidedly not in their favor.
Rating: 
Summary: Repulsive!
Review: Because this book is saturated with scripture, it is and it will be repulsive to those who are NOT chosen by God. But to those who are Chosen by God, this book has a sweet aroma as the bible has a sweet aroma to those who are born of God. This book in itself is a litmus paper. Read it and see who you are. If it is sweet music to your heart, you are chosen by God. If it is repulsive, then you are a reprobate. Only the reprobate will get offended by this book. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. To God be ALL the glory, amen!
Rating:
Summary: for learning, understanding, and growing
Review: This is a very popular treatment of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. What I am not going to do here is tickle someone's ears and try to rack up points for one side of the issue or another. But what I would like to do instead is comment on whether or not I felt the book is informative, useful, and helpful to Christians of all persuasions. To supply a summary of the book would be redundant at this point since it has already been done so well in the many comments below, by persons on all sides of the question. And although I may disagree with some of the opinions in the reviews, I still had to admit that they were presented well and were helpful to my knowledge and therefore I gave those reviews a yes vote. Personally speaking, I find that I tend to pick on, or even nitpick someone's theology when I am in actuality really upset with the way that it was presented. Perhaps the writer was not kind in the way that they spoke of other Christians, or perhaps they even called them names. Or maybe they spoke as if persons having other viewpoints were ignorant, or that they are false teachers. All these things, which have more to do with attitude and maintaining a Christian demeanor rather than theology, factor heavily into my like or dislike of a book. I am convinced that we often judge books by their covers (or author, or position, etc.) before we even read the book. We just don't have ears to hear at those times. While it is impossible to completely divorce your theological viewpoint from your opinion of whether a book is good or not, there are many other factors that we might consider. I don't believe we should make the theological position taken as our sole criterion for judging a person's work. There are many books out there that I agree with in principle, but are in fact poorly written. I truly enjoy the writing of authors with several different backgrounds. One of the commentators below received a lot of negative votes simply because he said that he did not agree with the position taken, however, he actually gave the book (if I recall correctly) 5 stars! He was very gracious in giving the book 5 stars although he did not agree with it, and yet in return he received no mercy on the part of many of us whom I assume are professing Christians (this might even cause you to examine your thoughts on the possibility of carnal Christians.) When I was thinking about this book, I asked myself questions such as, "Did the book make me think?", "Did it cause me to search the scriptures more diligently?" If it did, you are more likely stronger in your beliefs (no matter what side) after reading it than before. Does the author maintain a professional and "Chrisitan" demeanor when presenting his views? Does he call anyone names, or speak condescendingly of individuals with different points of view? Does he demonstrate maturity of thought? Is the book well organized and easy to understand? Are the theological arguments strong or weak? (This is different than asking, "Does he take my point of view?") Is the book interesting - could you put it down at anytime, or could you not wait to get to the end? These are the kinds of questions I ask myself when I write an opinion of a book. No, I do not agree with everything Mr. Sproul says, even though he is a much better theologian than I may ever be. And yet, did I learn a lot from reading the book? Definitely! Is my perspective larger than it was before? Of course it is. Did I enjoy his style of writing? Very much. Is the book helpful to other Christians? I think it could be. I feel that giving an honest effort to understand what other brothers believe (without stereotyping of course - everyone is still an individual) can help us to bridge the gap in our differences. We tend to fear what we don't understand. Once understood, we then may be able to discuss our feelings more productively - without being so emotional. I recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Intro to the Doctrine of Election
Review: I had been studying election in the Bible for several weeks before I read this book. It answered many questions that I had regarding election. It helped me understand the "all" passages as well as the effects of the Fall.
Rating:
Summary: This book changed the entire way I view God and the Gospel
Review: Like some of the other reviewers, I was an Arminian and I remember thinking that the Calvinist position had a weak view on sin and personal responsibility. Sproul's teaching on Total Depravity truly opened my eyes. It firmed up for me my place in the universe, God's place, and the level of grace and mercy that I had received. That is not to say that I didn't throw the book across the room a couple of times during the process. My favorite parts of this book were Sproul's treatments on Romans 3 and Romans 9. It took about two years to come to terms with the shifts in my theological perspective. This book has helped me to understand God's sovereignty and to take comfort in the fact that all things are under His control. It's good to be liberated from the image of a God who's wringing His hands wondering if people will accept His gracious offer.
Rating:
Summary: A MUST READ!
Review: This a wonderful book for scholars and laypersons alike. Everyone has something to pull from this detailed description of what predestination really needs. We have to ask the tough someone skeptical someone what heretical questions before we can trully grow in our faith. Is God completely sovereign? If man has a choice in his salvation, then God isn't sovereign over the issue and therefore isn't all sovereign. However, God is all sovereign and man must see his state of spiritual death and the new life waiting in God's grace. RC Sproul does an excellent job of showing specific scripture references. The only thing I would change is that he tells more exactly where to find these verses. Sproul does give enough information to know exactly which verse he is talking about if you have a concordance. However this isn't something to not buy the book over. Great reading. Buy it today.
Rating:
Summary: Great Start
Review: This is a great start in understandng the magisterial freedom of the Almighty's decrees oncerning His elect.
| 
