25:C:1 “Divine election means that God chooses some to go to heaven..  Others are passed by and they will go to hell.”
29.8 “...implying that He passed over others.”
33.95 “...Paul does, showing that he is teaching unconditional election.”
34.4 “He is free to love whom He wants and to pass others by, not because of any good or bad in man, but for His own good reasons.”
35.1 “...it should be noted that the Calvinist keeps both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, even though he cannot rationally reconcile the two.”  How many good human fathers would put one of their sons in a situation where he has no choice but to fail and then holds them totally responsible for their failed outcome?
35.6 “...since he (the Arminian) has exactly the same problem that the Calvinist has; namely, how to reconcile human responsibility with the absolute certainty of all events."  The issue of free will has not yet been addressed in its fullest sense, but rather, man’s responsibility.  Those who truly harmonize free will with God’s sovereignty see the issue of man’s responsibility as a strawman.  It seems to be a multi-layered issue to keep the core debate--”Does man have free will?”--under wraps.
35:B “Contrary to what most people think, the Calvinist teaches that man is free--one hundred percent free--free to do exactly what he wants.  God does not coerce a single one against his will.  And Just because man is free, man is a slave.  Just because man does what he wants to do, man has no free will (which is different from saying that he is free)...” Those equipped with logic, must at this point check their logic at the door.  Unless one agrees that to be free means to be a slave, one cannot remain a participant in the inquiry concerning the possibility of man having genuine free will as a given attribute from his creator.  And, of course, the trick is that the bondage of sin does make one a slave to sin and the flesh until the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the point of positional salvation.  But all scripture must be kept in careful context.
36.5 “Incidentally, the Christian has no free will either.  He may technically have the external option to choose or reject Christ, but basically he does not.  Christ will not let him reject Him.”  Mr. Palmer had just stated on the previous page that “God does not coerce a single one against his will.”  But then Mr. Palmer does not even believe that God Himself has free will.” (see note at bottom of page 36).  When I was very young in the Lord, hearing such rational statements troubled me greatly.  I felt compelled to conclude that Christ was programmed to go to the cross and that He did not in fact go of His own volition.  This line of thinking removes the beauty of the cross in the hearts of some Christians.  I was once greatly troubled by such reasoning.
41.8 “He intended to save all, but only some will be saved.  Therefore, some of His blood was wasted: it was spilled.”  Limited atonement is of course known as the “weak point” of the TULIP in the minds of many non-Calvinists.  The idea that the offer of salvation is a mere show to many creatures is offensive to unlimited redemptionists.  This is the point at which Calvinist Lewis Sperry Chafer and most of Dallas Theological Seminary got off.  But I do strongly agree with Mr. Palmer that the 5 points must hang together or fall together.  There are no 1/2 point to 4 point positions to choose from on the Calvinist spectrum.  There is either 5 points or no points!  Men like Loraine Boettner and A.W. Pink were true to their system of reasoning on this issue.
44 “It was just because God so loved the world of elect sinners that He sent His only begotten Son...”  Is it any wonder that we have so many denominations of the Christian faith along with so many deceptive cults?
51 (last two paragraphs) A few years ago, I closed my Bible and resigned myself to the fact that I cannot understand God and His ways.  In the last line on page 51, Mr. Palmer states quite clearly that one with a logical mind must yield up his logic and never expect God to say to him “Come, let us reason together”, because man could never reason with God or understand the reasoning of God.  I personally got so close to Calvinism, that I have not fully reconciled the JUSTICE OF GOD with the SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.  For my puny logical mind reasons that all coercive sovereigns of this world have all ruled over their kingdoms with injustice.  I logically associate coercion with injustice.
58.25 “This does not mean that he (man) has free will...”  I have met some who truly believe this, but I have never met one who truly lives it.  The awkward imposition of having to ask someone, “I wonder if God has predestined that you should accept the offer of an ice tea from me.”  We all either believe or pretend to believe that another can make such a choice by asking, “May I get you an ice tea drink?” Watching someone try to live some of these doctrines to the letter could get pretty hilarious to the observer.
59 Augustine is introduced to the discussion.  “...antithesis of Calvinism, or better still, of Augustinianism...  Augustinianism, or Calvinism...” We learn that Calvinism is actually Augustinianism revived.  We learn on this page that Semi-Pelagianism=Arminianism.
60.8 “They (5 points of Calvinism) all hang or fall together.”  As I said earlier, to this I fully agree.
64.5 “At times God sends adversity to people by giving them poverty, disgrace, cancer, or loneliness.”  I’m not sure what to make of this statement by Mr. Palmer, because I do not know by his use of the word “people” if he means elect sinners of the world or all sinners of the world?
65.5 (fourth full paragraph) “Four centuries later an African, born of a Christian mother and a pagan father, tried to find peace...  Peace came over Augustine’s soul..." Mr. Palmer gives those of us who might be in the dark about a truth that Calvinists understand.  That truth is that Calvinism is really Augustinianism presented anew by John Calvin.  Benjamin B. Warfield can write a 507 page book titled “Calvin and Augustine” with enough material to make all of the connections between the two Christians.
66 “A final word of caution is necessary...no one may ever fall into the rationalistic trap of saying that he has nothing to do..that he must simply wait for the Spirit to move him, and there is nothing that he can do to be saved.”  See my notes on page 58.25.  Mr. Palmer seems to be saying, “Hey, listen, it is O.K. to believe this way, but we must all go through the motions of acting as though we have something which we must do,...only pretending that we have some volitional part to play!”
72.9 “Anybody reading these lines may have, right now, without waiting a moment, eternal life.”  Does Mr. Palmer really mean “anybody” period, or does he mean by saying this that anybody who is an elect sinner reading these lines...  It would seem that without our logic intact, only Mr. Palmer can answer such a discerning question!
76 through 79 Once saved, always saved.  I believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer.  But since I cannot hold to less than 5 points, then the doctrine of eternal security and the perseverance of the saints (or the 5th point of the TULIP) must not really mean the same thing.  Can I come to any other conclusion? ...logically or otherwise?
81 Five chapters (5 points) are the sovereignty of God.
83 (last paragraph) through 84.5 Mr. Palmer asks the rhetorical question for his readers, “For, where is God’s holiness?”  I would have preferred the question, “For, where is God’s justice?”  (But Mr. Palmer is framing the debate.)  Next three paragraphs get to the heart to the objections of non-Calvinists (or non-Augustinians).
84.5 though 86.3 Mr. Palmer places his Calvinism comfortably right smack dab in the middle between two extremes:  Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism.  Arminianism denying God’s sovereignty and Hyper-Calvinism denying man’s responsibility.  Someone like me who harmonizes God’s sovereignty with man’s volition. cannot be placed on his limited (definite or particular) spectrum.
85  Note at bottom informs the readers that, “It should be emphasized that the contradiction is only apparent and not real.  Man cannot harmonize the two apparently contradictory positions, but God can.”  My note is that Mr. Palmer is not stating the second element of the contradiction as man’s volition, but, rather, man’s responsibility.  Being a good father, he would make one of his sons responsible for something the boy had no choice in partaking in.
88.7  “In other words, for Paul, election, instead of killing initiative, was a stimulus to good actions.”  Unfortunately, election as presented by some is a killer of initiative.  Note that Charles H. Spurgeon was so successful as a soul winner because he played down his Calvinism.  (At least, that is the opinion of many non-Calvinist Christians).
90.2  “Remember that this energy and work were produced by the man (John Calvin) whose name more than anyone else’s in all history is associated with predestination.”
88 A. Calvin to 91.2  This, in my opinion, is the greatest passage in Mr. Palmer’s informative book.  One cannot read this section without feeling a great appreciation in one’s heart for the man John Calvin himself.  He was truly one of the most gracious men and absolutely (in human terms) devoted men to the Lord’s work who ever walked the earth.  Another Calvinist, John Nelson Darby, had a similar life as far as serving the Lord, come what may with health, weather, etc.
95  Definition:  “...He passes others by, and justly condemns them for their own sin--all to His own glory.”
95 bottom.  “12.  Ignorance is wisdom.”  Like the earlier “freedom is slavery”; these phrases sound like something out of George Orwell’s 1984 novel.  Even the Calvinist libertarian Gary North out of Tyler, Texas would have a hard time uttering these phrases.  Like his father-in-law, R.J. Rushdoony, Dr. North is a scholar of the first class in synthesizing economics, politics, and Christianity.  But I have read enough to know that not all Calvinists cross all the same T’s or dot all the same I’s.  But then neither do all non-Calvinists.
102 (second full paragraph)  No more talk of free agency of man.  Human responsibility is the strawman.  With free will, man is understandably responsible, but that would be logical and make sense.
104 (top third) This is the two part action of reprobation which I accurately described in my letter to the editor #49. . . titled "What If I’ve Been Wrong?" ( last four paragraphs).
109.75  “But there is nothing wrong with using reason and logic if we do it properly.” Would doing it properly be, by chance, agreeing with all of Mr. Palmer’s postulates and interpretations?
124 (second line)  “...of His own will, freely...”  Does of His own will, freely mean the same as of His own free will?  If so, then what are we to do with Mr. Palmer’s note at the bottom of page 36, telling us that “Neither does God have free will”.  I always get very confused when I examine the theological system of Augustinianism.
128 Chapter IX:II  “Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will..." (sounds like man may have had freedom to will, but Mr. Palmer says that God does not have free will?).
Mr. Palmer is apparently very sincere in his writing.  He believes what he believes, and nobody is going to change his mind.  Likewise, there are some minds which he will never change.  That is the reality which God in His infinite wisdom decreed for us to experience.  Our sovereign God and Lord and Savior Christ Jesus has graciously allowed us to examine His word and arrive at slightly different conclusions on minor points of doctrine, but the dangerous effects of coming to different positions on the major points of doctrine or the fundamentals of the faith will not keep us from His just and correcting hand for long.

Kenneth J. Wolf
January 5, 1996