This is a fantastic book. The best primer on Reformed Theology I've ever read. I dare say, if Mathew Barrett doesn’t convince you of Calvinism, nothing will. Barrett is so fair to his opponents’ that I was half converted to Arminianism by his descriptions. His responses were well-reasoned and faithful to Scripture. Maybe the best complement is that SbG is riveting. I couldn’t tear my eyes away and lost hours of sleep in my excitement. Another great complement: I may have broken a personal record in notes (see below)
Notes:
(1) Personal note: this book is a defense of "monergism". It's interesting, but I had never heard this term until I started exploring reformed Doctrine. To that extent, Barrett begins with a subtle straw man. There aren't very many arminianists who would affirm a proposition like, "I'm a partner with God in my salvation", or "I played a part in my salvation; I take some credit for saving myself". Rather, most Wesleyans believe God saves and man receives. The man pulled from a fire hardly thinks he can congratulate himself solely because he didn't resist the fireman.
(2) Barrett touches on the crucial problem, "if man is unable then he cannot be held responsible."(49) Barrett rightly observes that Paul holds his readers accountable for breaking the law. I'm not sure this satisfies the larger question , If God unilaterally rescues men, and he withholds rescue from the reprobate, then how is the reprobate responsible on the matter of salvation*
(4) Personal note: If God desires all to be saved, then what's stopping him? Their sin? Why isn't it stopping him with regard to the elect?
(5) It is man's duty to repent and believe (74)
(6) Personal note: Barrett stumbles when defending the “ well-meant" gospel, when he attempts to turn the tables on the Arminian. He misunderstands the Ordo salutis (78)
(7) Barrett makes a good case for effectual calling (92)
(8) God works in his elect in two ways: within, through the spirit; without, through the word (132)
(9) Ought implies can? What about the law? (142)
(10) Personal note: Bennett's discussion on monergism through 158 reinforces my suspicion of the subtle straw man. No one the side of Pelagius believes that we are contributing in some way to our Salvation. Bennett rightly points out that being born again is something that happens to us. We are passive, and we contribute nothing. Are there are Arminians who deny this? Rather, the Arminian holds that man's response is simply to receive. To allow himself to be acted upon.
(11) Personal note: the Calvinist believes that faith is solely from God. It's part of the process of Salvation, and it is imputed every bit as much as justification. (160) The arminian agrees. There is a sense in which faith is from God (Gal 5:22), however there is a very genuine sense in which it is man's response to God. Laying aside the "ought=can" conundrum, consider Christ's reaction to the woman requesting Crumbs from the master's table. Jesus marveled at her faith (Matthew 15:28) . This is an awkward passage on Calvinism.
(12) Personal note: if there is one major adjustment Barret is impressing upon me: the passive nature of belief cannot be overstated (188)
(13) Personal note: in admitting that the "gift" of eph 2:8 refers to salvation in toto as opposed to "faith" on pain of grammatical violence, he unwittingly concedes the argument (198)
(14) Personal note: faith is definitionally intrinsic. To say otherwise creates a logical incoherence. That is, I am not able to believe something on another's behalf. Or by some exercise of will compel someone to change her mind. We have different words for these happenings (coercion, brainwashing). On the other hand, there are a number of similarly intrinsic traits that can be spoken of as "originating" from another person. My wife might bring me joy, or my nieghbor might make me angry. Yet we understand that while they might provoke or inspire these things, in the truest sense they emanate from me. When the Calvinist speaks of faith as something imputed upon us in the same vein as regeneration, he robs the word of its very meaning.
(15) Personal note: The Olympic committee granted the athletes participation. Who is participating?
(16) I'm impressed with how fair Bennett is with opposing positions. (244)
(17) As I read, I'm more sympathetic with Bennett’s grievance with synergism. He finds the idea that man has any logical component in the "ordo salutis" unpalatable. For my part, I find the term unfortunate. The root of "synergy" overemphasizes man's part (245)
(18) Personal note: the Calvinist reading on the "all" passages is unsatisfying. They interpret "all without distinction" as opposed to "all without exception". I don't find warrant for this in Scripture. It's true that some used of "all” or “world” clearly are limited in scope, "your faith is known by all...", these passages do not mean "all kinds of people". They mean all. It might be limited to all within a set, for instance all within the greater Roman churches, but this is hardly precedent for an "all kinds of" interpretation (256)
(19) Personal note: Jonathan Edwards critique of free will (263) fails because it doesn't take into account deliberation. Truly the reasons leading up to a free choice will be identical, but I can choose otherwise upon reflecting on my decision. For instance, left alone I might always choose chocolate ice cream. My preferences compel me. But as I stand before the cashier, I have a genuine choice to be adventurous and try that butter pecan. The power of deliberation drives my freedom, and it defeats Edward's valid observation of the background influences.
(20) Bennett addresses my objection on the subtlety of faith. Apparently it originated with Melancthon (271)
(21) Bennett's concern that Arminianism robs God of his glory because it makes man's acceptance the determinative factor is a construct of Calvinism. The objection doesn't even make sense unless you presuppose Calvinism. Bennett quotes Olsen about a beggar who is on the verge of starvation and receives a gift of food. The person who saves him is rightly heralded as a hero, and no one "glorifies" the beggar for simply receiving the gift. While it's true that the beggar's acceptance is the "determinative factor" on whether or not he starves, I hardly see how that robs glory from his saviour (277)