What do you think?
Rate this book
Refreshing Grace
Have you ever wondered, "How can God be in control of everything but allow humanity to have free will at the same time?" If so, you're not alone and this question isn't new! In fact, Calvinism has argued that God is in charge for 500 years. For just as long, Arminianism has maintained that humanity has complete free will. "Refreshing Grace" takes a new approach to this often emotionally charged issue. It helps us embrace the best of both theological systems in a refreshing and understandable way.
192 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 8, 2012
5 people are currently reading
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Read
November 5, 2012This is my own book. I like it. :)
February 10, 2014
Refreshing Grace is a work that explores the three theological approaches to justification/salvation: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism. The author goes to great lengths to give a fair presentation of each theory (I suppose the use of the word "theory" might not set well with everyone!), discussing each theory's strengths and weaknesses from a biblical/theological, and application perspective. He does not delve deeply into any of them, but does give more attention to his own (Molinism), defending it and commending it as the preferable approach to the issue of justification. He is candid in his recognition of the weaknesses of his own position. Each of the positions is also ascribed a floral-themed acronym: TULIP, LILAC, and ROSES. (You'll have to read the book to know what the acronyms all stand for.
The greatest strength of the book is the consistent, good-hearted effort on the part of the author to present all views as fairly as he can, and to discuss the views (and their adherents) with respect, understanding, and a clear desire to put to rest the animosity and theological wrangling that has marked interactions between the three camps since the Reformation. It is a worthy read if one wants to familiarize himself with any of the three approaches, and particularly if one wants to gain a clear picture of how those approaches differ. What is refreshing about this book is that the author presents each approach as having very reasonable, if not compelling, points, and that adherents of the three approaches might even be able to labor together and accept one another without needing to change each other's theology! The book is not doctrinaire, unfairly polemic, nasty or self-assured, and therefore, given the tendency of theological works to fall into one or more of these deficiencies, gets 5 stars.
The greatest strength of the book is the consistent, good-hearted effort on the part of the author to present all views as fairly as he can, and to discuss the views (and their adherents) with respect, understanding, and a clear desire to put to rest the animosity and theological wrangling that has marked interactions between the three camps since the Reformation. It is a worthy read if one wants to familiarize himself with any of the three approaches, and particularly if one wants to gain a clear picture of how those approaches differ. What is refreshing about this book is that the author presents each approach as having very reasonable, if not compelling, points, and that adherents of the three approaches might even be able to labor together and accept one another without needing to change each other's theology! The book is not doctrinaire, unfairly polemic, nasty or self-assured, and therefore, given the tendency of theological works to fall into one or more of these deficiencies, gets 5 stars.
January 6, 2013
This book has been a fantastic resource to spell out not only the Calvinist and Armninian viewpoints from a kind and logical stance, but to explain/introduce the Molinist view, which I had never heard about before. I appreciate John's section explaining the "middle knowledge" of God, along with His natural and free knowledge. This is something else that I have never had spelled out to me and it made everything kind of piece together as he further talked about Molinism. It was also refreshing to see, at the end of the book, what believing in the Molinist system should actually look like in the Christian walk.
My favorite quotes from the book -
page 124 - "God is wholly responsible for salvation and our decision to trust Him, but it is our responsibility not to resist His work in our lives to bring us to faith in Jesus and therefore salvation."
page 125 - "What we 'do' is actually something we don't do, which is reject the drawing and calling of the Spirit. His job is to convict us of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and He does that well. If we don't fight Him, then He works in our hearts to trust Christ and rebirths us as Christians."
page 163 - "Even when we grow in our faith and become more Christ-like, we must always remember that this is just what Christ redeemed us to do; there is no place for pride in the Christian life."
Thanks for writing this, John. (And for adding some humor which made me laugh out loud in the footnotes - especially how "LIUAC" isn't a pretty flower or "ROWES" isn't so good!)
My favorite quotes from the book -
page 124 - "God is wholly responsible for salvation and our decision to trust Him, but it is our responsibility not to resist His work in our lives to bring us to faith in Jesus and therefore salvation."
page 125 - "What we 'do' is actually something we don't do, which is reject the drawing and calling of the Spirit. His job is to convict us of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and He does that well. If we don't fight Him, then He works in our hearts to trust Christ and rebirths us as Christians."
page 163 - "Even when we grow in our faith and become more Christ-like, we must always remember that this is just what Christ redeemed us to do; there is no place for pride in the Christian life."
Thanks for writing this, John. (And for adding some humor which made me laugh out loud in the footnotes - especially how "LIUAC" isn't a pretty flower or "ROWES" isn't so good!)
January 1, 2014
John Correia provides a valuable introduction to three views on how God saves people: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism. He writes in clear, non-technical language and defines theological terms so that readers new to theology can follow his presentation. Along the way, he encourages readers to grow in their understanding of the views and to do so lovingly and respectfully; he recognizes that this is an intramural debate among orthodox Christians. Consequently, he gives annotated bibliographies and detailed citations so that readers can research topics further. Moreover, he lists questions to think about and discuss at the end of most chapters. With all of these features, readers are likely to find Correia’s book useful for getting started on their investigation of soteriology (the study of salvation).
However, Correia misses the mark in a few areas. First, he misunderstands the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance (or preservation) of the saints. He rightly notes that it teaches that the elect cannot lose their salvation; indeed, this doctrine is about justification. But he errs in making the doctrine a test to tell whether someone is actually saved. Doing so goes beyond the doctrine and its purpose. This doctrine was a response to the Arminian doctrine of conditional security, which asserts that Christians can truly and fully fall from grace (i.e., lose their salvation) by their conduct; the perseverance of the saints denies the latter. Chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic summary of Calvinism, makes this clear. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints arises from passages like John 6:38-40, John 10:27-29, and 1 Peter 1:3-5. But Correia left these passages out of his presentation of the doctrine; and perhaps this partially explains his mistake.
Correia’s misunderstanding of the perseverance of the saints may also stem from a repeated logical fallacy in his interpretations of John 8:31-32, Colossians 1:21-23, Hebrews 3:14, and 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. Correia repeatedly commits the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent; he uses an invalid argument form. Roughly speaking, each of these verses says that if people persevere in faith in Christ to the end, then they are saved. From this premise, Correia infers that if people do not persevere in faith in Christ to the end, then they are not saved. But the proper inference (by transposition) is that if people are not saved, then they do not persevere in faith in Christ to the end. So the verses really offer assurance to believers by affirming the hope and power of the Gospel to save. The verses do not say anything about believers who fall into (periods of) unbelief, though they do say something about people who are not actually saved (i.e., people who are not genuine believers). The former are not necessarily the latter; and we cannot know for sure who is who. Accordingly, chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession admits that Christians may severely backslide and asserts that the power and love of God keep them in a state of grace. Again, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is better termed the “preservation” of the saints. (Correia defends it well in his chapter on Molinism, calling it “eternal security” there.) “If we are faithless, [Christ Jesus] remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13 NASB). Nevertheless, when one considers sanctification, the perseverance of the saints broadens and suggests that believers will become progressively more like Christ (i.e., holier) because of the work of God in salvation; but when Calvinism’s TULIP is in focus, the subject is justification.
Correia’s evaluations of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism are also lacking. Sometimes this is so because he misunderstands the view. For example, he fails to see the great assurance that the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (rightly understood) gives to believers. Other times it is so because he assumes that libertarian free will (i.e., the ability to do otherwise) is the only significant kind of human freedom and that we have it. But Psalm 139 and other passages emphasize God’s foreknowledge and His providence, His governance of all creation. These things suggest that we do not have libertarian free will; for we cannot do other than what God knows or permits us to do. Moreover, when God finally resurrects and glorifies believers, they will not be able to do otherwise than not sin; but human freedom surely will not be diminished then. Indeed, the Bible affirms God’s foreknowledge and providence and human freedom, as we are held responsible for our conduct and God is just. Chapters 3, 5, and 9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith harmonize these affirmations well. So a different definition of free will is in order, maybe that it is the ability to do what one wants, without coercion. (Incidentally, on p. 146 Correia recognizes that Molinism may not actually support libertarian free will; but he dismisses this weakness as a somewhat petty issue for philosophers to discuss.)
Finally, Correia’s criteria for adopting one of these views are suspect. He says: “At the end of the day we must pick the system whose problems we have the least problem with, whose issues are easiest for us to deal with, and whose benefits we like the best” (p. 150). These make the choice very subjective. Worse, he does not say outright that readers should consider which view is most faithful to what the Bible says. He should have urged readers to search the Scriptures to see which view arises from clear passages in their context. Our theology of salvation should come from the Bible and should not violate its meaning at any point. Again, I suggest examining the Westminster Confession of Faith to see how it arises from the Bible and harmonizes seemingly contradictory verses. (Note also how the document subsumes some of Correia’s Molinism.)
So again, readers should take Correia’s book as a decent starting point for studying how God saves people. Readers should not adopt Calvinism, Arminianism, or Molinism based on Correia’s presentation alone. Instead, readers should study the Bible and proponents of the views further to confirm their teachings and to see which view most aligns with the Bible’s clearest verses. The resources cited by Correia are worth investigating. Remember always that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone; it is God’s doing, not ours (Ephesians 2:8-9).
However, Correia misses the mark in a few areas. First, he misunderstands the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance (or preservation) of the saints. He rightly notes that it teaches that the elect cannot lose their salvation; indeed, this doctrine is about justification. But he errs in making the doctrine a test to tell whether someone is actually saved. Doing so goes beyond the doctrine and its purpose. This doctrine was a response to the Arminian doctrine of conditional security, which asserts that Christians can truly and fully fall from grace (i.e., lose their salvation) by their conduct; the perseverance of the saints denies the latter. Chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic summary of Calvinism, makes this clear. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints arises from passages like John 6:38-40, John 10:27-29, and 1 Peter 1:3-5. But Correia left these passages out of his presentation of the doctrine; and perhaps this partially explains his mistake.
Correia’s misunderstanding of the perseverance of the saints may also stem from a repeated logical fallacy in his interpretations of John 8:31-32, Colossians 1:21-23, Hebrews 3:14, and 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. Correia repeatedly commits the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent; he uses an invalid argument form. Roughly speaking, each of these verses says that if people persevere in faith in Christ to the end, then they are saved. From this premise, Correia infers that if people do not persevere in faith in Christ to the end, then they are not saved. But the proper inference (by transposition) is that if people are not saved, then they do not persevere in faith in Christ to the end. So the verses really offer assurance to believers by affirming the hope and power of the Gospel to save. The verses do not say anything about believers who fall into (periods of) unbelief, though they do say something about people who are not actually saved (i.e., people who are not genuine believers). The former are not necessarily the latter; and we cannot know for sure who is who. Accordingly, chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession admits that Christians may severely backslide and asserts that the power and love of God keep them in a state of grace. Again, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is better termed the “preservation” of the saints. (Correia defends it well in his chapter on Molinism, calling it “eternal security” there.) “If we are faithless, [Christ Jesus] remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13 NASB). Nevertheless, when one considers sanctification, the perseverance of the saints broadens and suggests that believers will become progressively more like Christ (i.e., holier) because of the work of God in salvation; but when Calvinism’s TULIP is in focus, the subject is justification.
Correia’s evaluations of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism are also lacking. Sometimes this is so because he misunderstands the view. For example, he fails to see the great assurance that the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (rightly understood) gives to believers. Other times it is so because he assumes that libertarian free will (i.e., the ability to do otherwise) is the only significant kind of human freedom and that we have it. But Psalm 139 and other passages emphasize God’s foreknowledge and His providence, His governance of all creation. These things suggest that we do not have libertarian free will; for we cannot do other than what God knows or permits us to do. Moreover, when God finally resurrects and glorifies believers, they will not be able to do otherwise than not sin; but human freedom surely will not be diminished then. Indeed, the Bible affirms God’s foreknowledge and providence and human freedom, as we are held responsible for our conduct and God is just. Chapters 3, 5, and 9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith harmonize these affirmations well. So a different definition of free will is in order, maybe that it is the ability to do what one wants, without coercion. (Incidentally, on p. 146 Correia recognizes that Molinism may not actually support libertarian free will; but he dismisses this weakness as a somewhat petty issue for philosophers to discuss.)
Finally, Correia’s criteria for adopting one of these views are suspect. He says: “At the end of the day we must pick the system whose problems we have the least problem with, whose issues are easiest for us to deal with, and whose benefits we like the best” (p. 150). These make the choice very subjective. Worse, he does not say outright that readers should consider which view is most faithful to what the Bible says. He should have urged readers to search the Scriptures to see which view arises from clear passages in their context. Our theology of salvation should come from the Bible and should not violate its meaning at any point. Again, I suggest examining the Westminster Confession of Faith to see how it arises from the Bible and harmonizes seemingly contradictory verses. (Note also how the document subsumes some of Correia’s Molinism.)
So again, readers should take Correia’s book as a decent starting point for studying how God saves people. Readers should not adopt Calvinism, Arminianism, or Molinism based on Correia’s presentation alone. Instead, readers should study the Bible and proponents of the views further to confirm their teachings and to see which view most aligns with the Bible’s clearest verses. The resources cited by Correia are worth investigating. Remember always that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone; it is God’s doing, not ours (Ephesians 2:8-9).
April 15, 2020
Awesome book!
This has to be one of the best books discussing Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism for beginners I've ever read. Thanks!
This has to be one of the best books discussing Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism for beginners I've ever read. Thanks!
September 14, 2012
This is a very basic intro to the discussion of God's sovereignty and human free will. It summarizes the Calvinist and Arminian positions well but does not wrestle with any of the issues, just states their position with basic overall reasoning.
This is however a helpful and fair presentation. He argues for the Molinist position, which seeks to have the best of both camps (if you value free will and eternal security). I'm not sure Molinism is right but appreciate the effort. I do enjoy the suggested reading by the author, he mentions many books that help us understand God's grace in salvation.
As a basic introduction to the discussion I would recommend this book.
This is however a helpful and fair presentation. He argues for the Molinist position, which seeks to have the best of both camps (if you value free will and eternal security). I'm not sure Molinism is right but appreciate the effort. I do enjoy the suggested reading by the author, he mentions many books that help us understand God's grace in salvation.
As a basic introduction to the discussion I would recommend this book.
January 3, 2013
After reading this book, I, too, realize that I am a Molinist. After years of following Christ and not being sure if I was a Calvinist or Arminian, John’s thought-provoking book on the subject made me realize that I have been “planting roses!” This is the first time I ever had the Molinist view explained to me and it was refreshing, since I never could identify with either the Calvinist or Arminian stance after searching Scripture. Thank you, John!
August 27, 2013
Really an enjoyable read. Puts its finger on a number of Bible passages I've always been uncomfortable with, but perhaps not honest or energetic enough to really wrestle deeply over. The book challenges my either/or thinking on Calvinism/Arminianism and definitely whets my appetite for more study and discussion on this subject.
February 19, 2013
I enjoyed the honest and basic explanations about the views of Calvanism, Arminianism, and Molinism. This is a good book for someone who doesn't know anything about this topic and wants to start digging about these theological subjects.
December 25, 2014
Problem solved!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews