# For and Against Calvinism: A Discussion with Michael Horton and Roger Olson



## sastark (Oct 17, 2011)

On Saturday evening, Biola University hosted an event titled "For and Against Calvinism: A Discussion with Dr. Michael Horton and Dr. Roger Olson". I and a few men from my church went (there were about 500 people there, I would estimate). It was a very enjoyable evening. Overall, I must say, Dr. Horton did an excellent job defending Calvinism: He consistently appealed to Scripture and the Reformed Confessions (mainly the Canons of Dordt). Dr. Olson, who presented Arminianism, was very kind and scholarly, but, in my opinion, he failed to show that Arminianism was biblical (of course, I do not believe that is possible, but Dr. Olson did not appeal to Scripture at all--apart from a few references thrown out at one point. His arguments were more philosophical than biblical).

I've typed up my review of the evening and posted it at TheRulingElder.com: The Ruling Elder: For and Against Calvinism: A Review of the Evening

As a side note: I was able to give out over 100 flyers for our upcoming Reformation OC Conference at the event. Please pray that many folks would come because of those flyers!


----------



## Andres (Oct 17, 2011)

Seth, do you know if there will be audio of the event at all?


----------



## sastark (Oct 17, 2011)

Andrew, the event was video taped (is there a modern term for video taping yet?), and I believe there will be a DVD made of the discussion.


----------



## Andres (Oct 17, 2011)

sastark said:


> Andrew, the event was video taped (is there a modern term for video taping yet?), and I believe there will be a DVD made of the discussion.



Thanks!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 17, 2011)

See also White's preliminary comments on Olson's newest book:

Testing Roger Olson's Depth of Exegesis: 1 Timothy 2:4


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 18, 2011)

Monergism has the book set 40% off right now.

[h=2]For and Against Calvinism Pack[/h]


----------



## J. Dean (Oct 18, 2011)

I have to be honest: I've lost a little bit of respect for Roger Olson, as he has seemed to soften his stance on Open Theism, and that's a gateway to heresy.


----------



## sastark (Oct 18, 2011)

Some of the things Dr. Olson said at the discussion with Dr. Horton certainly seemed to be "Open Theistic", though he did not come out and announce Open Theism as being correct. Of course, Arminianism leads to Open Theism (which leads to Deism, which leads to atheism...).


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Oct 18, 2011)

Gord,

It's quite unfortunate that you view these "labels" in such a negative way. These labels are helpful. They distinguish between what one believes. It's unfortunate, but we can't just call it Christianity or say they are bible believing people. They hold to erroneous doctrines and must understand that they do not believe what the bible teaches nor are they truly Christian.


----------



## Andres (Oct 18, 2011)

Gord said:


> Even more disappointing to me then the topic chosen to discuss, is the quality of people diving into the discussion. What's really obvious is that what's really behind all this is plain old fashioned human PRIDE. My belief is better than your belief na, na, na, na, na, na. Those who use the term Calvinism have fallen into that trap.



And how is it you know everyone's exact motives again?

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------




Gord said:


> when it gets right down to it, who cares what sinful man thinks.



Do you see the irony of writing a sentence like this in the middle of your diatribe?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 18, 2011)

Personally I care a lot about what my Elders say and teach. Hypostatic Union is terminology that is beneficial. Trinity is another term. Sovereign Grace is terminology that has a focus pointing to the teaching of the acronym TULIP. I care about what these men think because they are given the charge to pay attention to their doctrine and practice so that they may be saved and be used of God to save others. It might become a point of human pride. I agree with that thought as the scripture says that knowledge puffs up. But I also would like to reiterate that Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy. I also understand that these sinful men are given to the Church as gifts from God for the maturing of the body of Christ. We need to pay attention to them because we are commanded to. Our beliefs are important and it is quite presumptuous to link pride to this situation. 

(Heb 13:7,17) Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation... Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

I think we should all care what influences are upon us. And I find that teachers and teaching aids are beneficial. Especially if they help us understand truth. Personally, I find it rather humbling that men wrestle with this stuff and pursue it. It is healthy for helping us understand ourselves. It is quite humbling actually.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 19, 2011)

Given the man's influence, efforts like Olson's latest should not go unchallenged. Despite his claims of an irenic posture on the topic of Calvinism, one can see the depths of his mis-characterizations by simply reviewing his blog and the resulting replies to that blog entry here:

Some thoughts about conversations/debates between Calvinists and Arminians | Roger E. Olson

I am grateful someone like Horton and White were led to take up the task of offering a corrective. Horton has done a fine job in explaining the doctrines of grace, with a passing nod to the TULIP acrostic, relying upon exegesis of Scripture and not appealing to Calvin. Horton provides summaries of historical development of various doctrinal matters and does spend time explaining what Calvin had to say on matters where Arminians, and others, seem to think Calvin was the origin of this or that (a common Arminian misunderstanding).

As for motive, Horton seemed clear enough when he writes (emphasis mine):

"These doctrines of grace may be vilified or celebrated, but they are never boring or trivial. Throughout the history of the church their recovery has provoked debate, reformation, renewal, and mission. My prayer is that the Spirit will yet again stir up Christ’s body by these astonishing truths in his Word." Src: Horton, Michael S. (2011-10-11). _For Calvinism_ (Kindle Locations 184-186). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. 

AMR


----------

