Review of Oliver Crisp’s “Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology” Part Five

Last updated on: January 10, 2015 at 4:58 pm by Roger E. Olson

Review of Oliver Crisp’s “Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology” Part Five 2015-01-10T16:58:22-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Review of Oliver Crisps’ Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology Part Five

This is Part Five of my series of review essays of Oliver Crisp’s new book Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology and deals with Chapter 5 : Universalism and Particularism.” I invite those reading the book with me to agree or disagree with my interpretations of Crisp’s views and I invite others (anyone) to step in to comment on the subject matter itself (in this case “libertarian Calvinism”). But if you are not reading Crisp’s book, do not express agreement or disagreement with my interpretations of the book. Feel free to ask questions only.

I must say I am disappointed with Chapter 5. I was encouraged by the first four chapters and my hopes were perhaps higher than they should be. Here, if I understand Crisp correctly, the author simply returns to traditional Calvinism with an attempt to exonerate particularism of election (what I call double predestination) of the “Augustinian problem of evil”—the objection that God ought to save everyone if he can.

Here is how Crisp finishes the chapter: “Creation of such a world [where double predestination is true] does not…wrong any of the creatures contained in it. Nor can God be said to be obliged to create a better world…if, in addition to these conditions…the world created is consistent with divine benevolence and is a world where some number of human beings less than the total number of human beings are the object of special divine grace and are saved. In fact, I have argued that God could create a world where no one is saved and all are damned because of their sinful natures and that this is also consistent with divine benevolence…. It may well be that this world (that is, the actual world) is a particularist world. And it seems to me that such a world is consistent with divine benevolence. So, God has good reason to create a particularist world, and no obligation to create an Augustinian universalist world instead. This rebuts Augustinian universalism.” (150) (italics added)

I am not going to respond to each and every point of the chapter; as I have said before only that would do full justice to Crisp’s very concisely constructed arguments, but I simply don’t have time and I doubt anyone would read such a review. Here I will simply respond to a couple of points.

First, it seems to me that Crisp overlooks the relevance of love for divine benevolence. Sure, God may not be “obligated” to save anyone, but to suggest that God’s benevolence is consistent with creating a world in which everyone is damned seems a far stretch and a misuse of “benevolence.” God’s benevolence revealed in Jesus is love for people, including sinners, not mere juridical justice.

Second, it seems to me that Crisp is assuming that inherited sin carries with it damnable guilt such that even infants are worthy of damnation and, if they are not elect, deserve hell. This seems to me an especially unenlightened and severe notion, to say nothing of being inconsistent with Jesus’ embrace of the children (“for of such is the Kingdom of God”).

Crisp argues (in this chapter) that since grace is always and necessarily (by definition) supererogatory it cannot be a matter of obligation and therefore salvation is not owed by God to anyone. True. But this completely ignores divine love. Can a God who is love create a world where no one is saved and all are damned? If not (and I would argue that at least intuition tells us not), then can a God who is love create a world where he unconditionally elects some fallen persons to salvation and saves them irresistibly but does not do the same for all (I would argue that intuition and the logic of love tells us not). Wouldn’t such a God be unloving and arbitrary? He would be.

Both Augustinian universalism and Augustinian particularism fall prey to insuperable difficulties—the former with Scripture which clearly reveals that some persons will be in hell forever and the latter with Jesus as the perfect revelation of God’s character. Arminianism provides the “way of fewer and less difficult problems.” I have never claimed that Arminianism is perfect, that it has no problems. What I have always said is that I am Arminian because Arminianism has the problems I can live with—ones that do not make God morally ambiguous at best and monstrous at worst and that do not conflict with Scripture. The mystery of libertarian free will is a problem I can live with; I do live with it every day. The mystery of God’s foreknowledge is one I can live with; it reveals the limits of finite understanding of God’s powers of knowledge in a world of libertarian free will (granted by God). These are not insuperable obstacles, however, because they do not conflict with Scripture or make God monstrous—the twin problems facing Augustinianism in its universalist and particularist varieties.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 8, 2015

An Encouraging Message about "Against Calvinism"

Next Post

January 12, 2015 Is There a Difference between "Permitting Evil" and "Doing Evil?"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the length of the great flood?

Select your answer to see how you score.

40 days and 40 Nights 60 days 370 Days 50 days