Elect in the Son

Rating:
Summary: An important and truly wonderful book
Review: "Elect in the Son" is an important addition to the disposal of the unbiblical doctrine that God predestines some to Heaven and then predestines all others to Hell, the second petal of the odorous TULIP of Calvinisim.
Calvinisim is a so-called "Christian doctrine" that has steadily decreased in adherents and influence over the last several hundreds of years due to the ever-increasing availability of the Bible and the true understanding that the real gospel message is that salvation is available to "who so ever will".
Calvinistic 5-Point double-talk has been increasingly defeated with the simplicity of the good news; that Jesus died for "the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn. 2:2), and for "any man" (Rev. 3:20) and to "who-so-ever-will believe will be saved" (Jn. 3:15).

In spite of the over whelming preponderance of scriptural proofs against Calvinisim, some misguided people still try to keep this dinosaur of darker ages alive, where it once was able to thrive due to the lack of the availability of both the Bible and literacy. Unfortunately many new Christian's end up being indoctrinated into this sad dogma, where God has fore-ordained the vast majority of mankind to eternal damnation to demonstrate His sovereign will; where Christ's sacrificial death is for only those who have been arbitrarily chosen by God for salvation (known as `limited atonement'); and where free will is only a dream...... such is the world of Calvinists. It should also be noted, that according to Hyper-Calvinists or as they prefer to be called, "High-Calvinists", only those (Christian's) who believe in all five points of Calvinism are actually the true "elect", all other will perish along with the unbelieving world. Therefore, to these Calvinists the blood of Jesus Christ is not sufficient for salvation, but one must also add the doctrine of John Calvin.

"Elect in the Son" is an important work in understanding who really are the true "elect" of God, from a Biblical perspective. Robert Shank's contribution in the refutation of "predestination" in "Elect in the Son" is presented in a clear and concise manner, which isn't always easy especially as it regards doctrinal issues.

For a wonderful refutation of the final widely accepted bastion of Calvinistic doctrine, "perseverance of the saints", a.k.a. "once saved always saved",
Robert Shank's "Life in the Son" is a must read.

For a great book regarding the Biblical doctrine of "free will" may I recommend,
"God's Strategy in Human History, God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility", by Roger T. Forster & V. Paul Marston.

Finally, for a comprehensive understanding and overthrow of all 5 points of the doctrine of John Calvin, I highly recommend
"The Other Side of Calvinisim", by Laurence M. Vance.

R. Natello




Rating:
Summary: This makes good sense
Review: A church I was attending was divided partly arminian and the other half calvinistic. I had a hard time understanding the issues until I read this book. Mr. Shank opened my eyes the the errors of calvinism. I'm glad I read this book, for me and my family

Rating:
Summary: Very well done, but not terribly easy to read
Review: Dr. Robert Shank's Elect In the Son is an excellent, scholarly work that closely follows Jacobus Arminius' scheme of election (election of Christ, first and foremost, then election of the church as Christ's body, and finally, election of individuals as foreseen entering the body by faith).

Dr. Shank shows that this scheme is, indeed, Biblical, when Scripture is taken in context. He largely avoids the "one sentence here, another sentence there" style of proof-texting that seems to invariably accompany defenses of Calvinism. He does the same kind of contextual quoting of Calvin and other scholars...rather than just quoting a brief sentence of two, he re-prints long passages from their work. The good news is that, by doing this, he is careful to not mis-quote anyone or take them out of context. The bad news is that the frequent and extended quotes from others break up the flow of his own writing, making Elect In The Son sort of difficult to read.

If there is one drawback of this book, I would say that that is it: the book is not nearly as "user-friendly" and easy to read as some other treatises on election that I have read. Dr. Shank seems to lack the relatability and communication skills of an R.C. Sproul...although his exegesis and conclusions are, I believe, much closer to the truth than Dr. Sproul's.

Overall, I think the basic message of this book is magnificent, but don't attempt to read it if you're not REALLY serious about election, etc. It's not easy reading.

Rating:
Summary: Very Good
Review: Elect in the Son is an excellent work on the subject of predestination and election. Predestination is actually a very simple concept that alot of people read way too much into. ... Buy Mr. Shank's excellent refutation of the Calvinistic system and learn the simple truth of the matter.

Rating:
Summary: A good attempt to refute Calvinism, but still falls short
Review: Robert Shank's book "Elect in the Son" is actually one of the better books I have read presenting an Arminian view of election. He makes a strong attempt to be biblical in his refutation of unconditional election and Calvinism as a whole, so you will not be disappointed to see that his book is full of Scripture. He also cites such Reformed scholars as John Calvin, G.C. Berkouwer, and John Murray in an attempt to present what Calvinists truly believe. These are all the strong points of his book that make it worth reading.

The downside for Shank, however, is that his consistent reference to Scripture only serves to undermine his entire thesis. His thesis that election is not unconditional but is instead corporate is assumed throughout his book, but is never really proven. He has a section of his book where he discusses the Father's election of Christ as redeemer, and how election at its root is actually "Christocentric", rather than "anthropocentric". But this is a far cry from saying that election is limited to only this. In fact, Calvinists will heartily agree with Shank on this point. God elected individuals to salvation, not for our own sakes, but for the sake of His Son, which is very Christocentric. To say that the Father elected Christ doesn't mean that the Father didn't also elect those who would be "in Him." But as I said, this thesis is more assumed than it is proven throughout the book. Shank essentially raises no new arguments against Calvinism, and the well-read Reformed reader will quickly notice that Shank's arguments are readily refuted in other works. His exegesis of Romans 9-11 was very disappointing in my opinion, as well as his handling of such texts as John 6:37-44 and others. If my memory serves me correctly, he didn't even deal with John 10:26, which I have yet to see an Arminian deal with in a sensible fashion.

With all this said, Shank's book is still a valuable contribution to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. Even though I think Shank's proposition ultimately fails, it is still one of the better defenses of Arminianism I have read.

Rating:
Summary: A good attempt to refute Calvinism, but still falls short
Review: Robert Shank's book "Elect in the Son" is actually one of the better books I have read presenting an Arminian view of election. He makes a strong attempt to be biblical in his refutation of unconditional election and Calvinism as a whole, so you will not be disappointed to see that his book is full of Scripture. He also cites such Reformed scholars as John Calvin, G.C. Berkouwer, and John Murray in an attempt to present what Calvinists truly believe. These are all the strong points of his book that make it worth reading.

The downside for Shank, however, is that his consistent reference to Scripture only serves to undermine his entire thesis. His thesis that election is not unconditional but is instead corporate is assumed throughout his book, but is never really proven. He has a section of his book where he discusses the Father's election of Christ as redeemer, and how election at its root is actually "Christocentric", rather than "anthropocentric". But this is a far cry from saying that election is limited to only this. In fact, Calvinists will heartily agree with Shank on this point. God elected individuals to salvation, not for our own sakes, but for the sake of His Son, which is very Christocentric. To say that the Father elected Christ doesn't mean that the Father didn't also elect those who would be "in Him." But as I said, this thesis is more assumed than it is proven throughout the book. Shank essentially raises no new arguments against Calvinism, and the well-read Reformed reader will quickly notice that Shank's arguments are readily refuted in other works. His exegesis of Romans 9-11 was very disappointing in my opinion, as well as his handling of such texts as John 6:37-44 and others. If my memory serves me correctly, he didn't even deal with John 10:26, which I have yet to see an Arminian deal with in a sensible fashion.

With all this said, Shank's book is still a valuable contribution to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate. Even though I think Shank's proposition ultimately fails, it is still one of the better defenses of Arminianism I have read.

Rating:
Summary: Didn't live up to expectations
Review: Robert Shank's book _Elect in the Son_ has made a name for itself as being one of the best defenses of the Arminian view of election available. Seeing it suggested by scholars as diverse as Clark Pinnock and William Lane Craig gives the impression that this book is one of the best available. But sadly this is not the case.

The strength of the book, first of all, is that it seriously attempts to be Biblical in its exposition of election. But the weaknesses are too great to ignore. Shank cites John Calvin extensively to prove his doctrine of election, but fails to interact with better defenders of Reformed doctrines, such as Jonathan Edwards. I would have liked to see Shank interact more with both ancient and contemporary scholarship. Furthermore, the central idea of Shank's work -- that election is corporate, and conditional upon faith -- is not directly supported. In particular, after showing that Christians are chosen "in Christ," Shank simply assumes that this proves that election is based on free choice. But this is to make the fallacy of false dichotomy. Many Calvinists would admit that election is a corporate concept, but they would deny that this preclude individual election. Shank simply assumes individual election is not unconditional without proof. Furthermore, the book repeated the same arguments and phrases over and over without making any real progress or development in argumentation. The (very!) brief exegesis of Romans 9 was downright disappointing, as was the lack of any serious exegetical commentary on many other Calvinistic "prooftexts." I personally couldn't believe how brief Shank's explanation of Rom. 9-11 was. However, I was pleased to see Shank point out (against many other Arminians) that saving faith is a gift from God, but no sooner had he admitted this than he explained away the "paradox" of divine sovereignty and human responsibility with very weak arguments, based more on intuitions than exegesis. And while Shank repeatedly claims that election is conditioned upon faith, he fails to produce any verse that shows this - in fact, he appeals to Hebrews 11:6 at one point, which I think must simply have been a mistake (the verse has nothing to say about "election").

To wrap up, this book failed to deal seriously with the myriad of Biblical passages that Calvinists have traditionally fired at Arminians, and also overlooks the works of many Calvinistic scholars. The argumentation was only surface level - if you want a scholarly and detailed defense of Arminianism, I am afraid you will have to look elsewhere. Compared to a book like _Still Sovereign_ (Baker Books, 1999), Shank's simply does not offer any serious opposition. For anyone interested in a collection of the Biblical texts used by both sides in the Calvinist/Arminian debate, and some arguments against those of Shank, I recommend the web site,

www.freewill.doesntexist.com

This website certainly has a position to defend, but I think the reader will find it useful for its massive collection of Biblical passages, if nothing else. It is the best website of the predestination/freewill debate that I have seen.

Rating:
Summary: A Disappointing Read
Review: Robert Shank's thesis is that election in the Bible is primarily a corporate concept. That is, God predestines no one to heaven unconditionally, but only predestines the church to be saved; whether or not one is part of the church is left to the freewill of the individual. Unfortunately, Robert Shank's work falls drastically short of Dr. William W. Adam's promise that it would prove to be "the definitive work on the difficult question of election." In fact, Shanks treatment of the doctrine of predestination suffers some tremendous flaws. The book was obnoxiously repetitive and burdened by run-on sentences. Furthermore, Shank's exegetical arguments were disappointingly weak. He seemed to see Arminian prooftexts like 1 Tim. 2:4 and Ezek. 18:23 as hermeneutical keys used unlock the meaning of every passage in the Bible that did not appear to fit with his thesis. As a result, Calvinistic arguments were swept under the rug with no real wrestling with the Biblical tension between human responsibility and divine sovereignty. Compelling Calvinistic arguments were brushed aside by simple appeals to verses that indicate that God desires all men to be saved. There was virtually no interaction with scholarly literature outside that of John Calvin, which is a major flaw of the book. Surprisingly, very little attention is devoted to Rom. 9:1-23 - this fact alone reveals a major shortcoming of Shanks work. The case for corporate election is not argued strongly from texts like Eph. 1 but is simply assumed. It is astounding that Shank's book has received as much popularity as it has. Overall, I found the book lacking in verbal clarity, even-handed exegesis, interaction with Calvinistic literature, thoroughness and philosophical persuasiveness. I don't recommend that anyone buy this book, even for the sake of learning about Arminianism. Better ones are available.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not very convincing!
Review: The introduction to Elect in the Son hails this book as a landmark literary work that will redefine the doctrines of grace and election, yet the book fails to do what it promises. I will give Dr. Shank credit because this book is one of the more coherent Arminian books available, but I do not believe it does enough to disprove the Calvinistic mode of individual election.

To Mr. Shank's credit, he does wrestle with many prominent Reformed theologians in his work including John Calvin himself and G.C Berkouwer, who is a contemporary Reformed theologian. Shank employs numerous quotations from several sources from the following authors and attempts to show the inconsistency of their beliefs. Furthermore, Shank wrestles with several of the key passages of Reformed theology, namely John 6 and Romans 9-11.

Nevertheless, Shank's exegesis and reasoning are weak and he does misrepresent Berkouwer's beliefs at times by only presenting partial quotations. Furthermore, implicit in Shank's theology is that election is corporate and not individual. Although this is a nice idea in theory, in practice this idea does not hold up to serious scriptural exegesis. Shank does not adequately illustrate that Romans 9 is not concerned with the salvation of individual men, and God's right to sovereignly choose them. Moreover, Shank makes the traditional Arminian appeals to verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 3 Peter 3:9 without even looking at the surrounding verses to establish the context within which they are written. Instead, he just takes these verses at face value and uses them to interpret problem verses such as those in Romans 9.

I will credit Dr. Shank with developing and defending an interesting idea, that being the idea of corporate election. On the surface it does appear to be a valid substitute to traditional Calvinism, and to avoid the pitfalls Shank sees in Reformed doctrine. Nevertheless, his ideas do not stand up to sound biblical exegesis and scrutiny and this book does not do enough to convince the reader that Calvinism is incorrect.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but not very convincing!
Review: The introduction to Elect in the Son hails this book as a landmark literary work that will redefine the doctrines of grace and election, yet the book fails to do what it promises. I will give Dr. Shank credit because this book is one of the more coherent Arminian books available, but I do not believe it does enough to disprove the Calvinistic mode of individual election.

To Mr. Shank's credit, he does wrestle with many prominent Reformed theologians in his work including John Calvin himself and G.C Berkouwer, who is a contemporary Reformed theologian. Shank employs numerous quotations from several sources from the following authors and attempts to show the inconsistency of their beliefs. Furthermore, Shank wrestles with several of the key passages of Reformed theology, namely John 6 and Romans 9-11.

Nevertheless, Shank's exegesis and reasoning are weak and he does misrepresent Berkouwer's beliefs at times by only presenting partial quotations. Furthermore, implicit in Shank's theology is that election is corporate and not individual. Although this is a nice idea in theory, in practice this idea does not hold up to serious scriptural exegesis. Shank does not adequately illustrate that Romans 9 is not concerned with the salvation of individual men, and God's right to sovereignly choose them. Moreover, Shank makes the traditional Arminian appeals to verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 3 Peter 3:9 without even looking at the surrounding verses to establish the context within which they are written. Instead, he just takes these verses at face value and uses them to interpret problem verses such as those in Romans 9.

I will credit Dr. Shank with developing and defending an interesting idea, that being the idea of corporate election. On the surface it does appear to be a valid substitute to traditional Calvinism, and to avoid the pitfalls Shank sees in Reformed doctrine. Nevertheless, his ideas do not stand up to sound biblical exegesis and scrutiny and this book does not do enough to convince the reader that Calvinism is incorrect.