Book Review – Redemption Redeemed by John Goodwin

Goodwin, a rare Arminian Puritan, admirably defends unlimited atonement. Goodwin primarily argues from scripture, but he also provides some arguments from reason and church history. Goodwin’s primary scriptural arguments are based on passages saying Christ died for the world, passages saying Christ died for all, the universal offer the gospel, passages saying Christ died for those that ultimately perish, and passages saying God wants none to perish. Goodwin then clearly explains what “unlimited atonement” does and does not mean. Goodwin finishes up with giving solid reasons why Christ died for all and reviewing the historical position of the Church on the issue.

Goodwin provides a unique level of depth on the issues. For example, he goes over the word “world” in great detail, and then reduces multiple Calvinist interpretations of passages like John 3:16 to absurdities. Goodwin covers multiple Calvinist counterarguments to all of his arguments. Through detailed explanations of his position, and contrasts with Calvinists views from multiple angles, Goodwin crystallizes the Arminian viewpoint on the extent of the atonement.

Along the way of accomplishing his mission of defending unlimited atonement, Goodwin gives the reader some real gems. Among my favorites were Goodwin’s explanation of the will of God as well as his explanation on conditional election.

Goodwin’s style is similar to most Puritans and as such Redemption Redeemed is a tough read. One could use Redemption Redeemed as a reference tool. There’s a comprehensive index of scripture references in the back. But my advice would be to put the work in and reap the full reward! It’s well worth it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more