Here's the text of a brief letter I wrote to Roger Olson a week ago. Not surprisingly, I haven't heard back from him. He may be observing the prudent policy that if you don't have good answers to tough questions, don't say anything.
*******************************
Dear Dr. Olson,
You wrote an above-titled essay ["My biggest problem with Calvin/Calvinism"]. I'd like to ask you about three statements you made:
"To view the devil as God's instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative."
But doesn't the Biblical narrative include passages like Job 1-2 and 1 Kgs 22:19-23, where God made instrumental use of demonic or diabolical agents?
"I have been heavily criticized by some of my Calvinist friends for saying that my biggest problem with Calvinism (by which I mean consistent divine determinism) is that it makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between God and the devil. (I am not saying Calvinists worship the devil!)"
How are you able to say, on the one hand, that the God of Calvinism is indistinguishable from the devil while, on the other hand, you distinguish Calvinists from devil-worshipers? If the object of their worship is diabolical, wouldn't that make them devil-worshipers?
Perhaps you mean they don't consciously worship a false God.
But isn't that equally true of most pagans? Yet the Bible treats heathen worship as diabolical, does it not?
"However, I do not admire or respect John Calvin. I have been told that he should not be held responsible for the burning of the heretic Servetus because, after all, he warned the Spanish doctor and theologian not to come to Geneva and he urged the city council to behead him rather than burn him. And, after all, Calvin was a child of his times and everyone was doing the same. Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal."
It isn't clear to me why you single out Calvin in this regard. Let's take a comparison. To my knowledge, Archbishop Laud was a committed Arminian. Yet he was notorious for persecuting his theological opponents. If you think Calvin is a big problem for Calvinism, then why don't you think Laud is a big problem for Arminianism?
It seems to me that a man who is disliked by the civil authorities and who has no civil power, upon seeing that the authorities are committed to executing someone, does a good, even great thing by trying to convince them to at least be merciful in the execution.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been better, perhaps, had he stayed clear of the whole mess, but why isn't it to Calvin's credit that he first tried to dissuade Servetus from coming to Geneva (knowing he would be executed) and then tries to convince the executioners to be merciful?
Perhaps to give an out to those who are determined to hate his theology.
And about the devil as God's servant thing. I just don't understand these guys. Even as an Arminian kid reading the OT war stories, it's pretty plain that God sent the evil Spirit to Saul, the lying spirit to Ahab's cousellors, to David to call a census, and best of all, to sic the devil on Job. What is unclear about all of this?
Olson's rather positive review of The Shack is one reason, among many, to be cautious of Olson and his theological discernment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do believe that in his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Olson attributes the work of Satan to God, to wit: “God is the first cause of whatever happens; even a sinful act cannot occur without God as its first cause…” (122)
"If you think Calvin is a big problem for Calvinism, then why don't you think Laud is a big problem for Arminianism?"
ReplyDeleteDid he say that he thinks Calvin is a big problem for Calvinism?
"To my knowledge, Archbishop Laud was a committed Arminian. Yet he was notorious for persecuting his theological opponents. If you think Calvin is a big problem for Calvinism, then why don't you think Laud is a big problem for Arminianism?"
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, there aren't any Christians still celebrating the birthday of Archbiship Laud. The celebration of his birth probably ended when he died (as is the case with most men).
On the other hand, thousands of Calvinists are celebrating the 500th birthday of John Calvin (the only thing that's missing is the Christmas tree and presents).
Olson's article was submitted to an evangelical publication in response to their celebration of Calvin's "500th birthday." He was clear about that in his article...not sure how you missed that point.
I didn't celebrate Calvin's birthday. Moreover, I think the birthday celebrations were simply a pretext to highlight Reformed theology. Like celebrating Reformation Day.
ReplyDeleteYou're also ducking the larger question. Do you think we should judge Calvinism by Calvin? If not, then Calvin's birthday should be irrelevant to Olson. If, on the other hand, you do think that's relevant to Calvinism, then Laud is relevant to Arminianism. Try to work on your logic.
"You're also ducking the larger question. Do you think we should judge Calvinism by Calvin? If not, then Calvin's birthday should be irrelevant to Olson. If, on the other hand, you do think that's relevant to Calvinism, then Laud is relevant to Arminianism. Try to work on your logic."
ReplyDeleteLet's go through this one more time:
Roger Olson was asked by an evangelical publication to express his "biggest problem with Calvin/Calvinism." This was meant to coincide with Calvin's 500th birthday and a series of articles related to John Calvin.
Olson proceeded to write a 600-word essay about his "biggest problems with Calvin/Calvism" just as he was asked. It was rejected for publication.
In your response to Olson, you said, "It isn't clear to me why you single out Calvin in this regard."
Thus, he singled out Calvin because he was asked to.
Furthermore, I don't see a problem with singling out Calvin during a time when many Christians are celebrating his life and putting him on a pedestal. I would single out Laud, too, if thousands of misinformed Christians were celebrating his life and lifting him up as a righteous man.
"Do you think we should judge Calvinism by Calvin?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't. And I don't think Roger Olson does either.
If you disrespect Calvin for what happened with Servedus, then you must disrespect every single human being living during that time! The Servedus objection is a dead horse that needs to be laid to rest.
ReplyDeleteWhat is worse: when good people do nothing or good God does nothing? You must not read too good because Olson didn't say that the Calvinist description of how God acts and how the devil acts are indistinguishable, Olson said that he has trouble seeing the difference between God and the devil within the Calvinist scheme of theology. Olson's concern follows in the footsteps of Wesley, who preaching in Whitefield's church, after drilling Calvinism in his "Free Grace" sermon, Wesley turned to rebuke the devil preaching: "Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands, and that he doeth it more effectually?... We may resist thee; but he can irresistibly destroy both soul and body in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decree to leave thousands of souls in death compels them to continue in sin till they drop into everlasting burnings.... Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men?"
ReplyDeleteJAKE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Thus, he singled out Calvin because he was asked to.”
i) Writers don’t have to do what they’re asked to do. He’s not employed by that publication. He has a day job.
ii) I’d add that what he wrote was rejected for publication, so it’s not as if he was just doing whatever they wanted him to do.
iii) Either he thinks Calvin is relevant to the evaluation of Calvinism or not. If Calvin is irrelevant to the evaluation of Calvinism, then there’s no justification for dragging Calvin into the discussion. It’s just a guilt-by-association tactic. If, on the other hand, he thinks that Calvin is relevant to the evaluation of Calvinism, then Laud is relevant to the evaluation of Arminianism.
Try to be consistent–even if it kills you.
“Furthermore, I don't see a problem with singling out Calvin during a time when many Christians are celebrating his life and putting him on a pedestal.”
Of course, “putting him on a pedestal” is your invidious characterization.
“I would single out Laud, too, if thousands of misinformed Christians were celebrating his life and lifting him up as a righteous man.”
And when many Arminians put Roger Olson on a pedestal, I reserve to right to single him out as well. So we’re even.
Westwind said...
ReplyDelete“You must not read too good because Olson didn't say that the Calvinist description of how God acts and how the devil acts are indistinguishable, Olson said that he has trouble seeing the difference between God and the devil within the Calvinist scheme of theology.”
You must not read too good since finding it hard to tell the “difference” is synonymous with finding it hard to “distinguish” between two or more things.
“Olson's concern follows in the footsteps of Wesley…”
You must not read too good since I’ve quoted from Wesley’s sermon on this very blog.
I've struck a cord with Steve. Steve, I've never read your blog until this very day when I was directed to it. Only you know what you've intended to write but I've only read what you published today—and from that, I gather that you don't read too good. Now, through your reply, I'm learning more about your presumptions: Apparently for you the phrase "difficult to distinguish" means "indistinguishable." Steve, how has that light-hearted reading comprehension gotten you to this point unscathed?
ReplyDeleteOlson writes: "Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal."
ReplyDeleteServetus was tried and convicted and sentenced by the standards and procedure of the state law of Geneva. That is not murder, whatever you think of those laws.
There was no electricity in 16th century Europe. Imagine how easy it would have been to do all manner of crime in such darkness. Punishments were harsh. Not just for heresy, but for everything.
And the current, on-going war with Rome and Rome's proxies had something to do with heresy charges then as well. Heresy then was like being a traitor in time of war. It put whole populations in danger.
The whole Servetus thing is what God portrayed in Ezekiel as the 'ah ha!' thing enemies of believers engage in. See the King James Version for the very descriptive and on-the-mark 'ah ha!'...
Westwind,
ReplyDeleteIf, by his own admission, Olson can't tell the difference, then they're indistinguishable. Does Olson add anything to distinguish them? No.
Steve, you're putting words into Olson's mouth. Difficulty distinguishing never means indistinguishable, Steve. If it did, I wouldn't maintain my claim that you don't read too good. Moreover, Steve, Olson shared with me that he never received your email. You did sent it, didn't you? If so, what email address did you send your email to, Steve? We'll check the records.
ReplyDeleteIt was emailed to his Baylor email address, which his posted on his academic webpage. I also cc'd it to a number of friends, so plenty of folks can vouch for me.
ReplyDeleteWestwind said...
ReplyDelete"Steve, you're putting words into Olson's mouth. Difficulty distinguishing never means indistinguishable, Steve."
He doesn't say they're distinguishable. He says the opposite.
If he can distinguish them, then his objection falls to the ground. Pay attention to the logic of his objection.
Steve, Dr. Olson wrote, "difficult for me to tell the difference." Difficult does not mean indistinguishable as you've repeatedly asserted and I'm dumbfounded by your continued resourcefulness to maintain an untenable argument, Steve. What was the title of your email?
ReplyDelete