Why I Am Not an Arminian

Reviews (See all 10) Write a reviewfor this

• 
  

  Perhaps the greatest objections I seem to encounter from those who have yet to embrace the wonders of the doctrines of grace concern unconditional election & its inseparable partner, irresistible grace. I can usually get them to agree to total depravity, at least in part. Interestingly to me, a lot of them embrace perseverance of the saints, which blows my mind. I don’t see how one can embrace perseverance without embracing all of Calvinism, but at least it’s not a point we have to arg... (show more)

  Perhaps the greatest objections I seem to encounter from those who have yet to embrace the wonders of the doctrines of grace concern unconditional election & its inseparable partner, irresistible grace. I can usually get them to agree to total depravity, at least in part. Interestingly to me, a lot of them embrace perseverance of the saints, which blows my mind. I don’t see how one can embrace perseverance without embracing all of Calvinism, but at least it’s not a point we have to argue over. They don’t like limited atonement either, but I can usually reason with them that it’s not a matter of God’s work being sufficient for all, but of it being effective for all. But we get to unconditional election & irresistible grace & the first thing you here is that God would never force Himself on anyone!

  The authors of “Why I Am Not an Arminian,” Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, do an excellent job of giving a historical, scriptural & logical analysis of what is commonly referred today as “Calvinism.” While they humbly admit to a few problems Calvinists have to work through, it is easy to tell that they sincerely believe what they advocate in their book. While not completely unapproachable, the book is not an easy read either. Much like coming to embrace the tenets of Calvinism, for me the read took time & sometimes hurt my head. But for anyone looking to know further why they believe & what they believe, & for those who wish to “sharpen their saw” I recommend the book highly.

  The authors started off very early stating that they weren’t completely comfortable with the assignment to write “why they were not Arminian” rather than “why they were Calvinistic,” but while keeping a generally positive tone to the book, I believe they were also faithful to their task. While admitting that Calvinists have a generally well-deserved reputation for being pugnacious & coming on a little strong (present company definitely included) they apparently wanted to give a loving presentation for those struggling with Calvinistic thought. That being said, they came up with some really good zingers that I simply loved too.

  Probably my favorite zinger was the genuine question of why some people come to saving faith while others do not. Typically an Arminian believer will claim that God gives His grace to all for individuals to receive or reject as they so desire. If that is the case, what is the difference that causes some to accept the gift & others to reject it? What do those who receive possess that makes them want to receive, or conversely what do those who reject possess that makes them want to reject? Quoting Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.’s study of reformed creeds & confessions, "A Place to Stand", this analysis is given; some believe, “not because they are wiser or more intelligent than those who reject. Not because they are able to see further or think straighter. Not in any way because they are humbler, abler, or cleaner. Not at all. Rather, they are people who have been dragged, perhaps in spite of themselves, out of the darkness and into the light. . . . For their everlasting salvation they are indebted ‘solely to the grace of God’ ([Canons of Dort] II.7).” That was sobering to me. I didn’t receive God’s gracious gift because I’m smarter or that I have a longer term perspective. I didn’t receive His gift because I’m humbler, abler or cleaner. If anything, God’s grace endows me with those gifts, but I didn’t previously possess them in greater quantity or quality than the one who rejects. If it wasn’t because any of these reasons, why did I receive God’s gift? The answer is because I was dragged by God into receiving His gift.

  The authors also make the observation that what they refer to as libertarian free will (the ability to choose whatever one wants without outside interference) has become an anthropological idol for man. As Adam did in Genesis 3, we continue to want to be like God. The way we are ultimately like God is in choosing our own destiny. But is this inordinate desire to have libertarian free will biblical? If so, where does the Bible preach this apparently oh so important & over-riding doctrine? At best it appears to be an idea that is arrived at by inference. And while I certainly do not discount important ideas derived through inference, I certainly don’t want to give inferred ideas greater weight than teachings that are clear. While libertarian free will may be inferred from Scripture, Calvinistic teachings practically ooze from every book of the Bible. Isn’t the first law of biblical hermaneutics the principle that the Bible interprets itself; that the unclear is interpreted by the clear? The authors point out that if libertarian free will is so important to God, wouldn’t it be present in the perfect consummated Kingdom? However, when one reads Revelation 21:1-4, it is apparent that in the consummated kingdom there is no sin. Wouldn’t sin be a very real part of any situation where libertarian free-will is possible?

  I my debates with Arminians, they usually explain away God’s election (& the resulting irresistible grace) as God looking down the corridor of time seeing who will accept His gracious offer of life. I personally think this makes God look like a scared school boy who has to send his friends to ask a certain girl whether she likes him before he will ask her to go to the prom with him. But it also just doesn’t make sense. True, God resides outside the constraints of time. He was, is, & is to be. However, we do reside inside the confines of time and the authors point out this shortcoming in Arminian logic. Quoting Carl Bangs, they state, “[t]o speak of future things that shall be is either a contradiction in terms or a statement of a divine predestination of those things, which would be another kind of kind of contradiction in terms.” The authors then proceed to restate the objection saying “if God knows in the past how I will respond to the gospel, is it not unavoidable that my response to the gospel is determined by that knowledge? What God knows will happen, must happen.” Realizing this handicap, unfortunately many honest & otherwise clear-thinking Arminians have reached the logical conclusion that for man to be truly free (as they define being free) God cannot then know the future. Isn’t the logical result of this line of reasoning that insists on man’s perfect libertarian freedom a god who is not truly God, at least the God of the Bible?

  The authors give answers to these problems advocating what they refer to as a compatiblist theory of free choice. Where the Arminian insists on an either/or analysis that results in the slavery of man’s will or a God stripped of His sovereignty, the compatibilist realizes that both God’s sovereignty & man’s free will can coexist. Scripture is full of examples of this. In Isaiah the Assyrian king served as God’s tool in conquering his rebellious people. However, Scripture is also clear that the king did what he did for his own motives. The crucifixion story of Jesus is pregnant with similar examples, whether one wishes to look at the actions of Judas or Herod or Pilot. The very crucifixion of Jesus displays the same thing in reverse where Jesus freely decides to carry out the plan conceived of by the Father. One can see this in the deepest held biblical doctrines too. For example, “[t]”he evangelical doctrine of verbal inspiration holds that the Bible is fully the product of human authors while at the very same time it is also the authoritative Word of God.

  This book has a lot more in it & I could go on forever. I recommend this book very highly. (show less)

   

   

  by Derick Harper on Feb 27, 2009 at 01:36AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• 

  The book is well-written and well-thought-out. The authors very plainly base their arguments on an exegesis of applicable Scripture. I think they take on the Arminian position in a very honest and intelligent, even gracious, way. If I were asked to identify a weakness in the book, I would say it is the chapter that deals with particular redemption. I don't think they went deep enough in their treatment of the doctrine: more Scripture could have been presented.

  I would recommend this boo... (show more)

  The book is well-written and well-thought-out. The authors very plainly base their arguments on an exegesis of applicable Scripture. I think they take on the Arminian position in a very honest and intelligent, even gracious, way. If I were asked to identify a weakness in the book, I would say it is the chapter that deals with particular redemption. I don't think they went deep enough in their treatment of the doctrine: more Scripture could have been presented.

  I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in an introduction to Calvinistic doctrine. (show less)

   

   

  by Kent Sweatman on Mar 31, 2009 at 11:32AM

  Already read

  Is this review helpful? yes no
   
• See all reviews
  Write a review