What do you think?
Rate this book
Excusing Sinners and Blaming God
Calvinist determinism destroys moral responsibility and makes God the author of sin. These two accusations are not new, and were arguably anticipated by Paul in Romans 9, but they remain today the most important objections offered against Calvinist/determinist views of human free will. This book is a philosophically rigorous and comprehensive defense of Calvinism against these two families of arguments. With respect to human moral responsibility, it discusses whether determinism destroys ""free will,"" turns humans into pets or puppets, and involves or is analogous to coercion and manipulation. It responds to the consequence argument and direct argument for incompatibilism, the principle of alternate possibilities, the ""ought implies can"" maxim, and related claims. With respect to the authorship of sin, it discusses whether Calvinist determinism improperly involves God in evil. Does it mean that ""God sins,"" or ""causes sin,"" or ""wills sin"" in problematic ways? ""Does God intend our sin, or (merely) permit sin?"" In each case the coherence of the Calvinist view is defended against its most potent objections, to reject the claim that Calvinism is ""excusing sinners and blaming God."" ""If God determines all things, including the evil actions of his creatures, doesn't it follow by irrefutable logic that God must be culpable for those evil actions rather than the creatures? Au contraire, argues Calvinist philosopher Guillaume Bignon in this engaging yet rigorous work. Conversant with state-of-the-art literature on free will, this is one of the best defenses of theological compatibilism available today."" --James N. Anderson, Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary ""It is often alleged that determinism or Calvinism or theological compatibilism (call it what you wish!) doesn't fit with moral responsibility. Bignon contests this thesis elegantly and forcefully. Here we have a philosophical defense of what is often called a Calvinist view of divine sovereignty, showing that Calvinism is not only biblically grounded but philosophically defensible."" --Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Guillaume Bignon is a French analytical philosopher and computer scientist who works in the financial industry in New York. He is an executive committee member of Association Axiome, a society of French-speaking Christian scholars.
276 pages, Nook
58 people are currently reading
185 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 - 24 of 24 reviews
September 4, 2020
Best Philosophical Arguments for Calvinism
I’m surprised by the 3 star review on Amazon. Not that everyone has to give 5 stars, but the opinion is just very strange.
“On the whole, the book is somewhat unsatisfactory.” I don’t know where this is coming from given what has just be said about the book. There are arguments, though not necessarily new, that have not been as well articulated or publicized by other more “famous” modern Calvinist. (Is this just sour grapes from another staunch Arminian?)
“Those who have read a lot about Calvinism may not find much that is new in this book.” This is a (double-edged) pedantic statement. I have read and researched this debate (as well as the general free will literature) for many years and there is nothing that is as complete and thoroughly argued as the material in this book. If you are a Calvinist, at any level of development, you owe it to yourself to read this book! If you are a libertarian free will theist, of any of the many flavours, you owe it to yourself to deal with real argumentation and not the simple strawman false dilemma of free will vs determinism!
I’m surprised by the 3 star review on Amazon. Not that everyone has to give 5 stars, but the opinion is just very strange.
“On the whole, the book is somewhat unsatisfactory.” I don’t know where this is coming from given what has just be said about the book. There are arguments, though not necessarily new, that have not been as well articulated or publicized by other more “famous” modern Calvinist. (Is this just sour grapes from another staunch Arminian?)
“Those who have read a lot about Calvinism may not find much that is new in this book.” This is a (double-edged) pedantic statement. I have read and researched this debate (as well as the general free will literature) for many years and there is nothing that is as complete and thoroughly argued as the material in this book. If you are a Calvinist, at any level of development, you owe it to yourself to read this book! If you are a libertarian free will theist, of any of the many flavours, you owe it to yourself to deal with real argumentation and not the simple strawman false dilemma of free will vs determinism!
April 3, 2018
I need to re-read this book - it is pretty dense. James White (and even the author, Guillame Bignon) said that this would not be White's cup of tea. He exegetes the answer from Scripture and isn't really into Bignon's philosophical approach. We don't believe in Reformed theology because someone explained it to us, but because God said so.
So, jumping in and trying to really follow the logical path laid out, I knew this was my book when he (Bignon) laid out the two major objections to the idea that God can determine every thing that happens (determinism) while man still can be morally responsible for his acts. First, "Is there unrighteousness in God?" Romans 9:14 and second, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist His will?" Romans 9:19
So, the objections are laid out as in Scripture, where Paul anticipates these very two objections even 2000 years later. His answer is, "Who are you, to question God?" answering with authority, not offering an explanation.
Well, I loved every minute of this explanation, and even Bignon admits at the end, even with all that, We believe the doctrines of Reformed theology because God says so.
Bignon likes to say (quoted from a Tweet)
'In part, I fight the John Wesley move that says "whatever the Bible says, surely it cannot mean *that*, because [insert philosophical argument]"
I respond: no, here's what's wrong with the argument, so accept what the Bible says.'
So, jumping in and trying to really follow the logical path laid out, I knew this was my book when he (Bignon) laid out the two major objections to the idea that God can determine every thing that happens (determinism) while man still can be morally responsible for his acts. First, "Is there unrighteousness in God?" Romans 9:14 and second, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist His will?" Romans 9:19
So, the objections are laid out as in Scripture, where Paul anticipates these very two objections even 2000 years later. His answer is, "Who are you, to question God?" answering with authority, not offering an explanation.
Well, I loved every minute of this explanation, and even Bignon admits at the end, even with all that, We believe the doctrines of Reformed theology because God says so.
Bignon likes to say (quoted from a Tweet)
'In part, I fight the John Wesley move that says "whatever the Bible says, surely it cannot mean *that*, because [insert philosophical argument]"
I respond: no, here's what's wrong with the argument, so accept what the Bible says.'
June 27, 2019
7.5/10
Answers libarbitrist objections from a theological compatibilist viewpoint; does not build a constructive case, and leaves much more room for human free will than a proper determinism.
Answers libarbitrist objections from a theological compatibilist viewpoint; does not build a constructive case, and leaves much more room for human free will than a proper determinism.
January 11, 2025
A brilliant defense of compatibilism from a Calvinist perspective.
I was a little apprehensive about this book at first. Bignon acknowledges at the start that Paul, when writing on God's sovereignty in Romans 9, does not really explain moral compatibilism. Furthermore, he points out that many noted Reformed theologians have felt perfectly satisfied to leave the question of compatibilism as a divine mystery. In light of these things, the question that popped into my mind was: is the author about to attempt too much? Yet, it became clear to me that Bignon's aim is more modest than a comprehensive explanation; instead, he tries to show that the arguments against compatibilism fail to disprove compatibilism. Moreover, compatibilism is both biblical and rational. He's also not afraid to point out the many contradictions within the incompatibilist paradigm.
Though his arguments are firmly rooted in Scripture, Bignon tackles this topic as a philosopher. He uses philosophical terminology and interacts widely with philosophical literature on the topics of libertarian free will, open theism, Arminian theology, and the problem of evil. He also, at times, resorts to breaking down arguments via symbolic logic. Because of this, there are parts of the book that are extremely dense. In fact, I nearly threw in the towel at certain points because following Bignon's logic takes a lot of work. For this reason, I probably wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is just starting to wrestle with the question of compatibilism. Unless a person has some basic philosophical knowledge/ability to use symbolic logic, they will struggle to benefit. However, you will be rewarded handsomely if you are willing to do the work. I've heard it said before: don't ask a complicated question unless you are willing to listen to a complicated answer. There is nothing simple about God's sovereignty. But this is the kind of book I wish more people would have the patience for.
One question that still lingers for me on this topic that I'd love to discuss with the author: Bignon spends a lot of time talking about the principle of alternate possibility. This principle in its most basic form entails that a person cannot be held morally responsible unless he/she has the ability to do otherwise. On the one hand, Bignon rightly argues that action follows desire, and desire follows nature. However, from a Christian standpoint (which Bignon would endorse), our desires are considered moral actions. We are morally responsible for our desires as well as the actions that these desires spawn. Bignon argues that the principle of alternate possibility holds true for compatibilism *if* the person in question could have done otherwise if he had so desired. In other words, we are responsible for an action only insofar as we could have done otherwise if we had so desired. However, if desire or will is itself a moral action, it would seem that this principle collapses in on itself: I am responsible for my desire insofar as I could have desired otherwise if I had so desired. But in what sense do humans desire to desire differently? On the one hand, probably every Christian has had a desire to desire God more. But on the other hand, we know that the above sentence is false--we cannot simply 'desire otherwise' by desiring to desire otherwise. This is a question I've been mulling over and one that I haven't quite solved yet.
I was a little apprehensive about this book at first. Bignon acknowledges at the start that Paul, when writing on God's sovereignty in Romans 9, does not really explain moral compatibilism. Furthermore, he points out that many noted Reformed theologians have felt perfectly satisfied to leave the question of compatibilism as a divine mystery. In light of these things, the question that popped into my mind was: is the author about to attempt too much? Yet, it became clear to me that Bignon's aim is more modest than a comprehensive explanation; instead, he tries to show that the arguments against compatibilism fail to disprove compatibilism. Moreover, compatibilism is both biblical and rational. He's also not afraid to point out the many contradictions within the incompatibilist paradigm.
Though his arguments are firmly rooted in Scripture, Bignon tackles this topic as a philosopher. He uses philosophical terminology and interacts widely with philosophical literature on the topics of libertarian free will, open theism, Arminian theology, and the problem of evil. He also, at times, resorts to breaking down arguments via symbolic logic. Because of this, there are parts of the book that are extremely dense. In fact, I nearly threw in the towel at certain points because following Bignon's logic takes a lot of work. For this reason, I probably wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is just starting to wrestle with the question of compatibilism. Unless a person has some basic philosophical knowledge/ability to use symbolic logic, they will struggle to benefit. However, you will be rewarded handsomely if you are willing to do the work. I've heard it said before: don't ask a complicated question unless you are willing to listen to a complicated answer. There is nothing simple about God's sovereignty. But this is the kind of book I wish more people would have the patience for.
One question that still lingers for me on this topic that I'd love to discuss with the author: Bignon spends a lot of time talking about the principle of alternate possibility. This principle in its most basic form entails that a person cannot be held morally responsible unless he/she has the ability to do otherwise. On the one hand, Bignon rightly argues that action follows desire, and desire follows nature. However, from a Christian standpoint (which Bignon would endorse), our desires are considered moral actions. We are morally responsible for our desires as well as the actions that these desires spawn. Bignon argues that the principle of alternate possibility holds true for compatibilism *if* the person in question could have done otherwise if he had so desired. In other words, we are responsible for an action only insofar as we could have done otherwise if we had so desired. However, if desire or will is itself a moral action, it would seem that this principle collapses in on itself: I am responsible for my desire insofar as I could have desired otherwise if I had so desired. But in what sense do humans desire to desire differently? On the one hand, probably every Christian has had a desire to desire God more. But on the other hand, we know that the above sentence is false--we cannot simply 'desire otherwise' by desiring to desire otherwise. This is a question I've been mulling over and one that I haven't quite solved yet.
November 8, 2018
Whew. That was a doozy and not really for the layman. Not really. I read through it though. I did not understand all of it, for sure – and I read much slower than normally to take as much as I could in.
The first four chapters were all very well and good, “Yes, yes, but...” Chapter 5b hits you with the bomb. It was at that point that I started out writing my review, so that it wouldn't be lost in the bewildering ether of my mind. Though I approve his argumentation and follow it, I'm not sure I could reproduce it easily. The few notes that I took were the elementary ramblings of my thoughts as I reconsidered what sin actually is:
1) It isn't the sin itself, necessarily (though usually actions of sin are things that are contradictory to the nature of God). I think of my child doing something naughty, but receiving no punishment because we've never discussed the goodness/badness of that issue before. (Here the verse in James popped into my head - “To him that knoweth to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.” - it's the individual's understanding – to a certain extent – that indicts)
2) Rather – sin points out our position and relationship to God. 10 commandments were given to show the character of god and also to show our inability to live up to them. Sin can be a concrete act (or thought) that illustrates to us our rejection of God (initially and now), our distance now from God and his ideal, our broken relationship and our inadequacy before this daunting schism.
3) This is illustrated by Jesus himself. who was so quick to point out the Pharisaical heart. Actions can be right, the law obeyed. But at the heart – is the heart. What is the inclination and desire of our hearts?
4) The desire of our hearts is shown to be evil in scripture. We are slaves to our sin.
5) The desire of our hearts can be changed, but only by God.
6) Calvinism and it's understanding of free will doesn't reject our ability to make choices, but relies on this heart motivation. Calivinist determinism doesn't do away with moral responsibility because the attitude of the heart is the free will of the individual.
These are just my thoughts and I wanted to type them out. They may be faulty and not at all what the author wanted to say, but they were my thought flow as I read.
I found chapter 8 and chapter 10 to be equally as compelling. Some thoughts that I considered:
1) a rethinking of the argument of God bringing about, being the author of evil and the separation that can exist between that and God being guilty of evil.
2) Difference between what God wills (wants) and what god wills (determines to happen). Numerous stories of God hardening hearts and sending calamity in the Bible.
This book brought to my mind the many errors there are in human thinking. Something that seems so logical, and yet, when brought under rigorous scrutiny, the argument that just couldn't be thought around – when broken down can be shown to obviously be in error.
I apologize for the rambling incoherence of this review. These were mostly bits and pieces I considered as I read and tried to retain to when they could be typed out, and do not indicate all that I considered.
The first four chapters were all very well and good, “Yes, yes, but...” Chapter 5b hits you with the bomb. It was at that point that I started out writing my review, so that it wouldn't be lost in the bewildering ether of my mind. Though I approve his argumentation and follow it, I'm not sure I could reproduce it easily. The few notes that I took were the elementary ramblings of my thoughts as I reconsidered what sin actually is:
1) It isn't the sin itself, necessarily (though usually actions of sin are things that are contradictory to the nature of God). I think of my child doing something naughty, but receiving no punishment because we've never discussed the goodness/badness of that issue before. (Here the verse in James popped into my head - “To him that knoweth to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.” - it's the individual's understanding – to a certain extent – that indicts)
2) Rather – sin points out our position and relationship to God. 10 commandments were given to show the character of god and also to show our inability to live up to them. Sin can be a concrete act (or thought) that illustrates to us our rejection of God (initially and now), our distance now from God and his ideal, our broken relationship and our inadequacy before this daunting schism.
3) This is illustrated by Jesus himself. who was so quick to point out the Pharisaical heart. Actions can be right, the law obeyed. But at the heart – is the heart. What is the inclination and desire of our hearts?
4) The desire of our hearts is shown to be evil in scripture. We are slaves to our sin.
5) The desire of our hearts can be changed, but only by God.
6) Calvinism and it's understanding of free will doesn't reject our ability to make choices, but relies on this heart motivation. Calivinist determinism doesn't do away with moral responsibility because the attitude of the heart is the free will of the individual.
These are just my thoughts and I wanted to type them out. They may be faulty and not at all what the author wanted to say, but they were my thought flow as I read.
I found chapter 8 and chapter 10 to be equally as compelling. Some thoughts that I considered:
1) a rethinking of the argument of God bringing about, being the author of evil and the separation that can exist between that and God being guilty of evil.
2) Difference between what God wills (wants) and what god wills (determines to happen). Numerous stories of God hardening hearts and sending calamity in the Bible.
This book brought to my mind the many errors there are in human thinking. Something that seems so logical, and yet, when brought under rigorous scrutiny, the argument that just couldn't be thought around – when broken down can be shown to obviously be in error.
I apologize for the rambling incoherence of this review. These were mostly bits and pieces I considered as I read and tried to retain to when they could be typed out, and do not indicate all that I considered.
February 14, 2024
This book is not an exegetical exploration but a philosophical one. Despite being on “the other side” of the compatibalism/incompatibalism divide, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Guillaume Bignon is a good writer and excellent thinker. I have yet to read anything that made a better case against incompatibalistic arguments or did a better job at clarifying the points of contention better. I also find him to have a good sense of humor.
All that being said, it didn’t get off to the best start as my main disappointment was an unexplored and undefended assumption he made about the meaning of Romans 9 in the introduction. He holds that the questions asked in Romans 9:14 and 9:19 “serve as positive evidence in support of Calvinism.” All of this assumes that Paul is describing determinism in this passage which is hardly unequivocal. That frustration aside, Guillaume carefully defines terms, addresses objections honestly and masterfully and I learned a lot reading it.
All that being said, it didn’t get off to the best start as my main disappointment was an unexplored and undefended assumption he made about the meaning of Romans 9 in the introduction. He holds that the questions asked in Romans 9:14 and 9:19 “serve as positive evidence in support of Calvinism.” All of this assumes that Paul is describing determinism in this passage which is hardly unequivocal. That frustration aside, Guillaume carefully defines terms, addresses objections honestly and masterfully and I learned a lot reading it.
February 9, 2018
A fantastic response to the two foremost objections to theological determinism. I am more sympathetic to a chastened account of a sort of contingency in the human will than Bignon is,but nevertheless this book ably rebuts the “man isn’t really responsible” and “God is pretty much the devil” objections, especially as offered by the least sophisticated contemporary Arminians, whose arguments essentially amount to question-begging expressions of horror and incredulity. Aside from some tricky syllogistic sections, the book is also very well-written and could probably be read profitably by the average interested layman. Highly recommended.
January 28, 2021
Brilliant treatment of responsibility, sovereignty, and free will despite its brevity and density.
May 20, 2018
Few topics in theology generate as much controversy as how to reconcile divine sovereignty (God’s ultimate control of all things) and human moral responsibility. Rather than trying to limit or explain away divine sovereignty (as in Arminianism or Open Theism), Calvinism views soft determinism as compatible with moral responsibility. Soft determinism or compatibilist free will is the idea that the human will is free in that a person will choose to do what they most desire, but bound in that one’s desires are caused by factor(s) beyond one’s control (ultimately by the decretal will of God in a Christian worldview).
This book offers a rigorous logical defense of determinism’s compatibility with moral responsibility and with God’s holiness. This is a highly academic book in which the author makes heavy use of formal logic. I took formal logic back in high school, but that was 20+ years ago, so there were a few places where he pretty much lost me when he started using symbolic expressions. Overall, I think that the author demonstrates his system to be internally consistent,and points out some possible logical problems with alternate systems. Enter at your own risk, but if this topic interests you, this is well worth reading. For a more popular level overview of the topic, I highly recommend What About Free Will by Scott Christensen.
This book offers a rigorous logical defense of determinism’s compatibility with moral responsibility and with God’s holiness. This is a highly academic book in which the author makes heavy use of formal logic. I took formal logic back in high school, but that was 20+ years ago, so there were a few places where he pretty much lost me when he started using symbolic expressions. Overall, I think that the author demonstrates his system to be internally consistent,and points out some possible logical problems with alternate systems. Enter at your own risk, but if this topic interests you, this is well worth reading. For a more popular level overview of the topic, I highly recommend What About Free Will by Scott Christensen.
December 21, 2020
Bignon presents a philosophically rigorous defense of compatibilism by going through every conceivable incompatibilist argument, finding a flaw in it, then trying to build that argument stronger. His methodology focuses on a lot of improper definitions and unwarranted assumptions coming from the other side. I did enjoy his style of 1. Here's an argument. 2. This is why this argument is bad. 3. Here's a new form the same argument framed better 4.Here's why that argument is still bad.
September 6, 2023
Philosophical and theological gold.
The title comes from what Bignon deems two major incompatibilist objections against Calvinism: that determinism excludes moral responsibility and moreover in some way makes God responsible for sin. Strikingly, he notes that both objections could have been anticipated by Paul in Romans 9. These two objections create the two sections of this work, with one section devoted to each.
Without getting bogged down in the details, Bignon examines often vague incompatibilist arguments in the first section, often reaching the conclusion that the incompatibilist is begging the question or improperly shifting the burden of proof. The notion of the principle of alternate possibilities is also mentioned. The second section clarifies the relation of the incompatibilist objection to the problem of evil, and also presents three possibilities of the incompatibilist formulation, which Bignon humorously calls "half-baked". From there, he deals with specific objections, appealing to concepts like God's decretive and preceptive will and the asymmetry of His passive and active actions.
This book was excellent and philosophically rigorous, though not overly dense. I managed to follow the vast majority of it. There is much to be learned in Bignon's methodology as he carefully dissects each argument, reformulating bad arguments in their best light, and deals rigorously with them, leaving no philosophical stone unturned. The author also wonderfully exhibits the Calvinist spirit: one that acts in humility towards God because of His sovereign actions in saving us, and a spirit that is unashamed of His revelation. The theological interludes and sections on theology, though this was primarily a work in the philosophy of religion, were refreshing and accurate.
Great, a work that I will no doubt reference and reread in the future.
The title comes from what Bignon deems two major incompatibilist objections against Calvinism: that determinism excludes moral responsibility and moreover in some way makes God responsible for sin. Strikingly, he notes that both objections could have been anticipated by Paul in Romans 9. These two objections create the two sections of this work, with one section devoted to each.
Without getting bogged down in the details, Bignon examines often vague incompatibilist arguments in the first section, often reaching the conclusion that the incompatibilist is begging the question or improperly shifting the burden of proof. The notion of the principle of alternate possibilities is also mentioned. The second section clarifies the relation of the incompatibilist objection to the problem of evil, and also presents three possibilities of the incompatibilist formulation, which Bignon humorously calls "half-baked". From there, he deals with specific objections, appealing to concepts like God's decretive and preceptive will and the asymmetry of His passive and active actions.
This book was excellent and philosophically rigorous, though not overly dense. I managed to follow the vast majority of it. There is much to be learned in Bignon's methodology as he carefully dissects each argument, reformulating bad arguments in their best light, and deals rigorously with them, leaving no philosophical stone unturned. The author also wonderfully exhibits the Calvinist spirit: one that acts in humility towards God because of His sovereign actions in saving us, and a spirit that is unashamed of His revelation. The theological interludes and sections on theology, though this was primarily a work in the philosophy of religion, were refreshing and accurate.
Great, a work that I will no doubt reference and reread in the future.
March 16, 2023
The first time I saw Guillaume’s name was when I was thumbing through the Reformed theology section at Princeton Seminary’s library while I was a master’s student. I picked up his book which was, funny enough, published in the Princeton Theological Monograph Series only several years earlier.
I looked him up and soon became familiar with Bignon and his work through several YouTube interviews I watched where he discussed his conversion to Christianity, his Calvinistic convictions, and his thorough study of determinism, moral responsibility, and divine involvement in evil (as the subtitle of his 2016 book indicates).
I knew from the videos I watched that he is a sharp thinker whose thoughts on any topic would prove salient. His work in Excusing Sinners and Blaming God is no exception.
The majority of the book is dedicated to combatting philosophical attacks against compatibilism. And…suffice to say…Bignon evicerates arguments that purport to prove the incompatibility of determinism and moral responsibility.
The second half of the book defends God’s goodness in light of his providential dealings with moral and natural evil.
I find Bignon’s arguments convincing. He even helpfully identifies that the Apostle Paul specifically anticipated the two very objections Bignon treats in his book (Romans 9:14 & 19).
Despite our squeamishness and tendency to prefer a God of our own devising, Bignon triumphantly stands for the God who has the audacity to elect individuals to salvation and efficaciously bring about all that occurs in the cosmos (good and bad).
I think Bignon is one of the sharpest Reformed thinkers alive right now, and I’m excited that he is currently endeavoring to write a book on justification.
I looked him up and soon became familiar with Bignon and his work through several YouTube interviews I watched where he discussed his conversion to Christianity, his Calvinistic convictions, and his thorough study of determinism, moral responsibility, and divine involvement in evil (as the subtitle of his 2016 book indicates).
I knew from the videos I watched that he is a sharp thinker whose thoughts on any topic would prove salient. His work in Excusing Sinners and Blaming God is no exception.
The majority of the book is dedicated to combatting philosophical attacks against compatibilism. And…suffice to say…Bignon evicerates arguments that purport to prove the incompatibility of determinism and moral responsibility.
The second half of the book defends God’s goodness in light of his providential dealings with moral and natural evil.
I find Bignon’s arguments convincing. He even helpfully identifies that the Apostle Paul specifically anticipated the two very objections Bignon treats in his book (Romans 9:14 & 19).
Despite our squeamishness and tendency to prefer a God of our own devising, Bignon triumphantly stands for the God who has the audacity to elect individuals to salvation and efficaciously bring about all that occurs in the cosmos (good and bad).
I think Bignon is one of the sharpest Reformed thinkers alive right now, and I’m excited that he is currently endeavoring to write a book on justification.
November 10, 2022
This is as rigorous a work as one can be on Calvinism's contention on absolute sovereignty while at the same time maintaining human moral responsibility. This is what is meant by compatibilism, namely that determinism (that all things are determined by prior causes) and moral responsibility, are in fact compatible.
Dr. Bignon surveys all kinds of arguments put forward against divine determinism and especially Calvinism on the basis of two objections which are presented in Romans 9: (1) divine determinism excuses sinners from responsibility and (2) divine determinism makes God into a sinner or makes Him the "author of sin." Within these two categories there are various arguments that he steel-mans many times and at the same time offers a rational refutation for it. I appreciated the fact that he also incorporated the Bible. Many times in such discussions of free will and divine determinism, it quickly becomes a discussion of philosophy with a closed Bible. But this is unacceptable for Christians.
This is a thought-provoking work. I appreciated the fact that he repeated some definitions so that they would be ingrained in my mind such as the conditional and categorical ability. This was a very good use of repetition. There were some portions which were hard to follow with all kinds of symbols with which I was unfamiliar (esp. Van Inwagen's arguments).
The book is also very well written, with hardly any linguistic mistakes or typos. All in all, this is a very welcome defense for the coherence of the Calvinist worldview on the question of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Dr. Bignon surveys all kinds of arguments put forward against divine determinism and especially Calvinism on the basis of two objections which are presented in Romans 9: (1) divine determinism excuses sinners from responsibility and (2) divine determinism makes God into a sinner or makes Him the "author of sin." Within these two categories there are various arguments that he steel-mans many times and at the same time offers a rational refutation for it. I appreciated the fact that he also incorporated the Bible. Many times in such discussions of free will and divine determinism, it quickly becomes a discussion of philosophy with a closed Bible. But this is unacceptable for Christians.
This is a thought-provoking work. I appreciated the fact that he repeated some definitions so that they would be ingrained in my mind such as the conditional and categorical ability. This was a very good use of repetition. There were some portions which were hard to follow with all kinds of symbols with which I was unfamiliar (esp. Van Inwagen's arguments).
The book is also very well written, with hardly any linguistic mistakes or typos. All in all, this is a very welcome defense for the coherence of the Calvinist worldview on the question of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
June 14, 2022
This book is great if you are looking for a philosophically rigorous defense of Calvinistic compatibilism. Bignon defends the compatibility of theological determinism and human moral responsibility in the first half and God’s righteousness in the second half, thereby mirroring Paul’s “interlocutor” in Romans 9: “Is there unrighteousness in God? […] Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?
Bignon does this by undercutting coercion and manipulation type arguments by adducing a conditional version of PAP over the categorical version. In other words, moral responsibility does not require a categorical ability to do otherwise but just a conditional ability if you had wanted to. Bignon then argues positively against PAP using divine impeccability and praiseworthiness and, separately, the libertarian’s dilemma between Pelagianism and universalism. In the second half of the book, Bignon shows how Arminian accusations against the Calvinist God ultimately shoot themselves in the foot when looking at the problem of evil, and he offers theological determinism as a more satisfying account of God’s control over evil.
Bignon does this by undercutting coercion and manipulation type arguments by adducing a conditional version of PAP over the categorical version. In other words, moral responsibility does not require a categorical ability to do otherwise but just a conditional ability if you had wanted to. Bignon then argues positively against PAP using divine impeccability and praiseworthiness and, separately, the libertarian’s dilemma between Pelagianism and universalism. In the second half of the book, Bignon shows how Arminian accusations against the Calvinist God ultimately shoot themselves in the foot when looking at the problem of evil, and he offers theological determinism as a more satisfying account of God’s control over evil.
September 28, 2018
Really refreshing apologetic for determinism. Explores the most common objections including Calvinism and moral responsibility as well as Calvinism and Evil. Thoroughly addresses the issue and shows how many things opponents of determinism take for granted are not logically necessary. While it is a rewarding read, it might be a difficult to obtain the rewards if one is unfamiliar with formal logic.
December 15, 2021
This book is excellent. A thorough defense of Calvinist compatibilism against the primary arguments by incompatibilists. This should be required reading in the discussion about free will and the sovereignty of God. However, this is a rather technical, philosophical book. Not unaccessible, but there may be parts that are difficult to get through for the average reader.
February 14, 2018
I would have given it three stars for Part 1 but Part 2 is worth 5 stars by itself.
did-not-finish
November 6, 2023This was a helpful book, and I got 80 pages into it, but in the end it was just too much detailed philosophy for a casual read. I am keeping it for reference purposes.
March 20, 2024
Impressive in his argumentation, even if you disagree with him
September 29, 2024
Excellent read! Highly recommend it for anyone curious on the current dialectic and debate regarding reformed theology and free will! A must read!
January 3, 2022
Still have to review all my many highlights in this book before I can give any opinion. Probably the toughest read I've done so far.
March 5, 2022
This book appealed to me quite strongly because I am a certain type of person. Specifically, I spent enough time in Christian apologetics to be somewhat blindly influenced by the wave of popular Molinism into thinking that I myself was a Molinist, and all the while I was developing views that were plainly compatibilist. Once I realized that I, in my ignorance, had mislabeled my views on free will, the next logical step was to go looking for a camp that actually reflected my beliefs.
This is surely not the only way to benefit from Excusing Sinners and Blaming God, but if you do find yourself in a position like mine, this book will be excellent for you. Bignon is sharp, precise, and laser-focused on his points. He walks very methodically through several objections to the compatibilist view, and for each one he lays out the weighty assumptions and ambiguous definitions propping them up. If you are a compatibilist, there is a decent chance that Bignon will say everything you wish you could've said. If you are not a compatibilist, he will probably give you a lot to think about. Either way, it is a very well-composed work, and it belongs on the bookshelf of anyone who wants to study free will and theological determinism.
This is surely not the only way to benefit from Excusing Sinners and Blaming God, but if you do find yourself in a position like mine, this book will be excellent for you. Bignon is sharp, precise, and laser-focused on his points. He walks very methodically through several objections to the compatibilist view, and for each one he lays out the weighty assumptions and ambiguous definitions propping them up. If you are a compatibilist, there is a decent chance that Bignon will say everything you wish you could've said. If you are not a compatibilist, he will probably give you a lot to think about. Either way, it is a very well-composed work, and it belongs on the bookshelf of anyone who wants to study free will and theological determinism.
January 31, 2025
Read for PhD seminar
March 13, 2018
An excellent book, "Excusing Sinners and Blaming God" is very much needed for Christian philosophers in general, and Calvinists in particular. Bignon aptly handles the objections Libertarian Free Will advocates lob at compatibilists, and even goes so far as to provide ample reason why the LFW position isn't just "unproven" but "false".
I highly recommend this book to anyone curious as to the logic of Calvinism, Christian apologetics, or Christian theology & philosophy. Bignon is masterful at communicating his views and is charitable toward those who disagree. This is by far the most solid 5-star ranking I've given in some time.
I highly recommend this book to anyone curious as to the logic of Calvinism, Christian apologetics, or Christian theology & philosophy. Bignon is masterful at communicating his views and is charitable toward those who disagree. This is by far the most solid 5-star ranking I've given in some time.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews