Against Calvinism

This review is in conjunction with For Calvinism by Michael Horton.

At the outset, I was pleased that both authors take care in their use of terms like `Calvinism' and `TULIP.' Horton, like many Reformed theologians, avoids the label `Calvinist,' since it is usually caricatured in hyper-Calvinist form, and rightly judges that the traditional TULIP schema distorts the Reformed position (he prefers particular atonement and effectual grace). Olson carefully articulates the diversity in the Reformed family, clearly aiming his critiques against `high Calvinism' or the `radical Reformed' rather than the more moderate or revisionist Reformed (like the late Berkouwer) with whom he shares great affinity. In other words, Olson launches his diatribe against the firery Reformed who follow Piper and Sproul and affirm God's absolute, meticulous sovereignty.

The debate progresses as you might expect. Olson contends that meticulous sovereignty espoused by `high Calvinists' is really just divine determinism, which makes God a moral monster. Horton asserts that God's permissive will prevents him from authoring sin and evil, although Olson argues that this still makes sin certain. Horton defends the traditional view of predestination and reprobation, while Olson supports christological and corporate election. For Horton, Christ dies particularly for the elect, although his death is sufficient for all; for Olson, Christ really does die for all. Horton affirms that God saves monergistically at every point, including conversion, while Olson expresses a more dynamic synergism between God's grace and our active belief. Overall, Olson believes Reformed theology ruins God's reputation, whereas Horton believes Reformed theology gives God the most glory.

Unfortunately, I don't think these lines of argument will change any minds. I would guess that Arminian readers will remain Arminians and Calvinists will continue as Calvinists. The books may correct some caricatures--Arminians don't believe that salvation is possible apart from God's grace, and not all Calvinists are `hyper'--but in my opinion, we need a more creative and imaginative method to move the debate forward. Both books hint at such a method, but each one resorts to the typical modus operandi of philosophical gymnastics. Horton suggests that doctrine, doxology, and discipleship should be situated within the drama of God's salvation. Likewise, Olson often cites David Bentley Hart with approval, and ends chapter four with a quote insisting that the story of sin and redemption is not just a dramaturgical lesson: it's a real drama.

What if both Horton and Olson has pursued this dramatic model further? I am not presuming that dramatic metaphors and models can or should resolve all the differences between Arminians and Calvinists. But I think they can help us re-frame and re-imagine stale arguments, and that they contain unique potential to connect doctrine with daily life and discipleship, as both Horton and Olson desire to do. In the end, it is not most important that we completely understand God and his ways in the world, and are therefore passionately for Arminianism or Calvinism. Rather, the most important thing is that we demonstrate in faithful words and deeds that we are for God, and even more, that God is for us.

Sometimes it is good to read a book from a different theological perspective as a way to guard against complacency. Olson's Against Calvinism is a good book for such an exercise. Olson spends the bulk of his book arguing against three of the five points of Calvinism (the ULI of the TULIP). He does not scorn all Calvinists or all Reformed believers but is most concerned about those whom we might call insistent or high Calvinists (those who push the five points to their "logical" conclusions). He would include men like John Piper, RC Sproul and Jonathan Edwards in this group. Olson's main concern seems to be that if we carry out Calvinism to its logical conclusion then we end up with a God who is not worthy of worship, for He is a God who causes evil. There are arguments against this view, but Olson does not accept these arguments, viewing them simply as logically untenable. Olson often argues well when he makes the case for his view and criticizes high Calvinism.

My problem with Olson's argument is that, taken to its logical conclusion, Piper, Sproul and Edwards worship a false God. Olson comes dangerously close to being like the student who spoke to him in the beginning of the book, saying, "I don't think you're a Christian because you are not a Calvinist." I came away from the book hearing him say, "I don't think you worship the true God because you are a high Calvinist." At what point then does Olson have to use the "H" word and call out high Calvinism as a heresy? Are we ready to call Piper, Sproul et al, heretics?

It has been a fun journey over the last month as I have read Michael Horton's For Calvinism, which I reviewed a few weeks ago, and Roger E. Olson's 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 glad to have read this book, and will be studying others on the subject. My title to this review reflects what I think is the most important aspect of "Against Calvinism," and that is the in-depth quoting of various academic and popular authors (and speakers) that, to me, write in an almost deceptive manner. Sproul, Piper, Packer, and others are discussed. What I mean by "almost deceptive manner" is that much of their writing is nice sounding and general, but taking a deeper look at ALL their writings in various places and putting them together, their doctrinal writings are shown to convey more. What they convey might not actually be acceptable to some who now call themselves Calvinists, while other Reformed protestants are already aware of these problems. Olson of course quotes from classic high or scholastic Calvinists, and shows how these Calvinists do not fully accept milder Calvinists either.

Olson makes a point of saying that he is writing about High or Scholastic Calvinism (not four point), or Radical Reformed Theology, so I think criticisms that cut him down for putting down Calvinists in general are not fair.

The reason I wanted to read this book, and look into Calvinism more, is because I have experienced some of what Olson had. Vitriol from Calvinists, when we're supposed to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. As Olson had experienced, some will even tell you you are not saved because you don't adhere to their brand of biblical interpretation. Others insult in other ways that Olson also has experienced and writes about (and I have experienced these myself). When this kind of behavior is blasted all around the internet, and for nonbelievers or seekers to see, then I think the issue needs to be addressed. This is what Olson did.

As a professed Calvinist I found this book to be both challenging, informative, and frustrating.

I was frustrated by what seemed like a caricature of Calvinism and even of those Olson seeks to skewer in his book. I have read 20 or so books of Sproul and never drew the conclusions that Olson presents about Sproul. Perhaps, I am truly a "moderate Calvinist" and didn't feel like Olson was actually addressing what I believe. I was however frustrated by the fact that there was less engagement with Scripture than I would have liked. For example, I was unconvinced by Olson's cursory treatment of Romans 9 (he never addressed the questions Paul raised following his statements and what that tells us about what Paul was teaching). I want a logical faith but I first want to know it is a Biblical faith.

As I read Scripture, it seems God has always called out a "remnant" to be saved. I don't see the idea of predestination as being much different from what God did in the Old Testament.

The book was informative in helping me to understand that in Reformed circles Arminians are truly mis-represented in their beliefs. There are many areas where I find a kinship with my Arminian brothers and sisters. If for no other reason, this book was valuable to me.I hope it will keep me from demonizing those who see things differently than I do.

The book was challenging because of long discourses which sometimes left me in a fog. It was however also challenging in a good way because it led me to examine my own beliefs. That is always a good thing. I found many of the arguments Olson used against Calvinism to be arguments that could just as easily be turned against Arminianism. When all was said and done I found myself perhaps straddling the fence a bit in my own theology. Neat and tidy would be nice but . . .I'm not there yet and I'm not sure I ever want to get there.

Roger E. Olson's "Against Calvinism" is a lively and engaging critique of high Calvinist theology, the type of Calvinist theology spouted by the likes of R.C. Sproul and John Piper. Olson recognizes that this theology has captivated many young Christians but because of high Calvinism's inherent contradictions and conundrums, Olson is worried that many believers are being led astray. Olson admits that he has respect for many Reformed colleagues and friends and his intent in this book is not so much to critique what he calls "revisionist Reformed" thinkers but those who hold to high Calvinism.

Olson structures his book around TULIP, the popular acronym of Calvinist theology. However, he barely mentions total depravity or perseverance of the saints. Like many Arminians, Olson believes in total depravity but I would have liked to hear him comment on perseverance of the saints more because that doctrine is not necessarily held by all Arminians; Jacob Arminius himself, as Olson states, wrestled with this issue and never came to a fully formed conclusion either way.

Olson is well-read and one of the praises I have for this book is that while Olson debunks the views of Calvinist theologians and scholars such as John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and Loraine Bottner, he also engages with Calvinists who are more familiar to the laity such as the aforementioned Sproul and Piper. Thus, Olson's critique is comprehensive in assessing both scholarly and popular Calvinists.

While Olson's primary task is to demonstrate the problems inherent in Calvinism, I wish he would have spent more time elaborating on Arminianism. He does a decent job of explaining Arminian responses to the dilemmas posed by Calvinist beliefs, but he often directs readers to his book "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities". For instance, while Olson believes in libertarian free will, he also admits at the end of the book that God sometimes DOES override someone's free will. I wish he would have provided a bit more commentary here.

Nevertheless, Olson does an excellent job of offering reasonable critiques of Calvinism. He focuses mostly on unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace and provides compelling alternatives to Calvinist theology.

First I must admit to being a full tilt, joy filled, thankful to God for saving me, 48 year old (not YRR) Calvinist. That being said, I read professor Olson's book cover to cover out of great curiosity. I give him three stars on this review because I believe he did his professional and personal best to present his argument, although he falls far short of being convincing. I consistently found his arguments far to dependent on the opinions and musings of other men, and far less reliant on referencing and exegeting scriptures to support his position. On the other side of the spectrum is John Piper, who goes into incredible detail in supporting his arguments from scripture, not men's opinions. I actually encourage you to read Professor Olson's book, and compare it to any book written by John Piper on this subject. I believe you will find the difference exceedingly apparent.

It is timely because I was reaching a point where I felt I was going to throw in the towel due to what I felt was the inescapable Calvinist conclusion of God that all bibically-committed Protestants who value church orthodoxy must come to. I was horrified and felt that my worst nightmare had come true. As others have already noted, the exceptional thing in this book is that Roger Olson, without restraining, shows the logical outcomes of Calvinism many of us have battled in our heads, all the while without slandering or dismissing our brothers in Christ. We who are young and restless (especially when living overseas in missions) face an online dilemma: on one hand we are faced with being drowned in orthodox but Calvinist-infused articles, podcasts, etc., but when moving outside of this arena we are faced with resources that tend to minimize the authority of scripture or church orthodoxy. Roger Olson's lucid and passionate writing seem to offer a "mediating" position for the young and restless that is a breath of fresh air.

Very disappointing. The author didn't prove Calvinism wrong by interacting with scriptures. There was barely any scripture in this book at all. I've found that to be the case with most of the books and sermons against Calvinism... Lots of philosophy and very little bible. He also calls Calvinists his brothers, but then continually attacks them and their beliefs for the rest of the book. I'll keep looking for a book that proves Calvinism wrong by searching the scriptures. Here's a hint: it can't be done. Because Calvinism IS biblical theology.

After being bombarded by hyper-calvinists who were trying to convert me into believing their 5-point Reformed theology, Dr. Roger E. Olson's book is much welcomed. He begins the book with Reformed history and points out that term "Reformed" actually encompasses a broader umbrella of people than those who believe in TULIP (there are several different denominations that fall under the World Communion of Reformed Churches that do not consider themselves 5-point Calvinists.)

Dr. Olson refers to Reformed authors that criticize the deterministic view of those who believe in Limited Atonement and double predestination (God foreordaining that certain people would go to Hell). Not all who call themselves Reformed believe in TULIP! Dr. Olson cites the words of Todd Billings, Alan P.F. Sell (secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches), James Orr, etc. to demonstrate that many Reformed Christians are bothered that "love is subordinated to sovereignty rather than sovereignty to love." (p. 31)

(In my own Christian walk, I see evidence of God's power, but even more strongly I feel His love, His grace, and His mercy. He is a loving God.)

I would be open to accepting TULIP if it made logical sense. But nobody could convince me that God is the author of sin, especially when "sin" is "rebellion against God." Why would God send His son to die for the world, and then purposely cause some to rebel against Him without giving them a choice in the matter?

I am very grateful to Dr. Olson for writing this book. I would recommend "Against Calvinism" to anyone.

Very disappointing. Was looking for Biblical reasoning, but got "I think God would be mean if Calvinism were true, and I don't want to believe in Him if he is." Whoa! God is who He is. Let's look
To the Bible to find the answer and not manufacture a god in the image we think is how he ought to be. Horton's companion book "For Calvinism" reasons from Scripture. This book doesn't.

I am Arminian and I was hoping to get a book that would give me some good arguments to use with my daughter who had recently become Calvinist. The book is an argument for Calvinism. I ended up reading the whole book, but was not convinced. I was disappointed that I bought and read a book arguing in favor of Calvinism when I thought I was getting the opposite. Perhaps if I had read reviews or requested a sample before buying it, I would have avoided that mistake. I just went on the titles of the book.

An excellent critique of Calvinism. Dr. Olson clearly outlines the fallacies of Calvinist thought and doctrine. Does a good job of shining a light on what happens when to take (high/hyper) Calvinism to its logical conclusion.

My pastor speaks of "Hyper-Calvinism" as if some mean group of men came along and perverted the perfectly glorious doctrines of Calvinism. But he is wrong. Hyper-Calvinism = Calvinism. The 5 points of the TULIP prove it. And Calvinism is as mean as it gets.

I also believe what this poster said is true....

"While condemning Calvinism, the author believes that those believing this doctrine can be in a saved condition. 2 John 9-11 refutes that approach. Why be opposed to anything if you can still be right with God."

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 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 Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.

I am a (perhaps Olson would define me as hyper) Calvinist who strongly holds to all five points. That said, 'Against Calvinism' was a very interesting and thought-provoking read and I too would encourage every professing Calvinist to read this book. Olson stands in respectful opposition to Calvinists and his arguments for Arminianism are some of the best found in print today. Though I do not agree with his final premise, he challenged me to think more logically about my beliefs and I feel that I am a stronger Calvinist because of it. For that, I owe him my thanks.

Roger Olson's book helped me to decide about Arminianism verses Calvinism. Previously those divisions only were about aspects of Christianity and not much about Christian spirituality. I have learned otherwise. Although I suspected I identified with Arminian knowledge of salvation as more than an event; also an experience affirmed by what the Bible explains. What I already knew of Calvinism for more than 40 years is: excellent at descrptions, yet simultaneously, pathetic at explanations; the parts are correctly labelled but the parts are scattered, out of sequence. Olson got me to understand why that is. I learned that Calvinism forces the experience of salvation out of sequence from how it actually occurs as an emotional event and faith is never a work. (168-170) What Calvinsits presume as understood is actually denied by experience.

Olson presents wise intelligence with a gentle nudge only as an insightful teacher could, as if to say, "Do you finally comprehend the obvious claims of Calvinism?" Olson literally pulls apart Calvinists' arguments with assurance. It convinced me to be even more against Calvinism. Most Calvinists authors Olson deals with, I have picked up their books only to put them back on the shelf. I have a visceral innate reaction to what they claim, that counters their forced scatterbrained notions of the salvation experience. I consider those authors to be naive wingnuts, intellectual bigots. Their ideas about sovereignty and everything is for God's glory is insidiously naive, senseless, that I feel embarrassed for God. A work that God has begun, as Olson points out, can be destroyed (1 Corinthians 8:11; Romans 14:20; 1 Peter 1:7).

Although Olson doesn't ask specifically, my intuitive question is: What is missing in Calvinism? Olson's reply: it's the "intelligible" factor. With succinct brilliance he nearly shouts, "I mean capable of being understood." (25,167) Olson continues throughout to kick Calvinists' smug arrogant intellectual butt which has been long over due. What type of personality is attracted to Calvinism? Such a crucial question, perchance, provides a dark analysis. To posit "by chance or by God" for a Calvinists must stir up insecurities that make them feel out of place; it's all about them, not God; them on the inside, not those unelected schmuks on the outside. Their arrogant smugness reveals childish insecurities; it's antithetical to Christian spirituality.

I also learned reading this book, my intellectual takeout is:
*If Calvinism were introduced today it wouldn't stick but slide into oblivion like other half baked hereies or aberrant useless ideas.
*Calvinism is more a philosophy than a theology; it's stuff, stuffed into the head.
*Arminians are too tolerant, more than 500 years toward Calvinists. Calvinists should be considered as the weaker, less advanced believers; need to grow up by learning how to think cogently.
*Calvinism induces philosophical primitivism gladhanded with psychological rigidity; how to think without being insecure about it, is maturity. Nuance is foreign to them.
*Calvinists have made God after their own image. That's how they can be indifferent about evil.
*Calvinists do not comprehend God's nature nor human nature, since there is no grasp of what it means to be made after the image and likeness of God.

The book is an ordinary effort that is confused in several areas.

A notable flaw is the absence of a chapter on God's omniscience. Here Arminians/non-Calvinists (for the most part) and Calvinists agree - God has exhaustive knowledge of all events and particularly those occurring in the future. The author falters once saying, "Someone might ask how God could be sure they would happen. God knows the hearts of people and can foresee that, given certain foreseen circumstances, they will do sinful things...he can predict them infallibly." (p.84) He often seems to write from this perspective while claiming, as an Arminian, to hold to full omniscience

Arminians et al affirm that God knows the identities of those who are saved and those not saved and knows this before any one of them lives. It is by grace (whether one calls it prevenient or irresistible) that the elect are saved down to the last individual and no amount of grace will save so much as one individual among the reprobate. The author agrees, writing, "Election is simply God's foreknowledge of who will freely receive this grace unto salvation." (p.129) So, why does the author then argue as if any but the elect could be saved? He makes the nonsensical statement, "I believe...that Christ died for every single human person in such a way as to secure their salvation without requiring it or making it certain." (p.148)

So, because of omniscience, the argument between non-Calvinism and Calvinism is not "Who does God save?" It is "How does God bring the elect to salvation." That which God knows, including any future event, must be certain; the salvation of the elect is, therefore, certain and as certain as the reprobate will not be saved.

The author spends a good deal of space on the plight of the reprobate under Calvinism yet seems not to realize that the reprobate are no better off under Armianism et al. The author, quoting Boettner, writes, ""[God]...separates the human race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death[hell].' He then says, "This is...what is commonly known as `double predestination.'" (p.43) Fine, but the quibble is not whether the human race is separated into the elect and the reprobate (God's omniscience has already made that distinction) but whether God merely knows this or actually ordains it.

The failure to address the omniscience of God leads to disjointed arguments against Calvinism that are often nonsensical.

To this, add God's omnipotence and what do we get? God knows all events before they ever come to be and has the power to change any outcome. No event ever happens except it be known to God and it is God who decides whether to allow natural events to play out before Him or to intervene to change the natural outcome. It is God who knew of the plot to fly a plane into the world trade center and when the jet was a milli-second from smashing into the building, it was God who had the power to grab the plane and place on the runway of any airport in the world. It was God's decision that natural events should play out to their fullest. Thus, God ordained this event as He ordains all that happens. Arminians et al imagine that God limits himself (p.132) as if this could make a difference.

To the Calvinist, grace (irresistible grace) is both necessary and sufficient to gain the salvation of the elect. To the Arminian et al, grace (prevenient grace) is necessary but not sufficient to gain the salvation of the elect. Yet, the author asks, "...how much of salvation... [did] Arminius and Wesley attribute[d] to grace - All of it." (p.168) They attribute all of salvation to that which they also say is not sufficient to gain the salvation of even one individual. Does that make sense? To the non-Calvinist, the final decision to accept or reject salvation rests with the individual. It is a power that the individual exercises over God and by it, Arminians et al render God impotent in order that the individual should rule. It is the exercise of that power by the individual that is rightfully a work and relegates Arminian et al to semi-pelagianism.

What do we say of a non-Calvinist atonement exercised on behalf of the reprobate who God foreknows will not be saved or of God's love for the reprobate when even non-Calvinists say that God is able to save but does not. The author must surely be against any non-Calvinist system as well as the Calvinist system.

The author seems not to understand Total Depravity. He explains it this way: "There is no moral ability...to reach out to God...The natural, fallen person...cannot please God because the heart is still corrupt and self-centered. Sin lies in the motives, and they are entirely wrong until the Holy Spirit regenerates the person." (p.43) It is not the lack of ability but the lack of desire that denotes the totally depraved. They are those who "walk according to the course of this world...fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and are by nature the children of wrath," (Eph 2), "live according to the sinful nature having their minds set on what that nature desires; [their] sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so," (Rom 8), and who are the "fool [who says] in his heart, There is no God," and who does not seek God. (Psa 53) They are the wicked written of in the Scriptures. It is out of such people that God calls the elect only because it is the elect only whom Christ will raise up. The reprobate are left to their natural desires and not even prevenient grace nor an universal atonement will change that nor pretend to. This even the non-Calvinist must admit for omniscience tells him so.

The author confuses predestination, as might be expected, but after 30 years, should have figured it out. God ordains all things. That which God predestinates is a subset of that which He ordains. The Scriptures are consistent as is the Westminster Confession of Faith. God predestinates His involvement in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation and the living of a holy life. He predestinates nothing else, especially with regard to the reprobate.

Space does not permit a full treatment of the issues that cry out for correction in this book. If one has read one emotion laden diatribe against Calvinism, one has read them all. This book adds nothing new to that which has gone before.

Olson's best arguments reveal that he is interested in little more than name calling. In his opening chapters he opens fire on 'new Calvinists' as essentially fanatical children of some lesser, but impossibly honest God. For Olson to be comfortable with his faith, God must not have been entirely serious about the message in his Book, especially when Olson finds that book difficult to explain.

If Olson had taken on Piper's and Calvin's commentaries more directly, this book would be worthy of greater respect whether one agrees with its arguments or not. Instead he sets up one straw boy and girl after another and congratulates himself for knocking them down.

There are better presented complaints about Calvinism and its role in modern churches. But this book gets two stars because it provides a careful reader with ammunition to refute many of the better complaints that are not contained in Olson's book.

But, much like Mr. Olson (by his own admission) I do not have the best credentials to argue these points. Therefore, if you must consume 'Against Calvinism' follow it by re-reading Paul's Letters and ask yourself if both authors can be correct. If not, which would you bet your soul on.

The author starts the book by clamoring to want to open an irenic debate on Calvinism, especially New Calvinism. I believe he spent at least a chapter appealing to an irenic debate between brothers, which is a strategy to make the Calvinist reader let his guard down while the author goes for the jugular. The book is anything but irenic. This book is as passive-aggressive as you can get, which I speculate mirrors the author's personality.

Here's the facts:

1. There are absolutely no new exegetical points that the author makes against Calvinism. None. If you are well-versed in the Arminain-Calvinism debate, you will read nothing new here. He re-packages old arguments by using terms he comes up with like “Divine Determinism.”
2. The debate is not irenic. The author says that if you are a five point Calvinist, you are lying about the character God. You make God to be a moral monster. So without actually saying Calvinists are heretics, he leaves no other logical conclusion. I found that disingenuous.
3. He appeals to the method of repeating his catch phrase ad-nauseum in order to make his point, hoping that if he repeats his points often enough, he will make it stick. There’s maybe one chapter in which the author doesn't mention, “Calvinists make God look like a moral monster.” In every chapter the moral monster rears its ugly head.
4. The author has a closed mind. He states in his book that he will not change his mind about Calvinism even if it’s proven to him that God is the way Calvinists say He is, because according to him, God would be a moral monster. I mean, he doesn't think that in his fallen, finite state he might have a blind spot or two.
5. This book attacks New Calvinism. The author wants to divide New Calvinism, or as he calls it by his own term High Calvinism, against Old Calvinism. And why not, it’s new Calvinism that’s reviving America and poses a threat to the Arminain status-quo.
6. Author favors philosophy over the word of God. He appeals to philosophy to make his moral monster argument.

Here’s the quote that proves that the author thinks 5 point Calvinists are heretics, and that the author is not open-minded:

“One day, at the end of a class session on Calvinism’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty, a student asked me a question I had put off considering. He asked: if it was revealed to you in a way you couldn’t question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says, and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him? I knew the only possible answer without a moment’s thought, even though I knew it would shock many people. I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster. “

I have summarized the book for you. I wish the author would refund me my money. I went in thinking about an irenic debate, and in return I got called a heretic, that makes God to be a moral monster.

I have one final response to the philosopher’s humanist argument of “Auschwitz gospel.”
He said: Someone has said that no theology is worth believing that cannot be preached in front of the gates of Auschwitz. I, for one, could not stand at those gates and preach a version of God’s sovereignty that makes the extermination of six million Jews, including many children, a part of the will and plan of God such that God foreordained and rendered it certain.

I have one question for the author, could you stand in front of the gates of Canaan and tell them that the destruction that is about to come to them was not part of God’s plan, and he didn’t render it certain, and that God loves them just as much as Israel?

As someone who was converted to Calvinism later in life, I found many of Olson's arguments to be very good. But just as I would find myself being persuaded, he would do precisely what he was continuously accusing Calvinists of doing by misrepresenting their positions and being unnecessarily offensive.

Olson's book is a profound exploration into the world of the neo-Reformed that seems to have a growing voice in Evangelicalism. I feel as though Olson gives an accurate representation of Calvinism. I think he plays by all the conventional academic rules when it comes to representing alternative viewpoints. However, what he misses is that it doesn't really matter how fair he plays or how well he articulates his position, a Calvie, by definition, is against it. Even Horton who does the forward can't resist the "he doesn't understand" undertone. I seriously doubt any Calvinist or borderline Calvie or Reformed newbie would change his/her mind after reading this book partly because to be a Calvie, one is already thoroughly convinced of one's viewpoint I also do not buy the "you can't understand it unless you really believe it and if you understood it, you'd believe it" air so many Calvies seem to exude). So, I do not recommend this book to John Piper fans or Passion fans or One Day fans or Radical fans or any other of the popularizers of Reformed theology (albeit most of the current popularizers do it backhandedly). The Calvie world is so tidy! The world Olson is describing is a messed up place with people making decisions and what not. Personally, I found the book helpful because it didn't understand all the nuances of the Calvie world. I feel like I have a much better understanding of all the intricacies and differences in Calvinism. I also recommend that people don't read it very quickly for two main reasons: 1) it gets redundant and 2) you won't remember much. Unfortunately, in the world he lives in Olson has to dot every I and cross every t with references and cross-references to avoid unnecessary criticism. This situation is to the detriment of the non-academic reader.
On another note, it bothers me how academic and intellectual this discussion has become. Secondly, I wonder how Trinitarian Calvinism really is since its categories seem to make God more like a single Person than Persons in relationship.
Bottom line: buy it and Olson's other book on Arminianism for a thorough look at an alternative view of God and His relationship to the world. Alternately, if you're sick of the Calvie vs, Armi debate, try on Open Theism with a book from Greg Boyd.

Watch out John Piper, Mark Driscoll and your Reformed friends, your "thorn in the flesh" just got a whole lot sharper! Roger Olson has done it again! After reading Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, I didn't think his work could get any better, but then Olson releases Against Calvinism. After the first book, I was convinced that Roger Olson was in fact a Godsend to a Protestant Evangelical world that is crawling with militant Calvinists who have convinced others that doctrines like "grace" and "sovereignty" and even the term Evangelical itself somehow belong to them. This first-rate theologian took aim at such notions showing that historic Arminianism is equally as grace-focused and God-centered as Calvinism.

Whereas Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities exposes how completely dishonest Calvinist writers have been in characterizing Arminianism, which amounts to bearing false witness and requires their repentance, Against Calvinism truly seems to strike a death-blow to High Calvinism. I have come to appreciate, that in this theological battle, Roger Olson fights fair which as I've already stated can't be said of many of his Calvinist opponents. He seeks to represent their position accurately in a way that they would acknowledge is a fair representation. However, he tries to help them see some of the logical conclusions their belief system leads to, which tragically many of them do not seem to grasp. A quote from Olson's blog sums up the most important reason for this book being written: "[Calvinists] talk endlessly about God's glory and about God-centeredness while sucking the goodness out of God and thus divesting him of real glory. Their theology may be God-centered but the God at its center is unworthy of being at the center. Better a man-centered theology than one that revolves around a being hardly distinguishable from the devil...this would make Him unworthy of worship."

Olson demonstrates that he thoroughly understands Calvinism from Calvinist sources and opens up the closet to reveal the darkness inside as it concerns the nature of God. I don't see how anyone could study this topic with any depth and objectivity and still remain a Calvinist. Olson in my assessment when you put these two books together dismantles their objectionable doctrines entirely.

The time has come for the novel doctrines of St. Augustine, which were only to be found amongst the Gnostics before him (something most Calvinists didn't know), to be exposed. Calvin and his theological descendants have taken these doctrines and have effectively misrepresented God to countless millions of Christians since the time of the Protestant Reformation. Calvinism was NOT the Apostolic and therefore NOT the Biblical understanding of "election", "predestination", and "free-will" and Olson's contribution here helps set that record strait. Against Calvinism articulates better than any other why I am personally "against Calvinism" and my prayer is that many who've been infected with Augustinianism/Calvinism will somehow be "healed" by reading it. Olson directs the Calvinist reader to other less reprehensible Protestant options; I pray many will follow his counsel. I also know it will help many of the "as yet unpersuaded" to resist the ridiculous claims of this new breed of Calvinists in modern Evangelicalism, and to know that they can affirm the best of the Reformation's doctrines without having to embrace the diabolical implications of the sub-Biblical ones.

For once I wish that we could have a book from Arminians that simply focused on all the relevant Scripture verses themselves and not on the caricatures of Calvinistic opinions removed from the verses the thoughts were originally derived from.

Over and over Olson commits the error of addressing quotes and thoughts taken out of context from the verses they came out of and shoots them down with simple logic, sarcasm, or snide remarks. Why not address more of the Scriptures themselves? As it is, in Olson's theology it seems that if one doesn't understand a certain theology it cannot be true. Let us turn to Scripture and not to mere logic! Let us be willing to admit that we have yet to know the complete mind of God. Let us rely on Scripture and not on what sounds good to my sense of rightness. I really wish there would have been more actually addressing of Scripture in this book instead of the backbiting quote-mining involved here. I was disappointed by this book.

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 received this from Zondervan as a review copy*

Roger Olson wants his readers to know that he's not against Calvinists as persons, but he feels he needs to give their doctrines a strong "No!" His main target is identified as neither Reformed theology en toto, nor Calvinism en toto, but a subset of doctrines ostensibly recognized as Calvinism: TULIP (the acronym stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, and Perseverance of the saints). To be more precise, Olson does not even have the conjunction of TULIP in his sights. Thus by "against Calvinism,' what Olson means is that he "is opposed to any and every belief system that includes the 'U,' the 'L,' and/or the 'I' in TULIP" (62). But even here it's not exactly clear what he's against. He writes strongly against each of these three, and seems to suggest that he is against them individually and jointly. He claims that the 'U' and the 'I' "always appear together, but is most strongly against the 'L.' But then he claims that "the 'L' . . . is necessarily implied by the 'U' and the 'I'" (62). This doesn't seem right. Olson seems to suggest that if a Calvinist were a universalist like Barth, then the moral charges filed against God would vanish. And there are universalists who hold to the 'U' and the 'I.' Olson would need to show how those necessarily imply the 'L.' I for one welcome that argument as it would force all universalists to become libertarians--which in turn would make it very hard for God to ensure universalism! In any event, I can't see how the 'U' and the 'I' necessarily imply the 'L,' though it makes it more hard to deny the 'L' if you affirm a populated eternal hell. So it might look as if he really only has issue with the 'L,' or the 'L' conjoined with the 'U' and the 'I.' However, Olson does say that any form of determinism or compelling does not allow for real relationships of any kind (cf. pp. 166-168). This obtains with the 'I.' And with the 'U,' Olson claims that "sheer logic" shows that 'U' implies God makes an arbitrary choice" (115). Presumably God can't make arbitrary choices, and so 'U' can't obtain. So it appears to me that Olson is against "ULI" individually and jointly.

Olson's argues against "ULI" by quoting from four Calvinists--Calvin, Loraine Boettner, Paul Helm, and R. C. Sproul--and then asking a series of what appear to be rhetorical questions of their views. Olson's main argument is to show that "ULI" turns God into a moral monster, the author of sin, and into a cold, unloving deity. He will present the view, and often claim it is "incoherent," without offering an argument for the "incoherency." Olson seems to be betting on the reader sharing his incredulity and intuitions. So, often claims are made without argument at all. Olson repeatedly says the view is "contradictory" or "makes God into a monster," but he does not spend time drawing this out and showing it. Often, Olson will claim that "common sense" is enough to just see that the view is false (e.g., 97, 168, etc.). Olson will often present a Calvinist answer to his question and simply respond with incredulity, for example, when he cites Sproul saying that the reason for God's choice in election resides in his good pleasure, Olson responds: "I can only respond with a stunned or bemused, 'Huh?'" (119). And that's it. The constant rhetorical questions, appeals to incredulity, appeals to what is common sense, and allegations of obvious violations of "sheer logic" without any demonstration of the violations, is probably the most frustrating part of the book for me. Olson does seem to think that the flaws with "ULI" are just so obvious and the only reason most people,--especially the "young, restless, and Reformed," his bête noire--hold to them is because no one has simply laid the views out in front of them. Once you show that, say, Calvin claimed that God decreed that a man would be robbed, then it's just obvious that God can only be a moral monster. To be fair, Olson does at times attempt to put some meat on the bones of his claims. This is typically done by analogy, asking whether if a human did the things Olson sees the Calvinist God doing we wouldn't find that human despicable. But that is about as deep as the argument goes, and it is subject to severe counterexamples, as I will show below. Perhaps this approach is what Olson thought would be most rhetorically and polemically useful. There is a certain kind of appeal (brute force, fear) in saying, "That view is just obviously flawed, no serious person could hold to that," and it does have an effect. For me, it was unhelpful to show me why Calvinism was flawed.

On the exegetical end, Olson did much the same as the above. He never once produced an exegetical argument for his view. The most in-depth one of his "exegetical" arguments gets can be captured by his comments on I Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, to wit: "The Greek of 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot be interpreted any other way than as referring to every person without limit. Some Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 2:4 (sic 3:9) as referring only to the elect, but in light of 1 Timothy 2:4, that hardly works" (68). Olson frequently claims that "there are other, and better, exegeses" passages than the Calvinist one's he argues against. For example, he says "The best critical exegetes of John 3:16 affirm it does mean 'the whole human race'" (134). But when one looks at the footnote one sees Olson only refer to a quote of A. T. Robinison that was used by Jerry Vines' in his article, "Sermons on John 3:16." Now, this isn't to say that John 3:16 doesn't mean what Olson says it means, it is to give an example of the way Olson makes virtually all of his exegetical points. It's a series of refutations that go like this: "That view is wrong and there's better views out there. See my footnote!" The footnote is usually underwhelming. Moreover, Calvinist exegesis is not interacted with, some Calvinist conclusions are. But readers are not told how the Calvinists get to their conclusions. In fact, non-Calvinist exegetes who disagree with Olson are not interacted with either. Olson again seems to bank on the reader "just seeing" things his way. So he will say, "What about 1 Timothy 2:4 that says God wants 'all people' to be saved? Boettner explains: 'Verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4, it seems, are best understood not to refer to men individually but as teaching the general truth that God is benevolent and that He does not delight in the sufferings and death of His creatures.' One can only ask how that is a possible interpretation of that verse?" (116). The problem is that if the reasons for the interpretation were given, the reader would then be able to see how the interpretation is a possible one. As with the above, Olson's chosen style was unfortunate for me in assessing his case against Calvinism. Though again, I understand that there may have been rhetorical and polemical decisions that went into the approach to argument here. All I can say is that for me they didn't seem to be helpful in getting me to see the flaws with Calvinism, or, "ULI."

That said, here is a brief run-down of the chapters. After Olson introduces why he chose to write this book, he turns in chapter two to a brief but helpful historical survey of the wideness and divergence of the Reformed and Calvinist traditions. He notes here that there are revisionists and radicals, the latter hold to the "ULI." The former are "Reformed and always Reforming." In chapter three Olson discusses "Mere Calvinism." He offers a very brief presentation of each of the petals of TULIP. He takes some shots in these chapters but claims he will fill them out as the book progresses. Chapter four says, "Yes to God's sovereignty; No to divine determinism." In this chapter Olson argues that the "ULI," as well as Reformed statements on God's decree, imply "determinism." In this chapter God is defined as the "author of evil," which is defined as "making a thing certain." Chapter five says "Yes to Election; No to Double Predestination." Olson argues against individual, unconditional election and reprobation in this chapter. He claims this makes God into a monster. He claims that the "corporate view" is the better reading of paradigm texts like Romans 9. Chapter six is more affirmation and denial in the form of, "Yes to Atonement, No to Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption." Olson argues that limited atonement makes God into a being indiscernible from the devil. He also briefly touches on whether Calvin held to limited atonement, but only cites one source and doesn't engage at all with those like Roger Nicole and Paul Helm on the matter. Olson claims that the Bible says God died for all men, and that to deny this undercuts evangelism and the sincere offer of the gospel (Olson also claims that election of some undercuts the sincere offer too). Chapter seven says, "Yes to Grace; No to Irresistible Grace." Olson wants to affirm prevenient grace in this chapter and thus distance Arminianism from charges of Pelagianism (semi- or otherwise). Olson thinks that irresistible grace is contradictory and makes men into robots. He claims relationships require "libertarian freedom" and that "it doesn't take a philosopher to establish these facts; they are common sense" (168). Olson's conclusion is over "Calvinism's Conundrums." Here Olson claims that Calvinists have no answers to questions of how divine sovereignty and human freedom can coexist. Another conundrum is that if Calvinism is true, "nothing can lessen God's glory" (177). Thus, Calvinists shouldn't complain about "heresy" because it has been ordained for God's glory. The last conundrum is that God is supposed to be good but "sees to it" (178) that people sin. This is the greatest conundrum of all. Olson never really spells out what the conundrums are supposed to be, but, it appears, hopes his readers will "just see" what is so blindingly obvious to him. Olson ends with two small appendices, (i) Calvinist Attempts to Rescue God's Reputation, and (ii) Response to Calvinist Claims. Both of these are very short and neither the Calvinist positions nor the response to them are spelled out with much clarity, force, and rigor.

At the end of the day, while Olson is clearly passionate about this issue, and clearly convinced that he is right and Calvinism is wrong, the arguments Olson gives for his passions and convictions leave much to be desired. If Olson wanted an echo chamber, I suppose he has it. If he wanted to convince thinking Calvinists of the errors of their ways, then asking a bunch of loaded and rhetorical questions, expressing incredulity, appealing to alleged common sense, and merely announcing that there are better exegetical argument than their positions, won't make muster. So, on one level the book succeeds: you can clearly tell that Olson is "against Calvinism." On another level, it doesn't: You can't tell what the principled reasons are for Olson being "against Calvinism." We know that he finds it repugnant, but we don't really get the arguments for this. Perhaps Olson believes the debate is intractable, and that at this point it's the one who can best shame their opponents into dropping their views that wins.

(I give a more thorough and critical review at Triablogue dot blogspot dot com.)

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.