@curiousdannii Rather than giving his position, or charged Calvin outright like Robin Phillips, he offers how realist vs. nominalist position is so foundational that if we are not careful it can even affect our interpretation of the Bible. His even earlier blog article (from 2010, while the other two were from 2012 and 2015) A Much Neglected Basic Choice in Theology is a good, easy to read, backgrounder.

Quote: I am often inclined to think that Calvinist-Arminian debates that get nowhere except a shouting match have much to do with this fundamental philosophical difference. Of course, both sides think Scripture is on their side, but Scripture itself nowhere actually addresses the question as it is posed here. Both nominalists and realists can read and interpret 'God is love' as consistent with their view. (cont'd)

But when a Calvinist says that God's 'love' is different from our love and means qualitatively different and not merely quantitatively different I suspect he or she is showing nominalist-voluntarist colors whether he or she is aware of that or not. Then I suspect we are using entirely different language games, so to speak. I'm not sure, then, that we can even communicate meaningfully because while we are using the same words we don't mean the same by them at all. (end quote)

So his recommendation: "Perhaps debate between Calvinists and Arminians could be clarified if the debaters would make clear their commitments about God's nature. I know I have much more in common and therefore more room for agreement and therefore meaningful discussion with a Calvinist who is clear about his or her realist/non-voluntarist commitments than with one who is either unclear about that or who is a committed nominalist/voluntarist."

This is what he felt after reading Luther-Erasmus debate that "I have the feeling they are like two ships passing in the night. They are not even communicating. And the reason is that each one is assuming something totally different regarding God's nature and sovereignty."

@GratefulDisciple This is right up my alley. I'm starting to think about my next research project, which will be something on the topic of accommodation, and possibly a critical analysis of Aquinas's analogy and others that followed him

@curiousdannii Quite exciting. I would love to read it (or a draft). BTW, turns out that "Much Neglected ..." article was the first in a series. In the next article More about the basic choice in theology (voluntarism versus realism Olson applied it to various theological doctrines and his experience dialoging with Calvinists.

Then in the next article he returns to nominalism, this time to play devil's advocate with a Calvinist to show what he means by having a meaningful conversation in a realist sense and to expose certain pre-biblical choice that a Calvinist may carry. It looks like he doesn't label all Calvinists as nominalists, but use this blog article on how to create a good litmus test.

@curiousdannii Looks like I'm going to read a lot more of Roger E. Olson blog articles; a good Arminian dialog partner who is knowledgeable in philosophy as well as historical theology. He's also very much self-aware (see Some thoughts on theological biases and Evangelical Christianity).

A recent (July 2021) 9-part series on Experiences of an Evangelical Theologian is a promising read as well as he shared his decades teaching theology at multiple schools, as minister, as book authors, & dialogs with other evangelical theologians privately or at conf. They read like travelogues, quite entertaining as well as educational to have a better grasp of the varied landscape of evangelicalism.