Most theology books are written by one person, or perhaps, a small group of very like-minded people. As such, they obviously present their side well, and if they wrestle with opposing views, they often do so from their own viewpoint. Balanced and honest authors can do well with that, representing the other view truthfully, but others struggle with being completely fair. As such, there can exist a tendency to misrepresent, exaggerate, or completely miss the entire paradigm of their theological foes in the struggle to prove them wrong. Seeing this, Zondervan saw an opportunity to make a buck and provide a unique resource for those on all sides of the selected issues. Thus, the Counterpoints Series was born.
The basic premise is as follows: A generic introduction is written to highlight the importance of the selected subject and help define the different positions taken by the authors. Each was selected to represent and defend his unique views, thus insuring each position is properly represented and ably defended. The first author presents his essay, and each of the others pen a direct response. Then, the second presents, and the others all respond to him. This continues until each author has made his main case and has had the chance to respond to the presentations of the others.
For this installment, the central doctrine on the table is Eternal Security. However, due to the intertwining nature of the various aspects of soteriology, Perseverance of the Saints is also heavily discussed, along with, to a lesser degree, the other points of Calvin's famous TULIP. However, even with the many detours, each of the four authors does well with keeping their focus on the main topic. Though some are even more so than others, each one retains a professional respect for the others, often exchanging compliments and praising areas of excellence.
Needless to say, this book is theologically dense. So much is considered, from so many angles, that commenting on it all would be far out of the scope of this review. A brief word of each author will have to do.
Michael Horton is a covenant theologian holding to "Strong Calvinism." Yet, ironically, he doesn't reference Calvin in his opening essay at all. He offers a group of "eternal security" proof-texts and contrasts them to a group of "Armenian" proof-texts, then claims they are contradictory unless viewed through Covenant Theology. He spends so much time building up Covenant Theology, with the three categories of people, that he has little space left to actually detail how it applies to Eternal Security. He believes, not in a lost/saved dichotomy, but adds a third category for those who are not saved, but through association with the saved and/or being physical descendants of Abraham, can have the blessings on earth of being saved, and can appear that way for a time, but will eventually fall away revealing their true nature of never having been true believers. However, he makes clear that the truly saved will truly endure, and will enter Heaven.
Most of the responses by the other authors deal with deconstructing covenant theology or that third addition of being a "child of the covenant" without actually believing. However, Geisler responds well by saying "...The real fear is generated by strong Calvinism's claims that people cannot know for sure that are elect until they die." Thus, while the elect are saved, since other "children of the covenant" can have the same blessings and earthly life, there is no way to know which of the two groups one belongs in until he dies. This is security, but not assurance, and thus, cannot comfort or aid anyone.
Norman Geisler, representing so-called "Moderate Calvinism" is, simply put, a terrible Calvinist. He openly and radically rewrites the meaning behind every single point of TULIP, yet incomprehensibly still clings to the title of "Calvinist." However, the defining quality of his essay is the incredible avalanche of Scripture references. The upside is that he draws verse after verse after verse, firmly planting his position in the Ultimate Authority of the Bible. He is rightly called out for proof-texting, (Throwing a multitude of references around with little explanation and usually a lack of context) but rather than a deep study of every passage, he opted for making the point that the Bible backs his view, not simply some theologian. He also doesn't include much explanation, since, to be honest, a plain-Jane reading of those verses do reveal the meaning he is aiming for. It is only when an outside, predetermined theology is shoved into those verses that they come to mean something else. His is one of the densest chapters, covering many Scriptures and arguments with expert efficiency and focus.
The responses generally cry foul with "My view was misrepresented." (a common theme throughout the book in nearly all the responses) Horton calls him out for claiming the name of Calvinist without believing anywhere close, then returns to defending Covenant Theology as his answer. Harper, in particular, spends so long with compliments, and then complaints of being misrepresented, that he never addresses the actually claims that Geisler made. He points out that he disagrees, but never actually refutes with scripture or logic.
Ashby begins much like Geisler in that he contrasts his version of theology with the usual connotations of his chosen label. After all, "Reformed Armenian" is an oxymoronic phrase to many. He claims to actually represent Arminius himself and is backed by various quotes. While the underlying theology varies, at times following even classic Calvinism, his position on eternal security itself seems very similar to Geisler, with one important difference. First, that man is, like Strong Calvinism, totally depraved, and second, He believes that a man, once believing, can be saved, but if he ever turns from that belief, he is forever and irreversibly lost.
Ironically, since the Strong/Classical Calvinist didn't reference Calvin, the Wesleyan Armenian defender seems like he's trying to make up for him with his unceasing references to his namesake. In fact, a rough count shows 39 direct word-for-word quotes from Wesley in the main text of the 46 page essay, with far, far more paraphrases and footnote references also present. Direct quotes from the Bible numbered only 9. I only found 31 Bible references of any kind whatsoever in the essay. He has a good heart to seek what the original man said and not what later interpretations said he said, and for that, I commend him. But promoting any man above Scripture is a dangerous fault! As later pointed out in responses, he, for all his quoting, even seems to miss what Wesley actually said. His position on Eternal Security is not stereotypical Armenian, (That being, any tiny, unconfessed sin after salvation can still send you to Hell.) instead opting to conclude that only apostasy and prolonged sins can keep one from Heaven. In truth, he has contradictory statements throughout the essay that muddle exactly what he means by the latter phrase.
I was hoping for a small "wrap up" at the end in the same spirit as the opening introduction, but even without that, a glossary of theological terms, a Scripture Index, and Topic Index provide much-needed aid to those wishing to reference the book later.
Overall excellent reference that is well worth the price. Just be careful about setting expectations on the positions of these men. Horton is Calvinist, but doesn't reference his namesake, leaving doubts to the historicity of his claim, Geisler is very Biblically articulate, but certainly not a Calvinist as many understand the term. Ashby seems true to Arminius, as Harper is to Wesley, but neither is close to the more common interpretations and stereotypical representation of their respective belief system. Horton seemed preoccupied with Covenant Theology, but offered some very good counter arguments in responses. I agree with Geisler, not only in position, but in his presentation style and Scriptural basis. Ashby offered an excellent and well-prepared defense of his position, while Harper, through poor use of space, lack of Bible references, and seeming admission that more than one of the positions can be correct at once sets him lowest in my estimation. While some of the parts may be less than perfect, this is one book whose whole value is even greater than the sum of its parts.
Notable Quotables:
Harper, in his response to Horton: "Warnings about apostasy given to those who are neither "saved" nor "unsaved" (Horton's way of making room for the third category) do not make sense. Warnings against falling away need only be given to those who have not done so, and that is what John and Paul are doing when they write as they do."
Concluding statement of Geisler's essay - "Moderate Calvinism, on the contrary, holds that one can have both present assurance and eternal security - the best of both worlds."
An opening statement of Ashby's essay - ""What is Reformed Arminianism?" The answer is simple; It is the view of Jacobus Arminius himself."
Opening statements of Harper's essay - "Theology cannot be chopped into pieces. It is the unified story of God's nature and activity in relation to all he has made. Specific doctrines are connected to each other, drawing from and contributing to other elements of the story."
Geisler, in his response to Harper: "Further, it appears to be inconsistent to claim, on the one hand, that tradition, reason, and experience, along with Scripture, are the parts of the basis for a doctrine, and yet on the other hand, to maintain that the Bible "alone" is the sole basis for doctrine. It often appears to a Calvinist that Arminians interpret the Scripture by their experience rather than understanding their experience in the light of the Scripture."
4/5
Buy it now on Amazon.com.