Why I Am Not a Calvinist

Rating:
Summary: Why I am Not a Calvinist
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Very articulate and fascinating!!
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Yikes! I was expecting Arminian Theology.
Review: I got this book. Expecting a refutation of Calvinism and support of Arminian Theology based on logic and scriptures. In fact the authors slam the reliance upon logic. Instead you get emotional type appeals dealing w/ analogy that are pages long. I don't mind analogies, but they don't need to be the majority of the book.

Only one chapter is dedicated to scripture and the authors do not even begin to engage them. Take John 6:25-70 and Rom. 9. They basically say the Calvinist is interpreting it wrong and do not go much further. They only take a few select verses and ignore others in the said passages. Such as three times Christ saying no one can come to me without the Father. I understand this book Philisopical in nature. But, the subject is also theological and serious scriptural engagement is required.

Another point is the authors seem to like to quote and support Open Theology. Which denies that God has any control over the creation. They also only partially quote various Calvinists clearly out of context. If they do not agree with them that is fine, but at least treat them fairly. This book also covers several Heretical Viewpoints dealing with Arminian Theology. Openviewpoint Theology etc... I have no idea why a book defending Arminian Theology would cover various viewpoints that most Arminians would reject and it covers them in such a positive manner. If you want the same stories that go on for pages that are unrelated to the subject matter then this book is for you. I was wondering when they were going to get to talking about Arminian Theology as it compares to Calvinistic Theology. When they aren't creating straw man arguments about Calvinism, they are telling long and drawn out emotional stories, or create analogies that fail to grasp the concepts.

Another item is the authors misrepresent Calvinist John Piper saying Piper does not believe that Hell will be of eternal torment. I just read The Passion of Jesus Christ by John Piper he most certainly does as well as his web site. I hope this is mistake on the authors' parts and not dishonesty. If it is a mistake this shows very poor scholarship on the authors' part. If it is dishonest, well what can I say then?

I was hoping for a decent work on Arminian Theology. The book fails in every respect. If you get a book defending Arminian Theology or refuting Calvinism get ANY book but this one.

Is this what passes for decent and factual work these days? Sad.

Sidenote: The following poster obviously did not read my review. Calling me an all or nothing fundamentalist. In case anyone misreads my post. The point was why even cover the Heretical views of Open Theism (in their own words won't condemn as heresy) or Openview Theology. As they quote Open Theistic authors in support of their position. Positions that many Arminians let alone Calvinists would condemn. Why I don't know considering there are far better arguments from men who do not hold the Open Theistic viewpoint. The point of the book was "Why I am not a Calvinist" To compare and contrast the two main viewpoints. As I pointed out. I have yet to find a decent book defending Arminian Theology. The following poster does not know me personally. As for being firmly in the Calvinist Camp or some such thing. Kind of funny since I was raised a 5 Pt. Arminian and have only been a Calvinist about 3-4 Months. When I read this I was trying to find a good work on the Arminian (with an I not an E) Viewpoint one I held for many years. I have found none. Therefore on the basis of the scriptures and logic I am a Calvinist. I read Debating Calvinism first. This was the 2nd one. By reading both viewpoints I found that to be the best to the make the decision with a Bible handy.

As for the rest of the attacks those reading can decide. Get the book if you want. I got various books by authors of both viewpoints. This book was the worst.

Rating:
Summary: Triple Thanks
Review: I have been looking forward to the publication of this book, and it is finally here! Thus, I have three "thanks" for this work.
1. Thank you Walls and Dongell for presenting a book that is pertinent to this generation. The age old Calvinism-Arminian debate is not over, and it now has an excellent defense of the free will position that merely stimulates more thought on the subject from the postmodern generation.
2. Thank you for incorporating the philosophical with the Biblical. Both should never be and are not mutually exclusive.
3. Thank you for engaging other experts in this work. You did not merely state your opinion in a vacuum, but utilized other scholars in this area, especially Calvinists experts, to build your case.
Ultimately, this book will go on my shelf, right beside "Life in Son" by Shank, and others, as one of the best texts in this timely discussion of such a life-critical issue.

Rating:
Summary: The Old Debate Continues
Review: It seems that too often Christians spend their time arguing about things our finite minds cannot understand such as God's absolute sovereignty or divine election or even eternal life. Rather than embracing the truths we do agree on and evangelizing the world, we spend our time being bitter at others who disagree with non-essentials of our faith.

However, I do believe that Christians need to debate the issues in a spirit of grace. We must not shy away from theological discussions but we must learn to debate them biblically. That is my main problem with this series from InterVarsity. While the writers give philisophical reasons for being Calvinists or Arminians, neither necessarily spend much time with the Scriptures. They debate history, certain theologians such as Augustine or Calvin or Wesley, and even debate with some of their own but they don't go straight to the Bible for their answers.

Do Christians need to engage subjects such as Calvinism or Arminism? Sure! But do it from the Bible and not from your own personal feelings on the matter. Our hearts can deceive us (Jeremiah 17:9) and we must base our faith on the Word of God (John 8:31-32; 1 Timothy 4:16; Titus 2:1; 1 John 4:1-2).

Rating:
Summary: A Richly Woven Integration
Review: Refreshingly succinct, this book is packed tightly, neatly avoiding the filler material that often dilutes such writing. The authors progress from one urgent arena to the next, offering first and foremost some desperately needed in-depth Scriptural exegesis, keenly illustrated, and backed by precise arguments. Viewing theology primarily from a Scriptural foundation, Arminianism is clearly shown as consistent through philosophical delineation that parallels Scriptural truth. Finally, here is a fresh alternative to Calvinism that depends on Scripture, unfolds classic theology and utilizes philosophy to highlight the necessity for consistency in one's beliefs. The authors display mastery of their fields and offer rich theology sure to appeal to believers of all stripes. This book will strike a chord with old and young, traditional and postmodern, because ultimately it rings of truth.

Rating:
Summary: A Richly Woven Integration
Review: Refreshingly succinct, this book is packed tightly, neatly avoiding the filler material that often dilutes such writing. The authors progress from one urgent arena to the next, offering first and foremost some desperately needed in-depth Scriptural exegesis, keenly illustrated, and backed by precise arguments. Viewing theology primarily from a Scriptural foundation, Arminianism is clearly shown as consistent through philosophical delineation that parallels Scriptural truth. Finally, here is a fresh alternative to Calvinism that depends on Scripture, unfolds classic theology and utilizes philosophy to highlight the necessity for consistency in one's beliefs. The authors display mastery of their fields and offer rich theology sure to appeal to believers of all stripes. This book will strike a chord with old and young, traditional and postmodern, because ultimately it rings of truth.

Rating:
Summary: Unconvincing to Calvinists (of course)
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: Very articulate and fascinating!!
Review: The previous reviewer seems to show up on every book related to this topic posting no actual review of the book but listing his favorite books to evanglize people to Calvinism. This is unhelpful and obnoxious. The reviewer before him, however makes some 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 makes my stomach churn. This is an absolutely unbiblical view of God. If this is the future of Arminianism, then it will be nothing but an heretical cult within 50 years. **What this also means, is that this book will never be serious value to give to Calvinists or more importantly people who are uncertain of their position, because it confirms their worst fears-- that at heart Arminianism is a heresy which always leads to worse heresy-- such as Openness.** In fact, in years to come, Calvinists will probably be using this book as an example to prove that point and advance Calvinism.

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. As it is, it's primary value is as a resource for convinced Arminians.

I would recommend Grace, Faith and Free Will by Picirilli for a solid defense of Biblical Arminianism.

Bottom line I was truly and deeply disappointed in this book because of the Openness leanings, especially coming from Asbury seminary, the only evangelical Armianian Seminary. The reviewer above is right in pointing out the historical strength of various flavors of Arminianism back to the apostles. However, he's dead wrong about Openness. The God of Openness lacks both true omniscience and true omnipotence--he is more like a man than God. I think he gives too much credit to the leanings of the authors too... For example they present three possible views of God's knowledge, they have critique for Both Calvinism and Molinism, but only defend Openness. If this is the future, we might as well all become Calvinists now.

Rating:
Summary: Personally helpful, but a disappointment
Review: The previous reviewer seems to show up on every book related to this topic posting no actual review of the book but listing his favorite books to evanglize people to Calvinism. This is unhelpful and obnoxious. The reviewer before him, however makes some 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 makes my stomach churn. This is an absolutely unbiblical view of God. If this is the future of Arminianism, then it will be nothing but an heretical cult within 50 years. **What this also means, is that this book will never be serious value to give to Calvinists or more importantly people who are uncertain of their position, because it confirms their worst fears-- that at heart Arminianism is a heresy which always leads to worse heresy-- such as Openness.** In fact, in years to come, Calvinists will probably be using this book as an example to prove that point and advance Calvinism.

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. As it is, it's primary value is as a resource for convinced Arminians.

I would recommend Grace, Faith and Free Will by Picirilli for a solid defense of Biblical Arminianism.

Bottom line I was truly and deeply disappointed in this book because of the Openness leanings, especially coming from Asbury seminary, the only evangelical Armianian Seminary. The reviewer above is right in pointing out the historical strength of various flavors of Arminianism back to the apostles. However, he's dead wrong about Openness. The God of Openness lacks both true omniscience and true omnipotence--he is more like a man than God. I think he gives too much credit to the leanings of the authors too... For example they present three possible views of God's knowledge, they have critique for Both Calvinism and Molinism, but only defend Openness. If this is the future, we might as well all become Calvinists now.