Book Review – “Against Calvinism” – Part 1

Why Am I Writing This Article?

(1) I want to help popularize the truth that there are viable alternatives to the Calvinistic system.
(2) I have concerns about what Calvinism means for the reputation of God.

This book by Roger Olsen is very fairly written and not as anti as the title may sound. However, the title does give away the theme pretty clearly.

I understand and have read the responses Calvinists make to each objection you’ll find here. I am not going to explore those here for the sake of time and effort. If you want to see more about that, read the book. 😉

My intention is just to share a few points from the book that I found helpful. This is not a response or systematic criticism of Calvinism, but rather reflections on a book about Calvinism which I hope you will find useful and may prompt you to further study.

In his book, Olsen makes it clear that he is against the system of Calvinism, without being against Calvinists per say. He explains that he works with Calvinists and even describes not marking down his Calvinist students so long as they explain their position accurately (not that he agrees with them, but wants to see that they know what they believe and why). He aims, and I believe succeeds, in giving a viable alternative to Calvinistic tenets without tearing others down or attacking personalities.

Two statements he makes at the beginning of the book share his approach to those he disagrees with, and it is an attitude which is evident throughout the book:

“Before saying ‘I disagree’ be sure you can say ‘I understand’”.
Roger Olsen

“Always represent the other viewpoint as its best adherents represent it.”
Roger Olsen

Throughout the book, Olsen gives a clear understanding of Calvinism and makes no assertions about the belief system without quoting a recognized leader within Calvinism to establish his point.

Why Is Calvinism Seeing a Resurgence?

So many of the brightest and best become vaguely aware that something is missing in their spiritual upbringing, and when they hear the message of Calvinism, they latch onto it as their lifeboat from watery, culturally accommodated spirituality. Who can blame them? However, Calvinism isn’t the only alternative; most of them know little to nothing about either its weaknesses or historically rich, biblically faithful, and more reasonable alternative theologies.
Roger Olsen

Olsen explores why Calvinism, and New Calvinism especially, is seeing such popularity in recent decades. One of the points he raises is one I have seen myself, many turn to Calvinism as a response to a perceived shallowness in their own position. They are dissatisfied with what they have been taught, sometimes with good reason.

But instead of finding answers within a non-Calvinistic framework, they end up abandoning one position in favor of another. There are of course many other reasons within faith and secular society why this may be, but this one seems prevalent.

In the book, Olsen spends a lengthy amount of time discussing modern leaders within Calvinism, the tension between historic Calvinism and New Calvinism, and he quotes extensively from leaders within the movement to establish a timeline. It helps to see what led to its growth, and who has been instrumental in its popularity.

Calvinism and God’s Character and Reputation

I believe Calvinism leads to having to accept inconsistencies in God’s character and reduces God’s glory as it tarnishes God’s reputation.

They focus on God’s sovereignty to the detriment of His love and justice.

Olsen writes regarding the Calvinist’s focus on sovereignty:

So what’s wrong with believing in and celebrating God’s sovereignty? Absolutely nothing! But, it can be and often is taken too far—making God the author of sin and evil—which is something few Calvinists admit to but which follows from what they teach…
Roger Olsen

In Calvinism’s frame work God’s love is limited and His justice is questionable. What does justice mean if someone is judged for doing the only thing they were created with the capability to do?

But do Calvinists really hold to the doctrine of soveriengty to such a degree as to make God the author of evil? Apparently, some do.

John Piper famously published a sermon a few days after the Twin Towers terrorist events of September 11, 2001, declaring that God did not merely permit them but caused them.15 He has since published other statements similarly attributing natural disasters and horrific calamities to God.
Roger Olsen

Making God the author of evil is irreconcilable with His holiness. Whether it means that God allows evil, or at worst, as even some Calvinists admit, actively causes evil, it is problematic at the very least.

Their teaching on sovereignty also leads to what some call double-predestination. This is the teaching that God chooses some to go to Hell just as He elects others to Heaven. On this subject Olsen writes,

Taken to their logical conclusion, that even hell and all who will suffer there eternally are foreordained by God, God is thereby rendered morally ambiguous at best and a moral monster at worst.
Roger Olsen

I have gone so far as to say that this kind of Calvinism, which attributes everything to God’s will and control, makes it difficult (at least for me) to see the difference between God and the devil.
Roger Olsen

But did Calvin teach double-predestination? Do modern leaders within the movement believe this? Here are some quotes from the book that indicate the answer is yes,

Calvin notoriously recognized and affirmed the highly objectionable character of this double predestination and especially the reprobation side of it, calling it “the horrible decree.”
Roger Olsen

Boettner was impatient, to say the least, with Calvinists who argue for single predestination: “ ‘Mild Calvinism’ is synonymous with sickly Calvinism, and sickness, if not cured, is the beginning of the end.”
Roger Olsen

As Olsen moves to discuss the necessity of a genuine free will for man in order for God to not be the author of evil he writes,

The fact is that I, like most non-Calvinist evangelical Christians, embrace free will for two reasons (beyond that we believe it is everywhere assumed in the Bible): it is necessary to preserve human responsibility for sin and evil, and it is necessary to preserve God from being responsible for sin and evil. I can honestly say (as most non-Calvinist evangelicals do) that I don’t give a flip about free will except for those reasons.
Roger Olsen

He also cites John Calvin himself. One reference deals with this idea of God being the cause of all things, even evil:

In Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Geneva’s chief pastor wrote about God’s providence: “We ought undoubtedly to hold that whatever changes are discerned in the world are produced from the secret stirring of God’s hand … what God has determined must necessarily so take place.” The surrounding context, including a vivid illustration about a merchant robbed and killed by thieves, makes absolutely clear that Calvin believed nothing at all can happen that is not foreordained and rendered certain by God. He says that a Christian will realize that nothing is truly an accident, as everything is planned by God.
Roger Olsen

In future posts. I want to walk through the teachings of Calvinism represented by TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints).

But for the time being I wanted to focus on this element of God’s reputation and the danger of teaching inconsistencies in God’s character.

If we line up Calvinism with the Bible there are numerous inconsistencies.

To avoid such inconsistencies, the followers of this system of theology must go to great lengths to explain statements which are easy to interpret at face value when no assumptions are made. For example:

We can easily believe that God loves the whole world and not have to qualify that only a portion is truly loved, as Calvinism teaches.
We don’t have to make great leaps to explain why Peter says that God is not willing that any should perish. We can simply believe that God is not willing that any should perish.
We don’t need to wonder why God commands us to love our enemies, but He condemns His enemies to Hell.
We can read the numerous statements that put belief before salvation. Yet the Calvinist would have us believe that God must, in a sense, save a person in order for them to believe?

Without the assumptions that Calvinism requires, we can allow the Scriptures to say what they mean and mean what they say.

Secondly, what of the reputation of God?

If a non-believer challenges you about why and how God could create someone for the single purpose of seeing them burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity, what can you say? How do you reconcile that with the statement that God is love?

How can we call God just and fair if many are created incapable of doing anything other than committing evil and yet they are judged anyway? They are not free to choose anything apart from sin, and yet they are are held accountable.

While the Calvinist may find a way to be satisfied with these irreconcilable truths, and cope with the subsequent issues with God’s reputation, I cannot find a way to do so myself.

I recommend examining this book yourself or spending some time at www.soteriology101.com for more detailed discussions of Calvinism.

Martin Wickens