# Why I am Not a Calvinist



## johnny_redeemed (Aug 23, 2004)

There is a lady in my church is struggling with reformed theology so she is reading, "œWhy I am Not a Calvinist". I was wondering if any of you know of a good review of that book from a Calvinist perspective. I would like to give it to her, so she can see the other side.


----------



## voided user1 (Aug 23, 2004)

What about reading "Why I am Not an Arminian?" The Covenant Seminary periodical stated it's on the way.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 23, 2004)

A good book on a [i:1410233aae]very[/i:1410233aae] introductory level is R. C. Sproul's [i:1410233aae]Chosen By God[/i:1410233aae]. For a more thorough treatment, she should read Loraine Boettner's [i:1410233aae]The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination[/i:1410233aae] and [i:1410233aae]The Five Points of Calvinism[/i:1410233aae] (2nd edition has many additions) by David Steele and Curtis Thomas. If she doesn't read the latter work, have her [i:1410233aae]at least[/i:1410233aae] read an essay contained therein: J. I. Packer's introduction to Owen's [i:1410233aae]Death of Death[/i:1410233aae]. Packer's intro is the best short summary of Calvinism I have ever read.


----------



## Radar (Aug 23, 2004)

Why I am Not a Calvinist is a companion book (similar cover, everything) to Why I am Not an Arminian. I have both books, have yet to read them, but I think I got them from wtsbooks.com If she read one, she must read the other. They seemingly are meant to be a set.

Or was it amazon? I think wtsbooks.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Aug 24, 2004)

the two books go together,, but they do not talk about each other. ie. it is not a debate book--they do not interact. i am looking for something that interacts with the text of "Why I am Not a Calvinist."


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 24, 2004)

I don't think there are any, but a good debate book where two authors constantly interact with each other's positions and arguments is [i:232040546d]Debating Calvinism[/i:232040546d] by James White and Dave Hunt. Still, in addition to whatever else you recommend she read, [i:232040546d]at least[/i:232040546d] direct her to [b:232040546d]PACKER'S INTRODUCTION[/b:232040546d].


----------



## Radar (Aug 24, 2004)

You got me there. The books interact with each others positions, not each others text. Should still be of value, though, if she has that understanding going into it.

To give her things that interact with each other, you might need the tandem of "chosen but free," which she would enjoy, and "The Potters Freedom," which will crushing for her. Or try "Debating Calvinism," where she'll get to read Hunt present her side, and White the monergistic side, and then each others series of rebuttals. If she is up for the challenge, lead her to Erasmus and Luther too.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 24, 2004)

When I was still in my teens I read a book that I picked up, of all places, in the Consistory room cupboard. My parents were janitors of the church, and my sister and I decided to cleanout that messy cupboard, because we couldn't close the doors anymore. 

The book I found was supposed to be irrefutable arguments against Calvinism, point by point. It made me see, instead, just how the five points hung together, because the author could not say anything without contradicting himself somewhere later on. That's an exxageration, of course, but the contradictions that I saw were glaring, showing that what the author was so adamant about in a previous chapter did not really mean much to him in the chapter I was reading. 

What I am saying is, maybe the best rebuttal of that book is the book itself.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Aug 25, 2004)

i hope you are right JohnV


----------



## JohnV (Aug 26, 2004)

Well, I may be or I may not be. She may need some help with that. So we are back to finding a good book, aren't we?

Has the Robertson's book on Calvinism been mentioned? I can't recall the title off hand, but it is not a big book, and is a standard study book in many churches.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Aug 30, 2004)

Well, I guess that means that there is not a Calvinistic response to "Why I am Not a Calvinist." someone, maybe me, should write one.


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 8, 2004)

As far as direct critiques of "Why I am not a Calvinist," have you by chance checked monergism.com. I do not have to tell you what a cool sight it is, and I think they do a really good job of reviewing books and articles and such.


----------



## Puritanhead (Dec 20, 2004)

C.H. Spurgeon teaches people struggling with that how to pray like an Arminian in his sermon, Free Will: A Slave... of course, he is tongue in cheek, because no one will dare utter such a blasphemous prayer.

Spurgeon notes,
He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not"”that is the difference between me and them." That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that.

[Edited on 1-9-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 20, 2004)

What about the books "The Other Side of Armianism/Calvinism"? Do they interact?


----------



## jfschultz (Dec 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> Well, I guess that means that there is not a Calvinistic response to "Why I am Not a Calvinist." someone, maybe me, should write one.



A friend gave me a paper, taken from an old web site, along these lines.

A RUF minister at the local university had gotten and transcribed a tape of a talk "Why I Am Not a Calvinist" by a very well known (well enough that several PBers mentioned him by name in PB posts) local Baptist minister to college students. He inserted rebuttal comments through out the text of the Baptist's talk. 

This RUF minister had posted it on his web site and took some heat for this. He has since moved to another RUF posting and the paper is no longer on the web.

I am taking the paper in small doses. My blood pressure can only take so much of the Baptist's mis-representations of Reformed Theology.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 21, 2004)

http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3248

This book is supposed to be good.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> Well, I guess that means that there is not a Calvinistic response to "Why I am Not a Calvinist." someone, maybe me, should write one.



While Matt has already assigned me the responsibility in writing a review of "A Reformed Baptists Manifesto" by S. Waldren, Which I have finished reading, I picked this book up today and am putting together a review on it also.


----------



## Radar (Jan 7, 2005)

There is a debate available on ebay featuring the two authors of "Why I Am Not a Calvinist" (Walls and Dongell) versus Schreiner and Ware. I haven't purchased it yet, but I am sure the debate features Walls and Dongell precisely because of their book. Thus, this may be the interaction folks may be looking for.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=617&item=6312589713&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V


Peace


----------



## Charismatic Calvinist (Jan 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> A good book on a [i:1410233aae]very[/i:1410233aae] introductory level is R. C. Sproul's [i:1410233aae]Chosen By God[/i:1410233aae]. For a more thorough treatment, she should read Loraine Boettner's [i:1410233aae]The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination[/i:1410233aae] and [i:1410233aae]The Five Points of Calvinism[/i:1410233aae] (2nd edition has many additions) by David Steele and Curtis Thomas. If she doesn't read the latter work, have her [i:1410233aae]at least[/i:1410233aae] read an essay contained therein: J. I. Packer's introduction to Owen's [i:1410233aae]Death of Death[/i:1410233aae]. Packer's intro is the best short summary of Calvinism I have ever read.


----------



## Charismatic Calvinist (Jan 7, 2005)

Whoops! Let me have another stab at my post...



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_J. I. Packer's introduction to Owen's [i:1410233aae]Death of Death[/i:1410233aae]. Packer's intro is the best short summary of Calvinism I have ever read.



Chris,



It most certainly is the "bomb-diggity."


----------



## Radar (Feb 17, 2005)

Try this site for a review of the book:

Part one of a direct reply to the book:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_triablogue_archive.html#109369917607661745

Part two:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_triablogue_archive.html#109369931432295789

Finally, the blog entry for Feb 10, 2005 (Walls on Walls) has a follow-up to the book review.

Enjoy.

Peace


----------



## jatkins_1 (Mar 23, 2005)

<i>Grace Unknown</i> By R.C. Sproul Is a great book as well.


----------



## Robin (Mar 24, 2005)

Here's something different to do....don't use any books about Calvin and/or the so called "Calvin vs. Arminian" approach....

Instead, get a Heidelberg catechism....have her go through that. (Scripture references preferred.) It will avoid the sensely bickering and the inappropriate emphasis upon Calvin and get right to what Scripture says about the doctrines the Reformed hold dear.

Since I've adopted this (avoiding even the word "Calvinism") distractions and misunderstandings are avoided and the core of doctrinal truth is understood sooner.



Robin

[Edited on 3-24-2005 by Robin]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Radar_
> There is a debate available on ebay featuring the two authors of "Why I Am Not a Calvinist" (Walls and Dongell) versus Schreiner and Ware. I haven't purchased it yet, but I am sure the debate features Walls and Dongell precisely because of their book. Thus, this may be the interaction folks may be looking for.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=617&item=6312589713&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V
> ...



I have watched the video. It is not bad. But it's not superb either. I think Schreiner and Ware could have done better at defending the Doctrines of Grace. It was certainly sad that the two of them disagree on the limited atonement. One of them is a 5-pointer (Schreiner), while the other one is a 4-pointer (Ware). This "division within the camp" did not help the Calvinist argument on the video.

Also, the video came out about a year before the "Why I am Not a Calvinist" book. In fact, Walls and Dongell quote from the video in their book. So, no, the debate was not setup to promote the book.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> Well, I guess that means that there is not a Calvinistic response to "Why I am Not a Calvinist." someone, maybe me, should write one.




I have read the book. And I am not a scholar by a long shot. But it just so happens that I have already reviewed a *few* of the topics in the book, and emailed my thoughts to a cousin of mine. For what they are worth, I will post my thoughts about the book here:




Early in the book, the authors create this analogy for Calvinism:



> _paraphrase from "Why I am Not a Calvinist"_
> Imagine that 100 children go to a summer youth camp. But the first week at camp, they catch a fatal virus that is sure to kill them within a few weeks, unless they take the antidote. The antidote is made out of mashed yucca plant, mixed with vinegar. It tastes so horrible that none of the kids will eat any of it, no matter how much they are encouraged to do so. However, there is a special serum that can be injected into the kids, which will make them love the taste of the mashed yucca. If the kids eat the yucca three times a day for three weeks, they will be permanently cured of the disease. A telegram is sent to all the parents to let them know what is going on. They are very upset and sad that their children have caught such a horrible disease, but they are relieved that there is a sure-fire antidote. So they wait three weeks before coming to pick their kids up. However, when they finally arrive, they are shocked to find that 75% of their children are dead. They ask the camp leader what happened. He tells the parents that he brought all the kids to the lunchroom three times a day, and very strongly encouraged them to eat the mashed yucca. He tells the parents that he loved their children, but that most of the kids just refused to eat the antidote, no matter how much they were urged to do so. But then the parents find out that the special serum was not given to 75% of the children. They are furious, because if this serum had been given to all the children, then all of them would have eaten the mashed yucca, and all of the children would have lived.



In this analogy, the camp leader is God, the kids are the inhabitants of the world, the deadly virus is sin, the mashed yucca antidote is salvation in Christ, the special serum is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, surviving is going to Heaven, and dying is going to Hell.

Then the book's authors make the following statement:



> _quote from "Why I am Not a Calvinist"_
> "If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear the announcement of universal love as good news. Indeed, it is hard to hear it as love at all. . . . What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk?" (p. 55)



But there are at least two fundamental problems with the above analogy:

1) In the analogy, it is assumed that the kids are innocent. But in the real world, we are born guilty. If the Biblical doctrine of original sin is true, then we are all born sinners, worthy of judgment from day one. So, instead of being about 100 kids, the analogy would be more accurate if it was made up of 100 serial murderers and rapists. The picture of 100 innocent children coming down with a fatal virus certainly pulls at our heart strings, but it is not a good analogy for the sinful human beings on this planet.

2) In the analogy, the camp leader (God) doesn't do *everything* he can to save the children. He could have saved them by giving them the special serum (regeneration by the Holy Spirit), but he didn't. And if only Calvinists had to deal with this piece of logic, then Arminians might have a point. But Arminians have to deal with this issue just as much as the Calvinists do! The Bible is very clear that God has perfect knowledge of the future. And the Bible teaches that God has perfect contingent knowledge. In other words, He knows all the "what ifs" exhaustively. Furthermore, God has perfect power (omnipotence). Therefore, if God truly wanted to save *everyone* from Hell, then Hell would be empty. How? Simply by not creating the unrepentant in the first place! Let me illustrate: Suppose that a married couple is about to conceive a child. Before conception occurs, there are literally trillions of different potential babies that could come from that union. The result is not determined (from a human perspective) until one of the countless sperm finally join the egg. Well, God knows the future perfectly, as well as all of the "what ifs". God can look at all of the trillions of possible babies that will possibly come to exist as a result of that act of conception. And God knows for sure which of those babies would eventually trust in Christ for salvation, and which of those babies would never trust in Christ for salvation. Thus, all God has to do is control which sperm gets together with the egg. Thus, the only children that would ever come to exist would eventually become Christians, and 100% of all people would go to Heaven. If God knows for sure that a person will never trust in Christ, and will certainly go to Hell, then the most *loving* thing He can possibly do for that person is to make sure that the person never exists in the first place. But we know that people *do* go to Hell. Therefore, God must *want* some people to go to Hell for some reason. God does not love everybody equally. And the Arminian has to deal with this fact just as much as the Calvinist.

And even after people are born, God does not do *everything* He can to save them from Hell. Check out these two passages for example:

Mark 4:
[10] And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. 
[11] And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; 
[12] so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." 

Matthew 11:
[21] "Woe to you, Chora'zin! woe to you, Beth-sa'ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 
[22] But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 
[23] And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 
[24] But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you." 
[25] At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; 
[26] yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. 
[27] All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 

The book's authors said, "If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear the announcement of universal love as good news. Indeed, it is hard to hear it as love at all. . . . What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk?" (p. 55) --- But does the Arminian God "employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss" ? Obviously he does not. God could lovingly make sure that unrepentant people are never born to begin with. That would be more loving, because nonexistence is much better than eternal existence in Hell. And furthermore, the Bible is clear that even after birth, God does not "employ all available means" to save people. People in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if God had dealt with them differently. Also, God's walk *does* match His talk. He talks about love a lot. But He also talks about hatred of sin a lot. So by having mercy on some, and judging others, He is able to demonstrate *both* His justice *and* His mercy.






On pages 68-70, the authors make the following analogies:



> _quote from "Why I am Not a Calvinist"_
> "The contemporary Arminian addresses the sinner as a convicted criinal standing at the gate of the penitentiary. Standing under a legal obligation to enter into eternal imprisonment, the prisoner will be escorted into inescapable confinement and punishment upon death. There at the iron gate, an evangelist offers release from the coming horror and urges the convict to accept the gift of total pardon.
> In contrast, Calvinists and classical Arminians see the sinner as allready imprisoned in the deepest corner of a terrorist camp. Bound, gagged, blindfolded and drugged, the prisoner is weak and delusional. Calvinists and classical Arminians know that the preacher at the gate cannot reach the prisoner through the layers of confinement and sensory distortion. The prisoner can't even begin to plead for help or plan an escape. In fact, the prisoner feels at home in the dank squalor of the cell; she has come to identify with her captors and will try to fight off any attempted rescue. Only a divine invasion will succeed.
> The Calvinist view of divine invasion is simple. God invades the camp, carries the prisoner out, strips the prisoner of her shackles and blinders, and injects "faith" into the prisoner's veins. The former prisoner, having already been rescued from prison and positioned outside its walls, now trusts the Deliverer because of the potency of the administered faith serum. God has been the lone actor throughout, in the sense that the human response of faith is directly and irresistably caused by God. Whether this saving action of God takes place over a longer or shorter period of time, faith is the inevitable result of divine illumination.
> ...



First of all, I want to say that I *love* the above illustration! I agree with the authors that the above analogies fits both Calvinism and Arminianism pretty well.

Second, I want to reveal 4 reasons why I think the Calvinism analogy is so much better than the Arminianism analogy:

1) The God of Calvinism offers much deeper love that the God of Arminianism.
Imagine that your daughter or son is locked up in just such a prison camp. Who would you rather go after them, the God of Calvinism, or the God of Arminianism? I would much rather have the God of Calvinism! If my kid was locked up in a concentration camp, I would want someone to go in and actually *save* them. I don't want someone just to go have a conversation with them and ask them whether they want out or not. Whether my daughter initially want out or not, I want her to be *saved*!!! She will be thankful afterwards! (Do you imagine that people are in Hell right now saying, "I surely am glad that God didn't choose to save me no-matter-what . . . I am *so* glad that He let me have my free will so I could end up here in Hell for all eternity." ?)


2) Regardless of what they claim, Arminians *do* make a moral distinction between those who have faith and those who do not. And the above exerpt from the book demonstrates this fact very well. Of course the authors never explicitly say that people get saved by faith because of their moral superiority. However, the authors do explicitly say the reverse regarding the faithless. They say, 
"Sin shows its boldest colors when it . . . freely chooses to go its own way in the face of divine love and full provision."
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT QUOTE! The authors are openly admitting their belief that "sin shows its boldest colors" whenever lack of faith is demonstrated. In other words, those *with* faith are morally superior! Those with faith may still be rotten sinners, but at least they are not as rotten as the other guys. They may have sin, but at least their sin doesn't show its "boldest colors" by adding the sin of unbelief to the mix. 
Logic requires consistency. And consistency requires the following: If group B is *worse* than group A, then group A *must* be better than group B! That is just simple math. 
Arminians are happy to talk about the supreme wickedness of those who reject Christ. But by doing that, they are saying that those of us with faith have successfully *avoided* supreme wickedness. In other words, they are saying that we are better than the other guys! "Because our sin isn't as bad, we go to Heaven, and the other guys go to Hell." "We all deserve Hell, but the other guy deserves it more than I do." These statements are exactly what Arminians imply when they point out the wickedness of unbelievers. If unbelievers are guilty of a horrible sin by being unbelieving, then Christians have at least succeeded in avoiding that sin. And if we have succeeded in avoiding that sin, then we are better than the other guys. We get to Heaven because we are a little less sinful, a little more righteous. We get to Heaven because of works, not Christ. After all, Christ did the *same* thing for *everybody*, even those in Hell. The only difference is what *we* added to the mix. If we didn't add our faith, then we get condemned for supreme wickedness. If we do add our faith, then we get to go to Heaven. According to the Arminian, we are the ones who make all the difference. So we can thank God for making our salvation possible, but we cannot thank God for actually saving us. 
Arminians call unbelief a supreme wickedness But calling the other guy "worse" is just a left-handed way of boasting and saying that I am "better". So the Arminian suggestion is impossible, because the Bible specifically excludes boasting (cf. Eph. 2:8-9). 
I do agree that unbelief is supreme wickedness. But the only reason I *cannot* boast is because even my faith is a *gift* from God. I am so thankful that He injected me with that "faith serum" they talked about in the above analogy! I know I certainly didn't deserve it, because I am *not* any better than other sinners! Praise the Lord for the love He has graciously given me!


3)	I am appalled that the authors dared to make the following statement regarding unbelief: "The tragedy of such rejection is the risk God took in making possible shared love between creature and Creator." 
That is not just nonsense; it's blasphemy! The only possible way to take a "risk" is to not know the outcome of what you are doing. God is omniscient. God knows *everything* about the past, present, and future, including contingent knowledge. There is *nothing* outside His knowledge. So how can God possibly take a "risk" ? 
And sure enough, I am not just "reading too much" into the words of the authors. At least one of the two authors has openly admitted his belief that God does *not* perfectly know the future! For proof, check out the footnote on page 45 of this book. The authors admit that they "do not completely agree" with one another on the "question" of God's knowledge of the future. Worse yet, check out pages 121-152. In this section of the book, the authors discuss 3 different views about God's knowledge of the future. The first two are the "Calvinist" and the "Molinist" views. And they make it clear in their book that they agree with neither view. The *only* other view mentioned in this section is the "Openness" view, which touts "Open Theism". This is the view that says God can't know what people will choose in the future. And by rejecting the first two views, the authors tacitly agree that "Open Theism" is actually correct! In other words, to agree with this book, you have to conclude that God doesn't perfectly know the future. So much for the omniscience of the Creator!


4) In the analogies about the prisoner locked up in the concentration camp, the authors fail to remind us that God's love could have kept the woman from becoming a prisoner in the first place! (Of course, since they believe God doesn't really know the future, and has to take "risks", it is not surprising that they left this out.) Consider their Arminian version of God. And consider that He knows ahead of time that the prisoner would *not* accept His offer of salvation, no matter what. Well, if God *really* loves her, then why didn't God just mercifully choose to *not* create her in the first place? If God does love everybody equally, and if God really does know the future perfectly, then there should be *nobody* in Hell. The very *existence* of Hell proves that God does *not* love everybody equally. God knew ahead of time what would happen to unbelievers, and yet He decided to create them anyway. He knew that the cross would do them no good, but He decided to create them anyway. It doesn't sound to me like the God of Arminianism loves everybody!
An Arminian may object and say, "but the unbelievers are so bad that they *deserve* Hell!" I agree! But I deserve hell, too! There is nothing about me that *deserves* Hell any less than the other guy. Then the Arminian might say, "but God wants to send those unbelievers to Hell, because it will demonstrate His justice and His glory, so that is why He creates them." I agree with that also! And that is what the Bible calls "election". 
At the moment God creates a person, He knows for sure how He is creating that person. He chooses the DNA that person has. He chooses which parents that person will have. He chooses which part of the world that person will grow up in. He chooses whether that person will be in a part of the world where the Gospel is preached or not. And given all of these circumstances, God knows for sure whether he is creating a future believer, or an eternal unbeliever. God knows that Christ's sacrifice will *certainly* save the one, and that it will certainly *not* save the other. At the moment God brings a person into the world, He is consciously bringing either a child of Heaven into the world, or a child of Hell. And God is not forced to create those who will certainly end up in Hell. God does it on purpose, so that His justice will be shown, and His glory revealed. God takes no "risks".



I hope this spotty review is at least a _little_ bit helpful.

In Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 4-11-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------

