Rating: 
Summary: Selah
Review: A previous reviewer wrote:
"These ideas are being promoted in evangelical circles by people who despise God's authority and who want to be free from God's control."--But according to this book didn't God sovereignly predestine them to do that? After all, they have no free will. Selah. I'm just starting this book.
I find it very inconsistent with itself.
The author seems fearful of the view of "freewill,"
indoctrinated and set in his thoughts,
and very peevish in his arguments. Why would God command someone to repent in the Bible if God already determined what they would do? This whole world would be some kind of sick game that God is playing, all of us mere puppets. Didn't God call Abraham His friend? How many friends do you have that you control their every impulse? That's not a friend! Not a true friend, anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent and comprehensive treatment
Review: Dr. Wright and I were friends when we both lived in Denver, Colorado. We have both since moved to different states, although I have maintained some sporadic contact with him. No Place for Sovereignty is Dr. Wright's first book. And it is sure to be controversial! Dr. Wright takes head-on the Arminian notion of human "freewill." In the very helpful Glossary at the end of the book, "Freewill theory" is defined as "View that the human will is free to act independently of divine control or external causation. Arminians usually define it as the ability to choose good or evil equally. Hence, `the liberty of indifference'" (p.236). But is this concept true? Or more to the point for Christians, is it Biblical? Most Christians just assume that it is. But Dr. Wright demonstrates that this idea has more in common with Greek notions of autonomy than the Bible. The book is divided into eleven chapters. Chapter One begins with a quick historical overview of the freewill controversy, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to the present. Dr. Wright then lists five reasons people believe in the freewill theory: 1. If we have no free will, we are not responsible for our actions. 2. It is essential to the image of God. 3. The denial of free will undermines both human effort and morality. 4. The Bible teaches free will. 5. Free will gets God off the hook in the problem of evil (pp.40,41). Subsequent chapters then show that each of these claims is faulty, both logically and Biblically. In regards to the first claim, Chapter Two shows that a will "free" in the Arminian sense would not be responsible as it would be no different than chance. Responsibility is based on what God decides, not on what we decide. As for the imago Dei, Chapter Three presents a study of passages in the Bible in which it is discussed. Dr. Wright concludes, "Throughout all the biblical references to the image of God, its loss in the Fall and its restoration in Christ, not a hint appears that the image necessarily includes anything recognizable as free will. The Bible simply does not use the idea of free will as an explanatory category at all" (p.76). Chapter Four looks at Genesis chapter three and the Fall. It focuses on Eve's conversation with Satan and shows it was her desire to be autonomous from God that lead to her disobedience. Some consequences of the Fall are then noted. As for human effort and morality, Dr. Wright states, "... freewill theory destroys any hope of relating human action to God's sovereignty and makes human action purely a chance affair" (p.40). These ideas are elaborated on in Chapter Five. As for whether freewill theory is Biblical, Dr. Wright correctly notes that if any of the Five Points of Calvinism are true, then there can be no freewill in the Arminian sense. Chapters Six to Eight are then devoted to Biblical proofs of the Five Points of Calvinism. Then Chapter Nine addresses the question, "Are there any `Arminian verses' in the Bible?" The chapter soundly exegetes supposedly Arminian verses and demonstrates that they simply do not teach what Arminians "assume" that they do. Chapter Ten discusses the problem of evil. This question is often considered a "stronghold" for Arminians and unbelievers alike. The chapter first demonstrates that an appeal to freewill does not "solve" the problem but actually makes matters worse. Dr. Wright then states very bluntly: "Let it be stated plainly here that the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that if God decides to predestine or decree any particular evils for any purpose he may intend, who are we to answer back to God (Rom 9:19-24)? However galling it may seem to the fleshly mind, God is the final reference point for what counts as the good, not me, the sinner. If there ever was a practical application of Jesus' prayer "not my will but yours be done" (Lk 22:42), this would be it. The good is good because God determines it as such, not because it conforms to my irrelevant innate conception of how things ought to be. It is wholly besides the point that I might personally prefer things to be otherwise" (p.197). Chapter Eleven demonstrates that a belief in human freewill can easily lead to a denial of essential attributes of God. As an example, the chapter chronicles Clark Pinnock's descent from a conservative Christian viewpoint of the attributes of God into finite godism. This book covers a lot of ground and can be difficult reading at times, especially for those not familiar with the subject. But overall, it does a very effective job of refuting the commonly held notion of freewill, along with Arminianism in general. I heartily recommend No Place for Sovereignty. And for further study on Calvinism, you can consult the three chapters on this subject in my book, "Scripture Workbook: For Personal Bible Study and Teaching the Bible." These chapters include hundreds of verses supporting the Calvinist viewpoint while refuting proposed arguments against it.
Rating: 
Summary: Recommended Authors
Review: I highly recommend this book. All of the objections that people raise in the reviews here are in fact already answered by the book, so it seems that the reviewers are not reading very carefully. Besides Wright, I highly recommend BIBLICAL PREDESTINATION by Gordon Clark. Then, read all the major works by Vincent Cheung, who is perhaps the best defender of Christianity and Calvinism alive today. Search for both on the web by name or by organization (Trinity Foundation and Reformation Ministries International, respectively).
Rating:
Summary: Well written, but left with questions
Review: I truly enjoyed reading Wright's book as it is well written and full of great information. I enjoyed Wright's careful and meticulous analysis as well as his passion and forthright language. My only concern is in his insistence upon logical continuity. I am not one to deny the pursuit of logical continuity, but I question whether we should lift logical continuity to a position over the plain interpretation of Scripture. It wasn't until I accepted the plain interpretation of Scripture that I was willing to abandon many of the Arminian assumptions I used to cling to. As I read Romans 9, I could not accept the "explaining away" that the Arminian argument tended to do. I found the Arminian position to shrink from the authority of the revealed word of God. In order to abandon my assumptions of free will, I had to be willing to abandom my views of who God should be. Fortunately, Isaiah supports the notion that we cannnot tell God who He should be: "His ways are not our ways." However, Wright criticizes those who believe both in the Sovereignty of God and free will because of their logical inconsistence. Wright calls such believers "inconsistent Calvinists" as if Calvinism is some cherished virtue. What bothers me even further is in Wright's interpretation of the verses which Arminians usually hold as their defense. He insists that there are no Arminian verses, which is fine, but goes on to explain these verses under the light of Calvinist assumptions, ignoring, once again, the plain interpretation of the text. This is what I was trying to avoid. I think we have to ask ourselves what our epistemological assumptions are. If the Bible is our source of truth and knowledge, then we should not be quick to sweep away the plain interpretation of texts even if they seem to contradict our views of other texts. Let us look for the plain interpretation of the text, and if the plain interpretation is outright antithetical to itself, then let us find reasons to understand the scripture in other ways. However, we must be very careful about denying the plain interpretation of the text. In my view, "consistent calvinism" is not a good reason for reinterpreting Scripture. Is logic sovereign or is God? I would rather be consistently biblical than consistently Calvinist.
Rating:
Summary: Well written, but left with questions
Review: I truly enjoyed reading Wright's book as it is well written and full of great information. I enjoyed Wright's careful and meticulous analysis as well as his passion and forthright language. My only concern is in his insistence upon logical continuity. I am not one to deny the pursuit of logical continuity, but I question whether we should lift logical continuity to a position over the plain interpretation of Scripture. It wasn't until I accepted the plain interpretation of Scripture that I was willing to abandon many of the Arminian assumptions I used to cling to. As I read Romans 9, I could not accept the "explaining away" that the Arminian argument tended to do. I found the Arminian position to shrink from the authority of the revealed word of God. In order to abandon my assumptions of free will, I had to be willing to abandom my views of who God should be. Fortunately, Isaiah supports the notion that we cannnot tell God who He should be: "His ways are not our ways." However, Wright criticizes those who believe both in the Sovereignty of God and free will because of their logical inconsistence. Wright calls such believers "inconsistent Calvinists" as if Calvinism is some cherished virtue. What bothers me even further is in Wright's interpretation of the verses which Arminians usually hold as their defense. He insists that there are no Arminian verses, which is fine, but goes on to explain these verses under the light of Calvinist assumptions, ignoring, once again, the plain interpretation of the text. This is what I was trying to avoid. I think we have to ask ourselves what our epistemological assumptions are. If the Bible is our source of truth and knowledge, then we should not be quick to sweep away the plain interpretation of texts even if they seem to contradict our views of other texts. Let us look for the plain interpretation of the text, and if the plain interpretation is outright antithetical to itself, then let us find reasons to understand the scripture in other ways. However, we must be very careful about denying the plain interpretation of the text. In my view, "consistent calvinism" is not a good reason for reinterpreting Scripture. Is logic sovereign or is God? I would rather be consistently biblical than consistently Calvinist.
Rating:
Summary: Still the best
Review: Published in 1996: Eight years later, this is still the best book on the subject, and will continue to be for a very long time.
This book is excellent. Regarding the final two chapters, that some find out of place and rushed, I have to disagree: it is the only place in the literature where I found a meaningful and reasonable explanation of the questions of evil and ultimacy, which are the essential issues where the debate ends up every time.
Of course, anyone opposed to the concept of being under God's sovereignty will find this book abhorrent.
Rating:
Summary: Simply great!
Review: This book against the Arminian notion of freewill is simply phenomenal. I would recommend it to anyone who likes books like the recent "Chosen but Free" by Norman Geisler. Everything about this book is great. The reasoning, the scripture usage, the bibliography, and the authors knowlege of Arminian theology. I just have one question. When is this author going to write a book against the openness movement like he said he would in this book?
Rating:
Summary: Good intro to calv-armin debate in apologetics
Review: This book was written to acquaint the doctrinally-concerned christian with a biblical, philosophical and historical defense of the Calvinist view of salvation, to show how Arminianism depends on an incoherent and unbiblical "freewill theory," and how belief in a libertarian view of free will inevitably leads to a finite God. A reviewer in Christian Scholars' Review said that it was a good clear explanation accessible to any intelligent reader. He also noted that it failed to take into account recent philosophical discussion of "compatibilist" views of free will with divine sovereignty. This is because 1) the author was not primarily addressing professional philosophers, but rather those believers with no special philosophical training, 2) he does not believe most of these theories, except those that redefine "free will" to make it compatible with the Bible's sovereignty teaching, and 3) there is no point trying to reconcile logical contradictions; it's better to abandon one side to avoid irrationalism. The book offers usable arguments from the Bible against Arminianism, and tries to show that no Christian apologetic can succeed that is based on an unquestioned acceptance of the assumption of human autonomy. Historically, Arminianism is really only a form of humanism.
Rating:
Summary: Good intro to calv-armin debate in apologetics
Review: While I enjoyed Wright's book and consider it a reliable resource for understanding this deep topic, I would not recommend interested readers start their intellectual journey there. Wright deals with an overwhelming amount of technical information the average reader may not be able or..."willing" to digest. Hence, it would be wise to first read a book like Sproul's "Willing to Believe," which broadly surveys the historical and theological development of free will theism, before embarking on a more specialized work like that written by Wright. I would have enjoyed "No Place for Sovereignty" more had I taken my own advice.
Rating: 
Summary: Some Pros and Cons
Review: Wright's book can be misleading by the title. Unfortunately, many people from the Reformed camps run around saying "we have no freewill." Wright's book may lead someone to do just that, but Wright isn't denying all forms of freewill, he is denying libertarian free will specifically. Towards the end of his book, he explains what it is for a Calvinist to say someone freely chooses something; but you have to be alert, it comes up in a sentence or two. His book is composed from two different styles: philosophy and theology (via scripture). He looks at some of the issues such as prophecy, God's knowledge, character, etc. Keep in mind though, Wright is not a professional philosopher. That is not to say his arguments are no good, but may be countered by molinism. Beyond that, the meat of his book is scriptural, and perhaps what is persuasive about his case. The book chapters are as follows: 1. An Ancient & Continuing Controversy
2. The Incoherence of the Freewill Theory
3. What Makes Us Human? Humanism and Christianity
4. Apostate Autonomism: The Fall & the Autonomist Theoria
5. Salvation as God's Choice to Save: All is of Grace
6. Depravity & Election: Spiritual Incompetence & Divine Sovereignty.
7. Grace & Perserverance: Salvation & Its Security
8. An Effective Atonement
9. Are There Any "Arminian Verses" in the Bible?
10. The Problem of Evil: The Final Stronghold of Unbelief?
11. The Location of Ultimacy & the Attributes of God: A Current Debate. I highly recommend this book for a beginner-moderate reading level. (...)
| 
