Review of Roger Olson's Book

Was John Calvin a 5-Point Calvinist? Did he affirm Definite Atonement?

Olson has this footnote, “It should be noted that whether Calvin himself taught limited atonement is debateable”—that’s page 16.

I ended up opening Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement by Robert A. Peterson:

“The question of the extent of the atonement in Calvin has been hotly debated. Some insist that he taught a limited atonement, that Christ died only to save the elect. Others are equally insistent that Calvin held to an unlimited atonement, that Christ died for the sins of all. Frequently, overlooked and yet most important is the fact that the extent of the atonement was not an issue in Calvin’s time. The debate over limited or unlimited atonement belongs to the period of the Reformed orthodoxy. Hence the question of Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement is anachronistic. It is unfair to ask for a man’s position on a matter that became an issue only after his death. Yes scholars persist in asking the question. What conclusion can be reached as to Calvin’s thought on the extent of the atonement as the doctrine was later taught? It is clear that Calvin denied universalism, the teaching that all would ultimately be saved. It is equally plain that Calvin held to a universal and free offer of the gospel. There is too little evidence in the Institutes to reach a conclusion on the extent of the atonement. The lack of evidence in the Institutes should make us cautious when using the commentaries and sermons to determine whether Calvin taught limited or unlimited atonement. In his preface to the reader in the 1559 Institutes Calvin gave his own methodological statement that one should interpret his commentaries doctrinally on the basis of the Institutes. Calvin’s commentaries contain some passages that favor limited atonement, but again the data is unsubstantial. James W. Anderson has marshaled evidence from Calvin’s sermons and has argued that he taught an unlimited atonement. The conclusion must be that it is uncertain what position Calvin would have taken if he were living at the same time of the debates over the extent of the atonement.”

Pp. 90-91, Peterson’s comments on this, found in his 1983 publication from Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

I have of late committed myself to be a life-long learner of subjects and disciplines in all of life. OK. But I gulped when I first read the Olson footnote. I said, “Mr. Olson, Aw….that can’t be right, surely Calvin was a 5 Point Calvinist.” I then did a quick drive over to a number of blogs on the internet and skimmed other Calvin Studies sites. I was amazed to read of the varying positions on Calvin’s view of the extent of Christ’s death. I was unprepared for that. I remember selling a book by RT Kendall and then another called Calvin and Calvinists by Paul Helm. Men would come into the book store and want these titles. I knew some sort of controversy of an interpretative nature about Calvin’s Calvinism was brewing. But I was ignorant about it.


Here’s Paul Helm on Calvin’s view the extent of Christ’s atoning work—For whom did Jesus die?

“Helm writes: Calvin, not being a Universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement. And, it could be added, there is a sound reason for this. There was no occasion for Calvin to enter into argument about the matter, for before the Arminian controversy the extent of the atonement had not been debated expressly within the Reformed churches.

However, plausible though such a line of argument may seem, it is possible to show that Calvin did not leave others to draw such conclusions. He drew them himself. There are passages in Calvin which show that he held the doctrine of limited atonement, even though the doctrine does not gain the prominence in his writings that it did during later controversies.

(c) For whom did Christ intend to die? When discussing the fact that Christ is both Judge and Redeemer Calvin says:

Hence arises a wonderful consolation: that we perceive judgment to be in the hands of him who has already destined us to share with him the honour of judging (cf. Matt. 19:28)! Far indeed is he from mounting his judgment seat to condemn us! How could our most merciful Ruler destroy his people? How could the Head scatter his own members? How could our Advocate condemn his clients? . Therefore, by giving all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), the Father has honoured him to the end that he may care for the consciences of his people, who tremble in dread of judgment.

Again,

For there is nothing absurd in ascribing to the Father praise for those gifts of which he is the Author, and yet in ascribing the same powers to Christ, with whom were laid up the gifts of the Spirit to bestow upon his people . . . In this sense he is called the ‘Second Adam’, given from heaven as ‘a life-giving spirit’ (I Cor. 15:45). This unique life which the Son of God inspires in his own so that they become one with him, Paul here contrasts with that natural life which is common also to the wicked.

Calvin shows that he is quite at home with the thought that Christ has ‘his people’ over whom he rules and to whom he gives life. How can this be? It is not only because they have chosen to be his, as we have already seen. They are elected to salvation. Rather, as Calvin hints, Christ cares for those whom the Father has given him, his people, by being their Redeemer. Not simply by being a Redeemer, but by being their Redeemer.

As Christ teaches, here is our only ground for firmness and confidence: in order to free us of all fear and render us victorious amid so many dangers, snares, and mortal struggles, he promises that whatever the Father has entrusted into his keeping will be safe (John 10:28-9).16

And who are these? They are the sheep to whom the Shepherd gives eternal life.”

These three quotes are from Calvin’s Institutes, as conveyed by Helm’s citations.

There’s something more to store away about John Calvin.

G. Mark Sumpter

More on Introduction, Ground Work

Working through Olson


Dr. Roger Olson rightly warns in his book, Arminian Theology,  about setting our terms and their meaning. The larger sweeping one that he at first sets forth is Calvinism. He begins saying that Calvinism is the “theology that emphasizes God’s absolute sovereignty as the all-determining reality, especially with regard to salvation” (p. 15). That’s a fair rendering. I have been taught some similar things—something like this: a comprehensive system of God’s glory in creation and providence; or maybe something like this—a life system based on the revelation of the glory of the Triune God.


Dr. Bob Godfrey of Westminster Seminary of Escondido, CA worked in earnest to have us read through Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in our three-year cycle of classes in Church History.


BB Warfield wrote with the heart when he reminded us that a basic definition of Calvinism is “pure religion.” He goes on to illustrate this by a man on bended knee in prayer. In prayer man is utterly, completely in the place of dependency. He says, “The Calvinist is the man who is determined to preserve the attitude he takes in prayer in all his thinking, in all his feeling, in all his doing.” See Warfield’s Shorter Writings, v. 1, p. 390.


Olson said, “…God’s absolute sovereignty as the all-determining reality, especially with regard to salvation.”


G. Mark Sumpter

Olson, Preface and Overview Part 2

Back on Track with Reviewing Olson

I have been double-rotten to the core about not posting on the Roger Olson book, Arminian Theology—Myths and Realities (IVP, 2006). This morning I read a bit more—I back-tracked some—and then re-skimmed the Table of Contents and what not.

He says on p. 12 that Arminian as a term is not commonly used in the 21^st century. I guess he’s suggesting that that’s true for the man on the street. It’s just not so in the circles where I run. My years at Evangelical Bible Book Store, and here in the OPC, I can pretty much say that there’s not a week that goes by and someone, some where is using the term. Again, in the circles where I run.

I first became acquainted with Arminian positions on salvation via four books: JI Packer’s pamphlet An Introductory Essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, the 1972 publication from Banner of Truth, The Grace of God in the Gospel, by John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, Michael Sadgrove, Tom Wright (notice, this is the Tom Wright we’ve come to know as the prolific NT Wright), and two books by AW Pink Profiting From the Word and The Sovereignty of God.

Back in 1978 is when a few men got me started reading on the doctrines of grace.

Olson expresses concerns for those who get their Bible teaching, exegesis and theology about Arminianism from Calvinists. He’s writing about me.

G. Mark Sumpter

Olson Preface Review, Part 1

I have too many books going right now. The little kid, being candy-store-showcase height, staring in at 19 different colors of jellybeans comes to mind: which one or two or three candies do I choose to devour? I've been thinking about settling into one for study and note-taking. The one book I've chosen is Roger E. Olson's 246-page Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities from Inter Varsity Press, copyright 2006.

I spoke for while with a Methodist minister last week, met him over in Medford. Grants Pass sets slightly north and west of Medford, about a 30 minute drive. I told him that I was raised a Methodist as a young boy down in South Louisana, and then later up in Anchorage. I enjoyed speaking with him about his seminary days and the different parishes where he served. He had had several pulpits along the way, and now is a retired man. As he spoke, my appreciation grew for his many years of working with people. I could tell by his gracious and wise speech that his life had been seasoned with people and their pain. We hit it off a little when we shared a few stories of our Methodism.

Running into this Methodist minister stirred me to give another look at Olson's book. I had been dabbling in it since September but hadn't given it the kind of attention it deserved. I imagine that this study through Arminian Theology will take me a good season or two of life, about like a pack mule carrying victuals and other provisions from St. Louis to Seattle, let's say in the year of 1859. I plan to be here awhile.

Let's get a start. On the opening page of the preface we read a little of Olson's childhoood:

I have always been an Arminian. I was raised in a Pentecostal preacher's home, and my family was most definitely and proudly Arminian. I don't remember when I first heard the term. But it first sunk into my consciousness when a well-known charismatic leader of Amenian background rose to prominence. My parents and some of my aunts and uncles (missionaries, pastors and denominational leaders) distinguished between Armenian and Arminian...I recall sitting in a college theology class and the professor reminded us that we are Arminians, to which one student muttered loudly, 'Who would want to be from Armenia?'

Two comments.

1) This book is written by a red-church-punch drinking church-kid who's dad was a preacher. Olson was the proverbial PK who would be found downstairs in the fellowship hall right after the evening service putting his little grubbies on 5 or 6 sugar cubes so that he could put one in his mouth and drop the other five in his red punch. He also says, "my family was most definitely and proudly Arminian." OK. This is good for me. It's high-time to read about and study Arminianism from a man who's been around Arminian theology all of his life. More on this later.

2) Note well Olson's italicized print in the quote above. There's a world of difference between the two words, Arminian and Armenia. I heard folks all the time getting them confused when I worked for Evangelical Bible Book Store at Westminster Seminary California back in the 80s. Listen how Olson addresses this commonplace confusion on page 13 of his Introduction, "Arminianism has nothing to do with the country of Armenia. Most people mispronounce the word as if it were somehow associated with the central Asian country Armenia. The confusion is understandable because of the purely accidental similarity between the theological label and the geographical one. Arminians are not from Armenia. Arminianism derives from the name Jacob (or James) Arminius (1560-1609)...Arminius...was a Dutch theologian who had no ancestral lineage in Armenia." So, Olson himself straightens out the mix up about the country and the theology. He's spot on helping us to get off on the right foot.

G. Mark Sumpter