Starting Perceptions & Biases

As I mentioned in my last post, I'm just starting to read the two books,

Against Calvinism - By Roger E. Olson
For Calvinism - By Michael Horton

I thought it might be good to post a few thoughts regarding my initial perceptions regarding this topic before I get too far into these books.

Obviously, having grown up in a Reformed church, having spent the last decade in a John Piper-esque Baptist church, and recently having spent many hours (on my commute) listening to D.A. Carson, my theological background is decidedly Calvinist.  With as much theological self examination as I can muster, I can confidently admit that everything I know about God has been learned in a Calvinist context.  I think this has two important implications:

1) I am more likely to misunderstand Arminianism
2) I am more likely to (correctly) identify the problems with Calvinism.

That said, I enter this current study with these perceptions and biases regarding the two approaches in question:

• Calvinism seems more intellectually rigorous.  This is however,  probably a result of my background.  Having been in Calvinist circles all my life has no doubt exposed me to more Calvinist scholars.  Still, it seems like the Calvinist bench runs deep: Sproul, Carson, Grudem, Piper, Keller, Mahaney, Packer...  In contrast, I can't name a single Arminian scholar.

• Calvinism seems to affirm free will, but these attempts either redefine it or end in 'mystery' (read: contradiction).  This issue came to the surface while listening to D.A. Carson discuss open theology here.  Carson describes himself as a compatabilist, in that he claims that God is sovereign over human choices, but humans are responsible for those choices.  He doesn't go as far as other comaptabilists, however, by saying that we have free will only in that we are free to do only as we desire.  In either case, the ball is dropped: the former ends in contradiction, while the latter is simply redefinition of free will, removing from it any trace of it's natural meaning.

• I don't see how Calvinism can explain the problem of evil, without making God the author of evil.  Calvinists solve this issue by pointing to the transcendence of God, and having a God that "we don't understand". To me, this is simply lazy.  On the other hand, simply being distasteful doesn't make something wrong.

• The common charge of Arminianism being a "works based theology" doesn't resonate with me much.  This seems more of an attempt to villify it with a label.  I look forward to learning more about that.

• Calvinism seems to have stronger scriptural support, although this is a very uninformed perception.  Passages like Romans 9 seem to be almost unexplainable in an Arminian system, but I haven't looked into that much.