Skip to content

Miniblog #82: Three Thoughts on Roger Olson’s ‘Against Calvinism’

by Carson T. Clark on September 18, 2011

Three thoughts about Roger Olson’s forthcoming book, Against Calvinism:

  1. The defensive/hostile posture is off-putting. Yes, I realize that the book is a companion to Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. Yes, I realize authors often don’t have as much creative control as they’d like, especially over titles. Yes, I realize publishers, in this case Zondervan, like controversial titles that are easy to market. Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the fact that the title and cover cast the work in such a way that little helpful discussion can take place. It’ll simply further calcify what are in my estimate unhelpful bifurcations. To quote Scar 3D, “Ohhhh, goodie.”
  2. The topic is worn out. Do we really need another polemical work for/against Arminianism and Calvinism? Yes, I’m quite certain that my own views heavily filter my perception of this book’s worth. Specifically, in my opinion the greatest commonality of the dual systems is their legacy of obscuring rather than illuminating the biblical text. Yes, I realize Olson is probably the foremost contemporary Arminian theologian. Don’t care. This isn’t a book that needs to be written.
  3. Olson is dropping like a rock on my list of favorite theologians. There was a time in which he ranked #1. His books How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity, and 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age were deeply influential upon my faith, helping me not only salvage but restored my love of theology after it’d been decimated by the culture at two conservative Bible colleges. I shall forever be indebted to him for that, but his insistence upon writing books like Against Calvinism and Finding God in the Shack: Seeking Truth in a Story of Evil and Redemption keeps reinforcing the fact that he’s digressing into more of a pop thinker than a serious scholar. If ever he was, he’s simply no longer on par with the Stanley Hauerwases, Alister McGraths, N.T. Wrights, and Kevin Vanhoozers of the world. In my favorite movie, Finding Forrester, the villainous English teacher describes Sean Connery’s character as “an author who could have offered much more.” I’ve begun to think the same of Olson.
From: Uncategorized
  • Justin Burkholder

    The withering flowers on the cover are a nice touch, representing maybe the dying face of calvinism? Ha…your first point is right on!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=163800114 Matthew Blaise Brankatelli

      dead T.U.L.I.P.s

    • http://carsontclark.wordpress.com Carson T. Clark

      It’s a clever cover. I’ll give ‘em that much.

  • http://danutm.wordpress.com DanutM

    Carson,
    I am awfully busy preparing for a business trip, but I cannot pass this. I (again?) totally agree with what you say here. This is scary. We should deliberately look for a polemic.
    I don’t like very much this series by Zondervan. This publisher started to upset me a lot, by lowering so much the standards of publishing and of academics, to please the American Evangelical ‘vulgus’. The X Views series is the same. Really diappointing.

    I like Roger Olson too, a lot. But I am as well worry of this futile polemic. I am not a Calvinist, like Horton, but neither am I an Arminian, like Olson; and I violently refuse to be forced into this Procrustean bed of choosing between two extra-Biblical ideologies.

    • http://carsontclark.wordpress.com Carson T. Clark

      “I like Roger Olson too, a lot. But I am as well worry of this futile polemic. I am not a Calvinist, like Horton, but neither am I an Arminian, like Olson; and I violently refuse to be forced into this Procrustean bed of choosing between two extra-Biblical ideologies.”

      Hear, hear!

    • Charles Twombly

      Well said, Danut. (Well said, Carson.)

    • Rich

      Late to respond here, but I very much like DanutM’s formulation as well “I violently refuse to be forced into this Procrustean bed of choosing between two extra-Biblical ideologies.”

  • Pingback: Miniblog #82: Three Thoughts on Roger Olson’s ‘Against Calvinism’ « Musings of a Hardlining Moderate « Persona

  • http://twitter.com/craigadams49 Craig L. Adams (@craigadams49)

    I completely disagree with you, Carson. I am looking forward to the book, and I think it is very necessary in the present context — with the rise of the new Calvinism in the evangelical church today. The over reaction to Love Wins was a reminder that these are divisive people. (I’m not defending the book particularly. I’m drawing attention to the over-reaction.)

    I also disagree that Arminianism is a system. Calvinism is a system of thought. Yes. But, Arminianism is most commonly just: ‘everything else that isn’t Calvinism.” People do not follow Arminius or his disciples with the same devotion Calvinists have for Calvin. Yes, there are followers of Arminius around, and people who advocate Classical Arminianism. But, many of us in the Wesleyan tradition (for example) are happy to play fast and loose in our devotion to both Arminius and Wesley. They have given us cues. They have pointed us in a direction that we want to go. But, we are not under the impression that Arminianism dropped down from Heaven, or that it IS the systematic presentation of Biblical truth. It is a way of approaching Christian teachings. It is open to new perspectives that help us to understand our faith in better ways.

    But, there are Calvinists that DO believe that Calvinism is the systematic presentation of Biblical truth. There are Calvinists that DO suggest that people who don’t think their way might not be saved.

    • http://carsontclark.wordpress.com Carson T. Clark

      I always respect your view and am thankful for your thoughts, even when my own do not align. Thank you for sharing. I hope others will read what you’ve written and be challenged to rethink their assumptions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/leostaley Leo Staley

      So I have on of my first major disagreements with one of Carson’s posts, and one of his friends, (you, Craig) basically gives the response I was going to give. I’m beginning to think I don’t have a single original thought rolling around my noggin.

      Though, i would add as well: We were not the audience for Finding God in The Shack. Considering the lay audience intended, i think it’s only fair that we cut him some slack for it.

      And, as Craig points out, Arminianism is just a catch-all for “not Calvinist,” meaning, because you’re not Calvinist, you ARE in fact Arminian. :)

    • http://carsontclark.wordpress.com Carson T. Clark

      I reject such binary categorization.

    • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com jasdye

      I happen to reject your rejection.

  • Drew Downs

    Hey Carson,

    I understand the concern, but I don’t have a problem with academics changing audiences. Two perfect examples of this are John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright whose early work is extraordinarily scholarly and then shifted toward a more general audience, having a much wider, and more profound effect. I also point out that Wright low-browed it with an intro series “for everyone” and McGrath Stooped to write a rebuttal to the new atheists, something that I took as ridiculous as you have taken this one from Olsen. Now, we can all agee that those “The Gospel According to … ” books are just out of bounds…

    Oh, and Zondervan is known for manufacturing controversy. He might not have known this was going to happen with it.

  • Pingback: Miniblog #82: Three Thoughts on Roger Olson’s ‘Against Calvinism’ « Musings of a Hardlining Moderate