Arminian
theologian Roger Olson is appealing to the witness of the Spirit as a safety
net, which makes it okay to deny the inerrancy of Scripture. But that’s
incoherent:
i) Our direct knowledge regarding the person and work of
the Holy Spirit comes from the Bible. So you can’t cite the witness of the
Spirit to salvage your denial of Biblical inerrancy, for your understanding of
the Spirit is, itself, contingent on the veracity of Scripture. So the witness
of the Spirit can’t protect you against an errant Bible.
ii) The Holy Spirit is the
primary author of Scripture. To invoke the witness of the Spirit to rationalize
an attack on the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture is an attack on the
work of the Spirit.
iii) Scripture forewarns us
to distinguish between competing spirits:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 Jn 4:1).
You can’t invoke the Spirit
to justify an attack on the Bible, for Word and Spirit don’t function
independently. It’s a mutual witness. You can’t set them at odds. Without the
one you lack the other.
Olson’s position reveals the
state of modern Arminian theology, and it isn’t pretty.
The question that is raised in mind after reading this is I wonder just what participation the Spirit has in modern day Arminianism?
ReplyDelete