Why I Am Not a Calvinist by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell

A Philosophical and Biblical Critique of Calvinism from a Wesleyan-Arminian Perspective

Full Title: Why I Am Not a Calvinist
Authors: Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell
Publisher: InterVarsity Press (2004)
Pages: 256
Genre: Soteriology, Philosophical Theology, Biblical Theology, Evangelical Doctrine
Audience: Thoughtful lay readers, college students, pastors, and those exploring the Calvinist–Arminian debate

Context:
Written as a concise but substantive challenge to classical Calvinist theology, Why I Am Not a Calvinist brings together philosophical analysis and biblical exegesis to question the coherence and moral implications of Reformed soteriology. Walls and Dongell write self-consciously from within the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition, aiming not merely to rebut Calvinism but to show why its doctrines of election, atonement, and grace fail to align with Scripture, reason, and the character of God as revealed in Christ.

Key Dialogue Partners (Implicit):
John Calvin, Reformed confessional theology, Arminian and Wesleyan theology, philosophical discussions of freedom, responsibility, and divine goodness

Related Works:
Walls’s Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory; Dongell’s Wesleyan theological writings; Olson’s Against Calvinism; broader evangelical debates on soteriology

Note:
The distinctive contribution of Why I Am Not a Calvinist lies in its integration of philosophical clarity with biblical concern. Walls presses moral and logical questions—particularly regarding divine goodness and human responsibility—while Dongell focuses on exegetical and theological foundations. Critics from Reformed perspectives argue that the book oversimplifies Calvinism or underestimates its internal coherence, while supporters praise its accessibility and moral seriousness. As an entry-level yet intellectually responsible critique, the book functions well as a bridge between popular debates and more technical soteriological literature.

Overview and Core Thesis

Why I Am Not a Calvinist represents the most accessible, pastoral, and readable critique of Calvinism available. Written by two Wesleyan scholars—Jerry Walls (philosopher) and Joseph Dongell (biblical scholar)—the book combines philosophical rigor with exegetical care and pastoral sensitivity to argue that Calvinism, despite its claims to honor God's glory and sovereignty, actually distorts God's character and creates biblical, philosophical, and pastoral problems that Arminianism avoids.

The authors' thesis operates on multiple levels:

Biblical Concern: While Calvinists claim to take Scripture seriously, their system requires reinterpreting clear texts about God's universal love, Christ's death for all, and genuine human responsibility. Arminianism takes these texts at face value, resulting in more straightforward biblical interpretation.

Philosophical Problem: Calvinism's deterministic understanding of sovereignty makes God the author of evil, eliminates genuine moral responsibility, and creates logical contradictions that philosophical gymnastics cannot resolve. Arminianism's libertarian freedom solves these problems while maintaining God's sovereignty.

Theological Distortion: Calvinism portrays God as arbitrary (choosing some for salvation, passing over others for no reason related to them), deceptive (offering salvation He didn't provide to most), and unjust (punishing people for sins He determined they would commit). This contradicts Scripture's revelation of God as loving all, desiring all saved, and just in all His ways.

Pastoral Damage: Calvinism creates assurance problems (How do I know I'm elect?), evangelistic confusion (Why preach if outcome is predetermined?), prayer difficulties (Why pray if God's will is already fixed?), and moral paralysis (Why resist evil if God ordained it?). Arminianism provides clearer pastoral guidance and healthier spirituality.

Love-Centered Alternative: The heart of the Christian gospel is that God loves all people, Christ died for all, and salvation is genuinely offered to all. Calvinism must reinterpret or minimize these truths; Arminianism embraces them fully. A God of universal love who grants libertarian freedom better fits both Scripture and Christian experience than a God who arbitrarily elects some while passing over others.

What makes Walls and Dongell's work exceptional is their combination of accessibility and substance. They write for ordinary Christians without dumbing down the issues. They engage actual Calvinist arguments (especially from R.C. Sproul and John Piper) rather than creating straw men. They maintain respectful tone throughout while making strong critiques. The result is a book that's both easy to read and philosophically rigorous, both pastoral and theologically precise.

For readers of The Living Text, Walls and Dongell provide the most accessible entry point into understanding why we're Wesleyan-Arminian rather than Calvinist. Where Geisler is more technical and Olson more academic, Walls and Dongell write for church members wrestling with these questions. They demonstrate that rejecting Calvinism isn't about denying God's sovereignty but about properly understanding what sovereignty means for a God whose nature is love.

The authors' credentials make their critique compelling—Walls is a respected philosopher specializing in philosophy of religion; Dongell is a biblical scholar with expertise in Paul's letters. Both write from within evangelical orthodoxy, not from theological liberalism. Their critique comes from brothers who share Calvinists' commitment to biblical authority and God's glory but disagree on how to interpret that authority and what glorifies God.

Strengths: Why This Book Matters

1. Clear, Accessible Writing for Non-Specialists

The book's greatest strength is making complex theological issues understandable to ordinary Christians without academic training.

How they achieve accessibility:

1. Plain language

Avoid unnecessary jargon
Define technical terms when used
Use everyday vocabulary

Example: Instead of "compatibilist freedom vs. libertarian freedom," they explain: "Can we really choose otherwise, or are our choices determined by factors beyond our control?"

2. Real-life analogies

Abstract concepts illustrated through familiar situations
Philosophical problems made concrete
Theological ideas connected to daily experience

Example (on determinism): "Imagine a parent who programs a robot-child to disobey, then punishes the robot for doing exactly what it was programmed to do. We'd recognize this as unjust. Yet Calvinism portrays God in essentially this way."

3. Personal tone

Written as conversation with readers, not academic lecture
Authors share their own wrestling with these issues
Acknowledge emotional difficulty of the topics

Example: "We understand why Calvinism is attractive. It seems to maximize God's glory and sovereignty. We once found it appealing too. But as we dug deeper, we discovered problems we couldn't resolve..."

4. Clear structure

Each chapter addresses specific topic
Summary points at chapter ends
Progressive argument building throughout

Structure:

Part 1: Introduces the debate
Part 2: Biblical problems with Calvinism
Part 3: Philosophical problems with Calvinism
Part 4: Pastoral/practical problems with Calvinism
Part 5: Arminian alternative

5. Anticipating objections

Address common Calvinist responses preemptively
Show they've considered counter-arguments
Explain why they find responses inadequate

Why accessibility matters:

Most theological debates happen at academic level (seminary professors, scholarly journals), leaving ordinary Christians confused and dependent on pastors' interpretations. Walls and Dongell democratize the debate—giving church members tools to:

Understand the issues themselves
Evaluate arguments on both sides
Make informed decisions about their beliefs
Participate in theological discussions

For Living Text readers: This accessibility makes the book ideal for small groups, Sunday school classes, or individual study. Leaders can use it to help congregations understand why we're Wesleyan-Arminian. Unlike more technical works, this book won't overwhelm readers lacking theological education.

2. Honest Engagement with Actual Calvinist Arguments

Rather than creating straw men, Walls and Dongell engage real Calvinist theologians making their strongest arguments.

Primary Calvinist sources engaged:

1. R.C. Sproul (Chosen by God, The Invisible Hand)

Most popular Calvinist writer
Known for clear, passionate presentation
Represents moderate Reformed position

2. John Piper (The Pleasures of God, Desiring God)

Leading contemporary Calvinist voice
Emphasis on God's glory
Represents passionate, mission-oriented Calvinism

3. John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

The tradition's founder
Historical authority
Most nuanced and careful formulations

4. Westminster Confession

Standard Reformed systematic statement
Represents official Reformed position
Shows what Reformed churches formally affirm

How they engage:

1. Quote Calvinist sources directly

Extensive quotations showing what Calvinists actually say
No paraphrasing that might misrepresent
Letting Calvinists speak in their own words

Example: "Sproul writes: 'If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God's sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.' We appreciate Sproul's concern for God's sovereignty, but we question whether his conclusion follows..."

2. Acknowledge Calvinist strengths

Recognize what attracts people to Calvinism
Affirm shared concerns (God's glory, biblical authority)
Express respect for Calvinist scholars and believers

Example: "We deeply appreciate our Calvinist brothers' zeal for God's sovereignty and glory. They are often more passionate about evangelism and missions than their theology would seem to require. This testifies to their hearts even when we think their theology is problematic."

3. Take strongest form of arguments

Don't attack weak or extreme versions
Engage the best Calvinist thinkers
Address the most sophisticated defenses

Example: Rather than attacking hyper-Calvinism (which most Calvinists reject), they engage five-point Calvinism as represented by Sproul and Piper—positions mainstream Calvinists actually hold.

4. Show internal tensions

Point out where Calvinists themselves struggle
Note where Calvinist theologians disagree with each other
Identify where practice contradicts theology

Example: "Piper insists God ordained all evil, yet also insists God hates evil. But how can God ordain what He hates? Piper appeals to mystery, but this seems more like contradiction than mystery."

Why honest engagement matters:

Prevents dismissal: Calvinists can't say "They don't understand our position" because the book demonstrates thorough understanding

Builds credibility: Readers trust authors who fairly represent opposing views before critiquing

Strengthens critique: Refuting strong arguments is more convincing than refuting weak ones

Models Christian discourse: Shows how to disagree charitably while maintaining convictions

For Living Text readers: When we critique Calvinism, we should follow this model—engage actual Calvinist arguments, quote real Calvinist sources, acknowledge legitimate Calvinist concerns. This prevents us from attacking positions our Calvinist brothers don't actually hold.

3. The Philosophical Case: Determinism and Moral Responsibility

Walls (as philosopher) provides the book's most powerful section—demonstrating that Calvinist determinism eliminates genuine moral responsibility.

The argument structure:

Premise 1: Moral responsibility requires ability to do otherwise

For someone to be morally responsible for an action, they must have genuinely been able to choose differently.

Illustration: If I hold a gun to your head and force you to steal, you're not morally responsible for the theft—you had no real choice. Moral responsibility presupposes freedom.

Philosophical principle: "Ought implies can"—if you couldn't have done otherwise, you can't be held responsible for not doing otherwise.

Premise 2: Calvinism eliminates ability to do otherwise

Calvinist position:

God determines all things, including human choices
Humans act according to their God-given nature
This nature determines choices infallibly

John Piper: "God... governs all things down to the smallest details of our lives... [including] the movement of every molecule in the universe."

R.C. Sproul: God ordains "all that comes to pass"—nothing happens that God didn't decree.

Result: If God determines all choices, humans couldn't have chosen otherwise. God's decree makes the outcome certain and necessary.

Premise 3: Without ability to do otherwise, moral responsibility collapses

The problem:

Adam was determined to sin → How is Adam culpable?
Judas was determined to betray → How is Judas guilty?
Unbelievers are determined to reject Christ → How can they be held accountable?

Walls' analogy:

"Imagine programming a robot to murder someone, then putting the robot on trial for murder. We'd recognize this as absurd—the robot isn't morally responsible; the programmer is. Yet Calvinism portrays God as programming humans for sin, then holding them accountable. The programmer (God) is ultimately responsible, not the robot (human)."

Calvinist response 1: "Secondary causes"

Calvinists argue: God determines through secondary causes. He works through human desires, motives, and choices. Humans are responsible because they want to do what they do.

Walls' reply: "But who determined what they want? If God determined their desires, motives, and nature—everything that goes into producing the choice—then God is still ultimately responsible. Calling it 'secondary causation' doesn't solve the problem; it just renames it."

Analogy: If I brainwash you to desire to murder, then you murder because you desire it, you're still not ultimately responsible—I am, because I created the desire that inevitably produced the action.

Calvinist response 2: "Compatibilist freedom"

Calvinists argue: Freedom doesn't require ability to do otherwise. Freedom means acting according to your strongest desire without external coercion. You're free if you do what you want, even if what you want is determined.

Walls' reply: "This redefines freedom to make it compatible with determinism, but it's not real freedom. It's like saying a prisoner is 'free' because he's doing what he wants (staying in his cell to avoid being shot if he escapes). Technically true but meaningless."

The deeper problem: If God determines your desires, and your desires determine your choices, then God determines your choices. You're the mechanism through which God's determination operates, but you're not the ultimate source of the choice.

Calvinist response 3: "Mystery and paradox"

Calvinists argue: We can't fully understand how God's sovereignty and human responsibility relate. It's a mystery we accept on biblical authority even if it seems paradoxical to us.

Walls' reply: "Mystery is appropriate for 'how' questions but not 'whether' questions. We may not understand how God can foreknow free choices, but that's okay—it's a mystery. But saying humans are responsible for choices they couldn't avoid isn't mystery; it's contradiction. Appealing to mystery doesn't make contradictions acceptable."

The distinction:

Mystery: We don't understand how X works, but we know X is true (e.g., Trinity)
Contradiction: X and not-X can't both be true (e.g., humans both can and can't do otherwise)

Calvinism's problem is contradiction, not merely mystery.

The alternative: Libertarian freedom

Walls' positive argument:

1. Humans have libertarian free will

Ability to choose between genuine alternatives
Given identical circumstances, could have chosen differently
Real power to determine one's own choices

2. God grants this freedom because:

Love requires freedom (can't coerce genuine love)
Moral responsibility requires freedom (can't hold people accountable for determined actions)
Image-bearing requires freedom (reflecting God's free creative choice)

3. This doesn't limit God's sovereignty because:

God sovereignly chose to create free creatures
God is so powerful He can accomplish His purposes even with free agents
God's sovereignty is self-limiting by choice, not limited by external force

Analogy (repeated from earlier reviews but crucial):

Master chess player vs. novice. Master guarantees victory (sovereignty) without determining every move the novice makes (freedom). Master adapts to novice's moves, always staying ahead. Master's skill ensures certain outcome despite novice's genuine freedom.

Similarly: God guarantees history's ultimate outcome (His purposes will be accomplished) without determining every human choice (genuine freedom).

Why this matters:

The philosophical argument is devastating to Calvinist determinism:

1. Shows Calvinism has insolvable problem

Can't maintain both determinism and moral responsibility
Must either admit God determines sin (making Him author of evil) or admit humans are free (abandoning determinism)
"Secondary causes" and "compatibilism" don't solve the problem

2. Validates Arminian alternative

Libertarian freedom isn't limiting God but properly understanding Him
God can be sovereign without determining everything
Moral responsibility is preserved

3. Demonstrates stakes of debate

Not merely abstract theology
Affects whether God is just, whether humans are responsible, whether Christianity makes moral sense

For Living Text readers: This philosophical argument undergirds our entire framework. The cosmic conflict requires that Powers genuinely rebel (not determined by God). Human participation in redemption requires genuine freedom (enabled by grace). Moral responsibility requires ability to do otherwise. Without libertarian freedom, our theology collapses into determinism—making God the author of the Powers' rebellion and our sin.

4. The Biblical Case: God's Universal Love and Sincere Offer

Dongell (as biblical scholar) demonstrates that Scripture clearly teaches God loves all people and sincerely desires all saved—truths Calvinism must reinterpret or minimize.

The biblical data:

1. God's universal love

John 3:16 — "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

Plain meaning:

"World" = humanity generally, not merely elect
"Whoever" = unlimited invitation to all
God's love motivates the gift (not merely love for elect)

Calvinist reinterpretation:

"World" = elect from all nations (not every individual)
"Whoever" = whoever among the elect believes

Dongell's response: "This eisegesis (reading into text) violates straightforward meaning. John uses 'world' to mean humanity (John 1:10, 'the world did not know him'). If 'world' meant only elect, John's point (God's surprising, generous love for humanity) is lost."

1 John 4:8, 16 — "God is love"

Significance: Love is God's essential nature, not merely an attribute He possesses. A God whose very essence is love must love all His creatures (not selectively love only some).

Dongell: "If God is love essentially, can He fail to love any human being He created? Calvinism requires saying yes—God doesn't love the non-elect, or loves them differently. But this contradicts 'God is love' unless love is redefined to allow hatred or indifference toward some people."

2. God's universal salvific will

1 Timothy 2:4 — "God our Savior... desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"

Plain meaning: God genuinely, sincerely desires every person's salvation

Calvinist reinterpretation:

"All people" = all types of people (Jews and Gentiles, kings and commoners)
God desires their salvation in some abstract, conditional sense ("if they were elect")

Dongell's response: "The context (v. 1-2, 'for kings and all who are in high positions') suggests universality, not merely diversity. Paul is saying we should pray for all because God desires all saved. If 'all' means 'all types,' then God desires 'all types including all types who will be damned,' which Calvinists deny."

2 Peter 3:9 — "The Lord... is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance"

Plain meaning: God's desire is universal—He doesn't wish anyone to perish, wants everyone to repent

Calvinist reinterpretation: "Any" and "all" refer to any/all of the elect

Dongell's response: "Peter is explaining why Christ hasn't returned yet—because God is patiently waiting, not wanting anyone to perish. If this refers only to the elect, it's a tautology: 'God doesn't want the elect to perish.' Of course not—they can't perish by definition. The point is God's patience extends to everyone, giving opportunity for repentance."

Ezekiel 18:23, 32 — "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?... For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

Plain meaning: God takes no pleasure in anyone's death; desires all turn and live

Calvinist problem: If God predetermined most humans to damnation, how does He take no pleasure in their death? He ordained it!

3. Christ's death for all

1 John 2:2 — "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world"

Plain meaning: Christ's atoning death covers sins of whole world, not just believers

Calvinist reinterpretation: "Whole world" = elect scattered throughout world

Dongell's response: "John explicitly contrasts 'ours' (believers) with 'whole world' (beyond believers). If 'whole world' means only elect believers, the contrast is meaningless. John's point is Christ's death has universal scope."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 — "One has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves"

Hebrews 2:9 — "He... by the grace of God might taste death for everyone"

Titus 2:11 — "The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people"

John 1:29 — "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Consistent testimony: Christ died for all people, the world, everyone—not a select group.

4. Genuine invitations and commands

Matthew 11:28 — "Come to me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest"

Isaiah 55:1 — "Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat!"

Revelation 22:17 — "Let the one who desires take the water of life freely"

Plain meaning: Open invitations to all—no hidden qualification "if you're elect"

Calvinist problem: If Christ didn't die for the non-elect and they can't respond, these invitations are deceptive. God is offering what He hasn't provided.

Acts 17:30 — "God... commands all people everywhere to repent"

Problem: Can God justly command people to do what He made impossible? If He determined they wouldn't repent and didn't provide atonement for them, the command is cruel.

The hermeneutical issue:

Dongell's key argument:

"Calvinism requires consistently reinterpreting clear biblical statements:

'All' must mean 'all the elect'
'World' must mean 'elect from all nations'
'Whoever' must mean 'whoever among the elect'
'Desires all saved' must mean 'desires all types saved' or 'desires in some abstract sense'

This creates an interpretive pattern where straightforward universal language is always reinterpreted to fit a predetermined system. Shouldn't we instead take these texts at face value and adjust our system accordingly?"

The principle: When numerous clear texts teach X, and our system contradicts X, we should revise the system—not reinterpret all the texts.

Why this matters:

The biblical case is compelling because:

1. Shows Calvinism requires extensive reinterpretation

Not just a few difficult texts
Consistent pattern of making universal language particular

2. Demonstrates Arminianism takes texts plainly

God loves all → All includes everyone
Christ died for all → All includes everyone
God desires all saved → All includes everyone

3. Validates Arminian approach as more biblical

Reading Scripture naturally rather than through system
Letting Bible shape theology rather than theology shape Bible

4. Reveals what's at stake

God's character (Does He love all or only some?)
Gospel message (Did Christ die for everyone or only elect?)
Evangelistic confidence (Can we genuinely offer salvation to all?)

For Living Text readers: Our biblical theology emphasizes God's universal purposes:

Sacred space intended for all creation (not just elect)
Christ's victory over Powers is for the world (John 3:16-17)
Mission is to all nations (not seeking out predetermined elect)
Gospel offer is sincere to all people (God genuinely desires all respond)

Taking universal biblical language at face value is essential to our framework.

5. The Problem of Evil and God's Character

Walls and Dongell demonstrate that Calvinism creates insolvable problem of evil—making God the author of sin and evil.

The problem:

If God determines all things (including evil choices and actions), then God is ultimately responsible for evil, not humans.

The Calvinist position (stated clearly):

John Piper: "God... governs all things down to the smallest details... [including] sin and calamity."

R.C. Sproul: "If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one atom running loose outside the scope or sphere of God's divine government and control, then we face... cosmic chaos."

Westminster Confession: "God from all eternity did... freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

The implication:

If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, He ordains:

Adam's sin
Cain's murder of Abel
Pharaoh's hardness
Judas' betrayal
Hitler's genocide
Every rape, murder, abuse, and atrocity

The Calvinist response:

"God ordains evil through secondary causes but doesn't cause it directly. Humans are secondary causes and bear responsibility."

Walls' critique:

1. The distinction doesn't solve the problem

If God determines that humans will sin by determining everything about them (their nature, desires, circumstances, choices), then God is the ultimate cause even if humans are the immediate cause.

Analogy: If I design and program a robot to commit murder, then activate it, the robot is the immediate cause of the murder, but I'm ultimately responsible. Calling the robot a "secondary cause" doesn't absolve me.

2. Calvinist language betrays the problem

Calvinists use euphemisms to obscure what they're actually saying:

"Ordain" instead of "cause"
"Decree" instead of "make happen"
"Permit" instead of "determine"

But if God's "ordaining" guarantees what will happen, it's not permission but causation.

Sproul admits: "If God in any way caused or authored evil, then He would be morally responsible for evil."

Walls responds: "Exactly! But Calvinism does make God the author of evil (by determining it), just using different vocabulary."

3. Appeals to mystery don't help

Calvinists: "How God ordains evil without being its author is a mystery we accept by faith."

Walls: "But this isn't mysterious—it's contradictory. If God determines all evil, then God is its author, by definition. You can't determine that something will happen and claim you didn't author it. Mystery applies to how something works, not whether contradictory things can both be true."

The character issue:

If God determines all evil, what does this say about His character?

Walls and Dongell argue Calvinism makes God:

1. Arbitrary

Chooses some for salvation, passes over others
No reason related to the people themselves
Could have saved all but chose not to
"Might makes right" logic

2. Deceptive

Offers salvation to all (Matthew 11:28, Revelation 22:17)
But only provided atonement for some
Commands repentance from those He determined wouldn't repent
Gospel offers become theatrical, not genuine

3. Unjust

Punishes people for sins He determined they would commit
Holds people accountable for choices they couldn't avoid
Condemns people for lacking faith He didn't give them
"God's justice is different from ours" becomes excuse for injustice

4. Cruel

Creates beings He intends to damn
Determines they will sin, then punishes them for sinning
Loves and desires salvation for people He predetermined to damn (contradiction)
Takes "no pleasure" in deaths He ordained

Calvinist response: "God's ways are higher than ours"

Walls' reply: "But this becomes blank check for any immoral actions attributed to God. We could use same logic to justify:

'God commands rape' (His ways are higher)
'God lies' (His ways are higher)
'God is unjust' (His ways are higher)

At some point, 'God's ways are higher' contradicts revelation of God's character. Scripture reveals God is just, loving, truthful—not that He's arbitrary, deceptive, or cruel in ways we can't understand."

The alternative:

Arminian position resolves the problem:

1. God permits evil but doesn't cause it

God gave creatures freedom (essential for love and moral responsibility)
Creatures misuse freedom, choosing sin
God permits this (could prevent but values freedom) within limits
God isn't author because He didn't determine the evil choice

2. Evil is genuinely contrary to God's will

God hates sin and works against it
God seeks to minimize evil and overcome it
God will ultimately eliminate evil (new creation)
This makes spiritual warfare real—God fighting against evil, not orchestrating it

3. God's character is vindicated

God loves all (no arbitrariness)
God's offers are sincere (He provided atonement for all)
God is just (doesn't punish for determined actions)
God is not cruel (didn't predetermine damnation)

Why this matters:

The problem of evil is perhaps the strongest argument against Calvinism because:

1. It resonates with people's moral intuitions

Average Christians immediately see the problem: "How can God determine evil and not be responsible?"
Calvinist explanations seem like philosophical sophistry
Arminian solution seems straightforward and biblical

2. It affects worship and relationship with God

Hard to love and trust a God who might have predetermined you for damnation
Hard to believe God loves you if He determined every sin you commit
Arminian God is easier to love, trust, worship

3. It has evangelistic implications

Can we genuinely say "God loves you" to everyone?
Can we truly offer salvation if Christ might not have died for them?
Calvinism creates hesitation; Arminianism creates confidence

For Living Text readers: This argument is crucial to our framework:

The Powers genuinely rebelled (God didn't determine their rebellion)
Cosmic conflict is real (God fighting against evil, not choreographing it)
God's character is loving, just, gracious (no hidden dark side)
Mission is genuine (God truly desires all respond)

Without solving the problem of evil properly, our theology collapses.

6. Pastoral and Practical Problems

Beyond philosophical and biblical issues, Walls and Dongell show Calvinism creates practical problems for Christian life and ministry.

Problem 1: Assurance difficulties

The Calvinist teaching:

Only the elect will be saved
Election is unconditional (not based on faith)
You can't know if you're elect until you persevere to the end
Many who seem converted aren't truly elect

The pastoral problem:

"How do I know I'm elect?"

Calvinist answer: "Look for evidence of election—faith, good works, perseverance."

But: This creates anxiety because:

Faith might be temporary (non-elect can have false faith)
Works might be external (non-elect can appear righteous)
Perseverance can only be known at death

Result: Christians perpetually uncertain, constantly examining themselves, worried they might be non-elect despite current belief.

Historical example: Puritans (many Calvinist) struggled with assurance crises—extended periods doubting their election, searching for signs they were chosen.

The Arminian solution:

"If you're trusting Christ now, you're saved now."

Assurance is based on:

Present faith in Christ (1 John 5:13)
Promise of Scripture (John 3:16—"whoever believes")
Witness of Spirit (Romans 8:16)

Security is in Christ through faith. As long as you're trusting Him, you're safe. No need to wonder if you're elect—you know you're saved because you're believing.

Problem 2: Evangelism confusion

The Calvinist teaching:

God has predetermined who will be saved
The elect will certainly be saved (irresistible grace)
The non-elect cannot be saved (no atonement for them, grace not given)

The pastoral problem:

"Why evangelize if the outcome is predetermined?"

Calvinist answer: "Evangelism is the means God uses to save the elect."

But: This makes evangelism feel mechanical rather than genuinely purposeful:

We're not really persuading anyone (God determines response)
We can't actually make a difference in anyone's destiny (already fixed)
We're just identifying the elect rather than reaching the lost

Historical tension: Many Calvinist churches became non-evangelistic, reasoning: "The elect will be saved anyway." High Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism both struggled with evangelistic motivation.

The Arminian solution:

Evangelism is genuinely purposeful because:

Christ died for everyone (unlimited atonement)
God desires all saved (universal salvific will)
Anyone can respond to gospel (grace offered to all)
Our preaching can actually influence people's destiny

This creates urgency—people are genuinely lost and we have the message that can save them.

Problem 3: Prayer difficulties

The Calvinist teaching:

God has predetermined all things
Nothing happens that God hasn't decreed
God's will is always accomplished

The pastoral problem:

"Why pray if everything is already decided?"

Calvinist answer: "Prayer is the means God uses to accomplish His predetermined purposes."

But: This makes prayer feel pointless:

If God has already decided what will happen, my prayers don't change anything
At best, I'm just discovering God's will, not influencing it
My prayers are part of the script, not genuine requests

Practical effect: Calvinist theology discourages fervent prayer, especially:

Intercessory prayer for the lost (their destiny is fixed)
Prayer for healing or deliverance (God determined the suffering)
Prayer for changed circumstances (God ordained current situation)

The Arminian solution:

Prayer is genuinely effective because:

God invites us to participate in His work
God's will includes our requests as a factor
God responds to prayer (changes plans based on intercession—Jonah 3:10, Exodus 32:14)
Prayer can make a difference in outcomes

This creates motivation for fervent, persistent prayer.

Problem 4: Moral paralysis

The Calvinist teaching:

God ordained all evil for His glory
Everything that happens is God's will
God works all things according to His decree

The pastoral problem:

"If God ordained evil, why resist it?"

Calvinist answer: "God ordained both the evil and our resistance to it."

But: This creates confusion:

Am I fighting against God's will (the evil He ordained) or with God's will (my resistance He ordained)?
If my resistance is predetermined, is it genuine resistance or just going through motions?
If I successfully resist evil, did I thwart what God ordained, or was my success also ordained?

Practical effect: Creates passivity in face of evil:

"Whatever happens is God's will, so I shouldn't fight it too hard"
"God must have ordained this suffering, so I should accept it"
Fatalism replaces active opposition to evil

The Arminian solution:

We actively resist evil because:

Evil is contrary to God's will (He permits but doesn't ordain)
We're called to fight against what God hates
Our choices matter—we can actually resist and overcome evil
God is with us in the fight (not orchestrating both sides)

This creates moral clarity and active engagement in spiritual warfare.

Problem 5: "Might makes right" morality

The Calvinist teaching:

Whatever God does is right by definition (because He's God)
We can't judge God's actions by human standards
God's nature defines goodness

The pastoral problem:

If God can arbitrarily choose some for salvation while passing over others, and this is "just" because God does it, then justice is arbitrary—might makes right.

Calvinist response: "God's ways are higher than ours. What seems unjust to us is perfectly just from God's perspective."

But: This empties "justice" of meaning:

If God can do what appears unjust and call it just, "justice" becomes meaningless label
We lose all basis for moral reasoning
Any action can be justified as "God's mysterious ways"

The Arminian solution:

God's actions are genuinely just by standards we can understand:

Loving all people is genuinely loving (not arbitrary selection)
Offering salvation to all is genuinely gracious (not deceptive offer)
Punishing only genuine rebellion is genuinely just (not punishing for determined actions)

This creates moral coherence—we can understand and trust God's justice.

Why these practical problems matter:

1. They affect daily Christian life

Not just abstract theology
Impact assurance, prayer, evangelism, moral decision-making

2. They reveal theological problems

If theology creates these pastoral difficulties, something's wrong with the theology
Good theology should enhance Christian life, not hinder it

3. They validate Arminian alternative

Arminianism provides clearer, healthier approach to Christian practice
Removes barriers to assurance, evangelism, prayer, moral action

For Living Text readers: Our pastoral theology emphasizes:

Assurance through abiding in Christ (not through examining election signs)
Genuine evangelistic purpose (reaching the lost, not just identifying elect)
Effective prayer (God responds to intercession)
Active spiritual warfare (resisting what God hates)
Moral clarity (distinguishing God's will from evil)

These practical benefits flow from our Arminian theology.

7. The Central Issue: Understanding God's Sovereignty

Walls and Dongell argue the debate ultimately centers on how we understand sovereignty.

Two models of sovereignty:

Calvinist model: Meticulous sovereignty

Definition: God's sovereignty means God determines all things, including every choice, thought, and action.

Reasoning:

For God to be sovereign, nothing can happen that He didn't decree
Any freedom beyond God's control would limit His sovereignty
Every molecule, every choice, every event must be predetermined

Quote (Sproul): "If there is one maverick molecule... then we face cosmic chaos."

Result: God controls everything, guaranteeing all outcomes through determination.

Arminian model: Self-limiting sovereignty

Definition: God's sovereignty means God can do whatever He wills, but He sovereignly chose to create free creatures and limit His control in that area.

Reasoning:

Sovereignty includes power to self-limit (like king granting parliament)
Greater sovereignty: Can accomplish purposes despite free opposition
Lesser sovereignty: Must determine everything to ensure purposes

Result: God remains ultimately in control while granting genuine freedom.

Walls and Dongell's key argument:

"The Calvinist model actually diminishes sovereignty by suggesting God needs total control to accomplish His purposes. A God who can guarantee His plan despite genuine freedom is more sovereign, not less, than a God who must determine everything."

Analogy (expanded):

Weak chess player: Must control opponent's moves (like playing both sides) to guarantee victory

Master chess player: Guarantees victory despite opponent's free moves by superior skill

Which demonstrates greater mastery? Obviously the second—because victory is achieved despite genuine opposition, not by eliminating opposition.

Similarly:

Calvinist God: Must determine all things to ensure victory (like weak player)
Arminian God: Ensures victory despite free creatures' choices (like master player)

Biblical support for self-limiting sovereignty:

1. God respects human choices even when they oppose His will

Matthew 23:37 — "How often would I have gathered your children... but you were not willing"

Jesus desired something (gathering Jerusalem)
Jerusalem refused (contrary to His desire)
God's will was thwarted (in this instance, though not ultimately)

2 Peter 3:9 — "Not wishing that any should perish"

God wishes all saved
Some perish (contrary to His wish)
God's desire doesn't determine outcome

2. God changes plans based on human response

Jonah 3:10 — "God saw what they did... God relented of the disaster"

God announced judgment
Nineveh repented
God changed His plan

This only makes sense if human choices are genuinely free and God responds rather than determining.

3. God grants genuine authority to humans

Genesis 1:28 — "Fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion"

God delegates genuine authority to humans
We're not puppets but vice-regents
This requires real freedom to exercise dominion

The significance:

Understanding sovereignty as self-limiting (rather than meticulous determination):

1. Resolves problem of evil

God isn't causing what He hates
He permits within limits but doesn't determine

2. Preserves moral responsibility

Humans genuinely choose
Accountability makes sense

3. Honors God's character

God as loving (desires all saved)
God as just (doesn't punish for determined actions)
God as gracious (offers salvation sincerely)

4. Enables genuine relationship

Love requires freedom (can't be coerced)
Prayer matters (God responds)
Choices matter (affect outcomes)

5. Makes worship coherent

We praise God for His sovereignty rightly understood
Not for determining all evil but for overcoming it
Not for arbitrary selection but for universal love

Why this is the central issue:

Everything else flows from how we understand sovereignty:

If sovereignty = meticulous determination: → Limited atonement (only needed for elect) → Irresistible grace (must determine response) → Unconditional election (nothing about us determines God's choice) → Perseverance (elect can't fall away)

If sovereignty = self-limiting power: → Unlimited atonement (Christ died for all) → Resistible grace (grace offered but can be rejected) → Conditional election (God foreknows who will believe) → Conditional perseverance (security through abiding)

For Living Text readers: Our entire framework depends on rightly understanding sovereignty:

Cosmic conflict requires Powers have genuine freedom to rebel (not determined)
Sacred space theology requires God's presence is invited, not forced
Participatory salvation requires humans genuinely respond to grace
Mission requires evangelism makes real difference in destinies

Self-limiting sovereignty isn't God being weak—it's God being so strong He can accomplish His purposes while granting freedom.

8. Respectful Tone and Charitable Engagement

Throughout the critique, Walls and Dongell maintain gracious, respectful tone toward Calvinists.

How they model charitable disagreement:

1. Acknowledge Calvinist concerns

"We appreciate that Calvinists are motivated by desire to honor God's sovereignty and glory. These are proper concerns every Christian should share."

2. Recognize Calvinist strengths

"Many Calvinists are more evangelistic than their theology would logically support. This testifies to their hearts overcoming their system."

3. Affirm Calvinist scholars

"We deeply respect Calvin, Sproul, Piper, and other Reformed theologians. They are our brothers in Christ, earnestly seeking to honor Scripture."

4. Distinguish people from positions

"We critique Calvinist theology, not Calvinist people. Many Calvinists are godly, faithful believers whom we love and respect."

5. Express humility

"We don't claim to have all answers. These are difficult questions where Christians of goodwill disagree. We simply believe Arminianism is more biblically and philosophically sound."

6. Invite dialogue

"We hope this book furthers charitable discussion between Calvinists and Arminians, not entrenches battle lines. We're family, disagreeing about how God saves, not whether He saves."

Why charitable tone matters:

1. Prevents defensive reactions

Calvinists more likely to consider arguments presented graciously
Attacking people makes them close ears; addressing ideas keeps conversation open

2. Models Christian discourse

Shows how to disagree without being disagreeable
Demonstrates you can hold strong convictions charitably

3. Maintains fellowship

Despite disagreement, we remain brothers and sisters
Unity in Christ transcends theological debates

4. Honors truth

Truth doesn't need vicious polemic
Best arguments stand on their own without personal attacks

For Living Text readers: We should emulate this approach:

Critique positions, not people
Acknowledge legitimate concerns of those who disagree
Express respect for Calvinist brothers and sisters
Maintain unity even amid disagreement
Focus on truth rather than winning arguments

How Why I Am Not a Calvinist Completes the Living Text Framework

Walls and Dongell's work provides accessible apologetic for our Wesleyan-Arminian position:

1. Readable Defense for Church Members

What we need: Clear explanation laypeople can understand

What Walls/Dongell provide: Accessible presentation without sacrificing substance

Together: Small groups and Sunday schools can engage the debate intelligently

2. Philosophical Foundation

What we affirm: Libertarian freedom and moral responsibility

What Walls demonstrates: Philosophical necessity of freedom for responsibility

Together: Confidence our position is philosophically sound

3. Biblical Clarity

What we teach: God loves all, Christ died for all, salvation offered to all

What Dongell shows: Scripture clearly teaches these truths at face value

Together: Assurance we're reading Scripture rightly

4. Pastoral Wisdom

What we experience: Calvinism creates practical problems in ministry

What they document: Systematic analysis of pastoral difficulties

Together: Validation that theology matters for church life

5. Charitable Model

What we desire: Gracious dialogue with Calvinist brothers

What they exemplify: How to critique positions while maintaining fellowship

Together: Framework for healthy theological discussion in churches

Weaknesses and Points of Clarification

1. Sometimes Oversimplifies Calvinist Positions

Observation: Occasionally the authors present weaker forms of Calvinist arguments rather than the strongest versions.

Example:

Walls/Dongell: "Calvinists make God the author of sin."

Sophisticated Calvinist response: "We distinguish between God as primary cause working through secondary causes. God ordains the ultimate outcome but humans are the immediate agents, and agency includes desire, motive, and will—all of which make humans responsible even if God determined the circumstances."

Missing: Fuller engagement with compatibilist philosophy and Reformed distinctions between God's decretive will (what He ordains) and preceptive will (what He commands).

Response: While generally fair, the book sometimes attacks popular Calvinist positions (Sproul, Piper) rather than most sophisticated academic versions (Helm, Muller). This is understandable given the audience (laypeople, not scholars) but means some Calvinist responses aren't addressed.

For balance: Read alongside Michael Horton's For Calvinism (companion volume) to see strongest Calvinist responses.

2. Limited Historical Nuance

Observation: Book focuses on contemporary debate without extensive historical development.

What's lacking:

Detailed examination of Calvin's own views (which are more nuanced than later Calvinism)
Historical development from Calvin → Westminster → modern Calvinism
Role of Arminius and Remonstrants in Reformed tradition
How debates evolved over centuries

Response: This is popularizing work, not academic history. For historical depth, supplement with Olson's Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities or The Story of Christian Theology.

3. Could Develop Positive Arminian Exposition More

Observation: Book is primarily reactive (arguing against Calvinism) rather than proactive (constructing positive Arminian theology).

Structure:

Heavy emphasis on problems with Calvinism
Lighter emphasis on positive Arminian alternative

What could be expanded:

How Arminian theology coherently fits together
Detailed exegesis of Arminian readings
Comprehensive systematic theology from Arminian perspective

Response: The book's purpose is explaining why authors reject Calvinism. For positive Arminian exposition, supplement with Picirilli's Grace, Faith, Free Will or Forlines's Classical Arminianism.

4. Assumes Evangelical Protestant Framework

Observation: Book operates entirely within evangelical Protestant context, not engaging Catholic or Orthodox perspectives.

What's missing:

Catholic understanding of grace, predestination, free will
Orthodox theosis and synergistic soteriology
How Arminianism relates to broader Christian tradition

Response: Book written for evangelical audience debating Calvinist-Arminian options. For broader perspective, read Catholic (Hahn) or Orthodox (Ware) sources alongside.

5. Doesn't Fully Address Middle Positions

Observation: Book presents Calvinism vs. Arminianism dichotomy without extensively discussing middle positions like Molinism or Amyraldism.

Middle positions:

Molinism: God has middle knowledge (knowing what free creatures would do in any circumstance), allowing Him to actualize a world where His purposes are accomplished through free choices.

Amyraldism (Four-point Calvinism): Affirms unlimited atonement but maintains other four points of TULIP.

Response: These positions are briefly mentioned but not extensively analyzed. Authors focus on classical five-point Calvinism as the primary alternative to Arminianism.

Key Quotes Worth Memorizing

"The issue is not whether God is sovereign—both Calvinists and Arminians affirm this emphatically. The issue is what sovereignty means. Does it require that God determine all things, or can God be sovereign while granting genuine freedom?"

"If God determines all things, including evil choices and actions, then God is the ultimate author of evil—regardless of semantic distinctions about primary and secondary causes. You can't make something happen with certainty and claim you didn't cause it."

"Compatibilist freedom (acting according to your desires when your desires are determined) is not real freedom. It's like saying a prisoner is 'free' because he desires to stay in his cell to avoid being shot if he escapes."

"When Scripture says God loves 'the world,' desires 'all people to be saved,' and Christ died for 'everyone,' we should take these statements at face value unless there's compelling reason not to. Calvinism consistently reinterprets universal language to mean 'all the elect'—but why not let Scripture mean what it says?"

"If God predetermined that people would sin, then punishes them for doing what they couldn't avoid, God would be unjust by any meaningful standard. Appealing to 'God's ways are higher than ours' doesn't resolve the contradiction—it just provides cover for what looks like injustice."

"A God who can guarantee His purposes despite genuine freedom is more sovereign, not less, than a God who must determine everything to ensure His plan succeeds. The master chess player who guarantees victory despite the opponent's free moves demonstrates greater mastery than one who must control both sides."

"Calvinism's practical problems—assurance difficulties, evangelistic confusion, prayer paralysis—suggest something is wrong with the underlying theology. Good theology should enhance Christian life, not hinder it."

"We critique Calvinist theology, not Calvinist people. Many Calvinists are godly, faithful believers who often live better than their theology would suggest. This testifies to their hearts even when we question their system."

Who Should Read This Book?

Essential Reading For:

Anyone confused about Calvinist-Arminian debate and wanting accessible introduction
Church members in Reformed churches questioning Calvinist teaching
Christians from Arminian traditions wanting to understand why they're not Calvinist
College students encountering Reformed theology for first time
Small group leaders wanting discussion resource on soteriology
Those using The Living Text series (most accessible defense of our position)

Also Valuable For:

Pastors needing to explain Arminian position to congregations
Seminary students wanting readable summary of Arminian arguments
Calvinists wanting to understand strongest non-Calvinist critique
Anyone wrestling with problem of evil and God's sovereignty

Less Suitable For:

Scholars wanting deep philosophical or exegetical analysis (too basic)
Those wanting comprehensive systematic theology (too focused on critique)
People uncomfortable with theological debate
Readers already committed to Calvinism and resistant to contrary arguments

Final Verdict: Why The Living Text Recommends This Book

Why I Am Not a Calvinist is the best starting point for anyone wanting to understand the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Walls and Dongell demonstrate that:

Calvinism, despite good intentions, creates biblical problems (must reinterpret universal texts)
Calvinism creates philosophical problems (eliminates moral responsibility, makes God author of evil)
Calvinism creates theological problems (distorts God's character as loving, just, gracious)
Calvinism creates pastoral problems (assurance, evangelism, prayer, moral action)
Arminianism provides better alternative that's more biblical, philosophical, and pastoral

After working through Walls and Dongell, you'll:

Understand core issues in Calvinist-Arminian debate clearly
See philosophical problems with determinism
Appreciate plain biblical language about God's universal love
Recognize practical pastoral difficulties Calvinism creates
Feel confident embracing Arminian position

This book will transform:

How you understand sovereignty (self-limiting power, not meticulous determination)
How you read universal texts (taking them at face value)
How you view God's character (genuinely loving all, not arbitrary)
How you do ministry (assurance, evangelism, prayer with clarity)
How you engage Calvinists (charitably but firmly)

Why I Am Not a Calvinist is required reading for anyone wanting accessible defense of Arminian theology—especially church members without seminary training.

For Living Text readers, Walls and Dongell provide the easiest entry point for understanding why we're Wesleyan-Arminian. Where Geisler gets technical and Olson gets academic, Walls and Dongell stay readable without sacrificing substance. Use this book for small groups, Sunday schools, or personal study to grasp why our framework rejects Calvinist determinism in favor of a God whose sovereignty includes granting genuine freedom.

Highest recommendation for accessible introduction.

Rating: ★★★★★ (5/5)

Thoughtful Questions to Consider

Walls argues that moral responsibility requires libertarian freedom—the ability to do otherwise. Do you agree? Can someone be genuinely responsible for actions they couldn't avoid? What are the implications for how you understand your own choices and accountability before God?
Dongell shows that Scripture consistently teaches God loves all people, desires all saved, and Christ died for all—yet Calvinism must reinterpret this universal language. Should we take these texts at face value, or is there compelling reason to consistently reinterpret "all" to mean "all the elect"?
If God determines all things (including evil), how can He genuinely oppose evil rather than orchestrate it? Does the distinction between "primary cause" and "secondary cause" adequately solve this problem, or does determinism inevitably make God the author of sin?
The authors argue that a God who can accomplish His purposes despite genuine free opposition is more sovereign than a God who must determine everything. Do you agree? What kind of sovereignty better reflects God's power—meticulous control or strategic self-limitation?
Walls and Dongell show Calvinism creates pastoral problems: assurance difficulties, evangelistic confusion, prayer paralysis, moral uncertainty. If a theological system creates these practical problems, does this suggest something is wrong with the theology? Should theology enhance Christian life or is it separate from practice?