What do you think?
Rate this book
Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique
Calvinism raises serious concerns about the growth of a popularized Reformed theology.
Through a wide lens of denominational and theological perspectives, this volume carefully examines the theological tradition known today as "Calvinism," particularly its doctrine of salvation. Editors David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke lead a team of top contributors offering theological, historical, biblical, and practical critiques.
Through a wide lens of denominational and theological perspectives, this volume carefully examines the theological tradition known today as "Calvinism," particularly its doctrine of salvation. Editors David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke lead a team of top contributors offering theological, historical, biblical, and practical critiques.
560 pages, Hardcover
Published August 1, 2022
14 people are currently reading
81 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 26, 2025
This collection of essays critiquing Calvinism is successful so far as it gives non-Calvinists evidence to strengthen their position and gives Calvinists arguments to consider. However, the scholarship of this work is mixed and often severely flawed. In short, the book is an okay representation of non-Calvinist critiques, but it is generally not the most balanced book for introducing or furthering this historic debate. Thus, I would not particularly recommend it.
What follows below is a more thorough critique, with specific flaws and examples.
•••
To be upfront about my perspective, I currently identity as a 4-point Reformed Baptist. However, potential biases aside, I found most chapters guilty of at least one of the following four critiques.
1: A shallow pool of Reformed sources. One stated goal of this book was to critique Calvinism in general rather than narrowing its focus to a specific vein of Calvinism (pp. 4-5), but this prevented many contributors from representing more detailed or more common views of Calvinists today. For instance, in discussing the transmission of Adam's guilt to all humanity, Adam Harwood briefly mentioned a variety of historic views among the Reformed, but only answered Augustine's realist account (pp. 22-32) — which does not represent the views of mainstream Calvinism today. Furthermore, some entire chapters relied on only a handful of Reformed voices, on which they hung their critiques. Ben Witherington III only cited Augustine and John Calvin (ch. 8), and Bruce Little only cited John Piper and Gordon Clark (ch. 13). Thus, while some sections were well-cited and thorough (even later in Harwood's chapter), certain arguments fell short in properly researching and representing the Calvinist views of today.
2: Misuse of sources. While the contributors showed decent familiarity with the Calvinist position, some authors flagrantly misinterpreted some of their citations. A few examples are necessary to justify the claim.
- (1) Adam Harwood stated that, in On Genesis, Augustine taught that Adam and Eve had non-flesh spiritual bodies before the Fall (pp. 22). However, the relevant citations refer to Augustine's belief that man became mortal after the Fall — as in capable of dying, rather than mere physicality. Augustine earlier in the same book testified to the physicality of unfallen man.
- (2) While discussing corporate election, Leighton Flowers quoted John Calvin's assertion that the elect "always belonged to God" and have the Father's "secret love." Based on Flowers' interpretation of Eph 1:3 that no spiritual blessing exists outside of union with Christ, Flowers proceded to accuse Calvin of believing the elect are eternally united to Christ and eternally justified (p. 62). Those are not views Calvin endorsed in the citation, yet Flowers used it as a strawman to attack.
- (3) Kenneth Wilson wrote that the Calvinist tradition depends on Augustine, and Augustine copied from Paganism — Stoicism, Platonism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism (ch. 6). The link is a term Wilson coined himself, "Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies," which he equates with Unconditional Election (p. 217). However, Wilson does not quote any Pagans, only citing them in footnotes most readers wouldn't be able to double-check. The reason is likely because their beliefs and language is so foreign to Augustine and Scripture as to disprove the connection. Calvinists and Pagans disagree on "divine" (one God vs more, personal vs not, good vs evil), "unilateral" (monergism vs works-based asceticism), "predetermination" (compatibalistic predestination vs sheer physical determinism/fate), and "eternal destinies" (eternity with God vs ceasing to exist/reincarnate). Yet Wilson goes so far as to call Augustine's God "his Stoic god" (p. 233). To be clear, this is a fringe interpretation of Augustine, and this chapter was the worst out of the book for its dishonest scholarship.
3: Disagreement between authors. This book boasts of a "wide lens of denominational and theological perspectives" (back cover), but this variety leads to inconsistency and contradiction. On a larger scale, this can be illustrated by Ben Witherington III's critique of imputed righteousness (pp. 291-292), a critique unique to Wesleyans that the Baptist contributors are not likely to share. One more blatant contradiction was on the issue of God and evil. Roger Olson wrote a whole chapter on the character of God in Calvinism, where he asserted Calvinism necessarily entails a "moral monster" of a God (p. 368), hardly distinguishable from the devil (p. 386). In the very next chapter, on determinism and human freedom, John Laing wrote that Calvinists have an "appealing... patently biblical" theodicy (p. 421). And in the very next chapter, on evil and God's sovereignty, Bruce Little wrote that the Calvinist view of human will "destroys the notion of justice" (p. 454). Thus, the contributers don't even agree on what the problem with Calvinism is.
4: Irrelevance of certain chapters. The book is written as a critique of Calvinism, but multiple chapters did not argue against Calvinist doctrine. J. Matthew Pinson wrote "Dissent from Calvinism in the Baptist Tradition," but his chapter did not go into the arguments of non-Calvinist Baptists. Instead, he wrote a simple history of when and where Baptist traditions developed or changed. Mark Tolbert wrote "The Public Invitation and Altar Call," but only cited a single Calvinist who disagreed with altar calls. In fact, he cited more Calvinists who support altar calls than dissented. Lastly, Ken Keathley wrote "A Critique of Perseverance of the Saints," but while he was critical of some Calvinist versions of perseverance, he still ultimately affirmed a moderate version. These chapters were fairly well researched and written, but none of them really critiqued Calvinism as such — definitely none fit the back-cover description of answering "serious concerns" with Calvinist doctrine.
There are more flaws than these, and more examples of each flaw, but these are the biggest and most common issues I ran into while reading the book.
•••
This book was not all negative. Most chapters had some redeeming qualities (the jury's still out on Ken Wilson). I think the book was at its strongest in the chapters focused on making positive arguments for non-Calvinism. Specifically, "Romans 9 and Calvinism" by Brian Abasciano, "Corporate and Personal Election" by William Klein, and "Determination and Human Freedom" by John Laing. While I may have disagreed with these chapters' conclusions, I felt they were strongest in their research and argumentation. Furthermore, the epilogue by Kevin Wax on unity between Calvinists and non- for the mission was encouraging. Not every chapter had that same humble, positive tone.
But in the final analysis, the book is a decent enough addition to the discussion for getting a feel of the state of the debate, but the book is neither the most balanced introduction nor the best researched argument. Instead, it mostly falls into some notable academic flaws. As I wrote at the start, I would not particularly recommend this book to any one — unless, perhaps, you were already familiar with the debate and just want to hear some more voices in it. And even for that purpose, many of these chapters are shortened versions of books, articles, and chapters found elsewhere.
What follows below is a more thorough critique, with specific flaws and examples.
•••
To be upfront about my perspective, I currently identity as a 4-point Reformed Baptist. However, potential biases aside, I found most chapters guilty of at least one of the following four critiques.
1: A shallow pool of Reformed sources. One stated goal of this book was to critique Calvinism in general rather than narrowing its focus to a specific vein of Calvinism (pp. 4-5), but this prevented many contributors from representing more detailed or more common views of Calvinists today. For instance, in discussing the transmission of Adam's guilt to all humanity, Adam Harwood briefly mentioned a variety of historic views among the Reformed, but only answered Augustine's realist account (pp. 22-32) — which does not represent the views of mainstream Calvinism today. Furthermore, some entire chapters relied on only a handful of Reformed voices, on which they hung their critiques. Ben Witherington III only cited Augustine and John Calvin (ch. 8), and Bruce Little only cited John Piper and Gordon Clark (ch. 13). Thus, while some sections were well-cited and thorough (even later in Harwood's chapter), certain arguments fell short in properly researching and representing the Calvinist views of today.
2: Misuse of sources. While the contributors showed decent familiarity with the Calvinist position, some authors flagrantly misinterpreted some of their citations. A few examples are necessary to justify the claim.
- (1) Adam Harwood stated that, in On Genesis, Augustine taught that Adam and Eve had non-flesh spiritual bodies before the Fall (pp. 22). However, the relevant citations refer to Augustine's belief that man became mortal after the Fall — as in capable of dying, rather than mere physicality. Augustine earlier in the same book testified to the physicality of unfallen man.
- (2) While discussing corporate election, Leighton Flowers quoted John Calvin's assertion that the elect "always belonged to God" and have the Father's "secret love." Based on Flowers' interpretation of Eph 1:3 that no spiritual blessing exists outside of union with Christ, Flowers proceded to accuse Calvin of believing the elect are eternally united to Christ and eternally justified (p. 62). Those are not views Calvin endorsed in the citation, yet Flowers used it as a strawman to attack.
- (3) Kenneth Wilson wrote that the Calvinist tradition depends on Augustine, and Augustine copied from Paganism — Stoicism, Platonism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism (ch. 6). The link is a term Wilson coined himself, "Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies," which he equates with Unconditional Election (p. 217). However, Wilson does not quote any Pagans, only citing them in footnotes most readers wouldn't be able to double-check. The reason is likely because their beliefs and language is so foreign to Augustine and Scripture as to disprove the connection. Calvinists and Pagans disagree on "divine" (one God vs more, personal vs not, good vs evil), "unilateral" (monergism vs works-based asceticism), "predetermination" (compatibalistic predestination vs sheer physical determinism/fate), and "eternal destinies" (eternity with God vs ceasing to exist/reincarnate). Yet Wilson goes so far as to call Augustine's God "his Stoic god" (p. 233). To be clear, this is a fringe interpretation of Augustine, and this chapter was the worst out of the book for its dishonest scholarship.
3: Disagreement between authors. This book boasts of a "wide lens of denominational and theological perspectives" (back cover), but this variety leads to inconsistency and contradiction. On a larger scale, this can be illustrated by Ben Witherington III's critique of imputed righteousness (pp. 291-292), a critique unique to Wesleyans that the Baptist contributors are not likely to share. One more blatant contradiction was on the issue of God and evil. Roger Olson wrote a whole chapter on the character of God in Calvinism, where he asserted Calvinism necessarily entails a "moral monster" of a God (p. 368), hardly distinguishable from the devil (p. 386). In the very next chapter, on determinism and human freedom, John Laing wrote that Calvinists have an "appealing... patently biblical" theodicy (p. 421). And in the very next chapter, on evil and God's sovereignty, Bruce Little wrote that the Calvinist view of human will "destroys the notion of justice" (p. 454). Thus, the contributers don't even agree on what the problem with Calvinism is.
4: Irrelevance of certain chapters. The book is written as a critique of Calvinism, but multiple chapters did not argue against Calvinist doctrine. J. Matthew Pinson wrote "Dissent from Calvinism in the Baptist Tradition," but his chapter did not go into the arguments of non-Calvinist Baptists. Instead, he wrote a simple history of when and where Baptist traditions developed or changed. Mark Tolbert wrote "The Public Invitation and Altar Call," but only cited a single Calvinist who disagreed with altar calls. In fact, he cited more Calvinists who support altar calls than dissented. Lastly, Ken Keathley wrote "A Critique of Perseverance of the Saints," but while he was critical of some Calvinist versions of perseverance, he still ultimately affirmed a moderate version. These chapters were fairly well researched and written, but none of them really critiqued Calvinism as such — definitely none fit the back-cover description of answering "serious concerns" with Calvinist doctrine.
There are more flaws than these, and more examples of each flaw, but these are the biggest and most common issues I ran into while reading the book.
•••
This book was not all negative. Most chapters had some redeeming qualities (the jury's still out on Ken Wilson). I think the book was at its strongest in the chapters focused on making positive arguments for non-Calvinism. Specifically, "Romans 9 and Calvinism" by Brian Abasciano, "Corporate and Personal Election" by William Klein, and "Determination and Human Freedom" by John Laing. While I may have disagreed with these chapters' conclusions, I felt they were strongest in their research and argumentation. Furthermore, the epilogue by Kevin Wax on unity between Calvinists and non- for the mission was encouraging. Not every chapter had that same humble, positive tone.
But in the final analysis, the book is a decent enough addition to the discussion for getting a feel of the state of the debate, but the book is neither the most balanced introduction nor the best researched argument. Instead, it mostly falls into some notable academic flaws. As I wrote at the start, I would not particularly recommend this book to any one — unless, perhaps, you were already familiar with the debate and just want to hear some more voices in it. And even for that purpose, many of these chapters are shortened versions of books, articles, and chapters found elsewhere.
January 8, 2025
This is a collection of essays written by many different scholars, pastors, and authors who all have differing views. They come together to form a thorough, theological, and firmly biblical critique of “Calvinistic Soteriology”.
The humility from each author was refreshing. Although clear in their disagreements, they are each clear that the heart behind their critique is gospel unity and not division.
As a former Calvinist, now non-Calvinist, in my soteriology, this is an incredible resource. I would highly recommend for anyone, no matter where you are in the spectrum of soteriology, in order to better understand the biblical, theological, and practical inconsistencies and implications of Calvinistic soteriology.
The humility from each author was refreshing. Although clear in their disagreements, they are each clear that the heart behind their critique is gospel unity and not division.
As a former Calvinist, now non-Calvinist, in my soteriology, this is an incredible resource. I would highly recommend for anyone, no matter where you are in the spectrum of soteriology, in order to better understand the biblical, theological, and practical inconsistencies and implications of Calvinistic soteriology.
January 17, 2023
Excellent book. Learned so much. Respectful, charitable, but firm on the disagreements.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews