Rating: 
Summary: The history of the Arminian-Calvinist debate
Review: I found this book quite interesting; it helped me to understand the historical development of the free will/salvation debate. The author, R.C. Sproul, is a committed Calvinist but this does not hinder his presentation of opposing theologians. He quotes from primary source material whenever possible and even though this may be difficult to understand at times, I think it is the best way to proceed.Sproul's approach was to look at all the important figures in Church history who have contributed to the free-will/salvation debate. He starts by contrasting Pelagius and Augustine. Even though they lived about 1,500 years ago, they set the groundwork for the debate. Pelagius is almost universally condemned as being heretical, both in his time and ours. The other theologians covered are: Martin Luther, John Calvin, James Arminius, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Grandison Finney and Lewis Sperry Chafer. Sproul also covers semi-Pelagianism as taught by Cassian. It is interesting to note that this issue is often developed in the form of argument between two men: Augustine and Pelagius, Martin Luther and Erasmas and so on. Sproul then goes to the great Reformers: Martin Luther and John Calvin, who BOTH defended what is now called Reformed or Calvinist theology. It was interesting to learn that Luther and Calvin basically voiced the same position. Then, there is James Arminius, the Dutch theologian, who has represented the semi-Pelagian or Arminian position in the modern era. I was surprised to learn that Arminius agrees with Calvin on the doctrine of total depravity (Sproul shows this by quoting directly from Arminius). One of the main points that Sproul makes a few times is that the Calvinist position is often caricatured. Even if you think Calvinism is false, it is simply dishonest to build up theological straw men to knock down and then claim victory. Another interesting point is that one's doctrine or understanding of the Fall determines one's soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and one's understanding of free will. Occasionally, the book becomes difficult to understand. In particular, the chapter on Jonathan Edwards was difficult to understand. It was good that Sproul included a glossary of the Latin terms that have historically been used in the debate. The last section in the book was on Lewis Sperry Chafer, one of the founders of Dispensationalism. I have heard of this before but I don't know too much about it. Sproul lists Billy Graham and Norman Geisler as contemporary Dispensationalists. However, Sproul is only discussing Dispensational soteriology and doesn't touch on Dispensational eschatology (doctrine of last things; second coming of Christ, Rapture etc...). I would recommend the book, and even though I found parts of it difficult, I think that I now have a better understanding of the free will debate.
Rating:
Summary: Quickly read; fair; informative
Review: In Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul lays out the history of the debate on free will as it relates to Christian salvation. This book is very informative, and divided conveniently into chapters devoted individually to each theologian that Mr. Sproul discusses. Sproul makes very few judgments on the philosophy of each thinker, and he only briefly mentions his personal theology, Calvinism, in the chapter on John Calvin. For the most part, he lets each subject's words and writings present their beliefs for themselves. Sproul just follows along to summarize and translate the more esoteric theological topics for the common reader, when necessary. Willing to Believe is easily read and a solid, quick outline of the history of some brilliant church leaders' thoughts on man's will.
Rating:
Summary: Quickly read; fair; informative
Review: In Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul lays out the history of the debate on free will as it relates to Christian salvation. This book is very informative, and divided conveniently into chapters devoted individually to each theologian that Mr. Sproul discusses. Sproul makes very few judgments on the philosophy of each thinker, and he only briefly mentions his personal theology, Calvinism, in the chapter on John Calvin. For the most part, he lets each subject's words and writings present their beliefs for themselves. Sproul just follows along to summarize and translate the more esoteric theological topics for the common reader, when necessary. Willing to Believe is easily read and a solid, quick outline of the history of some brilliant church leaders' thoughts on man's will.
Rating: 
Summary: The Importance of Historical Theology Demonstated
Review: It is extremely important to carefully consider what those who have gone before us have thought and written on important subjects. Those who ignore historical theology leave themselves open to errors which may have already been ably refuted by others in the past. R.C.Sproul gives us an excellent summary of what some of the most influential men in Church History have thought on the controversial subject of the role that a person's will has in the salvation of an individual. Some of the men who's views are presented by Mr.Sproul are Pelagius,Augustine,Luther,Arminius and Jonathan Edwards. We should always seek to understand and accurately represent the views of those with whom we may not be in agreement with. It is a sad reality that this is often not the case. Lewis Sperry Chafer very helpfully clarifies what is a problem fo some on p.204 "It is a strange thing to deem the liberation of an enslaved will as a violation of freedom."This is what God does in the salvation of an individual. I don't believe anyone knows how God does this but the Bible clearly teaches that He in fact does. A great strength of this book as in all of R.C.Sproul's books is that the reader is not left with the impression that Sproul either does not understand(and therefore has not misrepresented)the view that he himself does not hold. The flip side being that the view that R.C.Sproul believes to be the Biblical view is very accurately given to us.
Rating:
Summary: Great Introduction to the Will of Man
Review: Sproul does a great job of tracing the beliefs of the will of man throughout Church History. He traces the debate from Augustine, Pelagius, Semi-Pelagians, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Edwards, Finney and Chafer. I didn't really like the part on Augustine, Calvin and Luther because it was stuff that I already knew. But, it would be very good for someone studying this issue for the very first time. The part on Edwards was amazing. His analysis of Edwards compatabilism was incredible. Edwards believed that we were inclined to sin. He is the greatest Philosopher/Theologian to ever graze the American scene. I loved his critique of Charles Finney. The modern day church's admiration for him is sickening. He didn't believe in the substutitionary atonement (opting for the governmental theory of Grotius), lied about the Westminster Confession of Faith, was a staunch Pelagian, and is the father of the modern-day Emotionalistic Evangelism movement(which is anthropocentric and not theocentric). I also like his critique of Chafer. A lot of Dispensationalists try to claim to be "four-point" Calvinists. Sproul shows that they redefine terms, and are not historical "four-point" Calvinists (Amyraldians), but are "Pseudo-Calvinists." I give it four stars because of the information on Edwards, Finney, and Chafer. The reason I do not give it five starts is because I wish it would have been more in depth. But, this was written for the laymen. Overall, An excellent introduction to the different views of the will of man throughout Church History.
Rating:
Summary: Great Introduction to the Will of Man
Review: Sproul does a great job of tracing the beliefs of the will of man throughout Church History. He traces the debate from Augustine, Pelagius, Semi-Pelagians, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Edwards, Finney and Chafer. I didn't really like the part on Augustine, Calvin and Luther because it was stuff that I already knew. But, it would be very good for someone studying this issue for the very first time. The part on Edwards was amazing. His analysis of Edwards compatabilism was incredible. Edwards believed that we were inclined to sin. He is the greatest Philosopher/Theologian to ever graze the American scene. I loved his critique of Charles Finney. The modern day church's admiration for him is sickening. He didn't believe in the substutitionary atonement (opting for the governmental theory of Grotius), lied about the Westminster Confession of Faith, was a staunch Pelagian, and is the father of the modern-day Emotionalistic Evangelism movement(which is anthropocentric and not theocentric). I also like his critique of Chafer. A lot of Dispensationalists try to claim to be "four-point" Calvinists. Sproul shows that they redefine terms, and are not historical "four-point" Calvinists (Amyraldians), but are "Pseudo-Calvinists." I give it four stars because of the information on Edwards, Finney, and Chafer. The reason I do not give it five starts is because I wish it would have been more in depth. But, this was written for the laymen. Overall, An excellent introduction to the different views of the will of man throughout Church History.
Rating:
Summary: Read this book!
Review: Sproul has put together a very even handed, well documented, heavily referenced book that deals with the church long debate over human free will. Though personally from the Reformed camp, Sproul does not use this book as a vehicle for the advocacy of Reformed thought, but dispassionately examines the free will musings of various prominent thinkers throughout church history who represent a good variety of opinion. Sproul takes the reader from Augustine to Chafer and looks at a number of folks in between such as Pelagius, Arminius, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Finney. I felt that Sproul did a very good job of examining the views of each individual, and particularly in the cases of Finney and Chafer, showing that their views on free will didn't always reflect what they said their overall theology was. Very insightful writing here. One of the things I got out of the book was the obscure nature of a number of nuances that surround this issue and separate folks along theological lines. I think readers who are not intimately familiar with these issues may find themselves a bit surprised by the often nuanced differences that have become such bitter points of contention between theological camps (monergistic versus synergistic soteriology is one example). I thought that Sproul did a good job of examining these views in a detailed way in order to lay bare the theological differences that speak for themselves. His extensive quotation of the above church thinkers on these issues allows the reader to see for him/herself what these thinkers wrote and thought. Overall, I think this is a very informative book that serves to honestly treat the free will controversy in such a way that a layperson can better understand the controversy and be able to continue in their research with a solid basis of understanding. This book is a quality addition to the Christian's library.
Rating:
Summary: Good Summary on Free Will Historical Thought
Review: Sproul has put together a very even handed, well documented, heavily referenced book that deals with the church long debate over human free will. Though personally from the Reformed camp, Sproul does not use this book as a vehicle for the advocacy of Reformed thought, but dispassionately examines the free will musings of various prominent thinkers throughout church history who represent a good variety of opinion. Sproul takes the reader from Augustine to Chafer and looks at a number of folks in between such as Pelagius, Arminius, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Finney. I felt that Sproul did a very good job of examining the views of each individual, and particularly in the cases of Finney and Chafer, showing that their views on free will didn't always reflect what they said their overall theology was. Very insightful writing here. One of the things I got out of the book was the obscure nature of a number of nuances that surround this issue and separate folks along theological lines. I think readers who are not intimately familiar with these issues may find themselves a bit surprised by the often nuanced differences that have become such bitter points of contention between theological camps (monergistic versus synergistic soteriology is one example). I thought that Sproul did a good job of examining these views in a detailed way in order to lay bare the theological differences that speak for themselves. His extensive quotation of the above church thinkers on these issues allows the reader to see for him/herself what these thinkers wrote and thought. Overall, I think this is a very informative book that serves to honestly treat the free will controversy in such a way that a layperson can better understand the controversy and be able to continue in their research with a solid basis of understanding. This book is a quality addition to the Christian's library.
Rating:
Summary: A Useful Reference Work on Different Views of Free Will
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: History of Free Will from the Calvinist side
Review: The Calvinist Sproul takes a historical look at free will as it pertains to Pelagianism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. Overall he does a good job taking a look at such characters as Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Arminius. However, his Calvinist slant--while I certainly don't disagree with it--certainly is one-sided, and I could see how an Arminian might not like how he takes a one-sided approach. In fact, I would have enjoyed a side-by-side look at the history of free will in conjunction with a thinker from the Arminian side of the aisle. Overall the book was easy enough to read, though certain parts did bog down. My favorite chapter was the last one regarding Dispensationalism, as the material I learned there was very educational. I would say that the more you enjoy history, the more you will enjoy Willing to Believe.
|
