Against Calvinism: Rescuing God's Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology

I was hopeful that this book would provide sound arguments against Calvinist soteriology. I was disappointed. Other reviewers have eloquently explained many of the book's shortcomings, so I'll just address a few issues I found:
- The author seems to equate the inability to understand a concept, with the concept being wrong. For instance, the author cannot seem to grasp that God's divine sovereignty does not include culpability for human sin, or the difference between primary and secondary causes; he therefore claims that Calvinism makes humans into robots and God into a monster. The author loves analogies (although he misapplies them), so I'll use one here to refute his fundamental error: when the sun sets, it can't be said to "cause" darkness; darkness is simply the lack of light. In like manner, God doesn't "cause" sin.
- There is far too much reliance on (faulty) logic, feelings, and analogies rather than Scripture. What few verses the author uses are completely out of context. For instance, he repeatedly (and primarily) uses 2 Pet 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4 to bolster his belief that God wants to save everyone. However, in context, those verses do no such thing. 2 Pet 3:9 (God "is patient toward you, not wishing anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance") has to be understood in light of 2 Pet 1:1; Peter is addressing BELIEVERS and is speaking of God's promises--this has nothing to do with saving unbelievers. Similarly, 1 Tim 2:4 (God "...desires all people to be saved") is speaking about Gentile rulers and our need to pray for them; in context, God desires people of all races and ranks to be saved, not every single person who has ever lived. The author never engages in real debate even about these two verses, on which most of his arguments hinge--well, the arguments that use Scripture anyway, which are few.
-The author loves using the phrase "good and necessary consequence" (a WCF phrase) when trying to take a Calvinist point to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the author's logical conclusion is often both illogical and a twisting of Calvinist thought. For instance, he claims Calvinists can't make a gospel call to everyone if God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be damned. When an argument is that clumsy, where do you even begin to retort?
- For each letter in TULIP, the author provides an Arminian alternative. Sadly, his alternatives are far weaker (both logically and Scripturally) than the Calvinism he attacks.

I would love it if this book had made sound Scriptural arguments against Calvinism, while taking into account the majority Calvinist interpretations of those Scriptures. Instead, it relies too much on philosophy and feelings to make its points. I was highly disappointed.

In 2009, just in time for the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, Time magazine declared "the New Calvinism" as one of "10 Ideas Changing the World Right now." Christianity Today scooped Time on this story with a 2006 article by Collin Hansen entitled, "Young, Restless, Reformed," which Hansen later turned into a [[ASIN:1581349408 book]] (and Time referred to). The rise in popularity of this centuries-old theological system with young people seems surprising at first, but given the dearth of in-depth biblical and theological teaching in evangelical churches, it's not totally unexpected. Christians long for an intellectually rigorous expression of the faith, and the New Calvinism aims to please.

Roger E. Olson is none too pleased with Calvinism's renaissance, however. In Against Calvinism, he argues that although Calvinists do not intend to slander God's good reputation, they inadvertently do so through the "good and necessary consequences" of their doctrines. Which doctrines? Olson focuses on four: "meticulous providence," "unconditional election," "limited atonement," and "irresistible grace." He argues that "meticulous providence" is nothing more than "divine determinism," which robs humans of moral responsibility for their actions and makes God the author of sin. He argues that "unconditional election" amounts to "double predestination" and "arbitrary choice," for God's sovereignty is all-determining, and his choice to save some but damn the rest apart from their faith is capricious. Olson argues that Calvin himself did not limit the efficacy of the atonement to the elect and that the logic of Calvinist soteriology rather than biblical teaching is what necessitates limited atonement. Finally, he argues that "irresistible grace" like "unconditional election" is dispensed arbitrarily. If God could give grace to all, why wouldn't he?

That question seems to be the nub of Olson's brief against Calvinism: If God could save all, why wouldn't he save all? The inability of Calvinism to answer that question, or rather, its assertion that God could save all but doesn't is what constitutes a slander on God's reputation for Olson.

Against Calvinism makes its case by extensively quoting mainstream, representative Calvinists (e.g., Calvin himself, Jonathan Edwards, Loraine Boettner, R. C. Sproul, and John Piper). He points out flaws in their interpretation of Scripture. He identifies conundrums in Calvinist theology that can be resolved only through rejection of its distinctive doctrines. And he exposes the verbal gymnastics that Calvinists use to downplay or soften the logical implications of those doctrines.

As an alternative to Calvinism, Olson invites his readers to investigate Arminianism, an alternative that makes better sense of Scripture, the tradition of Christian doctrine, reason, and experience. Interested readers can pursue further study on this alternative in Olson's [[ASIN:0830828419 Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities]].

I asked the author on his blog about John 17:9 where Jesus said "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." If Jesus loved everyone, then He would have prayed for everyone, however He only prayed for the elect, those given to Him by the Father. In fact Jesus went so far as to state clearly the He was NOT praying for the world. The author replied to me with a silly short anwser about the corporate nature of election which he left up on his blog for a few hours and then deleted it along with my question. That's the best he can do? And he calls himself a theologian and a professor? I wouldn't waste my money or time listening to anyone who thinks he's an expert but has no answer when confronted with the Truth of God's Word, and when the verse which proves he's wrong. Rather than rejoicing in the Truth of John 17:9 and God's sovereign election of ungodly sinners, this author chose to delete it and ignore it. Maybe he's more concerned with his reputation and book sales than about the Truth? Sure felt that way to me when he deleted my question, hiding it from anyone else seeing it and saving himself having to seriously deal with it.

It has been a fun journey over the last month as I have read Michael Horton's [[ASIN:B005JSGAXY For Calvinism]], which I reviewed a few weeks ago, and Roger E. Olson's [[ASIN:B004PYDKPY Against Calvinism]].

Though I reside firmly in the Wesleyan/Arminian camp, I did attended a Calvinist leaning seminary and taught at a Reformed Church of America college during my career. I have heard and studied the arguments from both sides and have come to some conclusions on my own. Taking the time to read Horten and Olson has allowed me to revisit decisions that I made some 35 or more years ago. Those decisions have not changed, but these two books did allow me to rewalk a path that I traveled years ago.

Olson's book is not so much a defense of a Wesleyan/Arminian faith, but a reflection of the problems presented by those who follow the teachings of John Piper or R C Sproul. Though I, as indicated above, did find myself immersed in their teaching, I have never read their writings. I found Horton's and Olson's books helpful in understanding the Calvinist position as it is being expounded in the first decade of the 21st century. Both draw on the writing of current propounders of Calvinism, but also draw heavily from those in both its early history and the more recent past of the 17th - 20th centuries.

Olson's book is not merely a restatement of non-biblical writers, he also reflects on both the obvious and the more difficult passages of scripture - which one would expect from a well-written theology text.

Roger Olson's Against Calvinism is recommended reading for those both in and out and on the fence as they relate to Calvinism. Reading Michael Horton and Roger Olson together is the best solution in studying and understanding the current issues involved in this five century old debate.

This review is based on a free, electronic copy of the book provided by the publisher for the purpose of creating this review.

I'm not a scholar, so I'm sure that will come through right away in my review. I would only like to say that I wanted to throw this book against a wall as I read it. And here's why:

1) this book reinvents Calvinism in a way John Calvin himself would not agree with, and from there supposedly "critiques" it; so this book ends up being a critique of a straw man version of Calvinism, not Calvinism itself

2) through Mr. Olson's statements, it is painfully clear that he does not discern 1) what a paradox is 2) that the Bible is replete with them 3) that a paradox and a contradiction are not one and the same thing (a paradox retains an underlying logical consistency while a contradiction does not)

3) and lastly, while Olson rails on and on about sin, evil (and Calvinism supposedly asserting a God who is the 'author' of these), not ONCE does he define his terms and describe WHAT he thinks sin and evil actually are; I am very nearly convinced, however, given his explanations throughout the book that he is a dualist who believes that sin is an entity unto itself. How else could he come to the conclusions he does?

This all being said, I am glad for the opportunity to have read the book, however painful it was. It is good to hear what other people think, even if you vehemently disagree with them. I did end up finishing the book and not once did my wall get scuffed.

I went into reading this with an open mind, wanting to be convinced. But alas, I will go back to my sorry ol Calvinism, my comfort in God's sovereignty, and my crazy (if Biblical) notions about predestination all intact.

I enjoyed Olson's previous book, "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities." But Olson really outdid himself with "Against Calvinism." This is not only one of the top two or three books I have read against Calvinism, but it is the one I would recommend first to anyone interested in this issue.

Olson really packs a lot into this work in its short 207 pages. He argues relentlessly that Calvinism utterly violates the love and goodness of God, that it has God decreeing all evil and then holding man responsible, and he goes through all the points of the TULIP concepts as well, showing them to be unbiblical.

Olson also has an excellent section in the back (Appendix 2) with concise answers to common Calvinist arguments.

I did learn some things reading this book. A couple of interesting points are: Calvinists claim the atonement secured salvation for the elect, but Arminians can argue that Christ's atonement secured salvation for humanity. They just have to accept it after that. I also appreciated Olson mentioning that no one among the early church fathers (until the fifth century) interpreted Romans 9 as referring to sovereign election.

Olson did cite and recommend books. One slight quibble I have is that there are a few important books he didn't mention but should have. Two that absolutely blow limited atonement out of the water are: "Did Christ Die Only for the Elect" by Norman Douty and "Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement" by John Goodwin.

Also, though he argued against Jonathan Edwards' perspective in "Freedom of the Will," he could have mentioned "Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan Response to Jonathan Edwards" by Daniel Whedon, a major refutation.

But those aside, "Against Calvinism" is a great book and I highly recommend it.

This has been a very helpful read for me. More than helping to shape my own theology, Against Calvinism has helped me articulate and provide resources for me in conversations that involve talking points for and against various perspectives in the Wesleyan-Arminian and Calvin debates.

I have been reading various articles, essays, and books from Roger Olson for quite some time now as a frequent visitor to his blog site and owner of several of his published works. I find his scholarship is brilliant and his generosity with his knowledge is beyond compare.

I don’t really have any criticism of the material in the book, but I wish the language in the title wasn’t so strong. The title is a very unqualified, Against Calvinism, but Olson is quick to point out his “no” to Calvinism is directed most specifically to the extreme version being promoted by leaders of the young, restless, Reformed generation. Needless to say, as I’ve had the book in my possession in public, its title has caused a few head turns and conversations. Title aside, I think the content is very solid and I believe fair to the doctrinal view of Calvinism in general… the YRR crowd notwithstanding.

Olson provides a thorough explanation differentiating between Reformed Theology and Calvinism in chapter two and details the tenants of the extreme Calvinism by enumerating the five points of TULIP in chapter three (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Also in chapter three, Olson describes some of the more prominent variations of the TULIP system and a few of the more radical reformed views. This was a very interesting and enlightening chapter for me.

The next four chapters (four through seven), Olson meticulously details where he might agree with Calvin’s tenants, but definitively says “NO” to the extreme version of it. Here follow the chapter titles to provide examples of what I describe: Four—Yes to God’s Sovereignty; No to Divine Determinism, Five—Yes to Election; No to Double Predestination, Six—Yes to Atonement; No to Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption, Seven—Yes to Grace; No to Irresistible Grace/Monergism. I have read and studied from Calvin’s Institutes and I’ve never been able to reconcile what some in the YRR and hyper-Calvinism camp promoted, so this was fascinating reading in these four chapters and was helpful to my understanding.

Chapter eight serves as Olson’s wrap-up and conclusion. Here he lays out what he describes as Calvinism’s conundrums, paradoxes, and contradictions. This too was a helpful chapter, but I gleaned even more benefit from the appendices where he includes additional talking points and (Arminian) responses to Calvinist claims. This is very helpful information in sorting through the disagreements between the two camps. While I haven’t read it (I intend to read it at some date in the future) a companion book has been written by Michael Horton titled For Calvinism. I think this book might be necessary reading for me to help me not have too stilted of a perspective without being fairly informed.

As I said earlier in my review, I admire the scholarship of Roger Olson and appreciate the work he has done in the area of Arminian Theology. I absolutely recommend this title, Against Calvinism, and also highly recommend his books Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and his most recent book The Journey of Modern Theology.

Against Calvinism is best read in tandem with Michael Horton's book For Calvinism. As a stand alone volume, it is a pointed and carefully argued answer to the Calvinist viewpoint, and helps the reader to understand the theological problems that come with Calvin's presentation of God, grace, foreknowledge, and predestination. Olson also presents an alternative viewpoint, Arminianism, that approaches God's sovereignty and the will in a different way without neglecting the biblical witness. This is a good book, especially for those seeking a better understanding of Calvinism and its critics.