by Roger E. Olson Just for the record, I want to explain as clearly as possible why I am opposing a certain kind of Calvinism, and what that Calvinism is that I am opposing. For…
Calvinism
What is Orthodox in One Mind is Heterodox to Most
My recent discussions of heterodoxy vs. orthodoxy and the schisms inherent in any such discussion surfaced a common pattern I have observed among our Calvinist brethren. They seem to exhibit a narrow, almost myopic opinion…
The Biblical Doctrine of Grace for Everybody Else
I have for years found the Calvinist use of the phrase “Doctrines of Grace” to be offensive to the Christian body. Perhaps it is because of the lack of any real set of doctrines derived…
For God So Loved the World?
I was asked the following question by a Calvinistic Christian and want to answer his question in the following post. My initial argument was that for Calvinism, at least with regard to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, an explanation must be given how God is displaying His love towards those whom He has not unconditionally elected unto salvation. I insist that Calvinism dishonors God’s character in this regard, and was asked “why” or “how so” by this individual. I was also asked to demonstrate my answer from Scripture.
Another Fatal Flaw in Calvinism
by Roger E. Olson
The second fatal flaw that I will describe here in (at least some) Calvinism is worse than the first because it touches not only logic but God’s reputation.
Many Calvinists claim that God loves all people. The only way to make this work within the TULIP system is to redefine love so that it loses all meaning. The crucial question facing Calvinism is why God does not save everyone rather than “pass over” many, damning them to eternal suffering forever (when he could save them because election to salvation is unconditional). As Wesley said, “love” such as this makes the blood run cold. There is no sense whatsoever of “love” compatible with being able to save the loved one from eternal loss and suffering and not doing it.
The First Fatal Flaw in the Calvinist System Revisited
by Roger E. Olson Recently I wrote about flaws and fatal flaws in theological systems. All have flaws. Some also have fatal flaws. One I mentioned that I see in the Calvinist system (as articulated…
Roger Olson, “Theological Flaws and Fatal Flaws”
by Roger E. Olson Recently I argued that every theological system has flaws that should be acknowledged so that the entire system is held somewhat lightly and open to revision. One problem is when a…
Friday Files: How Calvinists Blind Side A Text
Scripture is a major part of the whole question of Arminianism and Calvinism. Which sides better represents Scripture? I think many of us can agree that that is the major question. That is the actual…
God and Evil
by Roger E. Olson Obviously, one posted message cannot begin to solve the problem(s) of God and evil. All I want to accomplish here is clear up some misconceptions about the Arminian view and ask…
Dealing With a Dealt-With Deal: An Overview of the Author of Sin Controversy
Even though many of us Arminian e-pologists (as we are affectionately known) have dealt with this issue (see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here), it is still…
How Revelation 3:20 Creates a Dilemma for Calvinism
In Revelation 1, 2, and 3 John prophesies to the seven churches in Asia. The last group he addresses is the church in Laodicea. After addressing the Ladocians, he concludes with the following prophesy:
- (Jesus speaking) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. –Revelation 3:20-22
This passage can be interpreted in two ways, both of which present problems for Calvinism.
The Long Lost Sola? (satire)
A sister in the LORD spurred these thoughts this afternoon. Our Calvinist friends are quick to tout their embrace of the five SOLAs of the Reformation. I don’t blame them at all, for we Arminians…
Jerry Walls, “WHAT IS WRONG WITH CALVINISM?”
Taken from http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/351Walls.htm
WHAT IS WRONG WITH CALVINISM?
One of the most longstanding debates in the history of theology concerns the relationship between predestination and human freedom. On one side of this dispute, the most famous name is John Calvin, and on the other the most noted name is probably John Wesley. Although Wesley was primarily concerned with evangelism and church renewal, the very nature of his work required him to take positions on certain controversial issues. Perhaps the most significant of these involved his disputes with Calvinism; indeed, his work on these issues represents one of his most important contributions to historical theology.
Francis Hodgson, The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted
The expositional sermons of a Methodist preacher on the topic of predestination published in 1855 at the request of his friends. (link)
Arminians are Christians, Barely
In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R. C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, “‘Yes, barely.’ They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.”1 He agrees with J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they “thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all.”2 This is the reason, so the authors are convinced, that “Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principal a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners . . .).3
The Problem with Calvinism is . . .
by Roger E. Olson
People often ask me what is my single most serious problem with Calvinism. Why am I not a Calvinist? First, I like to point out that nobody is obligated to be one. Some evangelicals are under the mistaken impression that Calvinism is the norm for all evangelicalism and that if you’re not a Calvinist you’re somehow defectively evangelical. It is wrongly believed to be the default theology of authentic evangelicalism.
I grew up in the thick of evangelicalism — spiritually nurtured by mentors and peers in Youth for Christ where I rubbed shoulders with evangelicals of many different denominations. We used to debate Calvinism versus Arminianism all the time and we generally agreed to disagree and nevertheless worship and witness together. I don’t remember anyone then telling me I had to be a Calvinist to be a faithful Christian or an evangelical.
The Enemy of my Enemy
Calvinist Greg Welty states: Clearly then, the controversy between Calvinists and non-Calvinists over unconditional election is not the Calvinists’ assertion that God elects some for salvation, since non-Calvinists believe this too. Rather, the controversy is…
Arminius’ Impact on Calvinism
[Editor’s note: It appears that the author uses the term “sublapsarian” as equivalent to the term “infralapsarian.” Many use this language in that way. But some use these terms to refer to different positions.] Arminius…
James Nichols, *Calvinism and Arminianism Compared in Their Principles and Tendency*
James Nichols did a great amout of work getting Arminian books published, but he also wrote a bit himself. Here’s his work Calvinism and Arminianism Compared in Their Principles and Tendency. (link)
Answers to Common Calvinist Questions
Some answers to common Calvinist questions: Q: Why does one person believe in Jesus and not another? Q: Man is dead. How can a dead person believe or do anything? Q: If man is dead…
Recent Posts
X-Calvinist Corner Files: Testimony # 53
Roy Ingle, “What Scripture Says, God Says”
How Do You Interpret Isaiah 45:7?
Video: David Pallmann, “A Critique of Eternal Security Part 1: The Case For Eternal Security Considered”
