- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post"Buy My Book and Win" Winners
- Next Post »A La Carte (11/28)
Book Review - Election and Free Will
- 11/27/07
- 14
Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility is what I believe to be the first volume in a series called “Explorations in Biblical Theology” (at least I could find no mention of previously published volumes). This book is written by Robert A. Peterson who is also serving as the Series Editor. The series is to include two types of books: some will treat biblical themes while others will deal with the theology of specific books of the Bible. Written for college seniors, seminarians, pastors and thoughtful lay readers, the volumes are intended to be accessible and unobscured by excessive reference to the original languages or to theological jargon. “Explorations in Biblical Theology is committed to being warm and winsome, with a focus on applying God’s truth to life.”
Peterson begins Election and Free Will with a defense of its existence. He outlines three reasons that we need a new book dealing with biblical teaching on election and the related topic of free will:
1.The need for graciousness in the debate about election. The debate about election has been marked, even recently, by a lack of grace. With a topic that stirs such strong emotions, Peterson sought to write a defense of the Reformed understanding of election that dealt fairly and graciously with its critics. 2. The tremendous scriptural witness to election. Election is a topic that receives a lot of attention within the pages of Scripture. If this is a topic God emphasizes in the Bible, it is a topic we should also emphasize. 3. The insecurity of contemporary life. In an age of insecurity, where we are prone to worry, we should renew our interest in the doctrine of election. “Within the Bible its function is largely to comfort the people of God and assure them that underneath all their meager efforts to live for him are God’s everlasting arms to hold, protect, and caress them.”
Peterson takes what is, in my view, a unique route to a defense of the Reformed view of election and free will. He first surveys the key ideas on the subject through the history of the church, moving from the church fathers all the way to the contemporary church and pausing on many key figures such as Augustine, Pelagius, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Arminius, Schleirmacher and Barth. He next moves through Scripture, dedicating a chapter to election as seen in each of the Old Testament; the Gospels and Acts; the General Epistles and Revelation; and then Paul’s Epistles. The Pauline Epistles actually claim two chapters, with the second being an in-depth study of three key passages: Ephesians 1:4-5,11; Romans 8:29-30; and Romans 9:6-24.
Having surveyed election throughout the Bible and having shown that election is present from cover to cover, he turns to three final topics. First he explores free will, pointing out that to understand free will we must understand where biblical characters are located in the biblical story. After all, human free will has changed as the biblical drama has unfolded. The freedom Adam and Eve enjoyed is different than the freedom we experience today; the freedom we experience today is different than what we will experience in eternity. In what I feel is the book’s strongest chapter, Peterson distinguishes between “freedom of choice” and “true freedom” and provides a biblical and thought-provoking defense of the Reformed understanding of free will. There is a false idea in the church, he says, that “the epitome of true freedom is the ability to choose between righteousness and sin. It is not. True freedom is the ability to love and serve God unhindered by sin.” True freedom of the will waits for us when the Lord returns.
Peterson pauses to provide the Bible’s story of election in a chapter I would suggest is an optional read and then moves finally to “Objections to and Applications of Election.” In this chapter he handles objections and application at the same time, showing how common objections to this doctrine provide opportunity to apply it. After all, it is not enough to simply know that this doctrine exists and to know what it means. We must also live in light of it, and the author provides encouragement to do just that.
If Election and Free Will is indicative of the quality we can expect in the “Explorations in Biblical Theology” series, I look forward to reading the forthcoming volumes. This book fulfilled the goals set for it. Winsome and accessible, based on the Bible and consistent with Reformed theology, it will make for good reading for anyone who has struggled with these doctrines or who wishes to understand them better. I am glad to recommend it.
It is available from all of your favorite retailers:
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (14)
I will be forever indebted to my Western Civ professor in college who taught us what true Christian understanding of liberty is: The freedom to do what is right, good and true. I think those of us in the Reformed tradition need to do a better job of explaining the difference between freedom of choice and freedom of will. I am also interested in that he brings in the Old Testament. I find that I often overlook what God says about the matter in the Law and the Prophets. While jumping directly to the Pauline Epistles is far from being a wrong move, we only present a partial case for the doctrine of election when we forget God's dealings with men before Christ.
It sounds like an interesting book. I'm glad the design is to approach the subject graciously. I have learned to be much more discerning with whom I take the weighty matter up with. I suppose it's a sign that I've progressed beyond "New Convert Fervor." :-)
I may eventually read the book but I am always a bit turned off by any author who begins his writing with a statement like "The debate has been marked by a lack of grace."
Is he suggesting that everyone else who approaches this subject lacks the grace that HE is about to provide us? It's an arrogant statement attempting to cloak itself with humility. Should we begin all of our discussions with an apology that the truth we are about to proclaim can be found in the Bible?
I guess my observations will be viewed as a lack of grace.
Is he suggesting that everyone else who approaches this subject lacks the grace that HE is about to provide us? It’s an arrogant statement attempting to cloak itself with humility.
I don't think so. I think he's simply saying that the discussion has often been marked by a lack of grace and that he is attempting to correct that by adopting a more graceful tone. In this way I don't think it smacks of arrogance at all. I think what you've done is jumped to a conclusion and an unfair one at that.
Sounds like a good book. Thanks for the review.
The thing I've learned is that my non-reformed friends have a heart that is after God's own heart, and even more so than me in some of my friends.
From this foundation we debate how God predetermines the things of this age. We have discussed Open Theism. We have discussed double-predestination. And it can become rather heated.
When the heat rises, then it's time to pray, and kneel before the Cross. If both parties will do this, then both will learn. They may never agree, but I believe God will helps us grow in His grace and knowledge if we will do this when we lock horns on the doctrine of Electio/Free Will.
Hopefully this book would help. I suppose it's written for us in the Reformed camp, and not so much for the Non-Reformed. Would that be your thinking Tim? Would it be a good Christmas gift for those who are not Calvinists? Just wondering.
Hopefully this book would help. I suppose it’s written for us in the Reformed camp, and not so much for the Non-Reformed. Would that be your thinking Tim? Would it be a good Christmas gift for those who are not Calvinists?
I think it would be fine for either. It's going to challenge people who are already Reformed and hopefully help them to know more about what they believe and why...but it will also challenge those who are not Reformed with the biblical view of election and free will.
I appreciate your book review, even though I completely disagree. I enjoy reading your book review that come across very neutral and humble, even though I am aware you are a reformer. I can only wish I had that heart and patience dealing with the "other side." Thanks Tim.
So, jz--any interest in reading what Peterson has to say? How he defends his positions from Scripture?
I have the book; it's in my (growing) pile of books to be read so I can't comment knowledgably on it yet. But I know other works of his. I taught an adult class based on his published discussion of hell--he is indeed an irenic writer who interacts well with opposing viewpoints. Friends who know him personally tell me he is a fine fellow in real life.
"I guess my observations will be viewed as a lack of grace."-Tim
In a word...yes. Perhaps it is a lack of grace to read a lack of grace into your statement about the apparent lack of grace in the author's comment (howzat?!). However, your comment gave me an unfortunate flashback to my pre-Reformed days when my honest inquiries into the arguments for election were met with derision- no matter what I asked and how I asked it. I truly could not grasp the concept of monergism but wanted to know the truth. However, no matter how sincerely I would ask a question I was always accused of questioning the sovereignty of God and maligning His name. Eventually I told my Reformed friends that I wanted nothing more to do with the matter because I was tired of being beaten up. After the Spirit opened my eyes by way of a simple reading through the book of Romans I, too, wanted to share the "good news" I had discovered. But I pledged myself to sharing it with patience and love. As a result, when I later attended seminary, many fellow students would come to me asking about the doctrines of grace saying that I was the only one they would discuss these doctrines with because all the other Calvinists beat them up. Tim, your comment smacks of the same combative tone I and others were victims of. Contrary to your interpretation of the author's comment, to say that we need to approach the subject with grace is not to be apologetic for anything- it is simply to show the fruits of the Spirit in our language and attitudes as we seek to build up our brothers and sisters in the knowledge of the truth.
To Tim and Doug,
I wasn't trying to offend or to have a Dialogue, I meant to be Controversial. Isn't this what was presented to us yesterday under Apostasy and Heresy? Here is the quote:
Dialogue carries with it implicitly this assumption, that you will be prepared to modify and change your position, in the light of the debate, if it so requires you. But controversy, in which all the Reformers engaged, is quite a different thing. You start from what you know and believe to be the truth, and your object is to expose the error and confusion of the opponent’s position and, if possible, persuade him of the truth. (Emphasis mine).
I wasn't discussing Election or any facet of the Reformed faith. Had I been I wouldn't have been as blunt or offensive. I do take offense to individuals, such as Peterson, who want to "Dialogue" and then accuse those who engage in "Controversy" as demonstrating a lack of grace.
If the doctrine of Election can be found from "cover to cover" as Peterson's survey suggests, and I believe it can, then it is a doctrine that deserves controversy, as described in the previous article, and not simply dialogue.
The recent debate over Election or any of the Doctrine's of Grace may indeed be lacking in grace but I felt that his mentioning it was like rubbing salt in an open wound and lacked grace itself. That one sentence added nothing to the content of his book nor did it reinforce the points he was making.
I am eager to purchase this book and read it. Personally, I love the doctrines of grace and am in agreement with Peterson's views.
But I'm glad he makes a genuine effort toward handling the issues with grace, because even though I share the Reformed perspective, I have a strong dislike for the condescending attitudes that all too often accompany it.
I thought this thread could use the input of another Tim, so here I am. I'll refer to Tim Challies as "Tim Challies", and the other commenter Tim as "Tim".
So, Tim. First, I want to point out that Peterson didn't write the sentence you quoted ("The debate about election has been marked, even recently, by a lack of grace."), Tim Challies did. Challies was summarizing or paraphrasing. If we want to know exactly how Peterson introduced & discussed that issue, we'll need direct quotation. So, even if you think the way Challies worded it was ungracious, you might not be as displeased with Peterson.
Of course, if you have a problem with anyone raising the issue of lack of grace in debate about election, period, this would be a distinction without a difference.
I agree that the distinction between Dialogue and Controversy is useful. Controversy can be done graciously, but some people are likely to be oversensitive and consider it ungracious. So maybe the debate about election has sometimes gotten an unfair bad rep, grace-wise. Maybe it's not as bad a problem as some people think. And maybe the charitable thing for oversensitive people to do would be to develop some thicker skin. Maybe they need to stop assuming that people with a more blunt approach are being ungracious. (Though some blunt people are ungracious.)
And in this case, it seems to me that you need some of that thicker skin, yourself. He might point out a lack of grace in the debate from arrogant "humility", as you suggest. Or he might bring it up because a lot of people are burned out due to bad experiences with people who were unnecessarily harsh--because he wants to encourage them to return to the issue, and he wants to encourage all parties to renew a commitment to conducting themselves with grace.
If it's the latter, I'm glad. I've witnessed people arguing about Calvinism with such an utter hostility that it shuts down all discussion, whether Dialogue or Controversy. (Though in my own experience, it's non-Calvinists who were acting that way.)
Discussing that problem is not arrogant. Again, it might be done arrogantly, but it's not inherently arrogant or ungracious.
Tim M.,
Thanks for the clarification. I thought Tim C. was giving a direct quote from the book regarding the three reasons that we needed another book about election. After re-reading that paragraph I concur that Tim C. was summarizing and paraphrasing the three points.
I have a difficult time "Agreeing to Disagree". To me it's like saying the issue can't be resolved, we'll never know the whole truth of the matter, therefore, it doesn't make any difference one way or another. If these Truths can't be attained for certain and we can't come to solid conclusions about what the Bible is teaching, soteriologically, then I have better things to do than to waste my time pursuing them. However, I believe that the Doctrines of Grace represent the outline of Redemption and not just Election but Unconditional Election.
I just don't understand why any mention of Election needs to be prefaced by a call to graciousness. Just mentioning this stokes the fires of resistance. Immediately the dissenters come out to claim how they've been beaten up and abused by mean-spirited Calvinists! And, I agree with you on this: the only people I've ever witnessed being ungracious, rude and mean-spirited are the non-Calvinists.
I am set for the Defense and Confirmation of the Gospel even if some think my persistence and certainty are ungracious.
": the only people I’ve ever witnessed being ungracious, rude and mean-spirited are the non-Calvinists"
I have seen some in the Calvin-camp who were quite the same, and I'm a "flaming" Calvinist, as some of my Arminian friends call me.
We Calvinist are just as arrogant and proud at times, no more no less. That's how I see it. For what that's worth.
Tim,
On "Agreeing to disagree". Hmm. You make some good points, but I don't think it means "we’ll never know the whole truth of the matter." Not the phrase itself, in general terms. People may say "we'll never know for sure till Heaven" about election, I think that's a separate thought from "agree to disagree". Two people who are entirely confident in their views may say it--if they believe they've exhausted the arguments and are just going in circles. (That often does happen, when one or both sides is holding on to a presupposition or logical fallacy that they just can't see.) Or they may say it if they find themselves unable to discuss a subject without becoming bitter or angry in an unhealthy, unedifying way. Or if they find it taking up too much of their time. (I've had to let arguments go in the past for that reason.)
Still... On second thought, you may be right. Even if people do find themselves in one of the situations I mentioned, and decide they need to let the argument go, they don't have to use that phrase. It doesn't exactly say the answer doesn't matter, but it may have that connotation. Why not say something like, "Let's agree to set the argument aside"? Or something else along those lines.
Also, I agree that people should be very careful about what they identify as not worth pursuing. We need to be sure that we do major on the majors and minor on the minors, and correctly identify which is which. Matters of great importance shouldn't be set aside lightly.
---------
BTW, I didn't mean to say that the only people I've witnessed being ungracious, rude and mean-spirited are the non-Calvinists. In terms of numbers, it might even be a tie...but the shrillness of several non-Calvinists I've listened to heavily weights that side in my recollection.
---------
As for the need for calls to graciousness, yes, it does seem silly to preface every discussion. To every person reading these comments, please consider that question. How often or in what situations should we make such appeals? I suppose if there's already raised tension, it would be helpful. And if you're talking to individuals or groups who have been burned, it's good to acknowledge that the debate has sometimes been too harsh. But we should balance that against the possibility that raising the issue of how the debate is conducted might distract from the substantive issues we want to discuss. Perhaps appeals to graciousness should be kept brief. Also, be sure that you don't condescendingly dismiss those who care about the topic and take it seriously.