Scan barcode
A review by gbdill
Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson
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.