John Lennox is well known both as a maths scholar and Christian apologist. He has publicly debated with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. He is highly regarded in the apologetics field and has earned a reputation as a champion of Christian theism in the public square. For these reasons I was curious to read this book given that the subject matter was outside his usual field, and arguably his expertise. Lennox sets out his stall early doors and declares his disliking for the commonly used labels 'Calvinists' and 'Arminians', coining in the process a new one to me, 'Calminian'. He goes on to challenge the received reformed wisdom on predestination and election, which he dismisses as theistic determinism. This simply couldn't be fair, rather this would be despotic and would be closer to atheist (dec'd) Christopher Hitchens' view of the Christian god. Through the book Lennox makes generous use of bible quotes which is great, but what is not so good is the plain attack on some well loved Christian writers and theologians, not just Calvin and Luther, but AW Pink, RC Sproul, and John Piper; declaring in the process many of their writings as unbiblical.
The recurring argument that Lennox makes is that for God to hold as blameworthy those who are not extended the necessary act of grace to cause a person to believe in God simply not just. Man must be free to act unhindered or all is unfair. What he does not allow for though is for any notion of Adamic federalism that renders man's will spoiled and bent toward sin and freely choosing wrong. instead in Lennox's scheme, man is unfettered entirely and not bound by his nature. This is just wrong-headed in my view. The other major issue I have with the book is the incongruity of insisting on man's complete autonomy when it comes to the decision to trust in God, but once made, Lennox insists then that perseverance kicks in and God makes unalterable the decision made freely. Surely this is just as despotic, in his terms, as causing them to believe in the first place. In any case this act of God's in lifting the fog of the fallen sinful man and allowing him to see what he could not by himself is clearly an act of mercy and not despotism.
I was delighted that John Lennox at least claims belief in God's primacy in initiating salvation and conceding that without his acting, there would not be regeneration, but I found the way he argued his position on what he mislabels determinism somewhat arrogant. I detect an underlying system of belief that is far from the ground-breaking, new term-coining rethink it purports to be. Something to work on. I didn't like the book very much, I haven't recommended it.

John C. Lennox's book "Determined to Believe," was well-written, thought provoking, and simply a must-read for those interested in God's character, nature, sovereignty and free agency of human beings. Just when you think you have things figured out, Lennox throws a wise theological wedge into the small God-shaped box I put him in. Thank you for making me think and change my views on this important subject!