Friday, March 02, 2012

Roger Olson on the Old Testament

rogereolson says:
I would go so far as to say that we should not focus on the cultural meaning, the circumstances, etc., except out of historical interest. Everything we need to know about God and salvation is in the New Testament. The OT was types and shadows. It provides some context for understanding the New Testament, but it provides nothing essential for doctrine or practice that Christians cannot find in the NT.


  1. Wow. One thing he says in the comment stream is:

    "I didn’t say any NT doctrines or ethical commands are “unrelated” to the OT. I said they are not dependent on it. But you didn’t answer my question. Identify one crucial Christian doctrine that requires OT support that could not be derived or defended from the NT alone."

    I wonder how someone would grasp the concept of Christ as high priest without the Old Testament. I'd love him to try to derive the doctrines from Hebrews without using the Old Testament.

  2. Steve Hays peeks in at Roger Olsom.

    Roger Olson undresses himself.

    Steve Hays reports this back to his blog.

    Readers laugh.


  3. Someplace recently I came across the term "neo-Marcionite." Applies here, I think.

    Soon Dr. Olsen will have the canon whittled down to parts of Luke and the Pauline epistles.

  4. This is fascinating, Steve.

    I have thought for a while that Arminians and Catholics share a disdain for the OT - this confirms that suspicion.

    Secondly, the OT, as you know, does confirm doctrine - just not the ones Olson likes.

    To wit, Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning..."

    Proverbs 16:4, "The Lord works out everything for his own ends, even the wicked for a day of disaster."

    It's hard to reconcile either of these with Arminianism.