Rating: 
Summary: Courteous, Scholarly, but More Philosophy than Bible
Review: This new book favoring Arminianism has several virtues. It is written in a temperate manner. No foaming-at-the-mouth, arms-waving, wild-eyed ranting against Calvinism. Both writers are professors at Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Another plus is that they depict Calvinism's doctrinal positions correctly. Even though they take Calvinism to task for what they feel are its unavoidable implications, there are no "straw men", no crazy claims about what Calvinism allegedly means.
They don't heap abuse onto the moral characters of John Calvin or Augustine, as did Laurence Vance and Dave Hunt. They also point to numerous, specific Bible texts which seem to conflict with Calvinism's fundamental dogmas. They do a fair job of poking problems in Calvinism (it's use of the "negative fallacy", philosophical pre-assumptions about God, and the skepticism created when we say that God's Scripture-words don't reflect God's actual desires). However, the book is not a Bible study. Although the writers do a bit of exegesis and argumentation in favor of certain interpretations (of, say, 1 Tim. 2:1-4, or John 3:16), they seem more comfortable with philosophy than Biblical hermeneutics.
Their material on what God's sovereignty is weak, and almost completely devoid of Scripture. They want to believe that God rules over the "big picture" but doesn't control the micro-world -- which seems Deistic to me. They're trying to philosophically carve out a space in the world where stuff just happens. There's quite a bit of speculative question-asking ("Could it not be that God...?", "Why couldn't it be that God just...?", etc.), which is fine but then they don't back it up. I could speculate that my grandmother was a little red wagon, but that doesn't make her one. They show an alarming sympathy to Open Theism, and favorably cite Open Theist writers many times. This is a bad thing. These writers are to Dave Hunt what portrait artists are to a kid scribbling with a crayon. However, if you're looking for a focus on Biblical authority, it's not here. Asbury does not hold to plenary biblical inspiration, and you can read between the lines of this book and pick up on Asbury's "pietistic liberalism". It's not a school I would ever recommend. For the sake of iron sharpening iron, the Christian reading world still could use a defense of Arminianism that makes its case from Biblical exegesis, not philosophical speculations. Dave Hunt quotes scads of verses, but doesn't even really grasp Calvinism or the critical issues involved. These men grasp Calvinism, but deal with it philosophically, not Biblically. And even their philosophizing is often speculative and not supported by specific Scriptures.
Rating: 
Summary: Superb book
Review: Those who do not like this view tend to do so because they say
A) It is not Biblical enough (i.e. too philosophical)
B) It is not Calvinistic enough (i.e. too Arminian)
C) It leans toward Openness view My response A) We can all use our favorite verses and debate about which holds to a more "true" view of God. Arminians grab everything they can from James or Hebrews whereas Calvinists jump headlong into Romans. We then fling these "helpful" verses in the opposition's directions and dodge their responses. Calvin and realized that we must move with our reason and look to the Tradition of the church. Moreover, the fact is that the church has traditionally rejected pure Calvinism, especially predestination. It is not until Calvin/Luther/Beza that this became the "orthodox" view. This was done not from a Biblical standpoint but a philosophical one. The same has been done with the Trinity. The trinity (although alluded too) is not directly spoken of in scripture. It is not until the councils used reason (given to us, and directed, by God) that this view was adopted. B) This I think is obvious and no reasoning is needed. C) Although the book does have a tendency to sound "open," it is not and neither is traditional Arminianism. Arminians have held that God can know the future and we have free will both. Although this produces much tension with a logical view, it is no more in contradiction than a man being fully God and Fully man nor something being three distinct yet one. In addition, open theology is no further "heresy" than Calvinism is. Both have been rejected by the Tradition of the church and neither can be labeled as "Orthodoxy." This is a well-written book with a well-articulated argument. To say this book is defending the "heresy" of Arminianism is ludicrous. Arminianism has no more been rejected by the church than Augustinians and probably less. Pelagianism? Yes, it has been rejected by the church (although not because of free will but because of views on sin) and if that is what some are referring to then they are missing the point of this book. This Book is both philosophically and Biblically sound
Rating: 
Summary: A Firm, Quick Kick into the Reformed Beehive
Review: Walls and Dongell, with this book, make a sharp and welcome contribution to the growing interest in the debate over Calvinism. Their approach is polite enough, but as other comments below show - this book touches a nerve.
"Why I Am Not a Calvinist" aims to equip the reader with the philosophical terminology surrounding the issues, while also guiding us through central passages in scripture. One of the sharp critiques on this page notes that Walls and Dongell devote little space to the Bible. While this is not technically true (half of the book, Dongell's half, focuses on scripture), I am not surprised at seeing the comment. Part of the tension underlying the Calvinist/Arminian debate is the way that scripture is used. Walls and Dongell take scripture no less seriously (in my thinking) - they simply deal with it in a different way.
Another critique that appears a few times stems from Walls and Dongell's mention of Openness Theism (quoted by another reviewer as "Openviewpoint Theology"). The authors shouldn't be surprised at the snappish responses, by mentioning Openness Theism they plant a firm, quick kick into the Reformed beehive. Better understood within a Wesleyan, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox theology, Openness seems anathema to many Protestants. Yet it is not - whatever others may say - heretical. In Walls and Dongell's book, it should be noted, the authors do not even advocate it. They use it, rather, to make a point about sovereignty: namely, that sovereignty can still make sense even under a view like Openness - with its somewhat circumscribed view of the divine attributes.
In both cases, whether regarding the Bible or sovereignty, much of the criticism is misdirected. Critics can howl all they like about how the authors don't take the Bible seriously enough or how the authors deny sovereignty, but both times they miss the point - showing the way scripture is used and how we define sovereignty are central issues in the book, and Walls and Dongell do an excellent job at both.
*Sidenote* The previous poster is of the worst kind, chasing the shrieking figure of criticism through a labyrinth of tortured syntax. Furthermore, his whole beef seems false. It strikes me that the reviewer below was not "looking for a good defense of Arminian theology." A short glance at his other reviews clearly show him to be in the 5-point Calvinist camp and his sturdy stupidity about theological terms (see "Openviewpoint theology" in the review below) shows that this is not a seeker in search of answers - rather a love-it-or-leave-it defender of fundamentalism. One only hopes that potential buyers don't heed N. J. Spencer and his anti-talent for critique.
| 
