Roger Olson has weighed in on the Rob Bell controversy over at his blog:
Here we go again. The self-appointed evangelical inquisitors are already attacking Rob Bell on the basis of a book not yet published.
What’s ironic about Olson’s missive is the way he proceeds to do the very thing he faults others for. He attacks “self-appointed inquisitorial neofundamentalist heresy-hunters,” yet he himself is a self-appointed scourge of Justin Taylor, the Gospel Coalition, &c.
Why are so many Arminians so morally oblivious? Why are those who loudly proclaim the universal love of God among the least loving towards their theological opponents?
I know, because I’ve been on the receiving end of it…Another self-appointed evangelical inquisitor, heresy-hunter…
So the Bell controversy is just a pretext for Olson to settle old scores. That’s so very 1 Cor 13, don’t you think?
Several self-appointed evangelical heresy-hunters have publicly listed me among the open theists. I have never espoused open theism.
No, he’s not an open theist. At least not yet. However, he is, by his own admission, very sympathetic to open theism. He classifies open theism as a legitimate evangelical option. He’s left the door open (pardon the pun) to open theism. And that’s consistent with his libertarian priorities.
The people I’m referring to are all part of the same network–publishing with the same publishers, meeting together, producing materials together, etc. Is there a conspiracy? Well, perhaps not a highly organized one, but certainly there is a network of neo-fundamentalist heresy-hunters out there who get their jollies out of jumping on everyone they suspect possibly guilty of some heterodox opinion. They reward each other for it.
I suspect Olson is nursing a grudge. The last angry man.
He’s said things here and elsewhere on his blog to indicate that he represents a throwback to the “moderate” old guard in the SBC, before the conservative counterinsurgency. Back in the 70s, when the SBC was moving left. When SBC seminaries relinquished inerrancy.
Indeed, Baylor, where Olson holds court, is a notable holdout. The last bastion of the fading, graying, old guard. Like an ousted gov’t in exile.
When will someone with real influence across the evangelical movement stand up and say “Stop!”?
Surely he’s not suggesting that a “self-appointed” umpire settle the issue by unilateral fiat.
At the very least–hold the fire until the book is published. You can’t judge a book by one or two chapters…
Well, sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t. It’s not uncommon for an author to present his basis thesis in the introduction or the very first chapter. The remaining chapters furnish the supporting argument.
…and you can’t judge a theologian by one book without at least having a conversation with him (if that’s possible).
Did Olson have a private conversation with Justin Taylor before launching this very public attack?
By the way, I know Brian Mclaren and Doug Pagitt personally. I’d like to know Rob Bell as well. I would hesitate to attack any of them without a face-to-face conversation. I’ve found that kind of encounter often sheds light on what a person writes that is missing from a simple reading without knowing the author.
Did he hesitate to attack Justin Taylor before having a face-to-face conversation with Justin? I guess it’s okay to have a hair-trigger reaction as long as your opponent stands for everything you resent. Then you can dispense with the amenities and break out the pitchforks.
I also wonder why some people love hell so much? I can only conclude (tentatively, open to correction) it is because for them hell is necessary for the full glorification of God. Take away hell and God’s attribute of justice cannot be fully displayed. Many Calvinists say as much. However, of course, that takes something away from the cross of Christ which, in their theology, at least, displays God’s justice and wrath. Did it do so imperfectly or incompletely?
Well, that’s an interesting criticism. Does he take the position that hell is unnecessary? A gratuitous evil?
If God’s just wrath was completely displayed at the cross, why Noah’s flood? Or the Babylonian exile? Of the fiery judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah?
That's doesn't resolve the acute contradiction between their theology of God's indiscriminate love, and their conspicuously discriminating practice.
ReplyDelete"What’s ironic about Olson’s missive is the way he proceeds to do the very thing he faults others for. He attacks “self-appointed inquisitorial neofundamentalist heresy-hunters,” yet he himself is a self-appointed scourge of Justin Taylor, the Gospel Coalition, &c."
ReplyDeleteThis is self-displayed hypocrisy by Roger Olson.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps not; just as it doesn't resolve the acute contradiction between a Calvinist's defense of evangelism in light of a doctrine of predestination which leads to an evangelism without effect..."
i) To begin with, that's a fallacious comparison since you're alleging a logical contradiction–which is hardly equivalent to hypocrisy.
ii) And even on its own terms, that's a cliché objection which is been refuted many times before.
"Yet Christ's blood can even cover the sins of Arminians as it can Calvinsts..."
A red herring.
"My point was that if indeed we are all fallen, Arminians are as fallen as Calvinists who are fallen as the rest of us..."
That doesn't excuse a characteristic pattern on the part of most-all Arminian bloggers I've encountered (with Dan Chapa was a singular exception).
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete“It's only a fallacious comparison if Calvinism's theology itself is without fault or error. If it does contain error, then pick your favourite error and substitute for the one (or two) I offered.”
Since you’re the one, not me, who has a beef with Calvinism, the onus lies on you.
“I'm taking your doctrine on its own terms. It isn't evangelism that saves (and simply claiming to be honouring God's command, simply ignores the point.”
Try to master the rudimentary distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Evangelism is not a sufficient condition of salvation. Indeed, that’s the case even on Arminian terms. One can be evangelized, but disbelieve the message or commit apostasy.
In Calvinism, evangelism is normally a necessary, but insufficient condition of salvation. Other necessary conditions include the atonement, regeneration, saving faith, &c.
You made the allegation that “the acute contradiction between a Calvinist's defense of evangelism in light of a doctrine of predestination which leads to an evangelism without effect.”
To the contrary, predestination renders evangelism effective for the elect.
God predestines that saving faith is normally a prerequisite for salvation. God predestines the evangelist to evangelize the elect. God predestines the elect to believe the gospel.
There is not even the appearance of a contradiction. What we have, rather, is a means-ends relation.
“Not if we consider Jesus' conduct.”
You insinuated that Calvinists deny that Christ’s blood can even cover the sins of Arminians. That’s a red herring since Calvinists do no such thing.
Indeed, that’s a defamatory allegation for you to lodge against Calvinists.
“Did he, or did he not, exhibit grace when it came to ignorance on the part of his believers?”
What makes you think Roger Olson and other Arminian offenders (e.g. Peter Lumpkins) are simply ignorant?
“However, if by excuse you mean allowing or forgiving, I do excuse Arminians and Calvinists alike.”
“Forgiveness” is only germane if the offending party wronged the offended party. In this post I didn’t accuse Olson or other Arminians of wronging me personally, so forgives is irrelevant.
And even if it were germane, forgiveness is contingent on contrition. If the offender is impenitent, then there’s no duty to forgive him.
"Did he, or did he not, exhibit grace when it came to ignorance on the part of his believers? If he did, are Christian's of any stripe exempt from following His example when dealing with fellow Christians?"
ReplyDeleteNo, he didn't: "Get behind me Satan." He wasn't tolerant in the least, and not always soft spoken and nicety nice Jeffry, either. Jesus didn't for a nano-second mollycoddle his disciples. He called them fools, stupid, hardhearted, et cetera. Even for his mother he didn't display what the tone police call grace.
"What makes you think Roger Olson and other Arminian offenders (e.g. Peter Lumpkins) are simply ignorant?"
Isn't that always the cop-out. "None of us really know..." It is the ultimate whitewash- plead universal ignorance and yell olly olly oxen free. It makes the whole thing a child spitting match. Do the ἐκκλησία's really want the label themselves doltish disciples. I thinking not. It is just the way they slink away from accountability when their arguments fail.
You're right, though, they're not just stupid ignorammuses, as they would claim, they know that what they are doing, and that is what makes it even more dispicable.
Strong Tower said: "No, he didn't: "Get behind me Satan." He wasn't tolerant in the least, and not always soft spoken and nicety nice Jeffry, either."
ReplyDeleteStrong Tower, if this is how you see Christ's relationship to his disciples, if this is how you see his love exhibited towards them, I think you might want to look at a much broader sampling to get a more accurate representation.
This one instances you cite, does not define the norm, and using it to show Christ's typical reaction to their ignorance will give you a skewed portrait of Christ.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDeleteIf my understanding of Calvinist predestination is defective, please forgive me. I thought Calvinist predestination, for election or damnation was eternally set and was unconditional? If so, evangelisation can be neither necessary nor sufficient since the elect will be saved, and the non-elect not unconditionally (isn't that the U in TULIP?
If evangelisation (on the part of Calvinists) is a necessary condition for salvation (as saving faith is) than Calvinists, like Arminians seem to recognise the same soteriological role man plays in the process (which is apparently conditional), which is odd given how often this is a point of controversy between the two positions.
****************************************
You're confusing cause and effect. In Calvinism, nothing about the sinner causes God to elect the sinner. Election is not conditioned on the merit or responsiveness of the sinner.
Rather, the responsiveness of the sinner is conditioned on election. Predestination results in saving faith (among other things).
The effect originates in God, not in man. God predestines saving faith. God causes the elect to be responsive to the Gospel.
Saving faith is a condition of salvation, not election. And the fulfillment or nonfulfillment of that condition is up to God. God monergistically regenerates the elect. Regeneration is the wellspring of saving faith.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Well, I don't believe even Arminianism says that (at least Jacob Arminius himself doesn't, or does John Wesley, though my knowledge of Arminianism could also be defective)."
Traditionally, Arminianism subscribes to conditional election, where election is contingent on foreseen faith.
"But in terms of our discussion about Calvinist, weren't we talking about Salvation? So do you equate Salvation with Election?"
No. All the elect will be saved, but there are various components to salvation, viz. regeneration, justification, saving faith, the atonement,
"Would you also say 'In Calvinism, election IS necessarily conditioned on evangelism?'"
No.
"I don't see what the difference is between the Arminian necessary condition of saving faith on salvation in response to God's grace vis-a-vis the Calvinist position placing necessary conditions on salvation, be it evangelism, or again saving faith etc."
If you don't see the difference then you're not trying very hard. We're dealing with polar opposites:
Arminianism: election is contingent on faith.
Calvinism: faith is contingent on election.
If you think cause and effect are interchangeable, then you're hopelessly confused.
I said: "He wasn't tolerant in the least, and not always soft spoken and nicety nice Jeffry, either."
ReplyDeleteEk said: "does not define the norm, and using it to show Christ's typical reaction"
Dolt. Slow to understand.
The reference was to Jeffrey Hunter. If you know the movies, the Hollywood portrayals of Jesus make him what he never was. And that is the image of grace that you have projected upon Him. It is out of balance. So your response is to make it seem that I imbalance it. And I never did. Simply because you're out of balance doesn't mean everyone else is.
Jesus didn't tolerate ignorance. He never did. He came as the epitome of Truth, to set the record straight. What you don't like is the manner in which he did it, nor the Truth that he spoke. He warned the disciples that they would be held accountable for every word that did not work. That is not tolerance, that is not grace given as an excuse for stupidity. His demeanor was appropriate to the circumstance. And it didn't always consider the "feelings" of the audience. Take for instance his response to the two on the road to Emmaus. Having just been devastated emotionally, and totally confused in their minds, by the events of the weekend he calls them stupid fools. Absolutely unacceptable in today's "relational" world. Now I could mention the three instances where he rebukes his mother, twice verbally, and another through his slamming the door, so to speak, in her face, or the numerous occassions that he rebukes the disciples for their lack of faith, or even after restoring Peter, his further rebuke about Peter's inappropriate inquiry about another's life. I could sight the temple incident, but the fact is that none of these, whether it is one, or a dozen, will satisfy your over-weening pride that causes you to dictate to Scripture what it can say.
Since you didn't read, or perhaps couldn't understand what I wrote, I might let you go with just being ignorant. But, as I pointed out in agreement with Steve, it is not a really ignorance, nor do I think you really want to be known as anoetes, or bradus, rather, it is they exuse you wish to make for your self. That in effect, since all are as stupid as you, there is no real answer to any of this. But that begs the question as to why you would even show up on a thread like this.
It is obvious, that after several attempts by Steve to get you to acknowledge your misunderstandings of Calvinism, you will not. That is not because you don't know the difference, it is because you want to not acknowedge the difference so that you can continue to appear stupid as a excuse to continue arguing. I find that too often the ploy of those who argue against reformation teaching. When it comes to admitting wrong, Calvinism's detractors, in the end, appeal to ignorance. But, it is their ignorance and they should own it, alone.
As I said before, evangelism is effective for the elect. That hardly makes election contingent on evangelism. Evangelism is effective for the elect because God regenerates the elect, thereby restoring a predisposition to believe the gospel.
ReplyDeleteStrong Tower said: "Dolt. Slow to understand."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, but it has no bearing on the correctness of my arguments.
I admit, that I did not understand your reference to Jeffrey Hunter (not much of a movie buff), but given the rest of your argument I can say you are pigeon holeing me (a form of strawmanism).
You are setting up a false Jesus as Hippy view that you are knocking down, except that isn't the view of Jesus I profess.
Although I do agree Jesus is the Jesus who confronted the Pharisees, the Jesus who rebuked Peter, he is also the Jesus who built up his disciples.
My point to you, which still stands, is that your view of Jesus is more akin to say the Bully of Geneva than it is to the "lamb who was slain" or the "lion of the tribe of Judah"
Whether he was the Lamb or the Lion is a function of where one stands with him, hence my recommendation to you, to look at all of the portrayals of Christ (biblically) and not just the ones that seem to favour your position most.
Strong Tower: "Jesus didn't tolerate ignorance."
... and I agree, but we're talkig about HOW he dealt with ignorance, NOT whether he tolerated it or not. It is my assertion that he 'built up the body of Christ' graciously (and gave Steve examples - if you need more ...), and reserved his wrath for those who threatened this. It is a subtle argument to be sure.
Strong Tower: "Since you didn't read, or perhaps couldn't understand what I wrote, I might let you go with just being ignorant. But, as I pointed out in agreement with Steve, it is not a really ignorance, nor do I think you really want to be known as anoetes, or bradus, rather, it is they excuse you wish to make for your self. That in effect, since all are as stupid as you, there is no real answer to any of this. But that begs the question as to why you would even show up on a thread like this."
I'm missing your point in all of this. How do my personal deficiencies establish your point? You're shifting your argument away from your position onto my character, I surmise because you're not confident defending a false position and don't want it examined all that closely.
Lets say all of those things were true, does it show Christ did not exhibit Grace with his disciples? Does it show that my view of Christ is not in accordance with the Bible?
Strong Tower wrote: "It is obvious, that after several attempts by Steve to get you to acknowledge your misunderstandings of Calvinism, you will not ... "
There is nothing I'd like more than for Steve to show me my misunderstandings about Calvinism.
However lets review how the conversation went:
I pointed out that Calvinism's doctrine of predestination leads to an evangelism without effect (because predestination is predestination unconditionally right?)
Steve took issue and retorted "In Calvinism, evangelism is normally a necessary, but insufficient condition of salvation."
This means that evangelism IS then a condition of salvation being a necessary condition.
I cannot criticize this as Steve's position because I don't know if he holds to all 5 points of Calvinism. It seems he's willing to accept conditional salvation since he establishes a necessary condition for salvation.
But (and this is the point), our conversation did not show that I made a fallacious comparison (which was his original point) and so Steve did not show my understanding of Calvinism to be a misunderstanding.
At most all it shows is either that Steve believes evangelism is a necessary condition of salvation (so he accepts conditional salvation), or he agrees that the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination leads to an evangelism without effect, or some other option not yet expressed.
"he is also the Jesus who built up his disciples"
ReplyDeleteAs you are doing with Steve, so also with me. I admitted to different modes of edification... but... he built up by rebuke, often. Something which you are willingly minimalizing. It wasn't just Peter, but Peter repeatedly, and the others, also, even his mother, who he rebuked, building them up.
Your original complaint: "Not if we consider Jesus' conduct.
Did he, or did he not, exhibit grace when it came to ignorance on the part of his believers? If he did, are Christian's of any stripe exempt from following His example when dealing with fellow Christians?"
When considering Jesus conduct then, it is your definition of grace that lacks. It does not fit the Scripture's view of what grace is. But that comes out in your not understanding the grace of salvation.
Your response was supposedly premised on the post and a supposed tone that is disallowed in such contests. But Scripture supports such a tone when dealing with the recalcitrant, and even when not. And, further, the post made the point that it is gravy for the Arminian to use such tactics, then just to withdraw into the shadows of ignorance when confronted and proven wrong, or the defense of being abused when the Calvinist thinks to juice it up.
The strawmen, generally come from your camp. The Hippy Jesus, the sweetenly sick, pasty faced, marshmellow, is not at all what we find in Scripture. Jesus reacted in more than one mode. And, when faced with contradiction and ignorance in his professed disciples he was at least as criptic if not more so than with those outside the circle.
But, you have made those outside more the object of wrath than those within. And that would simply be backwards, evangelistically, wouldn't it? The fact is, though, his demeanor was situational as can be seen with the woman at the well, Nicodemus, and the lawyers. In John 3, his reaction is interestingly different. He cuts off Nic, returns upon Nic's head the condecension with which Nic responded, even to the extent of saying that Nic didn't know where babies come from. He in effect called him stupid about the earthly things and was by that even more indisposed to understand the heavenly ones. But he shows patience, also. He diligently explains how babies are made and that it has nothing to do with the one being born. And those in attendance lend nothing to the work of the Spirit, but merely are observers whose participation is always after the fact. The, are not the efficient cause, God is. But, the participants are none the less a necessary condition of that work of the Spirit. For who would be born again if they didn't necessarily exist?
As Steve is demonstrating my point, you don't care to hear the reasoning, for you have preset your responses by the caricatures and mischaracterizations of Calvinistic doctrine, that is, by the definitions that only you control. So it is you, with your strawmen, who is arguing illicitly. I only interjected to demonstrate that the argument and the attitude of the Arminian typically has nothing to do with what Scripture teaches. As you have done with the character of Christ, you do with your theology. And as I indicated, it won't matter how many valid examples you are given by me or by Steve. Your canned answers will continue.
Steve has said, that if you do not understand efficient versus necessary, you will never get it right. He is not trying, at this point, to get you to agree with Calvinism, really, just trying to get you to understand the subject so that he can get on to helping you to agree.
(continued)
ReplyDelete"I'm taking your doctrine on its own terms."
No, you're not, because you're not letting the definitions employed by Calvinists stand. You argue. And you do so within your own infused meaning of those terms. You do the same thing with the character of Christ.
In this post, the review is about Olson's recalcitrant hypocrisy. His ignorance is not founded in his not knowing but his knowing, and still he operates by acusing others so as to excuse hisself.
Jesus never tolerated ignorance, and especially that kind of feigned ignorance. I said, He didn't always approach it with nicety speech. His modes differed upon occassion. But the occassion wasn't dictated by the condition of the individuals. Jesus had explicitly taught the disciples about Jerusalem's cross. He didn't just mollycoddle their ignorance, as little children who just didn't know better, but as men who should have known better even when they didn't. He operated from the Romans one view point. No man can claim the excuse of ignorance and the wrath of God is appropriated by the guilt of the individual even from Adam and is not conditioned upon the actions of the individual.
You're wrong on all counts. But, hey, you're not going to agree. That is obvious. So, you do not even deserve the patient response. As I said, even in the disciples ignorance, their misunderstanding, their emotional weakness, their child-like faith, Jesus rebuked them. But, for lawyers who just love to argue... at what point did they deserve such softness?
Strong tower, where have I denied Jesus rebuked? You are arguing against a position I don't hold.
ReplyDeleteStrong tower said: "... it is your definition of grace that lacks."
Ok, so my definition lacks .. that still doesn't answer the question "Did he, or did he not, exhibit grace when it came to ignorance on the part of his believers?"
Of course feel free to share your presumably biblical concept of Grace. I'm open to instruction.
You wrote: "And, further, the post made the point that it is gravy for the Arminian to use such tactics .."
For the record, I'm not an Arminian as you mistakenly seem to believe.
You wrote: "The strawmen, generally come from your camp. The Hippy Jesus, the sweetenly sick, pasty faced, marshmellow, is not at all what we find in Scripture."
Although I agree "The Hippy Jesus, the sweetenly sick, pasty faced, marshmellow, is not at all what we find in Scripture", its not clear what 'camp' you believe I belong to. However, it doesn't matter. The mere fact you try to peg me into a camp, some category that serves as a bug-bear, rather than engage my actual words and arguments, suggests there is little use in trying defend my position.
You seem to agree: "So, you do not even deserve the patient response."
I'm glad we've found agreement.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"I cannot criticize this as Steve's position because I don't know if he holds to all 5 points of Calvinism."
I'm a 5-point Calvinist. You're the one who confuses categories.
"It seems he's willing to accept conditional salvation since he establishes a necessary condition for salvation."
True as far as that goes, but deceptive if you leave it at that since you disregard my qualifications.
It's not enough to say "conditional." For that simply pushes the question back a step: On which party is the satisfaction of that condition ultimately contingent? The human agent, or the divine agent?
In Arminianism, the satisfaction of the faith-condition is ultimately contingent on the human party. He is free to believe or disbelieve. He is free to believe, but later lose his salvation.
In Calvinism, the satisfaction of the faith-condition is ultimately contingent on the divine party. God's grace ensures the satisfaction of that condition in the life of the elect. God's grace ensures saving faith and perseverance (in the life of the elect).
"Ok. Is it necessary?"
Is *what* necessary? And necessary for *what*?
"...is evangelism a necessary condition of election, or not, or some other answer?"
I already answered that question. Election is unconditional. Evangelism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of election.
"Are the elect, ELECT because of evangelism, or apart from it, or something else?"
I already answered that question. No, they are not elect because of evangelism. Rather, evangelism is a means by which God saves the elect.
ἐκκλησία said...
ReplyDelete“So a 5-point Calvinist who willingly accepts Conditional salvation with qualifications (kind of like a 4.5 point Calvinist)?”
If, after I present careful explanations and principled distinctions, your response is to make smartass comments like this, then consider yourself persona non grata at Tblog. I don’t have to put up with your mendacity.
It's part of your agenda to minimize the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, and you resort to equivocation and prevarication to further your agenda.
You do a bait-and-switch where you substitute “salvation” for “election,” then act as if these were synonymous terms.
There is nothing I said that’s inconsistent with 5-point Calvinism. You isolate the word “conditional” while willfully ignoring the way I’ve defined my terms. I have other demands on my time. Go be a pest at someone else’s blog. You’ve outstayed your welcome here.
“Are you sure you're not mistaking Semi-Pelagianism for Arminianism (which is a very common mistake for even well intentioned Calvinists)? Show me where Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, or any reasonably representative says this.”
I don’t owe you a list of all the Arminian scholars I’ve read. The list is long.
A fundamental difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is that, according to Arminianism, saving grace is resistible anywhere along the line. You can resist the invitation of the gospel. Or you can accept, but later lose your salvation.
“Take comfort that Arminius himself would agree with the Calvinist assertion that ‘the satisfaction of the faith-condition is ultimately contingent on the divine party’. You can't then use that in opposition to the Arminian position, otherwise you'd be arguing against a straw-man position.”
To the contrary, in Arminian theology, prevenient grace is a necessary condition of conversion, but prevenient grace is resistible grace. And born-again converts can subsequently commit wholesale apostasy.
“If evangelism effects salvation, but not all salvation, it still is of no effect.”
Evangelism doesn’t “effect” salvation. It doesn’t cause saving faith. It merely exposes a sinner to the gospel.