Olson's Principle

Roger Olson has written a new book called Against Calvinism: rescuing God's reputation from radical Reformed theology (Zondervan, 2011). In this book Olson comes close to saying that one can decide against Calvinism regardless of disagreements about the exegesis of controversial biblical passages. There is a now-famous passage in Olson's book where he says that if it was shown to him beyond doubt that the Bible clearly teaches Calvinism, then he himself would reject Calvinism on moral-theological grounds, as the God of the Calvinist Bible would be unworthy of worship (and would indeed be a cold and unloving and morally repugnant deity). Here is the passage:

One day, at the end of a class session on Calvinism's doctrine of God's sovereignty, a student asked me a question I had put off considering. He asked: "If it was revealed to you in a way you couldn't question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?" I knew the only possible answer without a moment's thought, even though I knew it would shock many people. I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster. Of course, I realize Calvinists do not think their view of God's sovereignty makes him a moral monster, but I can only conclude they have not thought it through to its logical conclusion or even taken sufficiently seriously the things they say about God and evil and innocent suffering in the world. [Against Calvinism, Kindle edition, p.85]

According to Olson, a developed Christian conscience and sanctified common sense leave you no option but to reject Calvinism and its deterministic God.

Many non-Calvinists will sympathise with Olson's stance. Nonetheless, regardless of your theological orientation, surely what Olson is doing is a dangerous step for an evangelical Christian to take (note that Olson still describes himself as "an evangelical" and he confesses the authority of the Bible). Once you accept that moral-theological verdicts can override exegetical decisions and conclusions, then why should Calvinism be the only thing to fall by the wayside? Other eligible targets that could easily come under attack from Olson's principle include hell, divine wrath, propitiation, and a penal-substitutionary view of the atonement.

Olson is not a liberal Christian, and he may never see himself as one. But I think he has taken the decisive step that makes him a fellow-traveller of liberal Christianity, whether he likes it or not.


*******

P.S. The title of Roger Olson's book is Against Calvinism; Michael Horton wrote a contrasting volume entitled For Calvinism. Yesterday, Horton made some comments on Olson's claim that Calvinism makes God a moral monster; Horton said on the White Horse Inn blog (16 November 2011): "...everyone who affirms God's exhaustive foreknowledge [and this includes traditional Arminians] has exactly the same problem as any Calvinist".

Horton's point is simply this: Calvinists and Arminians both agree that God has infallible and exhaustive foreknowledge. If God knows that something negative will happen and God does not prevent it from happening, then the negative occurrence is just as certain as if God had predestined it.

Olson admitted long ago that God is sovereign in the sense that nothing at all can ever happen without God's permission, i.e. nothing at all can happen that God does not allow. Olson sometimes speaks of God "reluctantly" permitting certain things, but he [Olson] does not agree with the Calvinist teaching that God DECREES to permit things.

Horton's response to this is to accuse Olson of nitpicking, for two reasons:

(a) It sounds peculiar to speak of a perfect God "reluctantly" doing anything!

(b) Once Olson has conceded that God intentionally permits negative things to happen that he exhaustively foreknows, Olson cannot accuse the Calvinist God of being morally problematic without Olson's Arminian God being in some way vulnerable to the same charge.

What do you think?