Wow, with this post you have quickly become my favorite Calvinist blogger. OK, so that wasn’t very hard to do. But seriously, I appreciate the “irenic” tone very much. [Now I'm scanning the above comments and seeing mine isn't particularly original, hmm.]

I am a Wesleyan-Arminian and have appreciated Olson’s work very much, but I’m a little concerned with what seems to be his “postconservative” theological drift. I plan on reading his “Reformed and Always Reforming” book and investigating further. I’m all for Scripture being “transformational” and for nurturing evangelical experience, and I think I may even like the “centered set” idea. But the problem is that so many others in the emergent and movement (though not Olson himself) just use these things as an excuse to jettison large parts of historic Christianity. You give them an inch and they take a mile.

How does a centered set keep its center? Why does everyone want to be so either/or when Christ calls us to be both/and? And by that I mean: both right practice *and* right belief; both love *and* holiness; both tolerance *and* boundaries; both context *and* canon; both personal *and* social gospels, etc. It is disconcerting to see so many throwing the baby out with the bathwater and recklessly conforming Christ to culture. I hope Olson can be an anchoring influence on these movements rather than a confusing one; we will have to see what he produces in the future.

I can sort of understand Olsen’s vercity as I myself have struggled with the fine line of the two views.

My understanding of Calvinism, when taken to it’s logical conclusion, excludes the non-elect, predestines them to hell without an opportunity, and ultimately makes God the author of evil. Sometimes I have a hard time not thinking of Calvinism as a heresy.

Now you can say all day that he doesn’t create the evil, but simply uses it as his means, ala the crucifiction, but pure determinism logically points to God as the author of evil, whether by direct will or allowing it. Whether right or wrong, this view can harbor strong emotions.

To the Calvinist, Election means God chose individuals, thereby chosing to condemn the rest, also from the beginning. However, the Bible speaks and demonstrates a corporate Election. Hence we’re all offspring of Abraham, which is by faith, and it’s credited to us as righteousness.

To further muddy the waiter, you may point to individual election in the bible, i.e. Moses, David, the Prophets, or the disciples. Must we take that text and automatically apply to all? Could it be the disciples were in fact individually chosen for the redemptive will of God? Does it necessarily mean we’re all individually chosen, thereby excluding those who aren’t? Moses was chosen individually to lead the corporately chosen nation of Israel; likewise David.

All that to say, as I’m running out of time, Calvinism can elicit a strong response because it’s tenets are stern, if not offensive. Sorry, babies are fussy, so I can’t elaborate more.

Haha, I’ll join Glenn in commenting WAAAAAY after the fact.

How I have appreciated this post! It is so rare to see a Calvinist accurately characterize Arminianism and vice versa. So rare to see genuinely respectful dialog — between people who seem to actually believe that Arminians and Calvinists will be together in heaven. (I think there will be quite a few on each side shocked to see adherents to the other there — and then we’ll all find out where we got it wrong!) Beautiful to see.

I am a Reformed (or Classical or what have you) Arminian. I agree with Vance’s views quite strongly. “Christian” is a thousand-fold more important to me than Arminian. Christian means I believe in and trust God, Christ, and Christ revealed through the Word. Arminian indicates only a certain way of understanding some complex issues that frankly are on God’s level and not mine. God does things as He chooses to do them and I’m for it — whether I was conditionally or unconditionally elected!

I have really enjoyed Olson’s writings — really appreciated his Arminian Theology. There are very few authors I can stomach on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate due to the abundance of mischaracterization and vitriol, but he is one of them. Some of what he said I can definitely understand as a “defense of those you love” — however, I have to agree the comparison to Satan is way over the top, as is “do we worship the same God”. In this instance he is doing exactly what Arminians always get so tired of Calvinists doing to Arminianism — taking a reactionary perception of the other side viewed through your own, and treating it as reality — and exactly what he spends a good bit of wordage speaking against in Arminian Theology. Disappointing, but, then, this is why I don’t put anyone on a pedestal but Christ. Everyone else will always disappoint from time to time. Luther had a few big flaws as well (brief support for bigamy, anti-Semitic writings) — but that doesn’t stop me from having immense respect and admiration for his faith and steadfastness, for the impact he had and continues to have to this day.

I have never liked the question “Do we worship the same God” — not even when referring to different religions, such as Islam and Christianity. To me it’s kind of a non-starter. There is only one God, and there is correct and incorrect understanding of Him. None of us can have a completely correct understanding of Him — to think so would be to put ourselves on God’s plane — the height of arrogance. At point, then, does incorrect understanding cross the line into non-Christianity? (Obviously the Islamic understanding of God does!) I really like the way Jon Sidnell put it above — that the understanding of Jesus is the real dividing line. I am kind of surprised at myself that I hadn’t thought of it quite those clear of terms before.

Two other comments — first, I wonder if Olson’s comments were kind of off-the-cuff. I may be only speaking for myself, but I do not recall seeing a contrast between God “in control” and God “in charge” in at least what I have read of him. Certainly there’s no dichotomy there in my mind; I don’t see the difference. As I understand it, the dichotomy is God having control (or being in charge) vs. God exercising that control. If God chooses not to exercise His control in some situation, I don’t at all see that as negating the fact that is in control (negating his sovereignty). If I understood Michael correctly, this sounds like the view of Calvinists as well (except for those who hold to meticulous sovereignty — thanks so much for explaining that distinction within Calvinism!). I guess the difference then is that Calvinists do not extend that line of thinking to a faith response? I may still be missing something on the Calvinist side but in any event I found this really interesting.

Second, and not terribly relevant, someone noted that the word “God” comes from the word “good.” That’s actually not true. The two words, etymologically, are unrelated. “good” is from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *ghedh- “to be associated, suitable”, while “god” is from the PIE *ghut- “that which is invoked”. I’m a linguist (ABD) and can’t help but correct that — it’s a popular folk etymology.

I just read through some more of the comments here. I was about to write that perhaps we need more than one definition of the word “will”, but I see you already have at least two: perfect vs. permissive. (Are there others? Another chart?)

Olson simply seems to be accusing the Calvinist of calling everything that happens part of God’s perfect will, whereas the Calvinist can simply explain to Olson that this is not the case – that God permits some/many things that he does not condone or instigate.

I should probably go to a page on Pinnock, but I’ll just add on here that I wish we’d associate Pinnock with books like The Scripture Principle and Reason Enough, instead of with open theism.

Are you insisting that God’s will cannot be thwarted? Peter wrote “God is not willing that any should perish …” Does this mean that you believe nobody will perish in a Creation where God’s will is not thwarted?

I believe that many will perish because many do not believe on Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This is not what God wills for those people, and therefore God does not always “get His own way”. God is not selfish.

He allows people whom He loves to perish, even though He’d rather see them in heaven with Him for eternity. He both allows people to perish, and He will use their perishing to work together for some type of good, even though it is not good that they perish.

I agree Taffy. I am glad that the Golden Arches proved to be the inspired illustration of choice for you today

Michael,

I do also believe that when we make our theological constructs in speaking of God, we unavoidably emphasis His transcendent over His immanent attributes and vice versa. In TTP language that would whether we described God below or above the arch and maybe if a mix of the two. So even definitions of love, grace, justice, peace, mercy, etc., will actually mean different things when believers are dialoguing with each other.

As an example when we say “love”, notwithstanding the many different words is used in Scripture, it will invariably have different meanings when we speak to one another. I believe that theologians fall into that trap as well. So before a dialogue commences, each should define his terms before they begin and they may find that they may have more common ground then first believed.

Lincoln,

Thanks for the response my friend. I wrote a brief primer on the problem of evil here.

Very simply, both Calvinism and Arminianism can and often do hold to a greater good theology with regards to the problem of evil. The idea from both is that God is working with sin. He uses evil to bring out good such as with the situation with Joseph and his brothers. The same can be said with regards to Job. Yet it is important to note that Job did not know, as Joseph did, the purpose of his sufferings (at least that we know of). God simply told him that He is God and Job is not. Ultimately we rest knowing that God is doing something in all things even if He does not tell us what that is.

Olson and Witherington, as Arminians, will see God’s control of these issues slightly differently than most Calvinist, but it only amounts to a nuanced difference in my opinion. Since neither are Open Theists, they would say that God could stop any evil events from occuring. Their reasoning for His reluctance is that they believe that He does not want to violate anyones freedom. The Calvinist would, as well, believe that God could stop these events, but allows them because they fit into His plan somehow (e.g. Joseph).

In other words, Arminians would say that God works around the events while Calvinists would say that God works through the events. A slight difference, but a difference just the same.

Michael,

Could you provide a more detailed response of what is generally accepted from a Reformed position on why God, though eternally good, allows evil to exist or happen?

I can live with the tension that exists with this issue as I do understand that the problem of evil will ultimately be resolved in eternity. I also understand that God has not revealed everything to us, hense some of the tension.

I’m just struggling with this a bit as I have recently changed my position from that of an Arminian (20+ years) to Reformed and am trying to find a little more clarity than just “it is to fulfil His purpose”. It just seems a little to vague and there must be more in the bible to address this.

Thanks much for all that you are doing. I must credit that it was your irenic approach in the Soteriology TTP course that helped me better understand the doctrine of Election.

Ben Witherington was just showing that the perception of God progresses throughout Scripture. Some things that were attributed originally to God were later attributed to Satan because the understanding of God grew. It is false to believe that everything stated in Scripture is a true statement while it is correct to believe that everything stated in Scripture is truly stated. In other words, it was truly stated that Job said ‘the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away’ but that was not a true statement made by Job. That was BW3′s point.