(The following is an edited email message referring to the recently published Why I am Not a Calvinist, by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph Dongell.)

I went ahead and looked through the entire Why I am Not a Calvinist today. I didn't read every word, but did look through every page. Here are my thoughts in brief:

There is nothing exegetically or philosophically new in this book. What accounts for its popularity might include the fact that it is very readable, quite comprehensive, seemingly fair-minded, new (not in content, but it is a newly published book), and published by a major publisher (thus widely promoted). Of course, there might be other factors that I am not aware of.

It challenges, correctly in my view, some of the inconsistencies in popular Calvinistic theological formulations and positions. These include: compatibilist freedom, passive reprobation, permissive decree, apparent contradictions, and universal sincere offer. (I deny ALL of these, which is why I am unpopular with some Calvinists, but it also means that I am immune from the criticisms in this book. To clarify, I deny that man has ANY freedom relative to God; I deny that reprobation can be "passive"; I deny that a divine decree can be "permissive" instead of causative; I deny that one can affirm both sides of a contradiction even if it is just "apparent" at the moment; I deny universal sincere offer, but affirm universal sincere command. My position is most similiar to Clark, Hoeksema, and Engelsma.)

While the book challenges "inconsistent" Calvinism, it appears powerless when confronted with "consistent" Calvinsim (these terms come from the book, but I also use them with similar meanings). For example, after quoting Clark's challenge to prove how responsiblity presupposes freedom, the book rambles around a little and then just gives up (see p. 105-107). But this is a very important point! Other instances include how they remark that John Piper, R. K. McGregor Wright, etc. are more consistent, and then they just move on to say that many Calvinists are not as consistent. But then shouldn't they deal with the more consistent Calvinists instead of just moving on after mentioning this?

In summary, it appears that this book contains nothing new, but it does pose some legitimate challenges against "inconsistent" Calvinism, and in my view, inconsistent Calvinism is rampant. Although a direct refutation of this book might be useful, I believe that a positive presentation of consistent Calvinism is even more important. I have diligently addressed all of the inconsistencies that they mention in my own books. Other than my own works, I believe that if someone would read Gordon Clark's Predestination and God and Evil, they would already be all set. But someone who holds to, say, Sproul's version of Calvinism might have a difficult time.

I understand that not all Calvinists would agree with my assessment, but then they would have to deal with the criticisms in this book. For example, they will have to show how compatibilist freedom is biblical and coherent, how it is biblically and metaphysically possible for a divine decree to be really "permissive," etc. But since I don't affirm compatibilist freedom, permissive decree, etc., it follows that I could not be the person to refute this book from such an angle.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(See www.rmiweb.org)

Gordon Clark, Predestination
Gordon Clark, God and Evil
(See www.monergismbooks.com)

David Engelsma, Common Grace Revisited
David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
(See www.rfpa.org)

Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy
(See www.trinityfoundation.org)

Posted in Theology | Permanent Link