Cntrpnts Four Views Eternal Security (Paperback)

Firstly, as one other reviewer mentioned, the book spends very little time in exegesis of the key texts. Too much time is spent bickering back and forth about predestination and free will. Sure those two topics are foundational and need to be addressed, but I didn't like the way they distracted from the main topic. In an attempt to avoid "proof texting", I think the theologians forgot to go into in-depth exegesis. It seems to me that the authors were also slow to challenge errant interpretations of certain texts. Could this be because of length constraits? Perhaps. For example, take Revelation 22:19. Ashby uses the rendering chosen by the Textus Receptus, but nobody actually challenges him on that. One would think that the textual issues of Revelation 22:19 would be brought up, but they were not.

Thirdly, I think the "Moderate Calvinist" position is misapplied. Norman Geisler is an Arminian that believes in Eternal Security, not a Moderate Calvinist.

Fourthly, I don't mean to be rude, but Norman Geisler (or 'Giesler' as they call him on page 158) was really making things laughable. He goes along and tries to make a claim to being a Moderate Calvinist, when he really isn't one. Also, he makes some wacky statements, like "Even a casual reading of Arminius reveals the extent to which he was Calvinistic". This is just laughable! Arminius a Calvinist? OK, Mr. Geisler, we have just lost all hope in your ability to even understand this issue. And it doesn't stop there. Page 270 has another extremely wishy-washy statement by Mr. Geisler. He says "predestination is not conditional... The only conditional is our receiving it". Mr. Geisler, what will it be? Is it conditional or unconditional, it can't be both! Another classic statement by Geisler is "God's love is irresistible on the willing". The whole idea of the word 'irresistible' implies that it doesn't matter whether one is willing. That statement is plain double-speak. Is it irresistable or not? Again, you can't have both. Giesler is a respectable theologian, I appreciate his contributions to apologetics, but he doesn't seem to have a handle on this topic and can't seem to even use within their normative usages.

Fifthly, although Michael Horton had one of the more refined approaches in this book, I think he made a mistake in making his arguments too tightly dependent on the children of the covenant and his particular conception the covenants.

I think, independantly of what I believe (based on basic evaluation techniques), that Stephen Ashby's presentation was the most refined with Michael Horton coming in a close second.

I found Harper to be the least refined, with Geisler second worst. Harper probably did the least scriptural exegesis and spent most of his time exegeting Wesley instead. He was civil in the debate, but very unconvincing.

I acknowledge that this book may be the best book on the topic due to a lack of titles in this area. There aren't many good "point of view" books on this topic. Therefore, I will give this book 2 stars, while I feel it deserves only 1. I really wish the publisher was more careful with this book and put the effort to refine it. The book was interesting to me, but it wasn't very potent nor exegetically enlightening.

The first author, Michael Horton, represents the traditional Calvinist view; In other words he defends the traditional five points of TULIP associated with Calvinistic theology. The TULIP acronym stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limted Atonement, Irresistable grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. For the purposes of this book, Horton attempts to concentrate on the last point, but his arguments often require digressions and tangents that deal with the other four points. I believe that Horton's arguments are strong, but there are several areas where his defense is lacking. First, Horton strongly advocates a system of covental theology, and then uses this system to explain problem passages such Hebrews 6: 4-6. Although his system has it's merits, it also has it's weaknesses. Arguing that the members of the church being discussed in Hebrews were only sacramental participants can be a hard sell since he is arguing from such a defined sacramental system that exists today, and then superimposing that system on the earliest church. Second, Horton doesn't do enough to support the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. He needed to illustrate that a believer's security does not rest on one instance of faith, but on a lifetime of continually growing in knowledge and coming to Christ. Overall, Horton's section was strong, but could have been better.

Second, Norman Geisler presents his system of Moderate Calvinism, or as some people have dubbed it, his Calminian theology. Geisler's arguments are very weak and his proofing is strained and repetitive. Geisler resorts to rapid fire proof-texting and attempts to deal with every verse that strengthens his position, and then discredit every verse that harms his position. The lack of any serious exegesis or sound Biblical reasoning make Geisler's arguments less valid. Furthermore, Geisler begins his section by claiming that he is a bonified 4-point Calvinist, saying he only eschews limited atonement. The problem with Geisler's claim is that he redefines all of the old terms from the TULIP acronym to meet his standards. Instead of having depravity be internally corruptive, it is only externally corruptive. Geisler doesn't even clarify what he means by this change and doesn't use scripture to bolster his claim. Salvation is still Unconditional from the standpoint of the giver, but conditional from the standpoint of the receiver because the receiver has to accept the offer of salvation. These alterations to traditional terminology in Reformed theology are unwarranted and practically untenable since Geisler doesn't support his claims. Finally, Geisler believes that the believer can rest assured that once he is saved, he will always be saved. Geisler argues that it takes only one instance of belief to receive eternal life, and once you receive the gift of eternal life it is yours forever. This argument has serious flaws though; Geisler completely ignores scriptures that speak of salvation in both present and future tenses, while also ignoring the fact that our salvation is predicated on our continually coming to Christ. A perfect example of this is found in John 3:16. In the original Greek the verb believe is rendered as a present participle which is best translated as believing; Therefore, it isn't whoever believed in the past that has eternal life, but those BELIEVING that have eternal life. More could be said on this issue, but needless to say Geisler's section was throughly uncovincing.

Third, Stephen Ashby delievers his defense of Reformed Arminianism. Ashby begins by differentiating his school of thought with that of the Weslyan tradition, which is the tradition followed by most Arminians today. Ashby is a follower of the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his body of followers known as the Remonstrants. Ashby also begins by discussing what tenets are shared by both Reformed Arminians and Reformed Calvinists. Both strongly believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity and that man cannot do anything to merit salvation or the grace of God. The difference arises in their beliefs on the grace of God. Whereas Calvinists believe that God's grace is irresistable and is only offered to the elect, Reformed Arminians believe that God's grace is prevenient and offered to every man and woman. Ashby uses scripture passages such as John 1:14 and 12:32 to support his assertion. Furthermore, Asbhy argues that election is not based on any intra-Trinitarian decree, but on the foreknowledge of God. God knows who in advance will respond to His gospel and then elects them based on that foreknowledge. Finally, Ashby strongly advocates the position that it is possible to apostatize from the faith and that once that decision has been reached it is irreversible. This is what distinguishes Reformed Arminians from Weslyan Arminians, who believe that a person can apostasize and return to the faith repeatedly. Ashby argues from the oft-quoted passage in Hebrews 6 and strongly supports the view that the individuals who have turned their backs on the faith have sealed their doom once and for all. Thus, Ashby's system does allow for some semblance of security because the believer will know he or she is saved as long as they haven't conciously and willfully renounced the faith. Ashby's position was strong and tenable, but still plagued by a few inconsistencies.

Finally, J. Stephen Harper argues for the traditional Wesleyan Arminian position. I believe that Harper's section was the second weakest section behind Geisler's disastrous section on Moderate Calvinism. Harper constantly resorts to the writings of John Wesley and not so much to scripture to support his views. Using Wesley to support your claims isn't a bad idea, but I think the combination of Wesley plus Scripture would have been more effective. Anyways, Harper argues that Wesley's movement sprung from the need for Reform in the Reformed churches of his day. Wesley saw the corruption and lack of practical rightouesness in so many men of God that he felt reform was necessary. Harper uses many sermons delievered by Wesley to support his ideas, and ties those in with reflections from John Wesley himself. He argues that Wesley strongly believed that a person can sin seriously or on several occasions and in doing so separate himself from the grace of God. Harper uses Wesley's sermon, A Call to Backsliders, to bolster this claim. In this sermon, Wesley used the biblical example of David to argue that salvation could be lost. Wesley argued that David committed adultery and murder, thus sinning so seriously that he cut himself off from the grace of God and lost his salvation. Nevertheless, David could still renew his relationship with God through contrite repentance and reestablishing a right heart before God. Although Harper argues passionately for the possibility of losing salvation, he doesn't do nearly enough to deal with the passages of scripture that do serious damage to his theological beliefs. Although interesting and informational, Harper's section doesn't do nearly enough to satisfy the reader that his position is both scripturally plausible and correct.