Follow up to "The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism" Review that I Posted Earlier

I read this review of the book and thought it was good.  He made some good points here.  Marsha

This review is from: The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism (Paperback)Please pardon the sluggish genesis of my review, but I would like for the individual reading this to take a glimpse at the state of being in which I was in when reading the work. 

From the outset I just want to state that I was only planning to read 

the chapter on evil when I first encountered this work, and borrowed it from the library. Thus, instead of wasting and not spending time on something LORD-centered, I decided to read the work as a whole instead. 

As I was grasping the literature's words with my mind, excitement and comfort came as I thought I would spend the entire morning reading a joyous work. 

Now, to state what eclipsed my joy with outrage (to use the word loosely); In his first chapter, brother Craig R. Brown goes through 

some Church history with us. Please note that I will state all the problems that I have with his work in chronological order: 

1. The Author quotes 2Peter 2:1 on page 14 to make the point that 

we should be prepared to deal with heresies (something along these lines is what he writes). This implied to me that anything other than Reformed Theology (which I line up with) is heresy. 

2. On pages 15/16 he presses forth the history of Pelagianism & Semi-Pelagianism and how it was condemned as heresy, and it was done rightly so of course. He gives us a brief idea of what these teachings are, and is essential to the point I'm trying to make, so please take note. 

3. On page 19 the author writes on how Arminianism's beliefs as expressed in the Remonstance were nothing new but a rehashing of the beliefs mentioned in point #2. As I looked immediately at the footnote, the book which he quotes is a work that is directed towards Arminianism in some of it's pages. This too is essential so please be patient as I build up to my climax.

4. On page 20 I find that he, like other Calvinists, stated the same utter falsehood that seriously enrages me! "Paul was a Calvinist" 

Sir, placing an Apostle in the same sentence with Augustine & Luther doesn't make a difference for the very reason that his written words were inspired, theirs weren't. To say that his theology lines with Calvinism is one thing, but to say that he himself was a Calvinist is going too far. If anything the Calvinist is a 'Paulinian'. 

Not trying to build a straw-man here so I'll set forward. 

5. On page 21 he states that he spent a long time studying Church history, I'm not calling him a liar but the words that come up later in the work make me question if he got his information from biased or misinformed sources (point #3). He makes the statement and implies that if you're Arminian you're seeing God and man like this: GOD - MAN 

And that he believes that by the end of his work you'll see the relationship like this: GOD - man (If read with an open mind/heart of course). I'm not going to refute this although I don't agree with it, as I believe there are those with this view. Yet why should Arminians read this with an open-mind when according to point #1 it seems as though he doesn't think this way, and won't about Arminianism. 

6. After describing what the T in TULIP stands for he writes in page 25 that Arminianism, by contrast, proclaims free will or human ability and that we haven't been left in a state of total helplessness (after the fall) but that according to Arminianism we are born "good", as where Calvinism teaches that we are born dead in sin. This was the last I could take and decided not even to read the work any further, or my copy of The Five Points Of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented that he quotes because it leads me to believe that I can't trust these sources on what real Arminianism is. I feel like I'm being indoctrinated into rejecting Arminianism without studying it further. 

Now, for my point : Yes, a lot of what the author writes is true, but it seems as though he either built a straw-army to defend his views against, or is refuting the heresies mentioned in point #2! 

What the followers of Arminius taught differs from what Arminius himself taught. Arminius held to Total Depravity & Perseverance, it was his followers who differed on this between themselves. So the statement that we aren't dead in sins or left helpless, is fallacious, otherwise why would we need prevenient grace? What [Classical Arminianism] (which I am guarding) states is that it is GOD not man who is the initiator not us (in salvation, hence the drawing), and that we don't have a "free-will" but a "freed-will", notice the distinction. I wouldn't like people misrepresenting my views, so we shouldn't do it to others. Dr. Sproul's Forward wasn't helpful either saying that "the tentes of Arminianism taste sweeter to our human sinful natures". 

I am NOT a Classical Arminian, and know that the author was not refuting this position, obviously he couldn't have been. I hold to the five points of Calvinism but will seriously consider studying both sides after this. 

-I recommend Roger E. Olson's Arminian Theology. It doesn't attack nor argue against Calvinism but clears up a lot of misconceptions, myths, and misinterpretations of Classical Arminianism.- 

{I do recommend this book for those who are Calvinists, have studied both sides, and want to strengthen their theology} I know that this review might offend some but I write some of this in sincerity (the rest in disappointment), and compared to my other reviews is probably the worst. I started writing this with seeming calmness to a little hostility but wouldn't want the author to take it too personal as I have nothing against him and recommend the book to the Christians noted. The pricing is great and some of it's points as well.} 

-Young Man