Scan barcode
adamrshields's review against another edition
4.0
Short review: I think this is a helpful 2 book series. I will post a review of For Calvinism next week. While Olson works hard to show his point, his attempts at being thorough lends itself to repetition. This could have been 50 or so pages shorter. But I am given 4 stars instead of 3 because of the general tone of the book. Michael Horton (author of the For Calvinism) did the introduction and started the book with a real sense of why we need to be civil and appropriate in our discussion.
That being said, what I am learning most is that when we create systems of Christian thought we necessarily create boxes for God. Olson's primary charge is that Calvinism, in trying to prove God's sovereignty, minimizes God's love and grace. The same can be said of pretty much any other theological system. Toward the end, Olson says we need to embrace 'conundrum' without embracing theological inconsistency. But one person's conundrum that they are quite content to live with, is another's theological inconstancy that they cannot.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/against-calvinism/
That being said, what I am learning most is that when we create systems of Christian thought we necessarily create boxes for God. Olson's primary charge is that Calvinism, in trying to prove God's sovereignty, minimizes God's love and grace. The same can be said of pretty much any other theological system. Toward the end, Olson says we need to embrace 'conundrum' without embracing theological inconsistency. But one person's conundrum that they are quite content to live with, is another's theological inconstancy that they cannot.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/against-calvinism/
gbdill's review against another edition
4.0
I am a recovering Calvinist. I was, for about 12 years a staunch Calvinist. I wasn't Reformed. There is a difference. But, I was, for all intents and purposes, a full five-point Calvinist. I spent many years vigorously debating and defending it against my non-Calvinist friends. In fact, I even wrote a sizable paper defending all five points of Calvinism while in seminary to which I received a good grade. Nobody could convince me of any other way. I was a proud five-point Calvinist. However, as I grew in faith I began to see some things that bothered me, its theology, the people that ascribed to it, and the teachers and authors that espoused these views. Instead of truly believing all five points, I now found myself wrestling with verses and passages in Scripture that seemingly contradicted these points. I was now trying to convince myself rather than genuinely believing in this theology. Furthermore, I began to see the inherent exclusivity and the arrogance of many leaders and authors of this "Young, Restless, and Reformed" group. I saw a lack of humility and a form of masculine Christianity that really began to trouble me. Over time, as I began to explore an Arminian view of things, I found it much easier to reconcile with Scripture and my own faith. I saw a humility in those who ascribe to Arminianism that I didn't see with my Reformed/Calvinist brothers. And, most of all, it was a theology that included anyone and everyone. About two years ago as my faith evolved and I more or less abandoned most of my Calvinist views, I was met with anger and hostility from many of my Reformed/Calvinist friends. Two of which I am no longer friends with not by my choice, but by their own admission. One has since apologized and asked for forgiveness. Nevertheless, he keeps his distance. I have been called everything from a "heretic" to a "bleeding heart liberal" by my former Calvinist/Reformed friends. And, I gladly accepted these labels if it meant I can be absolved from being any part of this group. I have since moved on to understanding and studying other views and theologies, which more or less lean toward Arminianism. But, I am still troubled by Calvinism; the exclusivity, arrogance, argumentative nature, and machismo it breeds amongst my Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. And, while I do not dismiss everything Calvinist, I hope that it is just a passing fad within the American church.
I was interested in hearing from a notable Bible scholar like Roger Olsen about why he is against Calvinism. He seems to be one of the few outspoken critics of the Calvinist onslaught that has seemingly permeated evangelical Christianity with a vengeance. Olsen approaches this task with humility and states from the very beginning that he typically does not approach debate in this manner. Much of what I have found written in "Against Calvinism" is what I had already suspected is wrong with Calvinism or high-Calvinism. Olsen takes great care in defining high-Calvinism from its own sources. He then carefully refutes Calvinism utilizing Scripture, reasoning, and the many contradictions found within Calvinism itself.
Olsen first touches upon the subject of God's sovereignty, which Calvinists seem to hold an extremely high view of. Calvinism essentially claims that everything, down to the minutest detail is divinely orchestrated by the hand of God. Although Calvinists will deny it, they also believe that God is the author of sin and evil... that God essentially uses sin and evil as a part of His grander plan to bring about glory to Himself. This is called Divine Determinism. Piper and Sproul are two contemporary Calvinists who espouse this view. They believe that catastrophes, crimes, and other heinous acts of evil are all foreordained and known by God; that these events are actually permitted and orchestrated by God to temper and refine the Christian and for the purpose of God's glory.
The next subject Olsen tackles is the issue of Unconditional Election... or double predestination. The dilemma is that if God elects some to eternal salvation, then He must surely elect others to eternal damnation. Some Calvinists claim that God chooses His elect and merely passes over others resulting in eternal damnation. John Wesley called this doctrine "blasphemous". This doctrine makes God into a monstrous, unloving, and unjust god that contradicts His own nature as defined in Scripture, especially through the person as revealed in Jesus Christ. This, not to mention the fact that God desires all to be saved and did everything in His own power to offer the free gift of eternal life to all who believe.
After Unconditional Election, Olsen then addresses the issue of Limited Atonement. Perhaps the most pressing sticking point found in all of Calvinism and the reason many often revert to 4-point Calvinism. The idea behind Limited Atonement is that Jesus died on the cross and atoned for the sins not for the world, but for only those with whom God has elected. Olsen ascertains that this doctrine cannot be supported by Scripture and the tradition of Christian belief. It completely contradicts the love of God, making Him not only partial but hateful toward the non-elect. Instead, Christ died and atoned for the sins of the whole world, but the agent of human free will determines if whether a person receives the free gift of salvation or not.
The last conundrum that Olsen addresses is the issue of Irresistible Grace, otherwise known as effectual grace and sometimes referred to as Monergism. The premise is that salvation is all of God's doing from beginning to end with no cooperation from the person because he is unable to come to repentance and faith on his own volition. Therefore, God bends the elect person's will so that he or she wants to come to Jesus with repentance and faith and cannot possibly resist this will. Calvinist use John 6:44 for biblical support. On the other hand, the Scriptures are too numerous to list that show man has a choice. While God does indeed draw people unto Himself, it is not by force. Therefore, man has a choice to either accept or reject the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
I believe Olsen does an excellent job in presenting each of the difficulties found within Calvinism and then does a fine job refuting them. Ironically, Olsen does not dismiss all of Calvinism. Total depravity and the perseverance of the saints are doctrines Arminians, in most part, find themselves in agreement with their Calvinist brothers. But, one cannot accept only a couple points of Calvinism at the expense of the others. This is because all five points of Calvinism mesh with one another and must be accepted as a whole or dismissed altogether.
Heavy on theology, rightly so, I highly recommend this theological book for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. For those who are Calvinists, this book is good to understand why those who are Arminian oppose Calvin's doctrines of grace. For non-Calvinists it perhaps solidifies why there are problems found with Calvinism theology. Nevertheless, as Spurgeon once stated, we are all Christians first, and our theology is secondary. And, even though I have trouble with Calvin's theology and some of those who call themselves Calvinists, I still count them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I was interested in hearing from a notable Bible scholar like Roger Olsen about why he is against Calvinism. He seems to be one of the few outspoken critics of the Calvinist onslaught that has seemingly permeated evangelical Christianity with a vengeance. Olsen approaches this task with humility and states from the very beginning that he typically does not approach debate in this manner. Much of what I have found written in "Against Calvinism" is what I had already suspected is wrong with Calvinism or high-Calvinism. Olsen takes great care in defining high-Calvinism from its own sources. He then carefully refutes Calvinism utilizing Scripture, reasoning, and the many contradictions found within Calvinism itself.
Olsen first touches upon the subject of God's sovereignty, which Calvinists seem to hold an extremely high view of. Calvinism essentially claims that everything, down to the minutest detail is divinely orchestrated by the hand of God. Although Calvinists will deny it, they also believe that God is the author of sin and evil... that God essentially uses sin and evil as a part of His grander plan to bring about glory to Himself. This is called Divine Determinism. Piper and Sproul are two contemporary Calvinists who espouse this view. They believe that catastrophes, crimes, and other heinous acts of evil are all foreordained and known by God; that these events are actually permitted and orchestrated by God to temper and refine the Christian and for the purpose of God's glory.
The next subject Olsen tackles is the issue of Unconditional Election... or double predestination. The dilemma is that if God elects some to eternal salvation, then He must surely elect others to eternal damnation. Some Calvinists claim that God chooses His elect and merely passes over others resulting in eternal damnation. John Wesley called this doctrine "blasphemous". This doctrine makes God into a monstrous, unloving, and unjust god that contradicts His own nature as defined in Scripture, especially through the person as revealed in Jesus Christ. This, not to mention the fact that God desires all to be saved and did everything in His own power to offer the free gift of eternal life to all who believe.
After Unconditional Election, Olsen then addresses the issue of Limited Atonement. Perhaps the most pressing sticking point found in all of Calvinism and the reason many often revert to 4-point Calvinism. The idea behind Limited Atonement is that Jesus died on the cross and atoned for the sins not for the world, but for only those with whom God has elected. Olsen ascertains that this doctrine cannot be supported by Scripture and the tradition of Christian belief. It completely contradicts the love of God, making Him not only partial but hateful toward the non-elect. Instead, Christ died and atoned for the sins of the whole world, but the agent of human free will determines if whether a person receives the free gift of salvation or not.
The last conundrum that Olsen addresses is the issue of Irresistible Grace, otherwise known as effectual grace and sometimes referred to as Monergism. The premise is that salvation is all of God's doing from beginning to end with no cooperation from the person because he is unable to come to repentance and faith on his own volition. Therefore, God bends the elect person's will so that he or she wants to come to Jesus with repentance and faith and cannot possibly resist this will. Calvinist use John 6:44 for biblical support. On the other hand, the Scriptures are too numerous to list that show man has a choice. While God does indeed draw people unto Himself, it is not by force. Therefore, man has a choice to either accept or reject the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
I believe Olsen does an excellent job in presenting each of the difficulties found within Calvinism and then does a fine job refuting them. Ironically, Olsen does not dismiss all of Calvinism. Total depravity and the perseverance of the saints are doctrines Arminians, in most part, find themselves in agreement with their Calvinist brothers. But, one cannot accept only a couple points of Calvinism at the expense of the others. This is because all five points of Calvinism mesh with one another and must be accepted as a whole or dismissed altogether.
Heavy on theology, rightly so, I highly recommend this theological book for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. For those who are Calvinists, this book is good to understand why those who are Arminian oppose Calvin's doctrines of grace. For non-Calvinists it perhaps solidifies why there are problems found with Calvinism theology. Nevertheless, as Spurgeon once stated, we are all Christians first, and our theology is secondary. And, even though I have trouble with Calvin's theology and some of those who call themselves Calvinists, I still count them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
ant_joseph's review against another edition
2.0
Olsen poses decent arguments here and there, but I still don't really know fully what the author himself believes. Like even if he were to convince me that Calvinism is wrong (which he hasn't completely), I have nothing specific to really believe after finishing this book. I guess his only purpose in writing this book was to fight against Calvinism, which is fine I guess.
Olsen also really lacks humility throughout this book. One part that really struck me was where Olsen was asked, "If it was revealed to you that the true God actually is as Calvinism says, would you still worship him?" and Olsen said NO. Wowza.
Olsen will also sometimes seem to rely on his emotions to argue his point. "That just doesn't seem right" type vibes.
I don't mean to rip on Olsen, he definitely did his studying to put this book together. Not bad arguments, but some are better than others.
Olsen also really lacks humility throughout this book. One part that really struck me was where Olsen was asked, "If it was revealed to you that the true God actually is as Calvinism says, would you still worship him?" and Olsen said NO. Wowza.
Olsen will also sometimes seem to rely on his emotions to argue his point. "That just doesn't seem right" type vibes.
I don't mean to rip on Olsen, he definitely did his studying to put this book together. Not bad arguments, but some are better than others.
davehershey's review against another edition
4.0
This serves as a review for both this book and its counterpart, For Calvinism.
Calvinism never really went away, but it has certainly grown in America with the “young, restless and reformed” movement. As a burgeoning seminary student, (not really that) many years ago, I was interested in Calvinism. It was a theology that I had never known growing up. I did some study on it, wrote a research paper or two on aspects of it. Over time I came to my conclusions and moved on. Or, I wanted to move on but I never really did, probably because Calvinists took American evangelicalism by storm.
When I saw the two books – For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olsen – I had no interest in reading them. It was an issue I had settled to my heart’s content. Then I saw the books were on sale for under $4 on Amazon and for that price, well I’ll read almost anything.
First, Michael Horton defends Calvinism. It should be noted that there is more variety to Calvinism than may be apparent if all one is familiar with are the young and the restless Reformed. What Horton is defending is what is familiar to most as Calvinism, also known as the doctrines of grace or simply “reformed theology.” These are the five points, often known as TULIP – total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (particular redemption), irresistible grace (effectual grace), perseverance of the saints. Horton does an admirable job defending Calvinism. He writes not just with clarity, but with humility. Too often in such debates one side or the other gives the impression that the other side is not just wrong, but perhaps not really Christian. Horton and Olsen may disagree, but both recognize the Christian commitment of the other.
There were a few times as I read this when I thought to myself, “hmmm, maybe I am a Calvinist.” At one point this happened when Horton spoke of mystery. He writes: “Reformed theologians has affirmed God’s sovereign decree concerning “whatsoever comes to pass,” yet without coercion or directly causing every event (Westminster Confession 3.1). How both can be true remains a mystery to us, but that both are true is clearly revealed in Scripture.” When talking about God there comes a point when any person, regardless of persuasion, realizes there is no more than can be said. We can make sense of some things, but in the face of an infinite God we have to leave room for mystery. I think Calvinists like Horton (and like Calvin, for I thought the same when I read the Institutes a few years back) simply go one or two steps farther than I would go before invoking mystery.
This brings me to Olsen. Many of the notes I made in Horton’s book, objecting to Calvinism, are addressed by Olsen. Olsen shows that Calvinism leads to divine determinism. If God “decrees” everything then a Calvinist can talk all they want about what humans choose to do but in the end, God is the acting force in evils such as the holocaust and human trafficking. Olsen’s argument focuses on the words of key Reformed writers such as RC Sproul and John Piper to show that many Calvinists admit their view leads to divine determinism. As Sproul says, noted by Olsen, if even one molecule in the universe running around loose then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Horton appeals to mystery, which I admire, but when he says, “God has decreed whatever comes to pass, yet this in on way infringes on creaturely freedom,” I see more contradiction then mystery.
Olsen shows that even though Calvinists may dispute it, their view leads to God determining everything. Such a view makes it difficult to differentiate God and Satan. God made it certain that sin would enter the world, God determines all events, God is kind of schizophrenic with two different wills (so God really wants all to be saved, but not really). Olsen does not present an alternative view in detail, for that is not the purpose of the book. Instead he works to show that whatever is true of God, the five-point Calvinist view is not. One of the best parts of the book is an illustration from two other authors that show the problem with Calvinism:
Walls and Dongell offer an analogy to test whether any human being would be considered loving or good if he or she acted as Calvinism says God acts in giving irresistible grace only to some of his fallen human creatures. (Remember, he created all in his own image and likeness.) In their illustration, a doctor discovers a cure for a deadly disease killing a group of camp children and gives it to the camp’s director. The director administers it to some sick children so that they are cured and withholds it from others so that they die terribly. He has no shortage of the cure; nothing at all hinders him from curing all the children. even though some of the children resisted the cure, the director had the ability to persuade all of them to take it; he only persuaded some. When the parents confront the director, he passionately contends that he loved all the children— Even the ones who died. He cared for them while they were sick and made them as comfortable as possible:
Walls and Dongell rightly conclude: The director’s claim to love all the children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk? (Walls and Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 54– 55.)
Olson, Roger E. (2011-10-25). Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Kindle Locations 3145-3149). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
That sums it up for me – it is difficult, impossible, to claim love for all children when the one claiming love will not employ all means to help those in need. In the debate then, my verdict is that while Horton does a good job arguing for the Calvinist view, Olsen succeeds in refuting it. I am not young, restless or Reformed.
Calvinism never really went away, but it has certainly grown in America with the “young, restless and reformed” movement. As a burgeoning seminary student, (not really that) many years ago, I was interested in Calvinism. It was a theology that I had never known growing up. I did some study on it, wrote a research paper or two on aspects of it. Over time I came to my conclusions and moved on. Or, I wanted to move on but I never really did, probably because Calvinists took American evangelicalism by storm.
When I saw the two books – For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olsen – I had no interest in reading them. It was an issue I had settled to my heart’s content. Then I saw the books were on sale for under $4 on Amazon and for that price, well I’ll read almost anything.
First, Michael Horton defends Calvinism. It should be noted that there is more variety to Calvinism than may be apparent if all one is familiar with are the young and the restless Reformed. What Horton is defending is what is familiar to most as Calvinism, also known as the doctrines of grace or simply “reformed theology.” These are the five points, often known as TULIP – total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (particular redemption), irresistible grace (effectual grace), perseverance of the saints. Horton does an admirable job defending Calvinism. He writes not just with clarity, but with humility. Too often in such debates one side or the other gives the impression that the other side is not just wrong, but perhaps not really Christian. Horton and Olsen may disagree, but both recognize the Christian commitment of the other.
There were a few times as I read this when I thought to myself, “hmmm, maybe I am a Calvinist.” At one point this happened when Horton spoke of mystery. He writes: “Reformed theologians has affirmed God’s sovereign decree concerning “whatsoever comes to pass,” yet without coercion or directly causing every event (Westminster Confession 3.1). How both can be true remains a mystery to us, but that both are true is clearly revealed in Scripture.” When talking about God there comes a point when any person, regardless of persuasion, realizes there is no more than can be said. We can make sense of some things, but in the face of an infinite God we have to leave room for mystery. I think Calvinists like Horton (and like Calvin, for I thought the same when I read the Institutes a few years back) simply go one or two steps farther than I would go before invoking mystery.
This brings me to Olsen. Many of the notes I made in Horton’s book, objecting to Calvinism, are addressed by Olsen. Olsen shows that Calvinism leads to divine determinism. If God “decrees” everything then a Calvinist can talk all they want about what humans choose to do but in the end, God is the acting force in evils such as the holocaust and human trafficking. Olsen’s argument focuses on the words of key Reformed writers such as RC Sproul and John Piper to show that many Calvinists admit their view leads to divine determinism. As Sproul says, noted by Olsen, if even one molecule in the universe running around loose then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Horton appeals to mystery, which I admire, but when he says, “God has decreed whatever comes to pass, yet this in on way infringes on creaturely freedom,” I see more contradiction then mystery.
Olsen shows that even though Calvinists may dispute it, their view leads to God determining everything. Such a view makes it difficult to differentiate God and Satan. God made it certain that sin would enter the world, God determines all events, God is kind of schizophrenic with two different wills (so God really wants all to be saved, but not really). Olsen does not present an alternative view in detail, for that is not the purpose of the book. Instead he works to show that whatever is true of God, the five-point Calvinist view is not. One of the best parts of the book is an illustration from two other authors that show the problem with Calvinism:
Walls and Dongell offer an analogy to test whether any human being would be considered loving or good if he or she acted as Calvinism says God acts in giving irresistible grace only to some of his fallen human creatures. (Remember, he created all in his own image and likeness.) In their illustration, a doctor discovers a cure for a deadly disease killing a group of camp children and gives it to the camp’s director. The director administers it to some sick children so that they are cured and withholds it from others so that they die terribly. He has no shortage of the cure; nothing at all hinders him from curing all the children. even though some of the children resisted the cure, the director had the ability to persuade all of them to take it; he only persuaded some. When the parents confront the director, he passionately contends that he loved all the children— Even the ones who died. He cared for them while they were sick and made them as comfortable as possible:
Walls and Dongell rightly conclude: The director’s claim to love all the children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk? (Walls and Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 54– 55.)
Olson, Roger E. (2011-10-25). Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Kindle Locations 3145-3149). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
That sums it up for me – it is difficult, impossible, to claim love for all children when the one claiming love will not employ all means to help those in need. In the debate then, my verdict is that while Horton does a good job arguing for the Calvinist view, Olsen succeeds in refuting it. I am not young, restless or Reformed.
jle913's review against another edition
4.0
Despite being more agressive and confrontational than it really needed to be, this book has won me over. I was a Calvinist when I began reading it, and am now reluctantly disavowing this theology. The arguments were far more compelling than I expected. Very well written.
cj_quartlbaum's review against another edition
4.0
Olson challenges you to think through a lot of things if you're a Calvinist. He has good points and some that make you pause. It's a good and challenging read. His tone is rather dismissive and paints Calvinists in the unfair light he doesn't want Arminians painted in but it's almost to be expected.
bmakuh's review against another edition
2.0
In this volume Olson attempts to highlight issues with Calvinist theology in an irenic way. While he sometimes accomplishes that, his arguments often rest on logical and exegetical fallacies. One tactic that he uses over and over is to create a dichotomy between a good-sounding option and one that is horrible while insisting that there is absolutely no third way, even while a third way is not only possible, but probable.
I very much appreciate Olson's severity about God's integrity, and his admonition that we think seriously about what our theology says about his character. That being said, the most disturbing assertion Olson makes in the whole book is that even if Calvinism is true, he still wouldn't worship such a God. Here, Olson shows his cards. Dangerously, he reveals that what matters most to him is not so much what is true, but rather what aligns with his own ideas of who God should be. I'm grateful for the legitimate concerns he points out, but because of his attitude about submitting to God, I find it almost impossible to trust nearly anything he says.
I very much appreciate Olson's severity about God's integrity, and his admonition that we think seriously about what our theology says about his character. That being said, the most disturbing assertion Olson makes in the whole book is that even if Calvinism is true, he still wouldn't worship such a God. Here, Olson shows his cards. Dangerously, he reveals that what matters most to him is not so much what is true, but rather what aligns with his own ideas of who God should be. I'm grateful for the legitimate concerns he points out, but because of his attitude about submitting to God, I find it almost impossible to trust nearly anything he says.
joshrskinner's review against another edition
3.0
I have become more and more convinced that only reading the thoughts and opinions of people you already agree with is a sure route to arrogance and ignorance. God's Word is inerrent but my interpretation of His Word is very susceptible to flaw and mistake.
I do not hide the fact that I hold to the doctrines of God's sovereign grace in the salvation of sinners, and to Calvinism as a theological framework of Scripture. That being said, I am not inerrant. Calvin was not inerrant. Edwards, Owen, Berkhoff, Horton, Piper and even Sproul (GASP!!) are not inerrant. They very well could be mistaken on many aspects of truth, and I felt it would do me well to consider the opposing view on important matters.
Enter Roger Olson and his new book, Against Calvinism(published in pair with Michael Horton's, For Calvinism). I have heard of Olson from friends and trusted that this would be a readable introduction to Arminian objections to Calvinist doctrine.
Praise God, I was correct. This was exactly what I thought it would be. A concise, readable and fair(if a bit caricaturistic at points) counter to "radical reformed"(Olson) thought.
Olson takes the reader through the U,L and I of the Calvinist TULIP, spending most of his time arguing against the Calvinist doctrine but also littering in some proactive arguments of Arminian interpretation of these issues.
I want to commend this book to the inquiring reader, but I do have some reservations I want to put forth first. At times, Olson's tone feels condescending. I am not sure if it is simply because I disagree with a majority of what he is saying, inserting a negative tone where it is really not. Also, it feels at time like he purposely misses the point of a Calvinist interpretation so he can further propulgate a misrepresentation(something he accuses Sproul of doing not 3 paragraphs after one transgression of his own).
Beyond this, Olson seems to hold opponents to a higher standard in their use of analogy than he does himself and elevates certain aspects of God(ie, love) over all others while accusing the "radical reformed" of doing the very same thing. Olson does not seem willing to embrace the fact that his own theology has shortcomings, but I am not sure if this is an indictment of the book because it may be simply beyond the scope of the text to engage any pitfalls in Arminianism.
The greatest shortcoming of the book is the shortcoming I see in Arminian theology. In it(the book and Arminianism), God seems bound to the will of man and God's revelation seems bound to human understanding. Both of these are great stumbling blocks to me. However, Olson does highlight some issues in "radical reformed" thought that are worth investigating and possbibly reforming.
So, all this being said, please read this book. If you are completely unfamiliar with Calvinism, maybe Horton's For Calvinism would be a prerequsite to better know where the author interprets facts rather than just reporting facts. But read it.
Read it knowing the author has an agenda. Read it knowing the author is a believer and is very educated in reformed thinking. Read it and test the claims by Scripture, not emotion or logic, but by God's very Word. Against Calvinism, even in the areas where I believe it is greatly flawed, is well worth the time you will invest in reading it.
I do not hide the fact that I hold to the doctrines of God's sovereign grace in the salvation of sinners, and to Calvinism as a theological framework of Scripture. That being said, I am not inerrant. Calvin was not inerrant. Edwards, Owen, Berkhoff, Horton, Piper and even Sproul (GASP!!) are not inerrant. They very well could be mistaken on many aspects of truth, and I felt it would do me well to consider the opposing view on important matters.
Enter Roger Olson and his new book, Against Calvinism(published in pair with Michael Horton's, For Calvinism). I have heard of Olson from friends and trusted that this would be a readable introduction to Arminian objections to Calvinist doctrine.
Praise God, I was correct. This was exactly what I thought it would be. A concise, readable and fair(if a bit caricaturistic at points) counter to "radical reformed"(Olson) thought.
Olson takes the reader through the U,L and I of the Calvinist TULIP, spending most of his time arguing against the Calvinist doctrine but also littering in some proactive arguments of Arminian interpretation of these issues.
I want to commend this book to the inquiring reader, but I do have some reservations I want to put forth first. At times, Olson's tone feels condescending. I am not sure if it is simply because I disagree with a majority of what he is saying, inserting a negative tone where it is really not. Also, it feels at time like he purposely misses the point of a Calvinist interpretation so he can further propulgate a misrepresentation(something he accuses Sproul of doing not 3 paragraphs after one transgression of his own).
Beyond this, Olson seems to hold opponents to a higher standard in their use of analogy than he does himself and elevates certain aspects of God(ie, love) over all others while accusing the "radical reformed" of doing the very same thing. Olson does not seem willing to embrace the fact that his own theology has shortcomings, but I am not sure if this is an indictment of the book because it may be simply beyond the scope of the text to engage any pitfalls in Arminianism.
The greatest shortcoming of the book is the shortcoming I see in Arminian theology. In it(the book and Arminianism), God seems bound to the will of man and God's revelation seems bound to human understanding. Both of these are great stumbling blocks to me. However, Olson does highlight some issues in "radical reformed" thought that are worth investigating and possbibly reforming.
So, all this being said, please read this book. If you are completely unfamiliar with Calvinism, maybe Horton's For Calvinism would be a prerequsite to better know where the author interprets facts rather than just reporting facts. But read it.
Read it knowing the author has an agenda. Read it knowing the author is a believer and is very educated in reformed thinking. Read it and test the claims by Scripture, not emotion or logic, but by God's very Word. Against Calvinism, even in the areas where I believe it is greatly flawed, is well worth the time you will invest in reading it.