A quick look at the Doctrine of Unconditional Election

The Doctrine of Unconditional Election is not for sissies. What I mean by that is if we adhere to this doctrine then we had better be ready for those in unbelief to attack us with their broadsides and accusations. It seems that every Pelagian out there, whether full blown Pelagian or semi-Pelagian or Arminian, is convinced that Man is not dead in his or her trespasses and sins and is fully able to elect God or not. Of course, none of their arguments hold any water because they are derived either from man-centered philosophy or from Bible verses taken out of context (eisegesis). On the other hand, the Doctrines of Grace are all completely Biblical and are based entirely in Holy Scripture expositions done exegetically.   Continue at Mike Ratliff

Predestination: Should We Even Talk About It?

I’d like to begin a series on—get ready—predestination. Yes, I said that word. 

I know this is not the most popular topic to bring up among polite company; in fact, it’s downright divisive, isn’t it? In the fifth century, Augustine recounted in his letters that some said, “The doctrine of predestination is an obstacle to the usefulness of preaching.” And who wants an obstacle? In the sixteenth century, John Calvin had to go out of his way to state that preachers should preach no less on the deity of the Son, the deity of the Holy Spirit, or the creation of the universe than on predestination.

Should we even talk or preach about predestination? Because predestination is a biblical doctrine, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” You see, without predestination, you would have no Bible. Abram was chosen out of Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen. 12). Israel was chosen out of all the nations of the earth (Deut. 4:37; 7:6–8; Ps. 105:6). A new Israelite remnant was chosen after their exile (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:1; 43:1–7; 44:1–2; 45:4). Jesus taught predestination (Matt. 11:25–27; 13:11–16; Mark 4:11–12; John 6:37, 66; 10:26–30; 14:1; 17:6, 9, 11–12). The Apostles taught predestination (Rom. 8:28–39; 9–11; Eph. 1; Phil. 1:6; 2:13; 1 Peter 2:5–10). Since predestination is a biblical doctrine, we must talk about it. The question is how?  Continue at Daniel Hyde

Young Minister Describes Journey in and out of Calvinism

TEMPLE—Austin Fischer became a Calvinist because his reading of the Bible offered him no other choice. He left Calvinism when he could not reconcile its tenets with the self-sacrificial love God demonstrated on the cross of Jesus Christ.

Fischer, teaching pastor at Vista Community Church, a Baptist General Convention of Texas-affiliated congregation in Temple, wrote about his spiritual journey in Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love and a Journey in and out of Calvinism. He is a graduate of the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary.

Like many young evangelicals, the writing of John Piper provided Fischer’s introduction to Calvinism—a system of theology inspired by Reformer John Calvin that emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the depravity of humanity and the predestined election of some to salvation and others to damnation.

As a teenager, Fischer lost interest in the “narcissistic” and shallow idea that Christianity existed just to provide him security and make him feel good, he said. So, his youth minister at Denman Avenue Baptist Church in Lufkin suggested he read Piper’s book, Desiring God.   Continue at Ken Camp

Does Irressitible Grace Make Men into Robots?

Comment: Irresistible grace makes men into ROBOTS

Response: I never heard the Bible make this argument. In fact, it makes the opposite argument, that is a great act of love to help people who cannot help themselves.(Isaiah 42:7; Rom 9:16-21). Its called mercy. It no more makes people into robots than parents who save their disobedient children from danger makes their children into robots. You don't leave your children to themselves. And whether your children want your help at the time or not, you know better than your children what is good for them. Most people call this love. How much more does God know what is good for his children?   Continue at John Hendryx

One for All, or All for Naught? Limited Atonement

The next installment of our little TULIP series on Calvinism is the big L.

This is the boogieman doctrine of Limited Atonement. What is the debate? The issues is usually phrased this way:  “For whom did Christ die, the whole world, or specifically for those who would believe?”

If option A, the whole world, then why are some people in Hell? if option B, only believers, what about the verses that talk about Jesus loving the world? You can see what even some Calvinists disavow this letter, leaving them as diminutive “four-pointers” whose gardens bloom with tu_ips.

Put another way, “Did Jesus die to potentially save everyone or did he die to actually save some?”

John Calvin articulated that the Bible teaches clearly that Christ’s death effectually accomplishes salvation for those he chose to save. His sparring partner Jacobus Arminius said Christ’s death potentially provides salvation for everyone, but not effectually for anyone. If you were to illustrate this on a napkin for someone you might try this…    Continue at Clint Archer

Did Jesus Die to Save Everyone?

The doctrine of definite atonement is nothing if not controversial. That Jesus died to rescue his bride is a precious truth, one all Christians embrace. But the suggestion he didn't die to rescue everyone—well, that doesn't prompt so many hugs. TULIP's middle petal has a particular tendency to provoke muted embarrassment or yawning indifference, if not visceral rejection. Some say it's more logical than biblical. Others say it's too esoteric to be important, or too unloving to be true.

But what if, when properly understood, this difficult doctrine turns out to be not a source of embarrassment but a resource for joy? From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (Crossway) [Website | Twitter] is a towering new tome making the case that definite atonement is not only historically reputable and biblically faithful, but also practically and pastorally glorious. With contributions (and endorsements) from a sterling array of pastors and scholars, this is a volume that deserves serious engagement—regardless of where you lean or land.

I talked with editors David and Jonathan Gibson about "4-pointers," evangelism, whether they oversell their case, and more. Also, be on the lookout for reviews from Jason Duesing (tomorrow) and Robert Yarbrough (Monday).    Continue at Matt Smethurst

10 Reasons Believers are Sovereinly Sealed!

Thank You to airocross.com for this excellent series.

A couple of weeks ago I began a series on the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) in an attempt to systematically show how salvation is a work of God alone and why this must be so.  These articles have been outlined with overwhelming Scriptural evidence revealing the sovereignty of God in His plan of redemption.  The following topics were covered:

1. 10 Reasons Man Needs a Sovereign Savior
2. 10 Reasons God Sovereignly Elects
3. 14 Reasons Christ Sovereignly Redeems (a)
4. 14 Reasons Christ Sovereignly Redeems (b)
5. 10 Reasons the Holy Spirit Sovereignly Draws Men to Salvation

We will now take a look at 10 reasons or evidences proving the security of the born again believer, or “P” of the Calvinistic acronym “TULIP” known as “perseverance (or preservation) of the saints”.  Though a display of God’s love, grace, mercy, and compassion for His people, this doctrine is controversial between Arminians, Calvinists, and folks supposedly in between.

Some believe that Christians must hold on to God to maintain their salvation.  While many who hold to this view would deny they have to work to keep their salvation, this is indeed what this view posits.  It is no different than the view of the Roman Catholic Church that we must remain in the grace of God by our good works (see Romans 9:6).

Others believe that one can walk away from the faith by apostatizing, or by renouncing the essentials of the faith or faith altogether.  This view has a couple of distinctions.  On the one hand, some may say one can lose their salvation by renouncing the faith.  Yet on the other hand, others believe if one renounced their faith they would still be saved because “once saved always saved”.  Neither view, however, is biblical.    Continue at Bob Banks

Are you Reformed?

Richard Lucas is a Resident with The NETS Institute for Church Planting and a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has writen two excellent articles describing the theological map of Reformed thought:

Source: 

Part 1 - Are You Reformed
Part 2 - Are You Reformed 

Perhaps the question has been posed to you at one time or another. The appropriate answer it seems depends almost as much on the questioner as the one replying. For those in the emerging “Young, Restless, and Reformed” category, they might not realize that not everyone else understands the self-describing moniker of “Reformed” in quite the same way.

I have two goals for these blog posts: 

1) to sketch out something of the landscape of those who consider themselves “Reformed”; and 

2) to provide some historical perspective to the development of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym in an effort to perhaps curb some misplaced enthusiasm.

Map of the Reformed Landscape

Here I’m merely surveying from my limited experience those who I’ve run into in the modern American Evangelical landscape. I also will focus on those groups most likely to interest readers of this blog, which is “self-consciously Evangelical, Reformational, and Baptistic.” My sympathies will become apparent as I don’t withhold my own biases along the way.  Continue at John Samson

DOCTRINES OF GRACE – CATEGORIZED SCRIPTURE LIST

God has recently given us the opportunity to discuss some theological issues with other Christians who believe differently than we do on a number of points, most notably the doctrines of grace. In such a circumstance, given the overwhelming supply of scriptural evidence that comes to bear on the topic, it seemed to me that the best approach would be a simple categorized scripture list: the fact that the entire paper would be scriptures, with the exception of a few brief explanatory notes, would underscore the truth that this is God's own word and teaching; and the fact that it would be categorized would facilitate the ready comparison of scripture with scripture so as to lead one to a full-orbed understanding of the biblical teaching. Although I found a few good scripture lists of that nature available online, none of them was laid out in quite the progression that I was looking for, and so I developed my own. I'm posting it here with just the scripture references. Below, for your convenience I have provided a condensed version and a full version of the study. The study is also available in print from Monergism Books. Continue at Monergism

Are you Reformed? (Part 2)

A Brief, Selective History of the Five Points of Calvinism, with respect to TULIP.

As I previously mentioned, in my limited experience the T.U.L.I.P. acronym has taken on a role of huge significance in identifying those who self-describe themselves as Reformed.  While it is something of an historical novelty, these New Calvinists have in mind not necessarily a confessional or ecclesiological definition of being Reformed, but merely a soteriological understanding.  To them, being a Calvinist is to embrace the 5 points of Calvinism, which they readily know by the TULIP acronym.

Historical awareness often has the effect of refining our theological idiosyncrasies, which is surely the case for Calvinists who are still in what I’ve heard affectionately referred to as the “cage stage” (that is the initial period of Calvinistic adherence in which this new zealous proponent is so obnoxious to everyone around him that he has to be locked up in a cage for aboredoMagut 5 years!).

One of the ways that a better knowledge of historical development curbs some of our misplaced enthusiasm is by debunking some misconceptions we had assumed.  I offer three correctives below to some common misconceptions I’ve run into among many in the New Calvinist movement.

1) Calvin Never Debated Arminius and He Did Not Author the Five Points of Calvinism.

 

This first misconception is not propagated in print as far as I know, but I have run into it more than once in more popular circles.  Unless Jacob Arminius was an extremely advanced pre-schooler, then he most likely did not directly enter into theological debate with John Calvin personally.  Calvin died in 1564, before Arminius had even had his fourth birthday.  Not only that, but neither Calvin, nor Arminius knew of the Five Points of Calvinism in any formal sense of the term.  Arminius died in 1609, and it was not until several months after his death that his followers drafted The Five Articles of Remonstrance in 1610, which marked the beginning of the Quinquarticular Controversy (i.e. “having to do with five points”) in the Dutch Reformed Church.  Continue at CredoMag

Are You Reformed (Part 1)

For Those Perplexed by Sovereign Election

“You are perplexed by the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and election. I wonder that any man believing in a God should be perplexed by these. For if there be a God, a ‘King, eternal, immortal, and invisible,’ he cannot but be sovereign,—and he cannot but do according to his own will, and choose according to his own purpose. You may dislike these doctrines, but you can only get rid of them by denying altogether the existence of an infinitely wise, glorious, and powerful Being. God would not be God were he not thus absolutely sovereign in his present doings and his eternal prearrangements.

But how would it rid you of your perplexities to get quit of sovereignty and election? Suppose these were set aside, you still remain the same depraved and helpless being as before. The truth is, that the sinner’s real difficulty lies neither in sovereignty nor election, but in his own depravity. If the removal of these ‘hard doctrines’ (as some call them) would lessen his own sinfulness, or make him more able to believe and repent, the hardship would be at their door; but if not, then these doctrines are no hindrance at all. If it be God’s sovereignty that is keeping him from coming to Christ, the sinner has serious matter of complaint against the doctrine. But if it be his own depravity, is it not foolish to be objecting to a truth that has never thrown one single straw of a hindrance in the way of his return to God? Election has helped many a soul to heaven; but never yet hindered one. Depravity is the hindrance; election is God’s way of overcoming that hindrance. And if that hindrance is not overcome in all, but only in some, who shall find fault? Was God bound to overcome it in all? Was he bound to bring every man to Christ, and to pluck every brand from the burning? Do not blame God for that which belongs solely to yourself; nor be troubled about His sovereignty when the real cause of trouble is your own desperately wicked heart.”

- Horatius Bonar (1808-1889)
taken from: God’s Way of Peace, 1878.

HT:  Eric T. Young

The Gospel Shines Brighter Through the Lens of the Doctrines of Grace

When Charles Spurgeon burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, he appeared heralding the doctrines of sovereign grace. At that time, Calvinism was no longer the dominant theology in England, as it had been in Puritan times. Instead, the doctrines of grace were becoming obscured from public view, cast aside as dusty and archaic relics of primitive sixteenth-century Europe. Victorian England had come of age, it was supposed, and its philosophers championed the autonomy of man, not the sovereignty of God. The teaching of the Reformation had all but faded from the evangelical scene.

But rather than becoming infatuated with the current theological fads, Spurgeon chose to stay true to the old paths, those laid out in Scripture long ago, including the teachings of sovereign grace. He said: “It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.” For Spurgeon, preaching the Bible meant preaching Calvinism. As he saw it, a robust Calvinism was the need of the hour.

 

These transcendent truths—total depravity, unconditional election, definite atonement, irresistible grace, and preserving grace—sharpened Spurgeon’s gospel focus. He declared:

There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else. I do not believe that we preach the Gospel unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah, nor do I think we can preach the Gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend the Gospel which allows saints to fall away after they are called.   Continue at Nathan W. Bingham

Particular Redemption by C.H. Spurgeon

“Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.”—Matthew 20:28.

 

 I begin this morning with the doctrine of Redemption. “He gave his life a ransom for many.”

The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.

Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by His death?” we answer that question by asking him another—”What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them.  Continue at Refocusing Our Eyes

See Also:

Charles Spurgeon on Calvinism — Total Depravity

 

Evangelism and the Extent of the Atonement

At the time in my spiritual life when I began to embrace the doctrines of grace, the one that was hardest to swallow was the L in our beloved TULIP acronym: limited atonement—or perhaps better stated (though ruining the acronym): particular redemption, or definite atonement. To make a long story short, I eventually came to see that the doctrine was biblical. Both the intent and extent of the atonement was divinely ordained to infallibly secure the salvation of all those whom the Father had chosen from before the foundation of the world (John 6:39; 10:11, 14–15; Ac 20:28; Eph 5:25). Jesus’ death didn’t simply make salvation possible, and then leave the appropriation of the cross’s benefits to the sovereign will of the sinner. No, it actually purchased the salvation of God’s elect (1Pet 2:24; Rev 5:9).

Interestingly, one of my chief objections to the doctrine wasn’t so much on textual or exegetical grounds. It was that it contradicted the way I had always heard the Gospel preached in evangelism. All around me, I heard the Gospel preached as if it was merely: “Jesus died for you, so you should believe in Him.” Evangelism boiled down to telling people that Jesus died specifically for them, and that, if He loved them so much that He would die for them, the least they could do was live for Him.  Continue at Mike Riccardi

Unconditional Election

MR: Dr. Packer, what exactly do people mean by unconditional election?

Packer: It is a phrase which folk use to express this thought: that because we sinners are helpless, God has to take all the steps that are necessary in order to bring us to faith and fellowship with himself and finally to eternal life. Unconditional election is the name for the choice God makes to do that in any particular case, and it has to be unconditional because if God waited for man to merit it, he would wait forever.

MR: Dr. Packer, why do we need an election?

Packer: Because we will never be saved unless God chooses to save us. Election leads to the saving action of God in his lordship, and if we were left to ourselves we would never respond to God on our own at all. This is what people don't seem to appreciate, that all of us by nature are anti-God in our deepest instincts (see Romans chapter 3). We don't always realize this because many of us think we are seeking God, and frankly, people want a God they can manage and manipulate and have as a safety net. Those are facts about human life, and very familiar facts. But when it is a matter of responding to the real God and responding in a way that he calls for --that is by humbling ourselves before him, learning to trust his word absolutely, turning from sin, taking our hands off of the reins of our own life and letting him be in control --we wake up to the fact that we don't like this at all and we shy back from it. That is our nature. So you see, God has to take action otherwise we shall never come to him at all because that is the state in which fallen humans find themselves.

MR: Doesn't this detract from our responsibility to respond to the gospel? If I'm one of the elect, God will save me, and if I'm not I cannot be saved anyway so why worry about it?

Packer: No, that isn't the way to look at it because God has made us folk who act of their own will and he keeps us that way. And so he takes account of us for the things that we have done because they really were our own actions. The fact that we haven't got it in us to respond to God in a positive way doesn't mean that we don't choose not to respond to God. We do choose not to respond to God, and it's for that choice that we're responsible before him. The truth about us is that we are like drowning folk who can't swim and left to ourselves would just go under and eventually not come up again. God takes action, as it were, to dive in, swim to us, grab hold of us and save us. Election, as we said a moment ago, is his decision to do that, and in his lordship and power he does it, and so our salvation is entirely due to him. But all the time we are responsible for being the people that we are, drowning in our own moral mess.  Continue at Modern Reformation

Why I Am A Calvinist

The Tragic Hypocrisy of Joyless Calvinism

Gospel wakefulness. That's Jared Wilson's term for the Christian's experience of treasuring Jesus more greatly and savoring his power more sweetly than ever before. For some it happens at new birth. For some it's a gradual dawning over time. And for many, it's a kind of spiritual quantum leap, almost like a kind of sanctification warp speed. You'll want to learn more. . . .

So join us this Monday, November 14 at 3PM (EST), for a DG Live interview with Wilson, pastor in Vermont and author of the new book Gospel Wakefulness. We'll ask him all about this reality of gospel wakefulness, its implications, and how to pursue it.

Here's a little sample from Wilson's book:

I have discussed with other Calvinists just where the (well-earned) stereotype of the graceless Calvinist comes from. Shouldn’t belief in total depravity necessitate profound humility? Shouldn’t belief in unconditional election preclude a spirit of superiority? And yet there is a doctrinal arrogance infecting Calvinist Christianity. This culture then produces doctrinaires like Baum’s man of tin: squeaky and heartless.

Cold-hearted rigidity is not limited to those of the Reformed persuasion, of course. You can find it in Christian churches and traditions and cultures of all kinds. In fact, to be fair, I have found that those most enthralled with the idea of gospel-wakefulness, those who seem most prone to champion the centrality of the gospel for life and ministry, happen to be of the Reformed persuasion. So there’s that. But gracelessness is never as big a disappointment, to me anyway, as when it’s found among those who call themselves Calvinists, because it’s such a big waste of Calvinism.  Continue Reading >>>

IMAGE

Calvinists Aflame for God

Some say Calvinism tends toward a cold, cerebral piety that is devoid of compassion. They claim Reformed theological convictions produce ineffective or just downright annoying Christians. In some cases this has undeniably been true. You can probably think of examples. 

Great. Point conceded.
 
On the other hand, many of the most zealous servants of Christ have been Calvinists. Some of the most pioneering, devoted, self-sacrificing missionaries in the history of the Church have been Calvinists. Many of the martyrs who have testified passionately and died for Christ's cause have been Calvinists. Many of the greatest devotional works - the ones that point to the glories of Christ and call us to love-inspired labors - were written by Calvinists. Newton, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Baxter, Whitefield and Watson come to mind.
 

How is it that some Calvinists have demonstrated such intense devotion, while others have gone flat? It's a good question, and an important one. Below are a few thoughts about how we Calvinists can stay aflame for God, speaking Truth in love and maintaining the simplicity of devotion to Christ, even as we wrestle Calvin-style with the hard doctrines of Scripture and refuse to back away from any of their philosophical implications.

• Never think about the doctrine of Total Depravity without considering your own sins. Especially your recent sins. Let the desperate plight of fallen humanity inspire a fresh compassion for the lost people around you.
• Never think about the doctrine of Unconditional Election without reminding yourself that nothing in you influenced God's choice. That's what unconditional means. Know that it was purely of His mercy that He took pity on you and saved you.   Keep Reading ...

How to Call for a Gospel Response Like a Calvinist

"Think like a Calvinist. Preach like an Arminian."

That is how one preaching professor taught his students to call people to faith in a sermon. He couldn't reconcile a theological system that embraces God's sovereignty in salvation with a plea for sinful people to change. Ultimately, this 

prof thought Calvinism makes sense biblically and logically, but not practically.

Perhaps you have struggled with this, too. I know I have.

There was a season of my ministry where I didn't call people to believe the gospel. I preached the gospel, of course, but only with the hope that the Spirit would use his word to regenerate spiritually dead teenagers against their will. I merely implied that they must believe the gospel.

But I have turned from this mindset. This is not because my pendulum has swung to a more balanced position between Calvinism and Arminianism---I don't believe there is such a thing. It's because I've grown to understand what Calvinism is and, perhaps more importantly, what it isn't.

It is Calvinistic to call people to respond with faith in the gospel.

Eschewing theological labels for a moment, it is biblical and Christian to call people to believe in the gospel. This is, after all, how Jesus began his ministry: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15). You don't have to know Greek to recognize the imperatives.

But we Calvinists love to quote Ephesians 2:8. "Faith is a gift from God!" we exclaim. "It doesn't originate in the person!"   Keep Reading...

IMAGE

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...