Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology

by Oliver D. Crisp

Deviant Calvinism seeks to show that the Reformed tradition is much broader and more variegated than is often thought. Crisp’s work focuses on a cluster of theological issues concerning the scope of salvation and shows that there are important ways in which current theological discussion of these topics can be usefully resourced by attention to theologians of the past.

The scope of atonement, in particular, is once again a hot topic in current evangelical theology. This volume addresses that issue via discussion of eternal justification, whether Calvinists can be free-will libertarians (like Arminian theologians); whether the Reformed should be universalists, and if they are not, why not; whether Reformed theology is consistent with a universal atonement; and whether the hypothetical universalism of some Calvinists is actually as eccentric and strange a doctrine as is sometimes thought. This book contributes to theological retrieval within the Reformed tradition, and establishes a wider path to thinking Calvinism differently.

Genres: Theology, History, Christianity, Christian

274 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2014

About the author

Oliver D. Crisp (PhD, University of London, DLitt, University of Aberdeen) is professor of analytic theology at the University of St. Andrews. He is the author of several books, including Analyzing Doctrine: Toward a Systematic Theology, Saving Calvinism: Expanding the Reformed Tradition, Jonathan Edwards Among The Theologians, and The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ. He is a founding editor of the Journal of Analytic Theology, and co-organizes the annual Los Angeles Theology Conference with Fred Sanders.

Reviews

[Wayne Larson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enjoyable read. I'm not accustomed to reading analytic theology, but Crisp gave me no trouble at all. (The mark of a good teacher.) This quote from the conclusion describes his efforts fittingly:

"Too often in recent theology, Reformed divines have presented their own tradition as something much narrower than it actually is. A small section of the spectrum of views on several nodal theological topics are commonly presented as the only live options, or even as the only dogmatically tolerable ones within the bounds of theological orthodoxy as understood by confessional Calvinists. If this volume goes some way toward redressing that balance and challenging Reformed thinkers to look again at the wealth and diversity of the tradition to which they belong, then it will have succeeded in the task for which its author sent it out into the world."

[Jack Hayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crisp’s book is dense, but if you stick with him, he leads you to the realization that the prevailing consensus on what constitutes Reformed theology is both limited and ahistorical. He does this in part by deconstructing common assumptions about Calvinism, particularly determinism, particularism, limited atonement, and the potential scope of universalism. Criso demonsrates all that is good with analytical theology employing both historical insight and constructive theology.

For me, this book was necessary. While I am Reformed, I often don’t feel Reformed when talking to other Reformed. Perhaps Crisp is right—I’ve felt disconnected from true Reformed theology because of a folk understanding and an ahistorical perspective on the tradition.

91%—What a title.

[Caleb Watson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good work of analytic theology. Crisp argues that historic and confessionally reformed theology is significantly broader than popular contemporary expositions of the tradition.

He does so by arguing that reformed theology does not necessitate that adherents hold to beliefs such as determinism and limited atonement. With respect to the latter, Crisp’s arguments are very persuasive. In light of these arguments, it is difficult for me to see why anyone would continue to affirm limited atonement.

Given his defense of the possibility of Calvinists affirming libertarian free-will, I do wish that Crisp had devoted some time to address whether or not Molinism is compatible with a broader understanding of reformed theology. Clearly some confessions, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, deny Molinism. However, it seems to me that other confessions, such as the Anglican 39 Articles of the Christian Religion, may be compatible with a Molinist approach.

Nevertheless, it would be unfair of me to criticize the author for failing to explore issues of personal fascination to me. Overall, “Deviant Calvinism” is helpful, well-reasoned, and charitable. If only the same could be said of contemporary Calvinism’s loudest and most popular adherents.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am going to be writing a complete review of this book in the near future. However, with that being said, there is no doubt that Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology should be required reading for all Reformed pastors/seminarians. All of these chapters are invaluable. There really does need to be some reexamining within the Reformed tradition, and Crisp does an excellent job of introducing the reader to important topics. Highly recommended.

[Caleb Falbo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oliver Crisp writes in a very clear and thought provoking way. As an analytical theologian, he seeks to make the case that the Reformed tradition contains a much broader and more diverse set of beliefs than is often thought.

What Crisp does in this book is articulate how many of the divergent views within the Reformed tradition may be viewed as maintaining consistency with the historic creeds and confessions of faith. He addresses such divergent views as "Libertarian Calvinism," universalism (broad, Augustinian, and Barthian), various views of atonement, justification, etc. Although Crisp opines that many of these varying views may be seen as logically consistent with Reformed tenets, he is careful not to discount the fact that they may be in serious error Biblically. By and large, he does not endorse these views, but he is sympathetic to the tensions that they seek to address.

Although it seems to have been outside the intended scope of this book, it seems that Crisp would have done well to address each of the exegetical issues faced with these particular views. My biggest concern is that he does well in addressing logical consistency, but leaves much to be desired in terms of exegetical tenability. In fairness, he is aware and acknowledges that exegesis is of premium importance; however, I believe his analysis would have been better established had he given some more thorough exegetical considerations in each issue faced.

I will definitely read more of Crisp's work, as his clarity is second to none.

[Connor Brooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crisp strikes again!

Oliver Crisp is an absolute delight to read. His insights and humble spirit shine through the pages in this book. His attempt to open the eyes of folks like myself who don't come from the Reformed tradition has succeeded in a major way. So thankful for Oliver's ecumenical heart and his ability to spell out complex ideas in such a clear way. Highly recommend this one to anyone who is looking for some information into the rich Reformed tradition.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Crisp's book both weird and fun to read - he doesn't advocate any particular viewpoint, but is more concerned with whether a particular view is logically defensible and/or within the bounds of the Reformed tradition. It feels odd (and refreshing) to read someone who is so determined to present other people's views in the best possible light while also engaging them critically.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

There’s a famous scene in JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings where Frodo has finally reached the volcanic Mount Doom in Mordor, and is just about to throw the Ring into the fire, but at the last minute succumbs to the Ring’s power and refuses to let it go. I was reminded of this scene while reading through Crisp’s excellent book. Crisp raises what I believe is the key question when it comes to Calvinism: Why would an all POWERFUL and all LOVING God allow humanity to suffer everlasting punishment in hell? (This is the so-called “soteriological problem of evil.”) This is NOT a question of “justice” by the way, but a question of God’s LOVE. If God is perfect love, AND he has the perfect means – through Christ’s death on the cross – to save ALL of us, who he says he loves perfectly, then why DOESN’T he save us all? To put it another way, if you had children, and ALL of your children were dying, and you had an UNLIMITED SUPPLY the perfect CURE for their disease, wouldn’t you decide to save all of them? Wouldn’t this be a no brainer? Why would you even contemplate leaving even one of your children to die – or worse, to suffer damnation in hell for ALL OF ETERNITY?

It’s THE question that’s been burning in my own mind for as long as I remember being a Christian (I was raised in the church). In my mind, it’s an inescapable question for anyone who calls himself “reformed” or a “Calvinist.” To Crisp’s credit, he doesn’t fall back on the historical answer which was that it was somehow wrong to even ASK the question in the first place. (To quote 17th century thinker Davenant, the question “ought not to be inquired, since it cannot be solved; but must be referred to the secret will of God.”)

One POSSIBLE answer to this question, and the answer that I believe Crisp WOULD LIKE to be true, is “universalism”—that God DOES eventually save all humans in a way we simply do not understand. However, this response “has a theological cost that most traditional Augustinians will find too high, namely, that universalism does not comport with a traditional understanding of Scripture.” This is where Crisp, in my opinion, is like Frodo walking away from the fires of Mordor, the Ring still securely in hand. Rather than take on the challenge and make an argument for universalism, he walks away from the question and falls back to what I think is a misguided answer based on “justice” rather than “love.”

Crisp simply has no answer to the soteriological question of evil. He doesn’t know why God doesn’t save us all. The best he can say is that God is not OBLIGED to save us all. In other words, Crisp argues that even if Christ’s death led to saving just ONE human being – in fact even if Christ’s death ultimately led to NO ONE being saved – that simply by his crucifixion Jesus Christ has done more than he was ever obligated to humanity to do. Therefore, Crisp argues that the salvation of even a limited number of human beings is essentially icing on the cake. God is not obliged to save us, and therefore even if he saves some of us, that proves his love for us.

Unfortunately for Crisp, the soteriological problem of evil is NOT a problem concerning God’s “obligation” to humanity. No one is arguing that God is OBLIGED to save humanity. Let’s say you had an adult daughter who decided to go swimming. You happened to see she was drowning in the swimming pool. No one is arguing that you as the parent of the adult daughter is “obligated” to save her from drowning. At least that’s not the ESSENCE of the argument. The argument is that as her father OF COURSE you would TRY to save her from drowning. You would try to save her because you LOVE her. It’s not that you are somehow legally or contractually obligated to try to save your daughter. You love your daughter so you would naturally WANT to save her. In the same way, if God LOVES all people, and he has the MEANS to save all people, why WOULDN’T he save all people? Crisp’s reliance on the concept of “obligation” here is I believe severely misguided.

In the end, Crisp ultimately comes to the same conclusion as his forebears: “God passes over others, according to God’s good pleasure and will. We are not given to understand why this is the case, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture that this is how God arranges thing.” In other words, it’s the “secret will of God.” My riposte to this answer is maybe the “secret will of God” is actually to SAVE everyone in a way that might not make sense to us today but is part of God’s good pleasure and will. After all, we’re talking about God’s secret will. By definition, we don’t know what it is. I would rather err on the side of MORE love, not LESS love.

The thing is, things are changing. And Crisp himself cites to a number of theologians, including evangelicals, who are beginning to make a serious case for true universalism. I’m interested to explore what these other writers have to say. And this book was an excellent introductory platform to move onto those other works. But in the end, I just wonder if Crisp could have gone a little further in making the case for universalism, especially a case that would be compatible with traditional, orthodox Calvinism.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Както обикновено много оригинално, ерудирано и нелеко четиво. Но определено си струва.

[Mikeskinner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oliver Crisp’s latest book, Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology, is an attempt to demonstrate that the Reformed tradition is much broader and wider than it is commonly characterized. His book succeeds in accomplishing this task. Indeed, I was eager to read this book because of my own theological history. I was once part of the young, restless, and Reformed crowd. Gradually, I grew out of my hyper-calvinism and into a gray area that was difficult for me to define. I thought perhaps I could (or should) no longer claim the title of “Reformed” … but I often found much of my theological inspiration from Reformed thinkers such as Barth. Crisp confirms my suspicions: Reformed theology is much broader than the neo-puritan calvinism that most people think of when they hear the title.

Reader be warned: this book is not for the faint of heart. It is a work of analytical theology and thus reads very philosophically. For one not familiar with reformed theological jargon or interested in “variant” strands of this tradition, it might be a difficult or tedious book to read. Crisp explores concepts such as eternal justification, libertarian calvinism, Augustinian universalism, and Barthian universalism. His focus is not so much on Scriptural warrant for doctrinal claims as it is on the logic which lies behind certain doctrinal claims – noting what truth claims a doctrine requires or denies. Much of the book revolves around a discussion of various ways one in the Reformed tradition might hold to the belief in universalism. Thus, it was a helpful addition to my current interest in the presence of universalism in evangelicalism.

I recommend this book as a thought-provoking read to all those who are invested in the Reformed tradition.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 3 out of 5]

In "Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology," Oliver Crisp sets out to demonstrate that sincere and convinced Calvinists need not be as rigid as they are commonly depicted (no one accuses Arminians like Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson of being rigid!). Besides the introduction and first chapter on methodology, Crisp spends most of the book on the "L" (limited atonement) petal of TULIP. Admitting his penchant for Christian theologians and thinkers who have been on the fringes, Crisp explores such theological possibilities as "libertarian Calvinism" and "Augustinian Universalism," bringing these into conversation with theologians such as Karl Barth, John Owen and John Davenport. He shows that the early Reformers accepted a wider range of views and discusses particular theologians who exhibited these beliefs, although no attention is paid to how popular such views ever actually became among Christians. Although his explorations rely little on Scripture and more on philosophy, he does provide very helpful and understandable analogies in making his arguments. Although it doesn't detract from the validity of the argument, it is not often clear as to whether Crisp himself holds to the theological possibilities he is exploring. While interesting, this book will likely not appeal to a wide audience; the "elect" who will most benefit from this book will be those who are interested in limited atonement and its Reformed (Calvinist and Arminian) contours.

[Mike Jorgensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great concept, poor execution. I heard a brief interview with Crisp that made me want to read the book. Reformed theology in many modern contexts is extremely narrow and dogmatic and is in desperate need to broaden itself even if that only means back to the original streams. I see the need to broaden reformed theology as a call to bring all things under consideration and not just soteriology and occasional eschatology. This is not what Crisp means and so I didn't quite find what I was looking for.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good work of Analytic Theology, so there's not much in the area of scriptural proof texts or exegesis. The book is more aimed at proving his thesis through the logic of particular doctrines (Eternal Justification, Libertarian Calvinism, Augustinian & Hypothetical Universalism, etc) and how they fit in the Reformed tradition both historically and theologically. I think Crisp does a good job in showing that The Reformed Tradition is much broader than the 5 points of Calvinism.

[Wyatt Houtz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent and accessible book on the Reformed tradition, proving that it is much larger than the TULIP pushers. Discusses the flavors of Reformed Universalism very well. Could be more sympathetic to Barth and it was lacking Moltmann's eschatology of hope. Highly recommend it.

[Nicholas Quient · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not a Calvinist, but I'm also biased. Dr. Crisp is a professor of mine, and his work is marked by charity, clarity, and true exploration. I enjoyed this work, even if I did not go as far as Dr. Crisp in his conclusions.

Read it. Digest it. Revel in its deviancy and see for yourself. Cheers.