Easy Chairs, Hard Words is a book that describes conversations between a Calvinist minister and a lay person who is an Arminian. It is basically a presentation of a Calvinist apologetic on all of the essential doctrines of that denomination. It is a remarkably good book basing every argument upon strong Scriptural support. It is not written as a polemic against Arminianism, rather it is written as a proof-text for Calvinism. As such, the weakness of this book is that it does not address those texts (which are almost as prevalent) which strongly support the Arminian position.
The first topic is on the perseverance of the saints. The author supports the view that since salvation is a work of God, it cannot be lost. He uses John 4, Romans 8, and 1 Corinthians 1:8-9 to present strong Biblical support for his argument for the perseverance of the saints.
Wilson asks “Is God the Author of Sin?” Another tough question, but Wilson sticks to his strategy of quoting Scripture and letting the reader make most of his own decisions. His argument here is that since God is just in Deuteronomy 32:4, He cannot also be the author of evil. Wilson takes the view, rightly I think, that mankind’s crucifixion of Christ is the worst sin that has ever been committed. He then uses Acts 4:27-28 to show that God was the author of that act. He argues that we must hold these two ideas in tension. His conclusion is that God uses and controls evil without being the cause of it.
His final topics that I will review are on election, freedom, and the atonement. Wilson takes a typically Calvinistic limited view of the atonement. He argues that the universal passages do speak of the world, but not every individual within the world. Wilson argues that one cannot argue for Arminianism using these passages because the salvation that they offer is not potential, so if anyone takes the passages as talking about the whole world and every individual in it, then they must, of necessity, choose universalism. Wilson defines two different kinds of freedom, moral and creature-ly freedom. He defends man’s creature-ly freedom while denying his moral freedom. Thus he is able to uphold Paul’s declarations that man is dead in sin, a slave to sin, etc. He builds a case for man’s lack of moral freedom, and Christ’s death being limited in efficacy, he is now set to show that election is unconditional. He begins by attacking the Arminian view of Romans 8:30 by arguing that if “foreknow” is not taken as “approved beforehand” then the logic of the argument leads to universalism. He then uses the Scriptures to build up his case that God’s election of man is not condition, or pre-conditioned, on any knowledge of man’s works or potential works.
All in all, this is not a bad work. It is good reading for anyone on either side of the argument. I tend to take a "both/and" view on Arminianism and Calvinism and see it as something that is beyond the comprehension of humanity, much like the Trinity and the hypostatic union. :D
However, I do have a few problems with this book. The first problem is in his exegesis of Ephesians 2:8. He takes the “gift of God” to point back to “faith” even though the genders disagree. This is questionable, since it breaks a fundamental rule of Greek grammar. Another, more serious, problem with the book is that he took some of the passages out of context. One example is the passage John 15:16, which I take to be directed specifically to the disciples, but Wilson takes as universal to the Christian.
However, the book was worth the price if all that I got from it was the idea that taking the universal passages at face value leads to universalism. This sparked a chain of thought which caused me to question the application of Romans 3:10-18. If this was written by David, a man who sought God, should it not be taken as hyperbole? How would this affect my theology?