At this point it's kind of redundant for me to continue rebutting Arminian theology when Roger Olson makes one fatal concession after another. Why lay siege to a fort when everyone is dead inside?
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/09/why-i-defend-rob-bells-love-wins-and-other-controversial-books/
... let's just say that since Roger Olson began his blog, there are those of us who do not always agree with many of statements, disagree with some of his own "Wesleyan-esque" beliefs, and perhaps consider him less a voice for conservative Arminianism than for Wesleyanism, much like conservative Calvinists may consider someone like Mark Driscoll a voice for conservative Calvinism (at least to some).
ReplyDeleteElsewhere in that post Olson stated: "There's something in American evangelical Calvinisms' DNA that makes it see a trajectory from Arminianism (or anything like it) to liberalism. I deny that trajectory and, in fact, tend to think it is the other way around (if anything): Calvinism leads to liberalism." http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/09/why-i-defend-rob-bells-love-wins-and-other-controversial-books/
... Correction ...
ReplyDelete"much like conservative Calvinists may consider someone like Mark Driscoll less a voice for conservative Calvinism (at least for some) -- than, say, Dr. Al Mohler, for example.
I am an Arminian and have written several posts at my blog against Olson's writings. Like William Birch stated, I concur that Olson does not speak for Arminians. His rejection of inerrancy, for example, is not held by many Arminians that I know including myself. His left leanings in many posts cause me much pain not just because he claims to be Arminian but because it gives credence to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteHas he been expelled from the Society of Evangelical Arminians? I thought he was still a member in good standing.
ReplyDeleteThe Seeking Disciple said...
ReplyDelete"His left leanings in many posts cause me much pain not just because he claims to be Arminian but because it gives credence to the enemy."
Who's the "enemy"?
If I'm not mistaken, he is still a member. He insists that he affirms our statement of faith on Scripture: "We believe the Scriptures as originally given by God, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, infallible, entirely trustworthy, and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct."
ReplyDeleteI've read statements from him (on his blog) which appear to call into question that he actually does agree with that statement, as you have rightly noted here on Triablogue before.
The enemy in this case being liberalism.
ReplyDeleteFunny thing is, we were told by every Arminian under the sun to read Olson's Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. It was supposed to shut the mouth of the Calvinist and keep him from misrepresenting Arminianism. I wrote a lengthy and thorough review of the book and it was criticized by many of the Arminians here who are now telling us to look away from Olson. Olson himself chided many Calvinists for not understanding Arminians. Now Arminians are telling us that Olson doesn't speak for Arminianism.
ReplyDeleteHere's a hint: Thomas McCall also thinks Olson doesn't represent the best of Arminianism, he's currently working on a book in which the real Arminius will be presented. Since he's a philosophical theologian, I suspect many of Olson's errors to be avoided, and the arguments to be better. I believe he presents Arminius as a Molinist (btw, Billy Birch once said Molinists aren't true Arminians, or something to that effect). I suspect his book will be the one for *both* sides to read.
I still believe Olson's book on Arminianism is solid. The problem I have with Olson has come out since he published his book on Arminian theology. Most of Olson's latest writings have come from his personal blog.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Roy, that Olson's book is still valuable, I just don't think that many of Olson's views regarding other issues (non-soteriological) are what I call "conservative." In that sense, Olson does not rightly represent the more "conservative" side of many Arminians today, but perhaps more of "Wesleyan-Arminians." That is just my opinion, though. Perhaps some other Arminians may disagree.
As for Molinists, given that both Arminians and Calvinists can be Molinists, my point was that being Molinist does not mean being Arminian (I'm thinking of Calvinist-Molinists such as Alvin Plantinga, Ken Keathely et al.). I may have made the crack about them not being "true" Arminians, haha. (I'm not a fan of Molinism.)
I'm glad you made us aware of McCall's upcoming book. I look forward to it.
Calvinists can't be Molinists, at least not if the adhere to the confessional statements and Reformed expositions on God's knowledge. Molinism requires middle knowledge, the Reformed have always denied it. Middle knowledge is *not* knowledge of counterfactuals. Moreover, Reformed views on the basis of God's decree rule out Middle knowledge. So no, Reformed can't be Molinists.
ReplyDeleteRoy and Billy, since you both agree with Olson's book, where does that leave Arminianism given my review of it ;-)
ReplyDeleteI have no opinion as I have never read your review.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read your review of Olson's book. Perhaps if I get some time this week, I'll sit down on your site and find it and read it. Thank you.
TDS,
ReplyDeleteMan, now I know what your life has been lacking.
Billy, now your life can be complete.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/arminian-theology-myths-and-realities.html
Keep in mind, Olson continues to say that no Calvinists read his book and offer serious interaction with it. He is aware of my review and ignores it.
Isn't the PCUSA Calvinist? The United Church of Christ? What are you talking about in terms of liberalism?
ReplyDelete