What do you think?
Rate this book
For and Against
For Calvinism
In an eloquent defense of Calvinist theology, author and professor Michael Horton invites us to explore the teachings of Calvinism--also commonly known as Reformed theology--by showing how it is biblical and Christ-centered, leading us to live our lives for the glory of God.
The system of theology known as Calvinism has been immensely influential for the past five hundred years, but it's often encountered negatively as a fatalistic belief system that confines human freedom and renders human action and choice irrelevant.
Taking us beyond the caricatures and typical reactions, For Calvinism:
Explores the historical roots of Reformed thought.
Delivers the essence of Calvinism, examining its distinctive characteristics, such as election, atonement, effectual calling, and perseverance.
Encourages us to consider its rich resources for faith and practice in the present age.
As a companion to Roger Olson's Against Calvinism critique and response, readers will be able to compare contrasting perspectives and form their own opinions on the merits and weaknesses of Calvinism.
The system of theology known as Calvinism has been immensely influential for the past five hundred years, but it's often encountered negatively as a fatalistic belief system that confines human freedom and renders human action and choice irrelevant.
Taking us beyond the caricatures and typical reactions, For Calvinism:
Explores the historical roots of Reformed thought.
Delivers the essence of Calvinism, examining its distinctive characteristics, such as election, atonement, effectual calling, and perseverance.
Encourages us to consider its rich resources for faith and practice in the present age.
As a companion to Roger Olson's Against Calvinism critique and response, readers will be able to compare contrasting perspectives and form their own opinions on the merits and weaknesses of Calvinism.
208 pages, ebook
First published October 16, 2011
147 people are currently reading
831 people want to read
About the author
Michael Scott Horton
86 books335 followersDr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews
May 28, 2013
This serves as a review for both this book and its counterpart, Against Calvinism.
Calvinism never really went away, but it has certainly grown in America with the “young, restless and reformed” movement. As a burgeoning seminary student, (not really that) many years ago, I was interested in Calvinism. It was a theology that I had never known growing up. I did some study on it, wrote a research paper or two on aspects of it. Over time I came to my conclusions and moved on. Or, I wanted to move on but I never really did, probably because Calvinists took American evangelicalism by storm.
When I saw the two books – For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olsen – I had no interest in reading them. It was an issue I had settled to my heart’s content. Then I saw the books were on sale for under $4 on Amazon and for that price, well I’ll read almost anything.
First, Michael Horton defends Calvinism. It should be noted that there is more variety to Calvinism than may be apparent if all one is familiar with are the young and the restless Reformed. What Horton is defending is what is familiar to most as Calvinism, also known as the doctrines of grace or simply “reformed theology.” These are the five points, often known as TULIP – total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (particular redemption), irresistible grace (effectual grace), perseverance of the saints. Horton does an admirable job defending Calvinism. He writes not just with clarity, but with humility. Too often in such debates one side or the other gives the impression that the other side is not just wrong, but perhaps not really Christian. Horton and Olsen may disagree, but both recognize the Christian commitment of the other.
There were a few times as I read this when I thought to myself, “hmmm, maybe I am a Calvinist.” At one point this happened when Horton spoke of mystery. He writes: “Reformed theologians has affirmed God’s sovereign decree concerning “whatsoever comes to pass,” yet without coercion or directly causing every event (Westminster Confession 3.1). How both can be true remains a mystery to us, but that both are true is clearly revealed in Scripture.” When talking about God there comes a point when any person, regardless of persuasion, realizes there is no more than can be said. We can make sense of some things, but in the face of an infinite God we have to leave room for mystery. I think Calvinists like Horton (and like Calvin, for I thought the same when I read the Institutes a few years back) simply go one or two steps farther than I would go before invoking mystery.
This brings me to Olsen. Many of the notes I made in Horton’s book, objecting to Calvinism, are addressed by Olsen. Olsen shows that Calvinism leads to divine determinism. If God “decrees” everything then a Calvinist can talk all they want about what humans choose to do but in the end, God is the acting force in evils such as the holocaust and human trafficking. Olsen’s argument focuses on the words of key Reformed writers such as RC Sproul and John Piper to show that many Calvinists admit their view leads to divine determinism. As Sproul says, noted by Olsen, if even one molecule in the universe running around loose then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Horton appeals to mystery, which I admire, but when he says, “God has decreed whatever comes to pass, yet this in on way infringes on creaturely freedom,” I see more contradiction then mystery.
Olsen shows that even though Calvinists may dispute it, their view leads to God determining everything. Such a view makes it difficult to differentiate God and Satan. God made it certain that sin would enter the world, God determines all events, God is kind of schizophrenic with two different wills (so God really wants all to be saved, but not really). Olsen does not present an alternative view in detail, for that is not the purpose of the book. Instead he works to show that whatever is true of God, the five-point Calvinist view is not. One of the best parts of the book is an illustration from two other authors that show the problem with Calvinism:
Walls and Dongell offer an analogy to test whether any human being would be considered loving or good if he or she acted as Calvinism says God acts in giving irresistible grace only to some of his fallen human creatures. (Remember, he created all in his own image and likeness.) In their illustration, a doctor discovers a cure for a deadly disease killing a group of camp children and gives it to the camp’s director. The director administers it to some sick children so that they are cured and withholds it from others so that they die terribly. He has no shortage of the cure; nothing at all hinders him from curing all the children. even though some of the children resisted the cure, the director had the ability to persuade all of them to take it; he only persuaded some. When the parents confront the director, he passionately contends that he loved all the children— Even the ones who died. He cared for them while they were sick and made them as comfortable as possible:
Walls and Dongell rightly conclude: The director’s claim to love all the children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk? (Walls and Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 54– 55.)
Olson, Roger E. (2011-10-25). Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Kindle Locations 3145-3149). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
That sums it up for me – it is difficult, impossible, to claim love for all children when the one claiming love will not employ all means to help those in need. In the debate then, my verdict is that while Horton does a good job arguing for the Calvinist view, Olsen succeeds in refuting it. I am not young, restless or Reformed.
Calvinism never really went away, but it has certainly grown in America with the “young, restless and reformed” movement. As a burgeoning seminary student, (not really that) many years ago, I was interested in Calvinism. It was a theology that I had never known growing up. I did some study on it, wrote a research paper or two on aspects of it. Over time I came to my conclusions and moved on. Or, I wanted to move on but I never really did, probably because Calvinists took American evangelicalism by storm.
When I saw the two books – For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olsen – I had no interest in reading them. It was an issue I had settled to my heart’s content. Then I saw the books were on sale for under $4 on Amazon and for that price, well I’ll read almost anything.
First, Michael Horton defends Calvinism. It should be noted that there is more variety to Calvinism than may be apparent if all one is familiar with are the young and the restless Reformed. What Horton is defending is what is familiar to most as Calvinism, also known as the doctrines of grace or simply “reformed theology.” These are the five points, often known as TULIP – total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (particular redemption), irresistible grace (effectual grace), perseverance of the saints. Horton does an admirable job defending Calvinism. He writes not just with clarity, but with humility. Too often in such debates one side or the other gives the impression that the other side is not just wrong, but perhaps not really Christian. Horton and Olsen may disagree, but both recognize the Christian commitment of the other.
There were a few times as I read this when I thought to myself, “hmmm, maybe I am a Calvinist.” At one point this happened when Horton spoke of mystery. He writes: “Reformed theologians has affirmed God’s sovereign decree concerning “whatsoever comes to pass,” yet without coercion or directly causing every event (Westminster Confession 3.1). How both can be true remains a mystery to us, but that both are true is clearly revealed in Scripture.” When talking about God there comes a point when any person, regardless of persuasion, realizes there is no more than can be said. We can make sense of some things, but in the face of an infinite God we have to leave room for mystery. I think Calvinists like Horton (and like Calvin, for I thought the same when I read the Institutes a few years back) simply go one or two steps farther than I would go before invoking mystery.
This brings me to Olsen. Many of the notes I made in Horton’s book, objecting to Calvinism, are addressed by Olsen. Olsen shows that Calvinism leads to divine determinism. If God “decrees” everything then a Calvinist can talk all they want about what humans choose to do but in the end, God is the acting force in evils such as the holocaust and human trafficking. Olsen’s argument focuses on the words of key Reformed writers such as RC Sproul and John Piper to show that many Calvinists admit their view leads to divine determinism. As Sproul says, noted by Olsen, if even one molecule in the universe running around loose then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Horton appeals to mystery, which I admire, but when he says, “God has decreed whatever comes to pass, yet this in on way infringes on creaturely freedom,” I see more contradiction then mystery.
Olsen shows that even though Calvinists may dispute it, their view leads to God determining everything. Such a view makes it difficult to differentiate God and Satan. God made it certain that sin would enter the world, God determines all events, God is kind of schizophrenic with two different wills (so God really wants all to be saved, but not really). Olsen does not present an alternative view in detail, for that is not the purpose of the book. Instead he works to show that whatever is true of God, the five-point Calvinist view is not. One of the best parts of the book is an illustration from two other authors that show the problem with Calvinism:
Walls and Dongell offer an analogy to test whether any human being would be considered loving or good if he or she acted as Calvinism says God acts in giving irresistible grace only to some of his fallen human creatures. (Remember, he created all in his own image and likeness.) In their illustration, a doctor discovers a cure for a deadly disease killing a group of camp children and gives it to the camp’s director. The director administers it to some sick children so that they are cured and withholds it from others so that they die terribly. He has no shortage of the cure; nothing at all hinders him from curing all the children. even though some of the children resisted the cure, the director had the ability to persuade all of them to take it; he only persuaded some. When the parents confront the director, he passionately contends that he loved all the children— Even the ones who died. He cared for them while they were sick and made them as comfortable as possible:
Walls and Dongell rightly conclude: The director’s claim to love all the children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk? (Walls and Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 54– 55.)
Olson, Roger E. (2011-10-25). Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Kindle Locations 3145-3149). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
That sums it up for me – it is difficult, impossible, to claim love for all children when the one claiming love will not employ all means to help those in need. In the debate then, my verdict is that while Horton does a good job arguing for the Calvinist view, Olsen succeeds in refuting it. I am not young, restless or Reformed.
April 18, 2012
For lots of reasons, I am not a Calvinist. Mostly I think I lean in a apophatic direction in relation to the inner workings of Divine sovereignty. However, this book convinces me that Michael Horton is one of the good guys. Here is a passionate defense of Calvinism rooted in the doctrine of grace. At the center of Horton's Calvinism is Christ's justification (of the elect) through the cross. God's election is cast in terms of Divine love and his plan for us. He argues for the centrality of penal substitution (as an objective model) and the perseverance of the saints as confidence in God's plan from the start.
Appropriately, Horton is gracious with Arminians and other Christians he disagrees with, even while asserting their errors water down the outworking of grace. I think that this emphasis on divine grace is what I enjoy most about Horton's brand of Calvinism. I remain unconvinced though appreciative of many of his salient points. I liked how he pointed at the historic missionary activity of Calvinists to show that belief in divine sovereignty does not entail passivity.
Appropriately, Horton is gracious with Arminians and other Christians he disagrees with, even while asserting their errors water down the outworking of grace. I think that this emphasis on divine grace is what I enjoy most about Horton's brand of Calvinism. I remain unconvinced though appreciative of many of his salient points. I liked how he pointed at the historic missionary activity of Calvinists to show that belief in divine sovereignty does not entail passivity.
November 2, 2011
Short review: I am giving this 3 stars here (and I gave it 4 on Amazon). I keep going back and forth. I think this is a helpful, moderate, grace-filled presentation of Calvinism. And it helped further clarify why I am not a Calvinist. But if I were a Calvinist, I think I would want to be one like Michael Horton. The problem is that I still cannot get over my objections to Calvinism. I still do not understand how God cannot be responsible for Evil under Calvinism (I know that Calvinists find that objection anathema, they do not believe that God is responsible for evil.) I still cannot agree with Christ dying for a subset of humanity (whether that subset it large or small). And I still have difficulty with Calvinism's conception of free will, although I am coming to understand their view, I just am not ready to accept it.
In the end, I am still not really Arminian or Calvinist. Both sides seem to have the truth in part and pushing either side too far seems to end up with the house of cards falling down around them.
I don't want to be jumping on a band-wagon too much, but I keep ending up with Scot McKnight's book King Jesus Gospel. I think if we misunderstand what the gospel is, then we end up in the wrong place. So the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism ends up in the wrong place because it is focused on salvation instead of Christ as King and Lord of All. Both sides want to be focusing on Christ, but end up spending most of their time dealing with human issues and side tracked.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/for-calvinism/
In the end, I am still not really Arminian or Calvinist. Both sides seem to have the truth in part and pushing either side too far seems to end up with the house of cards falling down around them.
I don't want to be jumping on a band-wagon too much, but I keep ending up with Scot McKnight's book King Jesus Gospel. I think if we misunderstand what the gospel is, then we end up in the wrong place. So the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism ends up in the wrong place because it is focused on salvation instead of Christ as King and Lord of All. Both sides want to be focusing on Christ, but end up spending most of their time dealing with human issues and side tracked.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/for-calvinism/
July 14, 2016
This is an excellent companion to Sproul's What is Reformed Theology?
Since it is an argument for Calvinism rather than just an explanation, some of my confusion from Sproul's book was clarified here, including the reason for the frequent use of the Westminster Confession. Horton uses primarily Scripture for his defense of the Doctrines of Grace, but does reference the WCoF. Now that I've read both books and have read more about the importance of the various confessions*, I understand why Sproul used the WCoF so frequently in his book and why Horton uses primarily Scripture in his.
I really appreciated Horton's warnings and advice to people who have recently embraced the Doctrines of Grace. He speaks to many of the thoughts and feelings I've experienced personally and provides much wisdom. One reason why I hesitated for so long to study Calvinism for myself was that I had encountered a number of arrogant 'Cage Stage' Calvinists, which had turned me off. If anything, a true understanding and application of the Doctrines of Grace should cause a Christian to be overwhelmed at his or her own depravity and the mercy and kindness of the holy God.
*(This article was very helpful: https://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/20...)
Since it is an argument for Calvinism rather than just an explanation, some of my confusion from Sproul's book was clarified here, including the reason for the frequent use of the Westminster Confession. Horton uses primarily Scripture for his defense of the Doctrines of Grace, but does reference the WCoF. Now that I've read both books and have read more about the importance of the various confessions*, I understand why Sproul used the WCoF so frequently in his book and why Horton uses primarily Scripture in his.
I really appreciated Horton's warnings and advice to people who have recently embraced the Doctrines of Grace. He speaks to many of the thoughts and feelings I've experienced personally and provides much wisdom. One reason why I hesitated for so long to study Calvinism for myself was that I had encountered a number of arrogant 'Cage Stage' Calvinists, which had turned me off. If anything, a true understanding and application of the Doctrines of Grace should cause a Christian to be overwhelmed at his or her own depravity and the mercy and kindness of the holy God.
*(This article was very helpful: https://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/20...)
October 23, 2024
A must read for anyone who would identify themselves with reformed theology or who is interested in it. I especially enjoyed the authors cautions in the closing chapter about Calvinism and its specific tendencies if not kept in check with Gods word.
May 27, 2021
Horton’s explanation and defence of Calvinism offers a strong foil to Olson’s contrary work. Unlike Olson though, the scholarly and intellectual approach that Horton adopts is both a strength and a serious weakness as it lacks the more accessible style used by Olson, preferring instead to sprinkle theological jargon throughout. This is a book that demands the reader work hard to unlock its message. The result is a tragic obfuscation of vital truths that so convincingly skewer many of Olson’s criticisms.
It is made more bizarre by the wonderful final chapter that is so self-aware and acknowledges the very trap that the book has fallen into! Putting style aside though, the reader should note the continuous calling to scripture as a primary source, the humility and generosity of the author, and the intellectual rigour and honesty all of which were less prevalent in Olson’s own arguments, that were too often contradictory.
I found a lot of comfort and reassurance and fully recommend the book to anyone wishing to dive deeper into their faith; but worry that some of its most wonderful insights might too easily be missed.
It is made more bizarre by the wonderful final chapter that is so self-aware and acknowledges the very trap that the book has fallen into! Putting style aside though, the reader should note the continuous calling to scripture as a primary source, the humility and generosity of the author, and the intellectual rigour and honesty all of which were less prevalent in Olson’s own arguments, that were too often contradictory.
I found a lot of comfort and reassurance and fully recommend the book to anyone wishing to dive deeper into their faith; but worry that some of its most wonderful insights might too easily be missed.
December 11, 2025
Great introduction book on the primary doctrines of Calvinism. Horton does an excellent job of covering the basics of Reformed Theology while remaining deep in the Scriptures as his primary source for proving his points. He also does an excellent job of answering the common objections of Calvinism in a clear and thoughtful way that I hope stirs in the hearts of those who doubt these fundamental truths of Christianity. Great book for both hard core Calvinists who'd like a clear manual on how to explain the doctrines and for skeptics who'd like a clearly portrayed view explained to them.
January 17, 2025
A great overview
August 31, 2021
Great explanation of TULIP and gracious entry in the Arminian/Calvinism debate. I really like that he explains why Calvinism/reformed theology is more than just the five points.
April 29, 2013
This is an excellent book about Calvinism for Calvinism. Yes, I said that right. This book is about Calvinism for Calvinism. Horton breaks from the tradition of focusing on the exegesis of texts in support of each of the “five-points.” Instead, Horton does a masterful job of describing how Calvinism (or “the doctrines of grace") and, more broadly, Reformed theology fit coherently within the divine drama of scripture and constitute a comprehensive view of life. One who is informed on the theological issues will be surprised, and at first nervous, to notice that Horton never remains at one text for long, but always connects it with a coherent whole, an overarching biblical theology that encompasses all areas of life on earth. Horton touches on everything from the regulative principle to tradition to missions to piety to family to love for one’s neighbor. Horton writes, “One of the things that attracted me from the beginning to this tradition is the interest it has in the whole breath of life and the questions that are faced in the world, not just in the church” (172).
One might wonder how this about Calvinism is for Calvinism. One of the unstated assumptions is that Arminianism doesn’t have a comprehensive view of life. In other words, Arminians are far from saying with Kuyper: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, "Mine!” Some Arminians might say this with Kuyper as part of some point of their theology, but in my experience they are so focused on analytic philosophy, “second blessings” and “encounters” with God that they have no emphasis on a comprehensive view of life. (Maybe that's why so many became Unitarians). They, of course, have a view of life, but it isn’t uniquely Arminian or theologically comprehensive. I’ve asked Arminians if there is such an emphasis and it takes me a while to communicate what I’m talking about. Some may be forming equivalent, uniquely Arminian, systems, but it doesn’t seem to be one of their emphases.
So Horton’s approach is a unique way of arguing for Calvinism: Calvinism is an adequate, all-encompassing system and Arminianism is not. One could call this a defense of Calvinism through biblical theology. On the popular level, this book together with James White’s "The Potter’s Freedom" - which focuses more on systematic theology and exegesis - is a fine, thorough and convincing argument for Calvinism and the Reformed faith in general.
Update:
Many of the reviews on GoodReads do not understand what Horton is doing. He is not doing a traditional defense of Calvinism. He's showing how Calvinism fits a broad, biblical theology. It follows his other work in the "divine drama" of God's narrative in history (See his Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama). This book is not meant to be an exegetical defense or even a systematic defense specifically. It's a defense through biblical theology, which is an approach that looks at the drama and narrative of God's acts and speech in history. Horton shows how Calvinism is integral to an all-of-life-encompassing Reformed biblical theology well-represented in Scripture. As I said, in my original review, it's *about* Calvinism *for* Calvinism. Unfortunately, it seems that Roger Olson used the traditional systematic and exegetical method, more accessible to the non-Reformed (really non-Presbyterians).
One might wonder how this about Calvinism is for Calvinism. One of the unstated assumptions is that Arminianism doesn’t have a comprehensive view of life. In other words, Arminians are far from saying with Kuyper: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, "Mine!” Some Arminians might say this with Kuyper as part of some point of their theology, but in my experience they are so focused on analytic philosophy, “second blessings” and “encounters” with God that they have no emphasis on a comprehensive view of life. (Maybe that's why so many became Unitarians). They, of course, have a view of life, but it isn’t uniquely Arminian or theologically comprehensive. I’ve asked Arminians if there is such an emphasis and it takes me a while to communicate what I’m talking about. Some may be forming equivalent, uniquely Arminian, systems, but it doesn’t seem to be one of their emphases.
So Horton’s approach is a unique way of arguing for Calvinism: Calvinism is an adequate, all-encompassing system and Arminianism is not. One could call this a defense of Calvinism through biblical theology. On the popular level, this book together with James White’s "The Potter’s Freedom" - which focuses more on systematic theology and exegesis - is a fine, thorough and convincing argument for Calvinism and the Reformed faith in general.
Update:
Many of the reviews on GoodReads do not understand what Horton is doing. He is not doing a traditional defense of Calvinism. He's showing how Calvinism fits a broad, biblical theology. It follows his other work in the "divine drama" of God's narrative in history (See his Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama). This book is not meant to be an exegetical defense or even a systematic defense specifically. It's a defense through biblical theology, which is an approach that looks at the drama and narrative of God's acts and speech in history. Horton shows how Calvinism is integral to an all-of-life-encompassing Reformed biblical theology well-represented in Scripture. As I said, in my original review, it's *about* Calvinism *for* Calvinism. Unfortunately, it seems that Roger Olson used the traditional systematic and exegetical method, more accessible to the non-Reformed (really non-Presbyterians).
December 17, 2024
I was hoping to make this a short review, but it was impossible.
This was a very thorough explanation of Calvinism. The first half of the book was explaining and defending TULIP. The second half was about evangelism, Christian living, and the church. Horton said some things that surprised me like “Jesus died sufficiently for the whole world but effectively for only the elect” and “Calvinism is inextricably linked with covenant theology” among other things. Other than a few parts like this though, there isn’t much out of the ordinary.
I’m still not able to come over to the Calvinist camp after reading this book. There were many times that Horton would describe a problem, give the Arminian answer, and show that it was insufficient in order to argue that you should land on a Calvinist perspective. But many times I thought, “The Molinist perspective answers that problem too, and better than the Calvinist answer,” in my humble opinion. It would be nice to see a book that interacts with Calvinism and Molinism (instead of Arminianism).
Even though I disagreed with a lot of the points he made in the U, L, and I, I still felt like I should give this 4 stars. The rest of the book was helpful overall. I was challenged practically, particularly in the section about the church (at the end of the book). I would recommend this book for anyone searching for answers along with its companion book “Against Calvinism” by Roger Olson and with “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism” by Timothy Stratton
This was a very thorough explanation of Calvinism. The first half of the book was explaining and defending TULIP. The second half was about evangelism, Christian living, and the church. Horton said some things that surprised me like “Jesus died sufficiently for the whole world but effectively for only the elect” and “Calvinism is inextricably linked with covenant theology” among other things. Other than a few parts like this though, there isn’t much out of the ordinary.
I’m still not able to come over to the Calvinist camp after reading this book. There were many times that Horton would describe a problem, give the Arminian answer, and show that it was insufficient in order to argue that you should land on a Calvinist perspective. But many times I thought, “The Molinist perspective answers that problem too, and better than the Calvinist answer,” in my humble opinion. It would be nice to see a book that interacts with Calvinism and Molinism (instead of Arminianism).
Even though I disagreed with a lot of the points he made in the U, L, and I, I still felt like I should give this 4 stars. The rest of the book was helpful overall. I was challenged practically, particularly in the section about the church (at the end of the book). I would recommend this book for anyone searching for answers along with its companion book “Against Calvinism” by Roger Olson and with “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism” by Timothy Stratton
December 10, 2011
I'm a born and raised Wesleyan though I honestly didn't know it. A few years ago I was introduced to Calvinism because of some classes I was taking for school. As a result I was exposed to some of today's top Calvinist/Reformed teachers and I loved them. I had a hard time reconciling the stereotype that I had been fed of them with what they were actually doing in the name of Christ so I became interested in learning more about what they believed because it seemed apparent from the research I'd done that these New Calvinists were not the same people that I'd heard caricatures about.
When this book came along (and its counterpart "Against Calvinism") the timing couldn't have been better. These companion books cut through the stereotypes of the belief system to get to the heart of what they believe and the Scripture that brought them to those conclusions.
From the very beginning of the book it is clear that it is not intended to be a "we're right and everyone else is wrong" exercise. The two books written and released at the same time are intended to get people talking about the theology that matters so much.
Whether a Calvinist, Wesleyan, or something else this book (and to this point that I have read "Against Calvinism") is worth reading by anyone who has questions about the young, restless, and Reformed movement and how their theology is shaping not only their culture but the future of the church's culture.
When this book came along (and its counterpart "Against Calvinism") the timing couldn't have been better. These companion books cut through the stereotypes of the belief system to get to the heart of what they believe and the Scripture that brought them to those conclusions.
From the very beginning of the book it is clear that it is not intended to be a "we're right and everyone else is wrong" exercise. The two books written and released at the same time are intended to get people talking about the theology that matters so much.
Whether a Calvinist, Wesleyan, or something else this book (and to this point that I have read "Against Calvinism") is worth reading by anyone who has questions about the young, restless, and Reformed movement and how their theology is shaping not only their culture but the future of the church's culture.
April 28, 2013
Michael Horton's "For Calvinism" (with the absolutely brilliant cover!) is a very helpful and engaging exploration of Calvinist theology, centered around the popular acronym TULIP (which Horton chides us not to take as representative of all Calvinist thought). Horton discusses many of the main Calvinist doctrines, such as predestination and perseverance of the saints and argues effectively and convincingly with appeals to Scripture. He not only notes the differences and nuances between Calvinism and Arminianism, but he also sometimes involves Roman Catholic and Lutheran perspectives in the discussion. Although I look forward to the companion book, Roger E. Olson's "Against Calvinism" (I think I lean Arminian), this is a very worthwhile read for anyone who loves, and wrestles with, theology.
June 28, 2025
Glad I read this for my term paper on Calvinism. Was definitely helpful and corrected some of the misconceptions that I had on the doctrines of grace and what they mean.
August 27, 2020
wow! Took me over a year to read this.
Honestly, I generally had to read two pages at a time with this. Then I'd have to read them again... or simply repeat every paragraph 3 times to take it all in. Possibly the most exhausting theological book i've ever read. And I LOVED IT. (would have given it 5 stars if it had a Car Chase or Vin Diesel offered to read the Audiobook)
A few years ago I read its opposing book by Roger Olson: Against Calvinism. Okay, that was fun and easy and emotionally pathetic with very little Biblical theology. Basically a loser stating how he (and others) could never love a God who isn't as good and all embracing as they are. He even said, "I could never love a god that would cause a child to die". But then he lazily failed to mention David and Bathsheba's child dying from their Sin. Not to mention a few others scattered through the Bible. A lazy attempt at attacking Calvinism with very little scripture to support emotional pouty fits.
So now we have the defense of Calvinism. This author is way too nice and reasonable (maybe a bit too scholarly and wimpy). I'm glad he wrote the book and not me. But at the end of the day: Jonah probably had better results, "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed. Thank you. the management".
So we basically have 2 theological stands: A God who Sovereignly chooses who goes to His Son's heavenly Kingdom - OR a God who desperately tries to do some stuff (?) so that humans will maybe possibly eventually turn to him and love His Son - He does ALL HE CAN without really doing all He can - with His Divine fingers crossed that a person or two will get their heartstrings tugged hard enough and slip through judgement day into paradise by managing to control a portion of their daily sins and overcome their mostly sin nature. Maybe 51% good, or possibly just dying on a good day (possibly right outside the church door after singing and repenting before brunch).
As you can see, I take this topic very passionately. I remember as kid thinking: "I just got baptized - i'm clean of sin. Maybe I should DIE RIGHT NOW before I start acting up and rebelling?" Hell no - too late. Satan tempted me with just about everything, and I jumped right in. Never quitting church or stopping serious bible reading. Solid Faith. But I was just good at justifying my experiences to myself. Satan most likely applauded my efforts.
Yes, even at 12 years old: the Rebel Theologian in me had started to come out of the Spiritual bank with guns blazing and looking for a getaway car. I had some serious crap to figure out. "Show me the TRUTH!"
But - over a decade ago I started chatting with Atheists on the net and tearing the Bible apart looking for explanations and systematic theology. My old loving Arminian Wesleyan Methodist theology wouldn't last 10 minutes against militant academic atheists challenging the Bible. I was chatting with some rather scholarly haters of the good book. And if you know me: I don't ever back down from a challenge, and i'm not afraid to admit when i'm wrong or biased or haven't done my homework.
Now, some people are blessed with a rather simple Gospel Faith that doesn't require deep explanations or War Strategies. These folks are wonderful and deserve eternal blessings (by Wesleyan standards) - keep them away from: I'll just destroy their fragile Spiritual Eco-system of kindness and mercy. The problem is: these folks can just as easily lose their foundation when attacked by Muslims, Cults and Atheist scholars. Best to have a huge Billy Graham pillow for them to cry themselves to sleep on. My Mom loves Joel Osteen for just this reason.
As for me: If the Bible doesn't make 100% perfect sense - then i'm OUTA HERE. I'll start looking elsewhere. (I won't become an atheist, that's just lazy and assuming a default system that explains nothing of our purpose or destiny or objective morality. The Gun slinger in me dares you to argue with me).
Sadly, I didn't really learn anything new from reading this book. Mostly because I've already spent a decade listening to John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul as well as James White AND THE BIBLE. This book just attempts to explain it all clearly and thoroughly. But even then - I think it left out a few things. So I'd rather chat about the topic than just quote the book - which I mostly agreed with.
So does God have His Cosmic fingers crossed that some folks will make it to heaven? That's a losing way to play this game. It's better to be the House and the Dealer than betting on odds.
Weirdly, I'm okay if God steps back and lets people choose Him or reject him. Not my problem. The disturbing reality is that many people are VERY AGAINST A God who would dare choose people for His Son's eternal kingdom. Seriously, being chosen is a lot easier. Safe to say: "If we could lose our faith and salvation - WE WOULD! repeatedly. Better die on an upswing eh?"
To shock many: I'm not a John Calvin fan. I don't study his writings or history. Maybe someday - I doubt it. I'm more of a William Tyndale meets Charles Spurgeon soldier. I don't fully embrace anyone's thoughts or ramblings - Except those that God put into His Word through His Holy Spirit. That's not up for debate.
Funnily enough - I've never met a Jacobus Arminius fan either. These two views of Heavenly Choice are really based on how people read Holy scripture - not how a classic theologian puts them into a soup.
The challenge is: can you embrace every single verse of the Bible with YOUR Theological system. Many Arminians I come across either embrace a very liberal Christianity where it's all about Man. Or they become extremely charismatic and thinks God has gifted them as Harry Potter prophets to sway the masses with emotional mayhem and stupid human tricks.
The part of Calvinism that I embrace is simply his attempt at 5 guiding points:
1. Total Depravity - asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin,
every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God.
2. Unconditional Election - asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen.
3. Limited Atonement - asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death.
4. Irresistible Grace - asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end.
I've heard many people pathetically attempt to squash those 5 claims with emotional "Out Of Context" Bible passages. By all means - please keep trying. test everything. But there's a point when you just gotta join the winning gang.
As this book showed: there's many many Bible verses and stories proving those 5 points. Suck it up.
However, I do understand that there are some verses almost against those points. Yes, God puts those in the Bible to confuse the spiritually corrupt. Similar to Jesus' comment when he explained why he uses parables.
Mark 13:
13This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ 14In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’
But to end this: probably the main reason I'm a Mostly Reformed Calvinist is because of the war in heaven and Angels and Demons. Yes, it's all about the natures of God's creatures. Most people go on and on about choice and how we must choose. Yet it seems Angels and Demons aren't currently choosing. There aren't still demons falling down from the heaven's - and angels getting their wings back and flying up to the thrown room... again... and again... and again...
Yes, Choice was a one time event for them. It may not have even been a choice - but a nature. Does that make God evil? No, it makes him creator with freedom.
Here's a test: If you can go 5 seconds without sinning... try it. Well done! Have a cookie. So why the hell can't you go 80 years? Honestly - I doubt whether you were successful with those 5 seconds. Otherwise Jesus may not have had to fully die on the cross. But He did. 0
The problem isn't that you sin (of course we sin. yawnnnn!) but that you really have no righteousness to stand before God. It's all about Christ's righteousness. Not ours. Most assume they will get to heaven based on some warped concept of their goodness and shallow loyalty. I've met humans - NOT a chance in hell.
The Father needs to see the Son in us for our given faith to have been applied. That's Calvinism Princesses. Even Abraham nephew Lot had it. And he got drunk and impregnated his daughters... There's hope for us. God is GOOD! Amen.
Honestly, I generally had to read two pages at a time with this. Then I'd have to read them again... or simply repeat every paragraph 3 times to take it all in. Possibly the most exhausting theological book i've ever read. And I LOVED IT. (would have given it 5 stars if it had a Car Chase or Vin Diesel offered to read the Audiobook)
A few years ago I read its opposing book by Roger Olson: Against Calvinism. Okay, that was fun and easy and emotionally pathetic with very little Biblical theology. Basically a loser stating how he (and others) could never love a God who isn't as good and all embracing as they are. He even said, "I could never love a god that would cause a child to die". But then he lazily failed to mention David and Bathsheba's child dying from their Sin. Not to mention a few others scattered through the Bible. A lazy attempt at attacking Calvinism with very little scripture to support emotional pouty fits.
So now we have the defense of Calvinism. This author is way too nice and reasonable (maybe a bit too scholarly and wimpy). I'm glad he wrote the book and not me. But at the end of the day: Jonah probably had better results, "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed. Thank you. the management".
So we basically have 2 theological stands: A God who Sovereignly chooses who goes to His Son's heavenly Kingdom - OR a God who desperately tries to do some stuff (?) so that humans will maybe possibly eventually turn to him and love His Son - He does ALL HE CAN without really doing all He can - with His Divine fingers crossed that a person or two will get their heartstrings tugged hard enough and slip through judgement day into paradise by managing to control a portion of their daily sins and overcome their mostly sin nature. Maybe 51% good, or possibly just dying on a good day (possibly right outside the church door after singing and repenting before brunch).
As you can see, I take this topic very passionately. I remember as kid thinking: "I just got baptized - i'm clean of sin. Maybe I should DIE RIGHT NOW before I start acting up and rebelling?" Hell no - too late. Satan tempted me with just about everything, and I jumped right in. Never quitting church or stopping serious bible reading. Solid Faith. But I was just good at justifying my experiences to myself. Satan most likely applauded my efforts.
Yes, even at 12 years old: the Rebel Theologian in me had started to come out of the Spiritual bank with guns blazing and looking for a getaway car. I had some serious crap to figure out. "Show me the TRUTH!"
But - over a decade ago I started chatting with Atheists on the net and tearing the Bible apart looking for explanations and systematic theology. My old loving Arminian Wesleyan Methodist theology wouldn't last 10 minutes against militant academic atheists challenging the Bible. I was chatting with some rather scholarly haters of the good book. And if you know me: I don't ever back down from a challenge, and i'm not afraid to admit when i'm wrong or biased or haven't done my homework.
Now, some people are blessed with a rather simple Gospel Faith that doesn't require deep explanations or War Strategies. These folks are wonderful and deserve eternal blessings (by Wesleyan standards) - keep them away from: I'll just destroy their fragile Spiritual Eco-system of kindness and mercy. The problem is: these folks can just as easily lose their foundation when attacked by Muslims, Cults and Atheist scholars. Best to have a huge Billy Graham pillow for them to cry themselves to sleep on. My Mom loves Joel Osteen for just this reason.
As for me: If the Bible doesn't make 100% perfect sense - then i'm OUTA HERE. I'll start looking elsewhere. (I won't become an atheist, that's just lazy and assuming a default system that explains nothing of our purpose or destiny or objective morality. The Gun slinger in me dares you to argue with me).
Sadly, I didn't really learn anything new from reading this book. Mostly because I've already spent a decade listening to John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul as well as James White AND THE BIBLE. This book just attempts to explain it all clearly and thoroughly. But even then - I think it left out a few things. So I'd rather chat about the topic than just quote the book - which I mostly agreed with.
So does God have His Cosmic fingers crossed that some folks will make it to heaven? That's a losing way to play this game. It's better to be the House and the Dealer than betting on odds.
Weirdly, I'm okay if God steps back and lets people choose Him or reject him. Not my problem. The disturbing reality is that many people are VERY AGAINST A God who would dare choose people for His Son's eternal kingdom. Seriously, being chosen is a lot easier. Safe to say: "If we could lose our faith and salvation - WE WOULD! repeatedly. Better die on an upswing eh?"
To shock many: I'm not a John Calvin fan. I don't study his writings or history. Maybe someday - I doubt it. I'm more of a William Tyndale meets Charles Spurgeon soldier. I don't fully embrace anyone's thoughts or ramblings - Except those that God put into His Word through His Holy Spirit. That's not up for debate.
Funnily enough - I've never met a Jacobus Arminius fan either. These two views of Heavenly Choice are really based on how people read Holy scripture - not how a classic theologian puts them into a soup.
The challenge is: can you embrace every single verse of the Bible with YOUR Theological system. Many Arminians I come across either embrace a very liberal Christianity where it's all about Man. Or they become extremely charismatic and thinks God has gifted them as Harry Potter prophets to sway the masses with emotional mayhem and stupid human tricks.
The part of Calvinism that I embrace is simply his attempt at 5 guiding points:
1. Total Depravity - asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin,
every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God.
2. Unconditional Election - asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen.
3. Limited Atonement - asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death.
4. Irresistible Grace - asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end.
I've heard many people pathetically attempt to squash those 5 claims with emotional "Out Of Context" Bible passages. By all means - please keep trying. test everything. But there's a point when you just gotta join the winning gang.
As this book showed: there's many many Bible verses and stories proving those 5 points. Suck it up.
However, I do understand that there are some verses almost against those points. Yes, God puts those in the Bible to confuse the spiritually corrupt. Similar to Jesus' comment when he explained why he uses parables.
Mark 13:
13This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ 14In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’
But to end this: probably the main reason I'm a Mostly Reformed Calvinist is because of the war in heaven and Angels and Demons. Yes, it's all about the natures of God's creatures. Most people go on and on about choice and how we must choose. Yet it seems Angels and Demons aren't currently choosing. There aren't still demons falling down from the heaven's - and angels getting their wings back and flying up to the thrown room... again... and again... and again...
Yes, Choice was a one time event for them. It may not have even been a choice - but a nature. Does that make God evil? No, it makes him creator with freedom.
Here's a test: If you can go 5 seconds without sinning... try it. Well done! Have a cookie. So why the hell can't you go 80 years? Honestly - I doubt whether you were successful with those 5 seconds. Otherwise Jesus may not have had to fully die on the cross. But He did. 0
The problem isn't that you sin (of course we sin. yawnnnn!) but that you really have no righteousness to stand before God. It's all about Christ's righteousness. Not ours. Most assume they will get to heaven based on some warped concept of their goodness and shallow loyalty. I've met humans - NOT a chance in hell.
The Father needs to see the Son in us for our given faith to have been applied. That's Calvinism Princesses. Even Abraham nephew Lot had it. And he got drunk and impregnated his daughters... There's hope for us. God is GOOD! Amen.
April 12, 2024
Disclaimer! This review is more a critique of the way author presented Calvinism than a critique of the theology itself.
Well, I’m not pretty sure what my thoughts on this book are. It was partly interesting, partly devastating, partly commercial.
I started reading it with the hope of convincing myself that the Calvinist theological system makes sense in this world, and it does, but not entirely. More disappointing about Horton’s book is the lack of an exegetical foundation for his statements, not even a systematic way of presenting Calvinism, but more like an apology for becoming Calvinist. And that was very awful, I can't let myself be convinced that Calvinism has a great missiology because, quote: “In fact, according to a reporter in Christianity Today the PCA gives twice as much per dollar to international mission compared with the SBC.” Of course, this wasn’t the main argument, but for sure it wasn’t a necessary clarification.
Although some ideas were illuminating, Horton’s Calvinism is profoundly individualistic, promoting that those who possess a reformed theology don’t even need to borrow theological ideas from others (“There is a widespread assumption among Christians today[…] that Reformed theology offers a lot of sound doctrines, but we have to look to other traditions for piety or for our eschatology[…]), sometimes arguing for some indulgence expected from Calvinists regarding those who empathize with Arminianism or other traditions.
Furthermore, not only once did I observe even an abuse of strawman arguments or an appeal to emotions. And here is one more example that contains both fallacies “We are not inviting people to cooperate with God in their redemption or new birth. We are not telling them that if they clean up their lives sufficiently, display enough zeal, and exhibit a perfect faith, they will be saved.”, but the saddest thing is that neither Arminians do believe something like this.
Well, I’m not pretty sure what my thoughts on this book are. It was partly interesting, partly devastating, partly commercial.
I started reading it with the hope of convincing myself that the Calvinist theological system makes sense in this world, and it does, but not entirely. More disappointing about Horton’s book is the lack of an exegetical foundation for his statements, not even a systematic way of presenting Calvinism, but more like an apology for becoming Calvinist. And that was very awful, I can't let myself be convinced that Calvinism has a great missiology because, quote: “In fact, according to a reporter in Christianity Today the PCA gives twice as much per dollar to international mission compared with the SBC.” Of course, this wasn’t the main argument, but for sure it wasn’t a necessary clarification.
Although some ideas were illuminating, Horton’s Calvinism is profoundly individualistic, promoting that those who possess a reformed theology don’t even need to borrow theological ideas from others (“There is a widespread assumption among Christians today[…] that Reformed theology offers a lot of sound doctrines, but we have to look to other traditions for piety or for our eschatology[…]), sometimes arguing for some indulgence expected from Calvinists regarding those who empathize with Arminianism or other traditions.
Furthermore, not only once did I observe even an abuse of strawman arguments or an appeal to emotions. And here is one more example that contains both fallacies “We are not inviting people to cooperate with God in their redemption or new birth. We are not telling them that if they clean up their lives sufficiently, display enough zeal, and exhibit a perfect faith, they will be saved.”, but the saddest thing is that neither Arminians do believe something like this.
February 14, 2021
Michael Horton's defence/advocacy for Calvinism (hence: "For Calvinism") is a strong introduction of the tenements of Reformed doctrine. Naturally he doesn't hold exclusively to John Calvin, but expresses the differing varieties of Reform tradition (Luther, etc). Coming from a non-Reformed background, I've taken an interest in exploring these different views. We all read the same Scriptures, but somehow come out with different interpretations.
Surprisingly Horton doesn't linger on the famous "5 Points" of Calvinism (TULIP -- an acronym which came in the 20th Century, not during Calvin's day), but instead devotes only half the book to their defense. Of the Five Points, I found Horton's interpretation of "Total Depravity" (T) and "Limited Atonement" (L) to be the most interesting.
Instead, Horton spends more time explaining how Calvinism is much larger (which it is) than simply Five Points. Those Points are polemical, yes, but not the grand summation. So we find in here a treatment of Calvinism's church life, community presence, personal devotions, Confessions and Creeds, view of the Sacraments, and missional contributions throughout the 1550s-onward.
Do I agree with Calvinism as a whole? On some points, yes; on others, no; and for a host of others, I repeat the words of Ezekiel when viewing the Valley of Dry Bones: "O LORD God, You know."
Highly informative for those of us who are on the "outside" looking in. But may God be thanked that we are nevertheless of the one and the same Family! (Eph 3:14), although we do not all share the same freckles, eye colour, or height.
3.5 Stars
Surprisingly Horton doesn't linger on the famous "5 Points" of Calvinism (TULIP -- an acronym which came in the 20th Century, not during Calvin's day), but instead devotes only half the book to their defense. Of the Five Points, I found Horton's interpretation of "Total Depravity" (T) and "Limited Atonement" (L) to be the most interesting.
Instead, Horton spends more time explaining how Calvinism is much larger (which it is) than simply Five Points. Those Points are polemical, yes, but not the grand summation. So we find in here a treatment of Calvinism's church life, community presence, personal devotions, Confessions and Creeds, view of the Sacraments, and missional contributions throughout the 1550s-onward.
Do I agree with Calvinism as a whole? On some points, yes; on others, no; and for a host of others, I repeat the words of Ezekiel when viewing the Valley of Dry Bones: "O LORD God, You know."
Highly informative for those of us who are on the "outside" looking in. But may God be thanked that we are nevertheless of the one and the same Family! (Eph 3:14), although we do not all share the same freckles, eye colour, or height.
3.5 Stars
January 6, 2026
This volume is the superior big brother to its sister volume, Against Calvinism. As the writer of that volume states in the forward, are we getting the message right? Horton on why Calvinism gets the message right and admit that it is an insulting nickname. And the problem with Calvinism is that people often relegated merely to its five points. Which are not five points of Calvinism as much as they are five defenses against Arminianism. But Horton doesn’t start with us. He starts at creation and how is the image of God that image was marked but not lost in the garden. he often shows how Calvinism is the orthodoxy and in the 17th century (from modernity to today) orthodoxy has been on a slippery slope. There is discussion on whether Christ came to actually save or merely made salvation possible. He also shows how the charges of antinomian ism and legalism are foolish to accuse Calvinism of. He also dedicated space to the evangelical zeal of the Calvinists. There is space dedicated to Abraham Kuyper’s warning against slippery slopes. But the afterword reveals the true reminder: our zeal often makes us lose sight of what is important: Christ and His blessings.
November 12, 2014
For Calvinism, by Michael Horton, was released as a part of a simultaneous release with Against Calvinisim by Roger Olson. I read and reviewed Olson's book at the end of last year/beginning of this year....literally, I believe that is what I did on New Year's Eve. :-D I was not in as great a hurry to read For Calvinism as I was Against Calvinism by Olson. I had already read much by Horton and was already pretty firmly “for Calvinism”, so I figured Olson's book was a good place to start.
After reading Olson's critique of reformed theology, specifically the doctrines of grace, I was unimpressed with his argument against “Calvinism”. However, as we are beginning a study of Ephesians at church, and “Calvinism” is flooding convention thought in the SBC, yet again, I thought this would be a good time to read Horton's take on the validity of “Calvinism”.
There is much to take away from this book. “Calvinism”, or Reformed Theology(preferable), is not a TULIP. This is significant for a couple of reasons. First off, the TULIP acronym, was invented after 1900 as a way of summarizing the Synod of Dordt, the five points themself a reaction to the Remonstrants' five points. Greater still, is the fact that the terminology attached to TULIP leads to great confusion. The TULIP does not define the points to which they are assigned sufficiently or clearly. This is why, in his book, Horton addresses some of the points with different terminology(ie, Total Depravity=Radical Depravity; Irresitible Grace=Effectual Grace; Limited Atonement=Definite Atonement). While RUDEP may not be as easy to remember as TULIP, the exchange of a memorable acronym for an accurate one is probably worth the effort.
The greater reason not to equate TULIP with Reformed Theology as a whole is because the Reformed understanding of the Christian faith cannot be reduced to five points of soteriology. Horton devotes an entire chapter, and sections within chapters, expounding on the riches of Reformed Theology and practice. He makes an argument for the Regulative principle, Covenant theology, how Reformed theology views the atonement and the extent of the redeeming work of Christ beyond just sinners but unto all of creation, how Reformed Theology interacts with society and creation, etc... Reformed faith and practice cannot be reduced to the TULIP(or even RUDEP) and, beyond that, the TULIP is not even the central dogma of Reformed theology.
Horton devotes a chapter to Calvinism and missions/evangelism. It is a great chapter, and an important one, because so often(as in Geisler's Chosen But Free) the accusation is made that Calvinist theology impedes evangelism and missions. That believing in the sovereign grace of God erases any desire to share the Gospel with a neighbor or labor for the Gospel to reach the ends of the world. Horton begins the chapter with page after page of historical examples to the contrary. From the time of Calvin (who trained hundreds of missionaries) on, Horton lays out historical example after example of Christians who held dearly to the doctrines of grace and also labored faithfully, sacrificially, and often unto death to see that the Gospel was proclaimed to those who had never heard the name of Jesus. Horton shows that statistically, those who hold to Reformed theology, send as much or more money to support foreign missions, and as many or more missionaries onto the mission field. In fact, citing a PCA News report, the Presbyterian Church in America(Reformed, doctrines of grace, allegedly no desire or need to do missions) supports three times as many foreign missionaries per capita as the Southern Baptist Convention supports foreign and domestic missionaries per capita. After showing that history and statistics do not match the caricature of the mission/evangelism-hating Calvinist, Horton spends time discussing the theological underpinnings of Reformed missions.
In the final chapter, Horton unpacks some of the strengths of Reformed theology, and some of the dangers we can stumble upon if we embrace the doctrines of grace. This chapter is a gentle rebuke for some who are in the “cage stage" and may be using this book as ammunition to attack brothers and sisters who may not agree with their flower of choice. It is also a good reminder for those of us who have grown out of the “cage stage”, lest we necessitate a re-caging.
I am a Horton fan, from the White Horse Inn to Modern Reformation, to his systematic theology and his preaching, and I am a fan of this book. I will admit, as with everything I have read by Horton, at times I get left behind in the text, a little lost. Olson's writing style is much more suited to introductions to issues. Against Calvinism, while not watered down, was a much easier read for me than For Calvinism was at a few parts. Being said, I would commend this book to all and encourage any who may get bogged down at parts to keep working through it. The payoff from this book is worth the effort. I would agree with Roger Olson, mostly, on his recommendation of the book from the foreword.
Anyone interested in reading the best case possible for Calvinism must read this book. It is informative, engaging, clear, and self-critical. It helpfully contributes to the ongoing discussions and debates about God's sovereignty among evangelicals...After reading this book I can recommend it wholeheartedly with the reservation that I strongly disagree with its central claims...It is possible to be committed and fair, critical and generous. For Calvinism proves it and my hearty endorsement reveals it.--Roger Olson
After reading Olson's critique of reformed theology, specifically the doctrines of grace, I was unimpressed with his argument against “Calvinism”. However, as we are beginning a study of Ephesians at church, and “Calvinism” is flooding convention thought in the SBC, yet again, I thought this would be a good time to read Horton's take on the validity of “Calvinism”.
There is much to take away from this book. “Calvinism”, or Reformed Theology(preferable), is not a TULIP. This is significant for a couple of reasons. First off, the TULIP acronym, was invented after 1900 as a way of summarizing the Synod of Dordt, the five points themself a reaction to the Remonstrants' five points. Greater still, is the fact that the terminology attached to TULIP leads to great confusion. The TULIP does not define the points to which they are assigned sufficiently or clearly. This is why, in his book, Horton addresses some of the points with different terminology(ie, Total Depravity=Radical Depravity; Irresitible Grace=Effectual Grace; Limited Atonement=Definite Atonement). While RUDEP may not be as easy to remember as TULIP, the exchange of a memorable acronym for an accurate one is probably worth the effort.
The greater reason not to equate TULIP with Reformed Theology as a whole is because the Reformed understanding of the Christian faith cannot be reduced to five points of soteriology. Horton devotes an entire chapter, and sections within chapters, expounding on the riches of Reformed Theology and practice. He makes an argument for the Regulative principle, Covenant theology, how Reformed theology views the atonement and the extent of the redeeming work of Christ beyond just sinners but unto all of creation, how Reformed Theology interacts with society and creation, etc... Reformed faith and practice cannot be reduced to the TULIP(or even RUDEP) and, beyond that, the TULIP is not even the central dogma of Reformed theology.
Horton devotes a chapter to Calvinism and missions/evangelism. It is a great chapter, and an important one, because so often(as in Geisler's Chosen But Free) the accusation is made that Calvinist theology impedes evangelism and missions. That believing in the sovereign grace of God erases any desire to share the Gospel with a neighbor or labor for the Gospel to reach the ends of the world. Horton begins the chapter with page after page of historical examples to the contrary. From the time of Calvin (who trained hundreds of missionaries) on, Horton lays out historical example after example of Christians who held dearly to the doctrines of grace and also labored faithfully, sacrificially, and often unto death to see that the Gospel was proclaimed to those who had never heard the name of Jesus. Horton shows that statistically, those who hold to Reformed theology, send as much or more money to support foreign missions, and as many or more missionaries onto the mission field. In fact, citing a PCA News report, the Presbyterian Church in America(Reformed, doctrines of grace, allegedly no desire or need to do missions) supports three times as many foreign missionaries per capita as the Southern Baptist Convention supports foreign and domestic missionaries per capita. After showing that history and statistics do not match the caricature of the mission/evangelism-hating Calvinist, Horton spends time discussing the theological underpinnings of Reformed missions.
In the final chapter, Horton unpacks some of the strengths of Reformed theology, and some of the dangers we can stumble upon if we embrace the doctrines of grace. This chapter is a gentle rebuke for some who are in the “cage stage" and may be using this book as ammunition to attack brothers and sisters who may not agree with their flower of choice. It is also a good reminder for those of us who have grown out of the “cage stage”, lest we necessitate a re-caging.
I am a Horton fan, from the White Horse Inn to Modern Reformation, to his systematic theology and his preaching, and I am a fan of this book. I will admit, as with everything I have read by Horton, at times I get left behind in the text, a little lost. Olson's writing style is much more suited to introductions to issues. Against Calvinism, while not watered down, was a much easier read for me than For Calvinism was at a few parts. Being said, I would commend this book to all and encourage any who may get bogged down at parts to keep working through it. The payoff from this book is worth the effort. I would agree with Roger Olson, mostly, on his recommendation of the book from the foreword.
Anyone interested in reading the best case possible for Calvinism must read this book. It is informative, engaging, clear, and self-critical. It helpfully contributes to the ongoing discussions and debates about God's sovereignty among evangelicals...After reading this book I can recommend it wholeheartedly with the reservation that I strongly disagree with its central claims...It is possible to be committed and fair, critical and generous. For Calvinism proves it and my hearty endorsement reveals it.--Roger Olson
October 16, 2024
I am not a Calvinist. But I thought this was a very solid and fair read. I got a lot out of reading Horton’s perspectives and beliefs here. I’m looking forward to reading its counterpart by Olsen next!
Rating: 7/10, four stars
Rating: 7/10, four stars
October 29, 2021
This book is packed with great insight and history into Calvinism. Also recommmended.
March 3, 2024
I intend to write a thorough review after I finish the companion book “Against Calvinism”
December 10, 2014
Today's Calvinism needs more spokesmen (or spokeswomen ;)) like Michael Horton. And today's Arminianism needs more spokesmen like Roger Olson, who would happen to be slightly more comfortable with spokeswomen. And, continuing the theme of needs, American Evangelicalism needs more charitable dialogue like this. (However, we could do without wilted tulip book covers like the one on "Against Calvinism," as it tends to hand the reader a preformed opinion in the form of subtle, presuppositional visual.)
Both men are gifted writers and theologians, and their writing is clear and articulate. Slightly scholarly, but still accessible. I would implore American Evangelicals to read both books, if for nothing else, than to gain a better perspective of two prominent views in our current theological landscape.
Since this review is specifically under "For Calvinism," I'll add that, from this book, I particularly benefited from the final fourth, where I was enriched by the solid, cross-pollinateable nature of Horton's nearly devotional content. (It'll preach.) There is a lot to learn and apply from this portion, regardless of whether the reader chooses the wilted tulips, full-bloom happy tulips, or even happy tulips with a petal or two missing.
How do I rate books like this? (Books with opposing viewpoints, and knowing ahead that I fit more into one perspective than the other.) By the cover? (No.) By which view you most agree with? (I think not.) Instead, I'm rating them (Goodreads) based on their readability, depth, and tone, as well as how they portrayed the opposing view. Of course, I think the Goodreads rating system is not quite precise enough, so while I'm clicking four stars for each of them, "For Calvinism" would land on the upper spectrum of 4-stars, while Olson's dying tulip version shines as a slightly dimmer version of the same 4-star rating.
If I am able to morph into superwoman, I'll possibly review these books on my blog and henceforth replace this with a more in-depth review; in the very unlikely event of that occurring, I'll simply leave this here for now and, possibly, for eternity, too. Meanwhile, I'm electing to enter into my preordained time of sleep, because when I write book reviews late at night, they end up sounding like this one.
Both men are gifted writers and theologians, and their writing is clear and articulate. Slightly scholarly, but still accessible. I would implore American Evangelicals to read both books, if for nothing else, than to gain a better perspective of two prominent views in our current theological landscape.
Since this review is specifically under "For Calvinism," I'll add that, from this book, I particularly benefited from the final fourth, where I was enriched by the solid, cross-pollinateable nature of Horton's nearly devotional content. (It'll preach.) There is a lot to learn and apply from this portion, regardless of whether the reader chooses the wilted tulips, full-bloom happy tulips, or even happy tulips with a petal or two missing.
How do I rate books like this? (Books with opposing viewpoints, and knowing ahead that I fit more into one perspective than the other.) By the cover? (No.) By which view you most agree with? (I think not.) Instead, I'm rating them (Goodreads) based on their readability, depth, and tone, as well as how they portrayed the opposing view. Of course, I think the Goodreads rating system is not quite precise enough, so while I'm clicking four stars for each of them, "For Calvinism" would land on the upper spectrum of 4-stars, while Olson's dying tulip version shines as a slightly dimmer version of the same 4-star rating.
If I am able to morph into superwoman, I'll possibly review these books on my blog and henceforth replace this with a more in-depth review; in the very unlikely event of that occurring, I'll simply leave this here for now and, possibly, for eternity, too. Meanwhile, I'm electing to enter into my preordained time of sleep, because when I write book reviews late at night, they end up sounding like this one.
March 17, 2021
Interesting insights into why and how Calvinism is gospel-centric.
November 12, 2013
I have been waiting for a book to make sense of Calvinism and its harmony with free will. I guess I will have to keep looking. While the other has a lot of of good to say--those good parts reflect more general Christian truths. In many places the author seems to get sidetracked and simple makes general statements about things all Christians would agree on (the importance of Scripture etc.). The problem the author, and other Calvinist, run into is that they have to come up with a pile of extra-biblical terms to explain the biblical ones they believe are obvious (revealed will, secret will, etc).
Horton also quotes a lot of Scripture as though his case were self-evident--but it isn't. It would be nice to be able to string several quotes together and have your reader automatically see what you see, but in this case there needed to be more metaphor and simile to drive the points home.
The strongest part of the book is the final chapter where he evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the Reformed tradition. His honesty and call for humility are excellent--even if his exposition of Calvinism not only left me confused but very bored.
Horton also quotes a lot of Scripture as though his case were self-evident--but it isn't. It would be nice to be able to string several quotes together and have your reader automatically see what you see, but in this case there needed to be more metaphor and simile to drive the points home.
The strongest part of the book is the final chapter where he evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the Reformed tradition. His honesty and call for humility are excellent--even if his exposition of Calvinism not only left me confused but very bored.
Read
June 4, 2020This has always been a fascinating subject for me: Calvinism. Well, Michael Horton has conducted a fine survey of the Calvinist worldview. He does a great job of showing how Reformed Theology stands for much more than just the 5 points of TULIP. Horton is to be commended for explaining Calvinism (often juxtaposing it with Arminianism) in such an irenic manner.
However, if you'd like to read about my nagging question with Calvinism you can read more on my BLOG
In short, I remain unconvinced of the scheme until it adequately answers the question of 1 Timothy 2:4 - "God desires all people to be saved." And if He only elects some, and passes over the rest, then why is His will at odds with His desire? It's Calvinism's highly deterministic view of God that I have most trouble with. Sovereignty should never be reduced to the idea of determinism. And, in my view, Calvinism commits that error.
However, if you'd like to read about my nagging question with Calvinism you can read more on my BLOG
In short, I remain unconvinced of the scheme until it adequately answers the question of 1 Timothy 2:4 - "God desires all people to be saved." And if He only elects some, and passes over the rest, then why is His will at odds with His desire? It's Calvinism's highly deterministic view of God that I have most trouble with. Sovereignty should never be reduced to the idea of determinism. And, in my view, Calvinism commits that error.
October 1, 2015
Humble in tone, genuine in demeanor, saturated with scripture, bolstered by the wisdom of our forefathers, this accessible read on "Calvinism" is highly recommended to the Calvinist, Arminian, the undecided as well as the uninitiated. Much of benefit is discussed in its pages.
I greatly appreciated that in addition to the clear treatment of the "doctrines of grace" (more or less TULIP), this discussion was placed in the greater context of Reformed Theology. Too often the former is isolated from the other doctrines of the latter, or the latter is collapsed into the basic formulas of the former. In reality, a Reformed theology, or "Calvinism", is something other than TULIP, much more than even the doctrines of grace, a framework that is concerned with the whole of the Christian faith, doctrine as well as devotion, enjoying God in the pursuit of his glory, passionate not just to get the gospel right but to get it out.
I greatly appreciated that in addition to the clear treatment of the "doctrines of grace" (more or less TULIP), this discussion was placed in the greater context of Reformed Theology. Too often the former is isolated from the other doctrines of the latter, or the latter is collapsed into the basic formulas of the former. In reality, a Reformed theology, or "Calvinism", is something other than TULIP, much more than even the doctrines of grace, a framework that is concerned with the whole of the Christian faith, doctrine as well as devotion, enjoying God in the pursuit of his glory, passionate not just to get the gospel right but to get it out.
July 25, 2016
I first read Roger Olson's Against Calvinism before tackling this one. I have learned more about this debate than I ever knew by reading both of these. One of the biggest take-aways is, being one who takes a classical approach to theology like the early reformers, is that not all Arminians are created equal. What I mean by that is that some actually hold a very high view of the sovereignty of God while still maintaining an aspect of free will that places the human in the driving seat. I wrongfully assumed that all Arminians were Pelagian, or at least semi Pelagian. If you want to have a much deeper understanding of this debate reach both books for and against Calvinism.
In the end, it doesn't matter the movement name, the terminology, etc., but the word of God be preached and the Gospel presented to an unbelieving world. May we be faithful followers of Christ careful to love brothers and sisters who take a different view on these controversial topics.
In the end, it doesn't matter the movement name, the terminology, etc., but the word of God be preached and the Gospel presented to an unbelieving world. May we be faithful followers of Christ careful to love brothers and sisters who take a different view on these controversial topics.
February 12, 2012
Michael Horton is fair in this book, but the only people his is going to convince that he is right about Calvinism is fellow Calvinist. He proof texts the scripture and proof texts church history to make his case.
In a court case the plaintiff lays a case against the defense. Roger Olson created a case against Calvinism in his companion book, Against Calvinism, to this book. Unfortunately, Horton does little to defend his side. Critical issues like corporate election are glossed over, but not adequately addressed. If fact, where Olson presents specific texts in the original greek that seem to support corporate election, Hortons responds by siting the same verses in English. Fellow Calvinist will be satisfied but no one else should be.
In a court case the plaintiff lays a case against the defense. Roger Olson created a case against Calvinism in his companion book, Against Calvinism, to this book. Unfortunately, Horton does little to defend his side. Critical issues like corporate election are glossed over, but not adequately addressed. If fact, where Olson presents specific texts in the original greek that seem to support corporate election, Hortons responds by siting the same verses in English. Fellow Calvinist will be satisfied but no one else should be.
August 1, 2016
This is one book in a two part set "Against Calvinism/For Calvinism"
Michael Horton does a good job of being honest about the beliefs central to the system of thought know as Calvinism. He is articulate and very civil. As expected of course there were some straw man arguments (ability to respond =merit, exercise of the free will leads inevitably to boasting, etc). But Horton was not harsh or exaggerating. Since he is considered by some to be a leading intellectual in the YRR, this is a good place to start to hear Calvinism defined by one of their own.
Michael Horton does a good job of being honest about the beliefs central to the system of thought know as Calvinism. He is articulate and very civil. As expected of course there were some straw man arguments (ability to respond =merit, exercise of the free will leads inevitably to boasting, etc). But Horton was not harsh or exaggerating. Since he is considered by some to be a leading intellectual in the YRR, this is a good place to start to hear Calvinism defined by one of their own.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews