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

For and Against

by Roger E. Olson, Michael Horton (Foreword)

Calvinist theology has been debated and promoted for centuries. But is it a theology that should last? Roger Olson suggests that Calvinism, also commonly known as Reformed theology, holds an unwarranted place in our list of accepted theologies. In Against Calvinism, readers will find scholarly arguments explaining why Calvinist theology is incorrect and how it affects God’s reputation. Olson draws on a variety of sources, including Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience, to support his critique of Calvinism and the more historically rich, biblically faithful alternative theologies he proposes. Addressing what many evangelical Christians are concerned about today―so-called “new Calvinism,” a movement embraced by a generation labeled as “young, restless, Reformed” ―Against Calvinism is the only book of its kind to offer objections from a non-Calvinist perspective to the current wave of Calvinism among Christian youth. As a companion to Michael Horton’s For Calvinism, readers will be able to compare contrasting perspectives and form their own opinions on the merits and weaknesses of Calvinism.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Audiobook, Nonfiction, Faith

208 pages, Paperback

First published October 10, 2011

About the author

Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He is a prolific author whose volumes include The Story of Christian Theology and The Mosaic of Christian Belief. He is also coauthor of 20th-Century Theology. Olsen identifies as an Arminian and a Baptist.

Reviews

[Todd Miles · Rating 2 out of 5]

Olson brings up some good points in the book and I would have rated it 3 stars, but the tone of Olson's writing was frustrating. To be fair, he was charged with writing an "anti-Calvinism" book, so the tone is going to be negative. But Olson has proven once again that he is much more charitable to those who are to the left of him than those who are to the right of him. I could not help but think that Olson writes with a bit of a double standard throughout. Here is what I mean: He takes great umbrage at what he feels are the caricatures of Arminianism. He is frustrated by the arguments of Calvinists that ignore or dismiss the responses of Arminianism. But he was not careful to always avoid the same. A couple of examples: He dismisses the doctrine of irresistible grace, claiming that such grace is coercive, when few if any Calvinists believe that God twists a person into loving him. Again, throughout the book, he describes the God of meticulous providence as a moral monster and devil throughout. (I could not help but wonder, "What if Olson is wrong about Calvinism?") Needless to say, that is deeply offensive to Calvinists. (At the end he tries to save explain himself by explaining that he has nothing against Calvinism, only their theology, but too little, too late.) He is welcome to think that such is the case, but he cannot so so and then simultaneously be upset when Calvinists accuse Armininians of being anthropocentric. He connects dots to absurd conclusions with which few, if any, Calvinists would agree, claiming that it is legitimate to do so in the name of "good and necessary consequence." Fair enough - but don't cry foul when Calvinists do the same to Arminianism. (And he whines about it throughout.)
Olson's main burden is that the God of Calvinism is responsible for evil. But honestly, does Arminianism really help? The God of Arminianism still chose to create the world knowing that evil, suffering, and damnation would occur. He still foresees all the bad that will happen and does nothing to change it. By Olson's own criteria, that makes God responsible. Is libertarian freedom really worth the price of the majority of humans suffering damnation for all eternity. I doubt it.
A couple smaller frustrations: He rooted his entire critique of the human freedom of inclination in Gen 1-2, rather than deal with our experience in the post-fall world. Post-fall, compatibilistic freedom makes a lot of sense to me, but Olson ignores this.
Another frustration: Olson claimed that having determining reasons or character for doing something renders one morally unaccountable when I would argue the exact opposite. It is libertarian freedom, in my opinion, that has no place for motive or explanation as to why one does something.
This could have been a better book. It is ironic that the companion volume, written by Horton was far more charitable. Olson raised some good questions that Calvinists need to think through. But the mode of message is important in a project like this and Olson failed to hit the irenic tone he claimed to achieve.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Humphrey Kutosi · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a Christian who believes the same things Calvinists believe, I found this book challenging though unconvincing. Roger E. Olson's (PhD), polemic against Calvinism can be summarized in about three words: The Problem of Evil. In other words, why would a good, just and loving God predestine to damn anyone to hell. He argues that Calvinism makes God a little more like the devil if not worse. However, any good student of Calvinism (or a Christian who believes the same things Calvinists believe like me) would quickly figure out that Olson's Arminianism doesn't absolve itself of the same charge any more than Calvinism does. Olson's God who is a victim of circumstances and not in total control of his world would have to explain why, in the first place, he created a world he very well knew would be inhabited by sin. Following Olson's own logic, doesn't that also make him a little more like the devil himself if not worse?

Furthermore, Oslon begins with a philosophical conclusion regarding what God's love must be like and then goes to the Scriptures to find his notion of love. Rather than careful exegesis of the texts in their contexts, what you find mostly are blanket interpretations of several texts in line with his philosophical presuppositions concerning what God's love must be like. Here you find good demonstrations of what it means to do eisegesis ie reading into the text things that ain't there. As Christians, I believe we ought to start with the text.

Many things could be said about this book, but I would be risking spoiling things for any prospective reader.

All in all, this is a book I would recommend though disagreeing with its thesis. Olson is a good writer who helps clearly explain what Arminianism is. Looking forward to reading more of his books.

4/5 stars

[Derrick Kenyon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Roger Olson valiantly yet unsuccessfully attempts to refute Calvinism. In this book, Olson primarily focuses on refuting the U, L, and I of Calvinism's TULIP, while at times hinting towards a better path, namely Arminianism. Overall, for the size of this book, Olson presents a generally fair treatment of Calvinism. I was impressed by the breadth of Calvinist scholars and pastors that he interacted with both new and old.

While I think it is valuable to read widely, this book has some errors. I will highlight two. First, Olson primarily leans on philosophical arguments to dismantle Calvinism instead of the biblical text. The bulk of his arguments boil down to the fact that he thinks Calvinism is deterministic and that Calvinism makes God a moral monster akin to Satan. I wish he would have gone to the biblical text more often and more deeply. Second and most crucially, Olson's tone throughout this book is very combative. Sadly, Olson even makes the claim that he would not worship the God that Calvinists describe even if God personally revealed himself to Olson because that God would be a moral monster. While I admire his firm convictions, this simply shuts the conversation down. Thus, Olson's overall tone throughout the book shows that Olson has absolutely zero interest in even entertaining Calvinism.

In summary, while I was far from convinced of his arguments (I gladly affirm all five points of Calvinism), I would recommend this book for those who are interested in understanding various arguments against Calvinism. For those interested in a more thorough treatment against Calvinism that deals more with the biblical texts, see Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique in which Olson has a chapter.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 2 out of 5]

I understand that polemics bring with them many difficulties, and as such Olson's book starts with a point by point rebuttal of a view. Still, it was not a well done rebuttal (See Luther's "De Servo Abitrio" for an amazing, though harsh, polemic).
Reading this book, after reading "For Calvinism", I was hoping for a scripturally based explanation of why Calvinism is wrong; instead it was mostly philosophical polemic against Calvinism based on the assumption of Libertarian free will. All of Olson's arguments concluding that Calvinism diminishes God's love and goodness presuppose a view of Libertarian free will that has been shown both to be untenable scripturally and philosophically ("De Servo Abitrio" and "Freedom of the Will" by Jonathan Edwards); Olson interacts with both of these books but does not give enough consideration to their arguments, writing them off as counter to common-sense and assuming the libertarian view to be right (even if "mysterious" (133)). On the positive side he mostly gives an accurate description of the five points of the TULIP, but sets up and dismantles probably the weakest argument for these points I have ever read. He deals mostly with their philosophical defences and rarely interacts with the strong Biblical foundations upon which they are built. An example of this is when Olson deals with Irresistible (Effectual) Grace. He cites Sproul's argument from "draw" in John 6:44 and focuses on tearing it down but ignores the powerful evidences from John 3 (which he mistakenly assumes earlier in the book supports his view of regeneration by a slippery definition of 'salvation' found throughout the book), John 10, Romans 8:28-39, and elsewhere. He also uses questionable exegesis (giving him the benefit of the doubt; oversights) to support his argument. For example, he cites at least twice Romans 5:8 as teaching that Christ died for all sinners (144,117). This passage reads; "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (NASB). Who is this "us" and "we" referred to? In verse one of this chapter Paul writes; "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (NASB). It is these, those who have been justified (those he wrote Romans to), that he is addressing in v. 8. While those who are now justified were still sinners Jesus Christ came and died for them! (also sees his citation of A.T. Robinson as one of the "best critical exegetes" (132)). As a Calvinist reading this will challenge you, but the lack of evidence from Scripture will leave you more resolved about where you stand. If you are going to read this book read it alongside of "For Calvinism" written by Michael Horton.

He loses one star because he fails to fulfil his thesis: In the introduction to this book Olson mentions that he intends to use Wesley's quadrilateral to judge the Calvinist view, he goes on throughout the book to judge the view of Calvinism, but neglects the most important point of this quadrilateral. He over and over again enthusiastically employ's the test of reason and experience (though neglecting how the arguments backfire on his own view if pushed to their logical conclusion [Reductio Ad Absurdum]) but frequently neglects to interact with the Calvinist's exegesis (except for a few exceptions like Sproul's argument from "draw") and bring up Scripture to counter the views of Calvinism.
He loses another star because of the before mentioned tendency to use arguments that are equally damaging to an Arminian view. Reading the book I had the thought that I was reading a polemic against Christianity as a whole, not just Calvinism.
Lastly, he loses a star because he flat out makes a statement that shows were his authority is, and it doesn't seem to be Scripture. On page 85 Olson writes:

“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. Of course, I realize Calvinists do not think their view of God’s sovereignty makes him a moral monster, but I can only conclude they have not thought it through to its logical conclusion or even taken sufficiently seriously the things they say about God and evil and innocent suffering in the world.”

Here Olson says that he could not worship the Calvinist God, for He would be a moral monster. My problem with this statement is that it throws out any ground for Olson to claim that Scripture is his absolute authority. Let me explain. I believe that Olson genuinely loves the Lord, and is truly a believe; so he will not reject God. Olson is convinced of the truth of Christianity, so he will continue to worship God. What happens if, lets suppose Calvinism is even slightly true, Olson runs into a Scripture that affirms a Calvinistic idea of God's determination of the universe? I do not believe that Olson is going to through away his faith, for he is a committed Christian; this only leaves him one choice. If Olson cannot worship a Calvinist God, and we suppose that he will not disown Christianity, his only option open encountering a verse that incontrovertibly teaches an even slightly Calvinistic doctrine (along the lines of the U, L, or I that he hates) he can only throw out what Scripture is saying and eisegetically (reading in his own meaning) interpret it in a way that reconciles it with his pre held view of who God is. Because of his philosophical presupposition (any form of determinism=God being a moral monster and libertarian free will) he has, in light of this quote, given away any claim he would make to Scripture being his absolute authority.

[Zach Easton · Rating 1 out of 5]

Guy gives no reasonable arguments from scripture that challenge me. It kind of disturbed me why he would be attacking the God of scripture and creation and so I decided to read a few of his articles. One of his articles that he has on universalism he states this: "Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct. I had to say no." This man is not trying to find out who God is through scripture. He stated that he would not worship God if the scriptures prove it was how Calvinism describes Him. This man would rather worship an idol than the God over all creation. If one decides to read this book, keep in mind his statement if the Bible was to show a God that he did not like he would not worship Him. Therefore if Calvinism is true, that means he is a god-hater and he would rather submit to his own standard than God's.

[Josue · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is my desire to know and teach God's Word, and so it is paramount that I know and teach sound doctrine. So I read this book to get a better understanding of what people (at least Roger Olson) have against Calvinism. Olson has definitely challenged me to think more about my beliefs. Nevertheless, some of his qualms against Calvinism can easily be turned against him as well. Moreover, his own beliefs seem to contradict each other at times. Well this "review" is not "professional," so I won't take the time to elaborate more on my thoughts.

I will read the companion book "For Calvinism" hopefully soon.

[Keren Threlfall]

Now, off to read "For Calvinism." May the best theology win. (J/k! :))

[Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

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, Irresistible grace, 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 argues against "ULI" through mainly interacting with 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 or what he thinks they imply. 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 (or derivation) for the incoherency. Olson seems to be betting on the reader sharing his incredulity and intuitions. So, often claims are made without any 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, was 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, with all their absurdity, out in front of them. Once you show that, say, Calvin claimed that God decreed that a man would be robbed and murdered, 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 persuasion (brute force, fear) in saying, "That view is just obviously flawed, no serious person could hold to that, and besides, is morally repugnant," and it does have an effect. For me, it was unhelpful to show me why Calvinism was flawed. But it came through loud and clear that Olson is personally disgusted.

On the exegetical front, Olson did much the same as the above. He never once produces 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 merely 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.

read a more in-depth critique by me here

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/1...

[Carson Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

I was really hoping for more of a holistic approach involving much more historical retrieval and philosophical rigor. This is fine for people just starting to sour to the idea, but it stays basic in its scope. Olson’s argument can really be condensed down to the fact that God being the ultimate cause for evil acts (rendering them absolutely certain when He could have instead done otherwise) necessarily makes Him the author of evil. One great benefit of the book is that it is filled with citations from leading Calvinists like Paul Helm, John Calvin (obviously), Loraine Bottener, John Piper, RC Sproul, etc so that all the defenses of “well Calvinists don’t actually believe that” have almost nowhere to retreat. I’ll leave you with this one:
“When someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my first reaction is ‘So what?’…there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin.” ☹️

[Avery Amstutz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a good discussion on the topic. Firm but fair.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 2 out of 5]

Against Calvinism provides some strong arguments about the danger of the logical extremes of Calvinism, but the assumption throughout the book is that the reader has only two logical choices: “high Calvinism” or Olson’s version of Arminianism. One flaw in the book, then, is that it assumes that the reader must choose a system. Olson also fails to argue sufficiently against the Calvinist exegetical arguments for unconditional election, effectual grace, and total depravity/inability. His arguments against limited atonement are strong, emphasizing the lack of positive Scriptural statements for limited/definite atonement. One weakness of the format of the book is that its intention is primarily to refute Calvinism and not to present his alternative from Scripture, though he does note many resources on Arminianism for reference. The intention of this book is to be a refutation of Calvinism rather than a presentation of Arminianism.

[Anthony Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Quentin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Attempt at arguing from Scripture, Reformed tradition, and reason, but ultimately fails. This is in contrast to the companion volume, "For Calvinism" by Horton, which argues for the Calvinist "Doctrines of Grace."

I amend my "positive" review since becoming convinced of the truthfulness of the Doctrines of Grace. After emerging myself into the Reformed Theology and reading and thinking for many months, I realized the truthfulness of Calvinism. I realized that Olson's arguments are not as strong as I once thought, nor does he give full credence to the sovereignty of God.

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 1 out of 5]

I started this book back in August of 2012. Wow! Took five years to sludge through this mess. (and it's not that big of a book?!) And for that - this is going to be a long review.

So what is this CALVINISM? And why be against it?

"the Protestant theological system of John Calvin and his successors, which develops Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and emphasizes the grace of God and the doctrine of predestination." blah blah blah...

But here's a better definition:
Calvinism - God is fully and Gloriously in charge of His successfully applied plan.
Arminianism - God really needs us humans to save ourselves. Kind of. Maybe a little.

So why is Roger Olson so against God being fully in charge? Heck if I know. I just assume he really doesn't like or agree with the God of the Bible. And that is why the book gets ONE STAR: Roger didn't deal with the thousands of Bible verses and accounts that kept coming to my mind as I read this. Roger's golden calf deity would never do what the GOD of the Old Testament continuously did. Would Roger's deity send a left-handed Assassin to murder a King? Would He send a Prophet to call down fire and murder numerous soldiers? (I'll post this one just for fun)

2 Kings 1
9Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty men with his fifty. He went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, “O man of God, the king says, ‘Come down.’” 10But Elijah answered the captain of fifty, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

11Again the king sent to him another captain of fifty men with his fifty. And he answered and said to him, “O man of God, this is the king’s order, ‘Come down quickly!’” 12But Elijah answered them, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

13Again the king sent the captain of a third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up and came and fell on his knees before Elijah and entreated him, “O man of God, please let my life, and the life of these fifty servants of yours, be precious in your sight. 14Behold, fire came down from heaven and consumed the two former captains of fifty men with their fifties, but now let my life be precious in your sight.” 15Then the angel of the LORD said to Elijah, “Go down with him; do not be afraid of him.” So he arose and went down with him to the king


I love that story "Sniff". Don't mess with God's prophets - He's not fooling around. God also killed Ananias and Sapphira in the Book of Acts - that's generally not a seeker-sensitive way to start up a new church. Then there's Elisha and the brutal attack against the 42 youths who insulted him (2 female bears came out and...). Anyway, would the God of Arminianism do stuff like this? Would He put to death a Child for the sin of the parents? Like David and Bathsheba perhaps? Sure He would.

2 Samuel 12
And the LORD afflicted the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and he became sick. 16David therefore sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground, but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18On the seventh day the child died.


And that's the problem. Olson the Arminian doesn't bother to bring up these verses... or the thousands just like it. Why not? What is he afraid of?

Roger Olson even dares to say: (page 85)
"One day a student asked me a question: 'If it was revealed to you in a way that you could not question or deny that the true God is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship HIM?'
"I said 'NO', I would not because I could not. Such a god would be a moral monster."

Olson then quotes some other like minded hippy worshiper: (David Bentley Hart)
"If indeed there were a God whose true nature--whose justice or sovereignty-- were revealed in the death of a child or the dereliction of a soul or a predestined hell, then it would be no great transgression to think of him as a kind of malevolent or contemptible demiurge, and to hate him, and to deny him worship, and to seek a better God than he."

So that's the root of the problem of this book: Roger simply doesn't address the situation at hand. To be fair - he does state that this book is NOT a defense of Arminianism. And yet IT IS. The problem is this Arminianism is off in dreamland creating some eco-tree-hugger Jesus/God that would never behave as the Biblical God does.

Roger spends a fair bit of time battling some straw-men Calvinists. He keeps placing the cart before our horse. WE are not Calvinists who follow Calvin and then read our Bibles that way. (maybe some moron on the Reformed Pub is guilty of this?) I don't know anybody who follows John Calvin blindly, OR FULLY, or even slightly. Calvin wasn't a prophet or an Apostle. Just a guy who tried to make sense of things (and made a few mistakes along the way).
Personally, for 30 years of my Christian life, I was basically an Arminian believer who ASSUMED God loves everyone and has his fingers crossed; that a few of us soul-filled Bipeds - would make the right choice and stumble into Paradise one day. That if we say the right thing, in the right way, to the right people, with the right emotional attachment and hint of truth--- then they would magically become Christians and LOVE JESUS for all eternity... and if they don't: Then it's OUR FAULT, we should have tried harder ---- eventually it would work. If your family ends up in hell Mr. Arminian - It's because YOU didn't try hard enough. It was always a possibility and a choice. Just push the right emotional heart strings and PRESTO - Saved! Until they get bored or simply join a different heart-stringing Cult. Or become atheists again. Or only made a 49% good movement towards a pleading Jesus.

Then one day I started seriously reading my Bible (after 30 years assuming the simple truth based on Wesleyan Methodist Pastors who never dealt with serious Bible issues). And a John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul radio-podcast on how God is SERIOUSLY in charge OR ELSE? I quickly realized that we absolutely need God to be fully in charge or we're doomed! Dead people don't save themselves...
I realized you can't debate seriously with any slightly educated Atheists or Cult members without a Calvinistic "God-Is-Sovereign" background. Everything ends up on the emotional cutting room floor.

Strangely, this is not really a topic for brand new Christians and church-goers. IT's some deep complex Frustrating theological stuff. You know: all that stuff that fills the 31,000 or so verses of the Bible.
Which is my main problem with Roger Olson: He just doesn't get the God of the Bible. Sure, he claims to get the modern Evangelical Christian missionary Jesus. That really nice deity who is begging people to come to him out of endless love and forgiveness and compassion and endless chances to get eternity RIGHT.

Roger keeps using terms like: Love, Good, Evil, Nice, Compassion, Forgiveness... basically he uses them in a human-like way. He looks at Evil from a human perspective and then applies that to his god. The Biblical God is NOT human. Indeed Jesus was divine AND human. But we can't demote His Cosmic justice and intelligence to our pathetic limitations.

Here's something I throw out on the internet: "Is God NICE?"

The answer: No. He's Loving. But sometimes LOVE is not nice. And Justice does not need to be nice.
I could give you a 100 examples of the Biblical God NOT BEING NICE. That doesn't reduce his Love for HIS children. Jesus didn't die brutally on a cross for niceness, or kindness, or pleasant forgiveness. He did it for A LOVE.
________________________________

This book mostly failed to mention Angels and Demons. I have yet to meet an Arminian who will speak through this issue. So here's my concern:

There was a War in heaven: a third of God's angels rebelled and became demons. The End.

Revelation 12
Satan Thrown Down to Earth

7Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him...But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

So do all our salvation opportunities and rules apply to Demons and Angels? What kind of a loving God is that? More specifically: what is the nature of Angels and Demons?
Why do Angels no longer rebel? Was this rebellion only a onetime opportunity? Why would God allow a onetime opportunity to rebel and sin? Why was total freedom allowed only once and not again? What is keeping Angels from having another war?
On the other side: Why aren't some demons repenting? Or questioning their nature and trying to get back into heaven? Why is there never salvation for rebelling angels? Doesn't God have love and forgiveness for his earlier creations?

Now apply this to us modern Christians (and humans): Will we be forced to NOT sin when placed in heaven? Will we be oppressed and restricted by God for all eternity?

Here's the issue that got me started in all this God Choosing business:
Can we lose our salvation? Numerous times? Why not angels and demons? Is that fair? Is God fair?
Which comes down to our very nature. YES, Nature is one of the main issues i was looking for while reading this book: What does Roger Olson do with our God Given natures? Either the natures of demons and angels? Or fallen man or saved man? Or heavenly or hellbound man's natures? Roger doesn't say. Not that I found anyway. The amount of theological issues missing from this book is endless. Are all Arminian's this lazy and emotional? Apparently.

So the real heart of this Calvinistic/Arminian war is our nature. Does God dare interfere with our free natures and choices? Sure he does.
He did it with Angels (kept two thirds of them from rebelling)
He did it with demons (allowed one third to rebel)
He did it with all of mankind (yes, we all our under sin nature)
He did it with his ELECT (they will no longer EVER have a rebellious nature in heaven)

So does this Biblical God really interfere with our freedom and person and nature? Sure He does:
Jeremiah 1
The Call of Jeremiah

4Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

6Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth.”...
9Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me,

“Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.
10See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms

Well, God certainly interfered with Jeremiah's freewill, and speech, and possibly choice and thinking, and other career options... God directed Jeremiah's nature from the womb.

And i'm okay with that. I sure hope God directs and chooses me AGAINST my nature as well. God is Sovereign: His plans play out perfectly. He chooses, He acts, He guides and He saves. May certain aspects of freewill be damned!

Which is another weird issue with Olson. He keeps going on about freewill. Yawn~!
He seems to think Calvinists believe God controls every endless atom of freewill and potential. I don't. Neither does anyone else I know think this.
We are very much in charge - We are in charge of A and B and C... but not Z. We can choose to sin or not immediately sin. (yes, we can go a few seconds without sinning). But we cannot choose to desire what God fully desires. We cannot choose our salvation, or even grasp for it fully. Like Arminians - we will choose to make a god in our human likeness that fulfills our desires as we see fit.

Calvinists (Should?) desire the God of the Bible - whether we like and fully comprehend Him or not. Whether we agree fully with Him or Not. We don't not put Him on trial, by our human standards, as some Arminians laughingly attempt to do. He IS GOD! Get over yourselves.
________________________

So do I admire and follow a brutal tyrant wrathful deity? No. I follow a mighty God who isn't fooling around and playing by our rules.
God loves His Son. Through adoption we are part of that.
Did God damn many of us to hell through simply existing and being brought into creation? Maybe.
But that is another problem with Olson: He defines Hell like an atheist. Hell may not be as horrible as some assume - and it will be worse than many assume.

Jesus tells a story of a guy in hell: Luke 16. (whether parable or not - it sure is eternal hell. What kind of loving Savior would tell a false story about a guy sitting in fire, all alone, and separated from God, with no resources or decaying body? What do loving Arminians make of that Jesus speech?)
Either way - hell is where you can sit with your sin and enjoy your rebellious freedom for all eternity. Your nature will not change... demons won't repent and beg. Your misery will be your own.

Reminds me of a book series that came out a few decades ago: Heroes In Hell.
Always wanted to read it - just to see what they make of hell and peoples natures and goodness in the eternal flames. I'm not convinced the fires of hell actually burn - like angels: I assume people won't have eternal bodies to watch decompose. That is why the Richman in Luke 16 was desperate for a small taste of water... If he had a body then he'd want a Freakin' Huge taste of water...

Okay, I do need to write a paragraph about Roger the Arminian and his 3 favorite Bible verses. Similar to Universalists and Their pet verses (and Charismatic's with their poorly applied Harry Potter verses):
Anytime the Bible seems to use the word "ALL" every Arminian gets excited and starts bleating like a goat. But we need to look carefully - similar to the "Hate" verses of Jesus. Investigate and search context. No matter how simple we assume them to be.
I'll post them tonight...

I'll try to wrap this up:
I'm not really a Calvinist (even though I mostly am). I'm just a guy that seriously believes and tries to make sense of the entire Bible - yes, even the parts I don't like. (like when God attempts to put Moses or his son to death in Exodus 4

24At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him (Moses? Baby?) and sought to put him to death. 25Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26So he let him alone.

Is this pleasant? No. Why would I worship a God like this? A God who would kill a person for reaching out and steadying the Ark? Well, God wasn't fooling around. He gives fair warning. His plan is pretty amazing. And He's our creator and Savior.
Like I adopted my children into my family (out of the thousands that needed it), God has adopted me and others into His family (out of the millions that needed, but didn't want it.)

MacArthur, Sproul and I agree: there's things about God that we just don't understand. But it's worth it. May He be forever Fully In charge. If I was in charge of my salvation - I would simply lose it (like Peter denying Jesus 3 times).

The end: here's the Calvinistic "TULIP" acronym to ponder...

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election (God chooses who to adopt)
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement - Jesus died for HIS people)
Irresistible Grace (WE don't resist God's reaching for His Children)
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

Arminians walk around with their fingers crossed. Hoping they die on an upswing.

[Craig Dean · Rating 5 out of 5]

Too often there is more heat than light in the discourse between Calvinists and Arminians, and there are occasions where Olson falls into the same trap of misrepresenting or exaggerating Calvinist views as he decries from those on the 'other' side. What I find difficult to digest is his willingness to reject appeals to mystery whilst simultaneously leaning on the same crutch when it suits. Though he attempts to address this, he nonetheless falls victim of the same error, undoubtedly innocently.

Olson repeatedly explains his love of his Calvin brethren whilst wrestling with the conclusions he draws from their doctrine. There will be those that doubt his sincerity, but to be fair there is little opportunity to write such a book without opening oneself to such criticism and I am inclined to give Olson the benefit of the doubt, and I encourage others to adopt a similar approach.

I don't find myself agreeing entirely with the 'logical' pathways of his arguments. He relies too heavily on causality and is incapable of accepting that, here too, modern science has driven the proverbial coach and horses through such unarguable sureties. There is an inescapable arrogance in holding too fast to one's convictions as to the rightness of either side of the seeming 'conundrum' (as he ascribes it) - and Olson seems peculiarly blind to such flaws when they manifest in his own logic. However, there is no debating the scholarly and sincere attempt to wrestle with and reconcile, the entire Goodness and Greatness of God. For this, he should be lauded and appreciated, and moreover studied. No 'Calvinist' can consider their own convictions secure without reading Olson and settling, at least in their own minds, the matters he clearly articulates.

I highly recommend him to anyone keen to delve into the nature of God and to contemplate His loveliness. At the same time, I would discourage anyone from losing a firm focus on that which unites us as brethren - the sufficiency of God's grace and salvation entirely through Jesus.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Percival Buncab · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been part of the New Calvinism movement for quite a time. And now I'm young, restless and no longer Reformed.

I've studied Reformed theology primarily from James White's debates and podcasts, Piper's and MacArthur's sermons and books, Sprouls lectures, D&D podcast, and Washer's sermons.

Like majority of New Calvinists, as a Christian youth, I got turned off with the shallow therapeutic theology of mainstream Evangelicalism. So I found what I thought a robust--both scripturally and philosophically--theology in Calvinism. After I devoured myself, as a lay Bible student, on these Calvinist theologians, I began to "evangelize" the Calvinist Gospel to my Christian friends. I've been so convinced that I even "lectured" them about it.

However, as God teaches me to be objective, I dealt with many dilemmas that I contemplated I would have to live inconsistently if I am to live as a Calvinist.

This book is not the primary reason why I now abandon Calvinism, it just served as the last straw. From the debates I have listened to, I got more and more convinced that non-Calvinist positions have many convincing biblical and philosophical arguments. The primary (among many others) reason I started doubting Calvinism sanctification. I cannot accept that it was God who calls me to holiness is the One who foreordained me to sin--for His glory!

Against Calvinism, unlike Calvinist presentations, is fair, well-researched and gracious. As the author clarified from the beginning, this is a polemic work, not apologetic; that is, it primarily seeks to criticize Calvinism, rather than defend his position (Arminianism). And he accomplishes just that.

I realized that Calvinists' presentations of Arminianism (or other non-Calvinist theologies, like Monilism) are strawmen, and doesn't seem to address their own theology's weaknesses. To be honest, I haven't yet found any logical arguments harmonizing God's sovereignty and man's responsibility from Calvinists. I just hardly accepted it because I believed Reformed theology is the most biblical view. However, as Olson and other non-Calvinist theologians (e.g. Craig, Geisler) rightly argues, not only is Calvinism illogical, but unscriptural. It damages God's attributes (e.g. holiness, love) and man's responsibility, making Him the author of sin, suffering and hell, and making us machines, thus making personal relationship with Him impossible.

I challenge the New Calvinists to objectively study each side, and in the end bow down to Scripture not tradition--as what Calvinist have always taught.

[Glória Hefzibá · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Contra o Calvinismo", apesar de ter sido escrito depois que "Por Que Não Sou Calvinista" (Joseph R. Dongell e Jerry L. Walls), foi traduzido para o português primeiro, suprindo a lacuna de um livro que, em profundidade e abrangência, criticasse honestamente o sistema TULIP.

Aliás, honestidade é marca dessa obra de Olson. O autor não ergue um "espantalho" do calvinismo para depois destruí-lo, mas trata franca e diretamente com citações de renomados escritores calvinistas, desde John Owen até John Piper.

Os problemas do sistema calvinista são vários, tanto filosóficos quanto teológicos, e Olson não os evita, mas apresenta essas inconsistências apoiando suas opiniões em teólogos, filósofos, e, claro, nas próprias Escrituras. Cada ponto do sistema TULIP é analisado, mesmo a "depravação total", sobre a existência do qual os arminianos também concordam, mas discordam dos calvinistas quanto à maneira como Deus supera esse obstáculo humano.

O tom conciliador, mas convicto de Olson já é bem conhecido de sua obra "Teologia Arminiana: Mitos e Realidades". O autor faz questão de dizer que o debate não está focado na sinceridade da fé cristã dos calvinistas, mas sim no sistema de interpretação calvinista. E como quem se preocupa com as consequências "lógicas necessárias" da TULIP, Olson não deixa de afirmar aquilo em que acredita.

O livro possui dois apêndices: o primeiro trata das tentativas calvinistas de livrar o caráter de Deus de qualquer mácula que seu próprio sistema possa causar; no segundo, Roger Olson lista algumas alegações calvinistas contra o arminianismo (ou a teologia não calvinista em geral) e responde a cada uma delas.

Há muito que se falar sobre o assunto, mas Roger Olson fez um trabalho amplo o suficiente para quem começa nesse debate. É também uma obra necessária para quem quer se posicionar firmemente na discussão soteriológica. O livro é de fácil leitura e agradável. As trezentas páginas certamente passam rápido. Não surpreenderia que o leitor, depois dessa obra, desejasse saber mais, por conta do tom interessante e instigante que Olson dá ao debate.

[Christopher Cole · Rating 5 out of 5]

The debate over Calvinism or Wesleyan/Arminianism has long fascinated me. I have grown up in the Wesleyan/Arminian holiness tradition my entire life, but was educated during my formative years at a very Calvinistic Baptist school. The debate itself always troubled me. It seemed to be fruitless and only cause more division. I will say though that I wish this book had been around when I was in school.

One of the first things Roger Olson regretted about this book was the title, as he wanted to be known what he was for, not against. But this was a book in a series, and could not do much about the title. What he does do very well though is keep the issue on Calvinism, and does not allow his disagreements with the doctrine get the best of him by attacking those who adhere to the doctrine.

Plus, instead of painting all advocates of Calvinism with a broad brush, he is careful to point out the nuances of contemporary thought among even the most vocal of its proponents (such as R.C. Sproul and John Piper), as well as its most historical advocates. He's also careful to point out that while terms like "Calvinism" and "Reformed Theology" are used interchangeably, there are theologies present in the Reformation that are not Calvinist.

What I believe sets this book apart from nearly every other one I have read on the subject though is how careful Olson is to point out that his disagreements with Calvinism are due to the way it maligns the character of God. Other books I have read on this topic have, at some point, gone down rabbit trails of strawmen and red herrings, but Olson stays consistent with scripture and the character of God as revealed in Jesus why he sees Calvinism as a theologically invalid system of belief.

In conclusion, I highly recommend this book, even if you are a staunch Calvinist. He does no injustice at your side whatsoever, but makes you think and consider scripturally what he has to say.

[Robert Wegner · Rating 2 out of 5]

Coming from someone who subscribes to Christian Leaders like Piper, MacArthur, and Sproul, I enjoyed reading a book from an opposing view point. The book started out professionally in its disagreement with Calvinism, but soon became redundant and almost emotional in its opposition.

While I enjoyed reading the first part of the book that pointed out some issues that I had not previously considered with Reformed Theology, I was very hesitant upon reading the bottom paragraph on page 85.

Dr. Olson recounts a seminary student of his asking him "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?" He continues by saying. "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."

Speaking directly to Dr. Olson, I am gravely concerned with your prerogative concerning this discussion, specifically on the Sovereignty of God in salvation. We must begin the discussion with FULL submission to God whether we approve His ways or not (Psalm 115:3).

I assume that upon reaching Heaven, by God's grace alone, there will be many mysteries and conundrums that will be perfectly explained, and probably different than I argued for or imagined, yet my response in the midst of correction should, "Great God! Your thoughts are not my thoughts and Your ways are not my ways! (Isaiah 55:8).

I will say again that I enjoyed reading his opposing view, and hopefully in full submission to the Lord by His grace, I will be a better student of His love, goodness, and sovereignty because of the discussion in this book.

[Noel Burke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This has been the best case against Calvinism I have heard so far. I did not agree with some of his thoughts but I could respect his desire to honor God. The biggest thing that I kept having trouble with is his use of "innocent people". How could a loving God allow "innocent people" to suffer? That's actually a bad question. There are no "innocent people" because we all fall short of God's glory. There are no righteous, no not one. He based a lot of his argument on how it seemed that a loving God could not do something like that. The problem is that God can do whatever He desires and it is always good. Now, one thing I have been challenged by, is that perhaps there are some who do not subscribe to Calvinism but are not pelagianists or semi-pelagianists. It helped me relax to an extent my drive to debate. Getting the Gospel is what matters most and is worthy of debate. But some of the topics we can discuss like this book's topic are not always hills to die on. I still retain a strong reformed perspective, but can truly appreciate hearing from the other side. I plan to read Michael Horton's book "For Calvinism" next.

[Emily]

In this book, Roger E. Olson mainly argues against high Calvinism; the young, restless, and reformed movement; and the ULI of the TULIP. He is adamantly against what he calls the logical conclusion of high Calvinist theology: that God is the author of sin and evil. He is a defender of the goodness and love of God, perhaps overemphasizing these characteristics, while arguing that Calvinists overemphasize sovereignty.

The book is mostly a critique of statements made by Calvinist pastors and theologians. I do think that Olson makes some points worth considering, however, the tone and focus is disappointing. His critique may challenge a Calvinist to think through their beliefs, but it will also leave them feeling lambasted despite his statement that he is against Calvinism and not Calvinists. Overall, I do not think Olson’s critique leaves readers with an accurate picture of Calvinism.

Most troubling of all: Olson states that if Calvinism is true he would cease to worship God. It seems he is holding more tightly to his theology than to his faith. We should all take heed of this danger.

[Seth Pierce · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. The author is very clear, well researched, and entertaining. He makes a strong case against neo-Calvinists who fail to resolve the issues implied by their adherence to TULIP. The author affirms Arminianism as well within the Christian tradition and how non-Calvinists are concerned with the sovereignty of God--but not at the expense of His character of love. Authors such as Piper and Sproul are dealt with and it is hard to believe some of the statements they are forced to make because of what the other calls "hyper-Calvinism." Worth the read--I am anxious to see how the companion book, "For Calvinism" answers the charged within this volume. Incidentally, the authors of this two book series respectfully write each other's forwards. They are both pointed but very respectful which I appreciate in a polemical work. Even for Calvinist supporters this is valuable because it clarifies many of the myths ascribed to non-Calvinists.

Non-scholars should also pick this up as it is quite readable.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Kenneth Rosenblad · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are a calvinist, as I am, I would in some way recommend you to read this book. I’ve read it twise now. However, if you’re already agains calvinism, I wouldn’t recommend it. It would then only be throwing wood to your fire. And often, in cases like this, you don’t check if the wood is actually good for the fire if you just want the fire to burn. I know cause I did that myself when I was against calvinism.
I wanted to belive that the authors intentions was not to misrepresent (and the beginning of the book really gives that impression) But still he does. And sometimes in a serious way. Especially when he more than once misreprecents R.C Sproul and almost indicates that he must be a hyper calvinist. The author often leaves out the context or explaining what Sproul intended. If he had, he wouldn’t be able to use that as an attacking point. So I don’t know if that is intentional misleading or just ignorance.
The author also insist that if you are a calvinist, you do belive in double predestination. Even if you say you don’t and give an answer of why. His conclution seems to be based on his own emotional (lack of) logic in this matter. So it ends up as a sad misrepresentation. There are many more misrepresentations like this. And that type of wood is defently not good for your fire. And unfortunately, it is not normal for us people to check the wood as long as we can feed the fire with whatever.
He says that the intention of the book is to point out the weaknesses and fatal flaws of calvinism and why it is not biblically, theologically or logically tenable. I do, however, notice how he does not, in general, use Scripture as support to why the calvinist say what they say. Neither does he, in general, use Scripture to support his refutation of the calvinistic view. As I see it, the author then ends up giving us his subjective, philosophical argument summed up in: «If God is loving and good, he could not have done it this way»
So, if you are a calvinist and you know why you are, I would, in a way, recommend you to read this and let your view be challenged. Don’t walk in an echo chamber. This book is in some way a good book and there are some points that we calvinists should take into consideration. I just wished he would be against calvenism for what calvenism is and not for what he think it is and want it to be. Be blessed!

[Matt Koser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Olson’s approach in this book: “Reformed and always reforming”. I appreciated his graciousness as he spends several pages explaining that he is not against Calvinists (only against Calvinism), that he isn’t telling people to stop hanging out with Calvinists. He represents Calvinists fairly and quotes big name Calvinists regularly (Edward’s, Sproul, Piper, to name a few).
Olson says multiple times that the reason He is against Calvinism is because of his concern and desire for God’s glory. He walks through TULIP, particularly focusing on ULI. He points out the biggest conundrums of Calvinism and responds to the most common objections and rebuttals of Calvinists. A few of his arguments are less substantive and more emotionally charged. But the vast majority were very strong and the illustrations that he used were extremely helpful. If you’re a Calvinist, there are a couple of parts that will upset you early on. But if you stick with it, I think you will at least understand (and maybe even appreciate) a non-Calvinist view more. At most, if you read with a teachable spirit, I foresee your Calvinism being seriously shaken. I learned a lot and have more questions that I now need to look into. I’m thankful for how this book pointed me to God’s greatness and goodness, and I hope it’ll do the same for you!

[Matt Herring · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who is mainly influenced by those with reformed theological beliefs, this book was helpful in understanding the other sides arguments. It pokes holes in the reformed beliefs I assume to be true without giving them much thought, and spurs me on to dig deeper into why I believe what I say I do.

[Peter Buckingham · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m glad to have a name that I can finally put to a lot of the distasteful theological teaching I was exposed to growing up: John Piper.

And also, Calvinism.

The author extends a very gracious attitude towards Calvinists, while also relentlessly pointing out problems with this particular belief system.