A Brief Book Interlude

I just finished reading Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson and have started the twin sister For Calvinism by Michael Horton.  Olson writes from the Arminian perspective and discusses in particular high Calvinism and its Five Points, Five Doctrines of Grace, or TULIP specifically (There are a variety of names for these five positions but he only discusses 4, the book is not that long).  Olson makes a point of holding this manner of Reformation theology to the logical standards it so stringently enforces of others. While many of the examples do not resonate strongly, they are merely examples to illustrate various issues.

My concern as a non-professional theologian and as a professional biblical interpreter is the use by both positions of Scriptural passages. I understand the nearly 500 year history of these positions and their birth in the 'scholastic' era, but my concern is the continued (mis)use of biblical interpretation.  Both positions appear to prefer a prooftext approach to their theological positions. As a baptist who follows the Arminian track fervently and avows the free church position fervently, I find it interesting that both positions appear to take modern corrections, not to mention post-modern corrections, to scholastic biblical interpretation so lightly. While Olson gives frequent signs of the larger approach and I am not opposed to any particular Arminians or Calvinists, it is the Arminian and Calvinist use of Scripture that I abhor. If the avowed position is sola Scriptura, then why do both hold so dogmatically to, dare I say the word, "tradition"?

It appears that both positions are birthed from modernity and the adherents are content to argue their doctrines from the modern position with little recognition of the post-modern world.  We'll see how the book fur it reads!!!