Perspectives on Election

Perspectives

by Chad Brand (Editor), Clark H. Pinnock, Robert L. Reymond

Perspectives on Election presents in counterpoint form five basic common beliefs on the doctrine of spiritual election (for example, predestination) that have developed over the course of church history with a view toward determining which is most faithful to Scripture. Each chapter is written by a prominent person within each tradition, and each writer has the opportunity to respond to each differing view.Despite the focus upon a topic that divides many people, editor Chad Brand says, “The goal of this book is to add clarity to the discussion and to further the discussion, insofar as it is possible, in an amiable manner.”

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christianity, Christian

352 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2006

Reviews

[Mike Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read about 150 pages, mainly on the two primary views of Calvinism and Arminianism. Excellent writers for each of those sections.

[Gage Terrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pinnock's article is worth the price of the book for the non-reformed perspective.

[Janelle Zeeb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall I thought this was a decent book which introduces the debate over divine election and shows some possible views. Each person is allowed a large number of pages to thoroughly describe their view, so they do get quite detailed and often refer to various Bible verses to support their views. It was interesting how each author gives their opinion on Romans 9 to 11, which is useful to see the many ways that this difficult piece of scripture can be interpreted. The responses of each author to the others were the most interesting parts of this book, and in general each had some good points to consider. I generally liked Pinnock's and Talbott's responses the most, although both tended to have shorter responses than the other authors, which was a little disappointing. I would recommend this book as a general starting point for people to investigate interpretations of the doctrine of election, but only if you're willing to wade through some long, dense, and sometimes difficult material.

Bruce Ware gives a detailed Infralapsarian Calvinist perspective (that God's election to save some individuals only applied after the Fall of humanity) and Robert L. Reymond gives a Supralapsarian Calvinist perspective (that God's purpose to save individuals logically needs God to plan for that from before the Fall). I think Reymond does have a few good criticisms of Infralapsarianism. But there wasn't really anything new in these chapters that I haven't heard elsewhere. I still think there are many flaws with Calvinism's views for many reasons - neither of these authors were convincing enough to change that. I was also disappointed with Reymond who freqently seems to argue that only the Calvinist view is the real "Christian" view, as if some of the other authors are not saved simply because they disagree with him on an abstract and difficult theological topic.

Jack W. Cottrell gives an Arminian perspective that God foreknows who will believe and eternally elects them based on this foreknowledge, and also that some election is election to earthly service, and criticizes the Calvinist options. I was happy that Cottrell did not rely on the view that God foreknows things because he is outside of time, and actually criticizes this view, although he doesn't conclude how God can foreknow future free actions and seems happy to leave it as a mystery.

Thomas B. Talbott's chapter was quite interesting. I appreciated the first part of it where he looks at what it means to say God is love and how this is inconsistent with Calvinist views of election. He wonders if limited election is appealing because it makes those who feel they are specially chosen feel superior to those who are not chosen. However, I felt the rest of his chapter was not so useful. He had a few good points here and there, and his interpretation of Romans is interesting, but overall I can't agree with him that everyone will ultimately be saved, because the Bible clearly says some people will be lost forever, and God doesn't have to get everyone to love him in order to be victorious over sin. He also rejects the usual understanding of substitutionary atonement (that God sent Jesus to die for our sins to satisfy both God's love/mercy and his justice/holiness).

Pinnock's chapter puts forth a decent explanation of election as corporate and primarily for earthly service, where God chooses a people but individuals opt themselves into that people based on their free will response to God's working in their hearts. He has many good criticisms of Calvinism's view of election, and criticizes some verses they commonly appeal to. But I do agree with some critics of corporate election that it's hard to imagine God electing an "empty set" of people that is filled in by individuals later on, as there would be no guarantee that some would opt in.

So overall, while this was an interesting, dense, detailed book on different views of election, I wasn't completely persuaded by any of the authors. It is a bit overwhelming to sort through this much information and alternate interpretations of scripture when all authors have some good points here and there. Overall I'd probably lean more towards Pinnock's approach, but I'd have to do more detailed research and read some of his sources to really be sure it works.

[Brian Chilton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book's choices for the electional views presented were somewhat bizarre and limited in scope. The four classic views of election are represented: infralapsarian Calvinism by Bruce Ware, supralapsarian Calvinism by Robert Reymond, individual Arminianism by Jack Cottrell, and corporate Arminianism by Clark Pinnock). But there also was a particularly bizarre view presented by Thomas Talbott which resembled universalism. With the plethora of existent viewpoints, I was curious as to why the Thomist and Molinist views were not presented. I would like to see a counterpoints book on election that pits the Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan, Thomist, Molinist, and Amyraldism positions together. Such a book would provide a more well-rounded treatment of the issue. In my opinion, Ware (infralapsarian) and Cottrell (individual Arminianism) presented the best papers. The worst papers came from Robert Reymond and Thomas Talbott. Reymond was a bit prudish and rude. Reymond refused to acknowledge the early beliefs of the church fathers and simply dismissed them except for Augustine (which seemed somewhat hypocritical). Such a tactic greatly hindered his case and elevated Cottrell's. Talbott was well off the beaten path for my taste. The book provided a good treatment of the issues, however due to its limited scope, the polemics of Reymomd, and other such issues, I had to give the book 3 stars.

[David Saxon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb collection of essays. Robert Reymond expresses the supralapsarian (high Calvinist) view; Bruce Ware, the infralapsarian view; Jack Cottrell, the Arminian foreknowledge view; Thomas Talbott, a universalist view; and Clark Pinnock, a corporate Arminian view (from the standpoint of Open Theism). I thought Ware and Cottrell were especially effective in their statements of their positions, but all five are worth reading.

[David Rathel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This work presents five views on the doctrine of election presented by several well known theologians. I only read the first three chapters becuase I believe those sections contain the views most popular among evangelicals today (infralapsarian Calvinism, Arminianism, and supralapsarian Calvinism). This is a good starting point for those interested in this important discussion because each author writes with concision. Readers also have an opportunity to see the authors interact with one another at the end of each chapter in a 'response' section.

For the curious:
Jack Cottrell presents the case for Arminian election (interestingly, he argues for individual rather than corporate election). Bruce Ware from Southern argues for infralapsarian Calvinism. Robert Reymond writes the chapter on supralapsarian Calvinism.

[Nicholas Quient · Rating 4 out of 5]

Occasionally polemic (see Reymond's responses to Talbott and Pinnock) but presents general cases for each pov on election. Tom Talbott's chapter on universalism is quite good, as is Cottrell's Arminian perspective. Pinnock's is interesting but not as compelling. Ware is solid (if standard) and Reymond is far more emotionally charged and much of his case and critiques are personal rather than exegetical.

[Mark Peskett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough and broad range of views are well articulated by the five essayists here, given the high word-count they were allowed. I think it would have been profitable to allow more space for responses however. Each author seemed to be given the space of only a couple of pages to critique a ~50 page essay. For those looking for a comprehensive introduction to this topic, this is an excellent book.

[Akiya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book covering a topic that can get the emotions flaring. Worth the read.