What Attracts People into the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement?

What Attracts People into the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement?

That is probably the question I’m asked most often when I talk about the “new Calvinism” that has swept up thousands of Christian young people in the last twenty to thirty years. There’s no doubt this has been and is a religious phenomenon. Most recently even the New York Times has taken notice; a few years ago Time magazine mentioned it as one of ten great ideas changing the world. Everyone seems to be talking about it even though it’s not exactly new.

I first became aware of the Young, Restless, Reformed Movement (YRRM) before anyone thought to give it that moniker. I was teaching theology at Baptist-related Bethel College and Seminary (now Bethel University) in Minnesota. John Piper had left the faculty to take the pulpit at nearby Bethlehem Baptist Church about a year before I arrived. He was still much discussed by students and faculty alike and seemed to have been a polarizing figure on campus. People tended either to love him or despise him. I had read his article about “Christian Hedonism” in HIS magazine (the now defunct publication of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) before then and had met Piper when I first visited Bethel a few years before joining its faculty. (I still have that article in my files! I tore it out of the issue thinking maybe someday it would be important to have. Little did I know….)   Continue at Roger Olson

Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?

One of the reasons I started this blog was to provide a place to talk about Arminian issues, issues related to Arminian theology. (There is no “Arminian movement” as such, so all talk about Arminianism is about theology.) One of those questions is whether open theism, “openness of God” theology, is a version of Arminianism. Does it belong under the umbrella category “Arminian theology” or is it a “stand alone” theology vis-à-vis Arminianism? Are they separate or should Arminianism be regarded as the larger, broader doctrinal perspective and open theism a particular angle on that perspective?

Generally speaking, open theists want to be considered Arminians. Most of them were Arminians before becoming open theists; they still consider themselves Arminians. (A few open theist jumped right from some version of Reformed theology into open theism.)

Generally speaking, non-open theist Arminians do not want to include open theists among their ranks or treat open theism as a variation of Arminianism.

I think there are political reasons for that. Among evangelicals, anyway, Arminianism has long been accepted as a respectable tradition even by most Reformed evangelicals who strongly disagree with it. Arminians were among the founders of the National Association of Evangelicals. Who can seriously doubt that John Wesley should be considered evangelical? Yes, of course, there are those Calvinists and Lutherans who would like to own the label “evangelical” and exclude Arminians, but that’s not widely accepted by the movers and shakers of evangelicalism. If open theism can be considered Arminian, that gives open theists more of a voice, a place at the table, among evangelicals.  Continue at Roger Olson

Can We Judge the Morality of God?

The debate between monergists and synergists has to be fought anew in each generation, for there is nothing more opposed to man's inherent exaltation of his own powers of will than the recognition of the sovereign freedom of grace. While we can, and do, benefit greatly from the efforts of those who have gone before us, the fact remains that each generation of believers is faced with the same question, and must come to grips with the ramifications of the answers given.

When Roger Olson announced he was releasing a book, part of a two-book counter-point effort along with Michael Horton, titled Against Calvinism, there was hope for something that might engage the real strength of Reformed theology—the clear and consistent exegesis of the biblical text that the "young, restless and Reformed" have found so compelling. But even before its release, Dr. Olson gave clear indication that its focus was not going to be exegetical. Instead, as the book substantiated, his argument can be summarized fairly easily: the God of Calvinism is a "moral monster," and Calvinists simply need to think through their beliefs far enough to see what Olson has been able to see. Keep Reading >>>

Warning to Calvinists: Don’t Let Your Love for Truth Excuse Factionalism

Two new books address a familiar controversy:

• Michael Horton. For Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.  [PDF sample]
• Roger E. Olson. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. [PDF sample]

(Horton wins hands-down on the more attractive book cover—not to mention the argument!)

Horton’s last chapter is entitled “Calvinism Today: A SWOT Analysis.” Here’s how he introduces it:

We know from daily experience that our greatest strengths can also become our greatest weaknesses.

1. Persistence can become stubbornness;
2. sympathy can devolve into sentimentality; and
3. genuine concern for others sometimes turns into an obsequious craving for approval.
4. Remarkable gifts of leadership and creativity can be used for good or ill, depending on the motivation and the goals.
5. The same is true of movements, since they are largely the collective activity of people like us.

It has become popular for businesses and organizations to conduct a periodical “SWOT” analysis, exploring

1. Strengths,
2. Weaknesses,
3. Opportunities, and
4. Threats.

Read the rest HERE

Against Calvinism

Roger Olson's Against Calvinism is the companion volume to Michael Horton's For Calvinism (both published by Zondervan). The two are the latest entries in the long-standing Calvinist/Arminian debate, and the debate shows no signs of resolution or letting up—despite the efforts of these recent salvos. I believe Olson's case is particularly weak and I will give my reasons for the assessment below. But first, I will offer readers a short and standard review of Olson's book. That is, I will present Olson's aims, summarize the content of the book and briefly summarize the chapters. I will make some brief and general criticisms, but I will save the strongest and most in-depth for part two.

Part I

Roger Olson wants his readers to know that he's not against Calvinists as persons, but he feels he needs to give their doctrines a strong "No!" His main target is identified as neither Reformed theology en toto, nor Calvinism en toto, but a subset of doctrines ostensibly recognized as Calvinism: TULIP (the acronym stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). To be more precise, Olson does not even have the conjunction of TULIP in his sights. Thus by "against Calvinism," what Olson means is that he "is opposed to any and every belief system that includes the 'U,' the 'L,' and/or the 'I' in TULIP" (62). But even here it's not exactly clear what he's against. He writes strongly against each of these three, and seems to suggest that he is against them individually and jointly. He claims that the 'U' and the 'I' "always appear together, but is most strongly against the 'L.' But then he claims that "the 'L' . . . is necessarily implied by the 'U' and the 'I'" (62). This doesn't seem right. Olson seems to suggest that if a Calvinist were a universalist like Barth, then the moral charges filed against God would vanish. And there are universalists who hold to the 'U' and the 'I.' Olson would need to show how those necessarily imply the 'L.' I for one welcome that argument as it would force all universalists to become libertarians—which in turn would make it very hard for God to ensure universalism! In any event, I can't see how the 'U' and the 'I' necessarily imply the 'L,' though it makes it more hard to deny the 'L' if you affirm a populated eternal hell. So it might look as if he really only has issue with the 'L,' or the 'L' conjoined with the 'U' and the 'I.' However, Olson does say that any form of determinism or compelling does not allow for real relationships of any kind (cf. pp. 166-168). This obtains with the 'I.' And with the 'U,' Olson claims that "sheer logic" shows that 'U' implies God makes an arbitrary choice" (115). Presumably God can't make arbitrary choices, and so 'U' can't obtain. So it appears to me that Olson is against "ULI" individually and jointly.   Keep Reading...