Pages

▼

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Roger Olson comes clean

In the combox, Roger Olson fesses up by giving a straight answer to a questioner:





Tim Reisdorf  a day ago

Roger,
I feel rather badly for asking this, but (since this is about musings) I'll go ahead...
In your view, do God's ethics change like our ethics change? God wanted the Israelites to wipe out the Jebusites (among others) - was God so ethically challenged at that time that He wasn't aware how utterly abhorrent it was? Isn't such a God worth of condemnation, not just "reform" as you say Jesus did with regard to God and divorce? (Although we, in our post-modern ethical competency, have done a good bit of "dis-reforming" Him back on the issue of divorce!)
If we don't stop to ask "Why" God might have commanded these things AND we get an answer that is ethically acceptable for all times, then aren't we simply changing God instead of God changing us (when we contrast Him with the NT God)? Why not simply discard the unethical God of the OT? Shouldn't that ethical-drag-of-a-deity be jettisoned to preserve our more Christian sensibilities? How are we to keep on progressing with such an anchor?
If we can't find acceptable reasons for Capital Punishment in principle, we can hardly call the OT God good. Jesus called the OT God good - the only One who was good. I shall defer to Jesus and I invite you to join me in doing so.
-Tim



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/07/the-old-testament-and-contemporary-christian-ethics/
at

8 comments:

  1. Peter Pike7/09/2013 12:19 PM

    That's one way to be non-Reformed...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7/09/2013 12:56 PM

    Is that code for I use a sharpie and scissors on my Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Truth Unites... and Divides7/09/2013 3:57 PM

    Olson: "I am not a biblical inerrantist."

    As a response to Tim Reisdorf's question, what the heck does Olson's response mean??!?

    That Olson believes that some of the OT accounts are wrong and in error?

    I'm flabbergasted. But I shouldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7/10/2013 10:10 AM

    So, Steve, are you implying that disqualifies Dr. Olson from being a Christian? I'm asking a question, and not making a statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. steve7/10/2013 10:46 AM

      Since he repudiates OT theism, he lacks a credible profession of faith.

      Delete
  5. chalee7/10/2013 11:54 AM

    Olson has to reject any teaching of Jesus that doesn't fit with Olson's preexisting beliefs. He admits that.

    Olson worships an imaginary invention. Hard to call him a Christian. Better to appeal to him to humble himself and submit to God as He has revealed Himself in the scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim Pemberton7/11/2013 5:18 PM

    For some reason I'm not surprised. His open theology already made him apostate, but he's been treating God's revelation with disdain for a long time. The question now is the same for all self-described Christians who deny the reliability of the Bible: I wonder how he figures he knows what he thinks he knows about God since he doesn't think the Bible is good enough to rely on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. LonelyBoy7/12/2013 10:54 AM

    Steve how about guys who denied the historicity of Adam I read elsewhere that Alister McGrath is like that, do they lack credible profession of faith as well?

    ReplyDelete