Biblical Theology: Past, Present, and Future (I)
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 55, No. 2 – Spring 2013
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Roger E. Olson. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. 208 pages. Paperback, $11.95.
Roger Olson’s book is as jarring as its title. Right from the start, he doggedly pursues his intention to challenge the juggernaut of American neo-Calvinism (what he calls “Radical Reformed Theology”), saying a firm “No” to this development within evangelicalism that he believes is bad for theology, bad for the church, and bad for evangelism. The first three chapters set the parameters for his critical analysis of this particular iteration of Calvinism. Olson utilizes Collin Hansen’s description of the theology of the Young, Restless, and Reformed (those informed primarily by John Piper and R.C. Sproul who are functioning as a self-conscious theological movement) to define the problem. He characterizes this brand of Calvinism as that which insists on the middle three letters of TULIP along with “divine determinism” (which entails a compatibilist understanding of free-will) and the reprobation of the non-elect. Olson spends the rest of the book dismantling those key components of Radical Reformed Theology one-by-one, briefly concluding each chapter by offering the requisite component of classical Arminianism as a better alternative.
Olson’s articulation of Radical Reformed Theology is extremely helpful. The debate surrounding neo-Calvinism often bogs down because of a lack of clarity over which form of Calvinism is under discussion. Calvinists often subtract whatever aspects of the system they find objectionable, so Olson settles the matter in his chapter entitled “Whose Calvinism? Which Reformed Theology?” Since Piper and Sproul have been the standard-bearers for neo-Calvinists, Olson determines that they should be the standard-setters as well. Those who advocate neo-Calvinism need to be prepared to defend Piper and Sproul’s version or be able to articulate where they disagree and how their version remains both intelligible and still legitimately Calvinistic.
The main strength of the work is its devastating critique of Radical Reformed Theology. Olson’s engagement with Calvin, Loraine Boettner, Sproul, Piper, Paul Helm and others is substantive, fair, and striking. From every angle, whether it be unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, or the decree of reprobation, Olson demonstrates that neo-Calvinism leads inevitably to a God who purposefully causes sin and evil (things like the Fall, the Holocaust, and childhood cancer). This God does not desire the salvation of all people. Moreover, he necessarily prohibits the redemption of the non-elect for the sole purpose of having an object upon whom he may display His wrath, which makes God’s glory contingent upon creation. Olson is careful throughout to remind the reader that the overwhelming majority of Calvinists reject such an understanding of God. He convincingly demonstrates, however, that this conclusion is the only logical outcome, and, of course, patently unbiblical.
The main weakness of the book is clear as well: Arminianism is not a viable alternative to Calvinism. Olson exposes the utterly speculative nature neo-Calvinism only to offer Arminianism’s equally speculative concept of “prevenient grace.” He dismantles four of the five points of Calvinism, but has no word for “perseverance of the saints.” This is because Arminianism’s position (or non-position) on the issue is dead wrong. Neo-Calvinism will continue to dominate the marketplace of (theological) ideas until a clearly superior paradigm for Biblical soteriology emerges.
Also, Olson speaks of “rescuing God’s reputation,” and he argues throughout that the God of Calvinism fails to be a God of love. Often, however, the problem with God’s reputation is not God’s problem but the culture’s problem. The Bible portrays God in many ways that don’t seem very loving from the culture’s perspective, but evangelicals insist on that portrayal because it is Biblical. Calvinism’s view of God is flawed because it fails to take seriously the Bible’s own clear teachings about the importance, nature, and implications of God’s love.
Roger Olson’s courage in confronting what is, at least for now, an enormously popular theological program is admirable and much needed. As he points out in the book, neo-Calvinism’s rise is due in large part to the dearth of serious theological engagement and education in evangelical churches over the last generation. Piper and others have filled that void passionately, purposefully, and with stunningly successful effect. But the dangers of that system are real and present and must be met with the same passion and purpose. Olson points the way.
