Peter Kirk links to Roger Olson on why he defends Love Wins. Now I haven’t read Love Wins and it isn’t on my reading list. The reason for this post is to comment on this (Peter quoting Roger Olson):
I think that is what offends critics of Love Wins–the suggestion that God doesn’t get what he really, perfectly wants. That seems to them to demean God, to lessen his glory. …
And yes, I could have gone directly back to Olson’s post for the same quote. I suggest you do so, because Olson covers all this in more depth.
My major problem with Calvinism could be summarized by saying that it seems to me to force God to want something that humans can understand and accept. What if what God wants is a universe filled with creatures who can choose whether or not to love him? It may turn theologians’ brains into pretzels, but why should it be limiting to God’s glory to want that instead of to want what Calvinists prefer that he want?
It seems a very narrow few of God’s glory, and frankly strikes me as something more like a desire for God’s simplicity or comprehensibility, than one for God’s glory.
I can’t understand how a God who can set off the big bang and who knows the end from the beginning can also make creatures with choice. But I suspect he can.
Related articles
- Is it Right for God to be God-Centered? (craigsturm.wordpress.com)
- Because of the Grace of God (revivalandreformation.wordpress.com)
Leave a Reply