Dissed by Roger Olson

A number of you have asked me about my thoughts on Roger Olson's new book, Arminian Theology:  Myths and Realities (IVP).  I am one of those mean-spirited Calvinists singled out by Olson for supposedly misrepresenting Arminianism and Arminians.  I have not read Olson's book yet, but will certainly get around to it, since it is an important occasion when a noted Arminian theologian, like Olson, enters into direct debate with Reformed theology and its advocates.

According to Dr. Olson, in an article I wrote on Arminianism for Modern Reformation back in 1992 (Vol. 1), I am way over the top when I take Arminianism to task for departing from the evangel, when I state that in Arminianism, God's grace makes people savable, but does not actually save them.  Am I wrong, or is that not what Arminians themselves actually teach? (See, for example, the writings of John Miley, who states that Arminians teach a "genuine conditionality of salvation in accord with the synergism of the truest Arminianism," Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 169).

Throughout my essay, I quote from B. B. Warfield's "Review" of the just quoted Methodist theologian John Miley's Systematic Theology.  As Warfield was supposedly unfair to Miley (complains Olson), I am also being unfair to Arminians when I make comments to the effect that human freedom is fundamental to Arminianism (Olson, Arminian Theology, p. 98).  Olson then disses me in a footnote on page 40 of his book by writing, "I wonder whether the author [Riddlebarger] ever read Miley or only B. B. Warfield his critic." 

I can assure Dr. Olson that I've read Miley's Systematic Theology several times (with great appreciation for Miley's unabashed commitment to the Arminian system and all its consequences).  In fact, my comment about human freedom being the Arminian fundamentum, is a quote from the very same John Miley, who, supposedly, I did not actually read.

When Olson takes B. B. Warfield to task for misrepresenting Miley and Arminians, I am tempted to take up the pen in Warfield's defense, since I am well-familiar with Warfield's critique of Miley (as I am with Miley himself).  I can tell you that Warfield is anything but mean-spirited to John Miley.  In fact, Warfield is most gracious and deferential to Miley, as one scholar reviews the work of another.  Dr. Olson could learn much from Warfield's graciousness, as could we all. 

However, Gary Johnson, pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, AZ, beat me to the punch.  Phil Johnson has posted the first of Gary Johnson's three part review of Olson's book over at Pyromanics (Click here: Pyromaniacs: Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry Arminian).  I highly recommend that you check this out.  Gary Johnson does a stellar of job of defending Warfield, while hoisting Olson on his own petard.  It is patently clear to anyone who has read Warfield's "Review" that Warfield is far more charitable to Miley, than Olson is to Warfield.

Don't you just love it when those who complain about "mean-spirited" Calvinists, behave in such a manner?  Olson does not like Calvinism.  That's fine.  But to be so mean-spirited when complaining about people being "mean-spirited," empties Olson's argument of most of its punch.  Calvinists have no excuse for being mean.  But Calvinists often get back far worse than they dish out.  Olson's treatment of Warfield is a prime example.

Comments

[walt]

Zrim,

I heard an Ethiopian evangelist last week who had been persecuted both by the Communists and then by the Muslims. His gospel seemed to be John 3:16 to both. Here's the link to the program. Well worth the listen:

http://www.crosstalkamerica.com/shows/recent_programs.php

Scroll down to "The Plight of the Persecuted Church." It's an interview with Getaneh Getaneh.

[Euaggelion]

I "happened" to be reading today Robert Traill's excellent small work, Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification from the Unjust Charge of Antinomianism. Traill originally wrote this treatise as a letter to a fellow minister in the country in 1692 during the Neonomian Controversy. His brief letter guarded the doctrine of justification by faith against Antinomianism (e.g., Tobias Crisp) and Neonomianism/Arminianism (e.g., Richard Baxter, "who viewed faith, in the guise of new gospel obedience, as the ground of justification rather than Christ's imputed righteousness... much as John Wesley did a half-century later."). I highly recommend it. Traill's work is a defense and declaration of the "absolute boundless freedom of the grace of God, which excludes all merit and everything like it."

I wonder if the quote below by Traill would be considered "mean spirited" or a proper defense of the absolute boundless freedom of the grace of God (i.e., the Gospel)? In the words of Martin Luther, "Wherefore we are not ashamed for the defence of the truth, to be counted and called hypocrites, proud and obstinate, such as will be only wise, will hear none, will place to none. For here we must needs be obstinate and inflexible. For the cause why we offend man, that is to say, tread down the majesty of the person, or of the world, is so great, that the sins which the world judgeth to be most heinous, are counted singular virtues before God."

Traill's quote: “Arminianism is far more common, as dangerous, (speaking in relation to Antinomianism) and far more natural to all men… the principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind which is enmity both to the law of God and to the Gospel of Christ; and, next to the dead sea of Popery- into which this stream also runs- they have, from Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the church of Christ and, it is likely, will be till His Second Coming.”

[PastorTA]

It is more than just improper to call Richard Baxter anything resembling an Arminian. Even the Neonomian term is inflammatory. One should actually *READ* Baxter before making such ridiculous comments.

[Euaggelion]

The fact is Richard Baxter was a Neonomian. He remodeled the Gospel into a conditional faith. He turned the Gospel into a new law which must be obeyed for salvation. He held that Repentance and faith are the believer’s personal saving righteousness and rejected that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner in justification. Baxter's view of justification differed considerably from the Reformers (i.e., Luther and Calvin) and men like Walter Marshall, Robert Traill and later men such as Thomas Boston, Erskines and the Marrow Men.

[Alando Franklin]

Martin Luther:
"Wherefore we are not ashamed for the defence of the truth, to be counted and called hypocrites, proud and obstinate, such as will be only wise, will hear none, will place to none. For here we must needs be obstinate and inflexible. For the cause why we offend man, that is to say, tread down the majesty of the person, or of the world, is so great, that the sins which the world judgeth to be most heinous, are counted singular virtues before God."




Apostle Paul:
"Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you."

[Roger Olson]

What amazes me is how many here (and elsewhere) are criticizing my book without having read it yet. Why not read it for yourself before jumping to criticism? The book is not an attack on Calvinism; it is a correction of misunderstandings and misrepresentations of classical Arminianism. In it I quote extensively from Arminius and numerous Arminians after him including contemporary Arminians to show that the ten main myths about Arminianism (often promoted by Calvinists but also by others) are simply untrue to the stated beliefs of Arminius and classical Arminians. The biggest problem (as I see it) is that many critics of Arminianism do what they would not want done to their views. They attribute to Arminians beliefs Arminians explicitly deny and fail to attribute to them beliefs Arminians explicitly affirm on the basis of what Arminians ought to believe (according to the critics) as the allegedly good and necessary consequences of what they do believe. Most Calvinists would object if I or any other Arminian stated without qualification that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin and evil. I always make clear that this is not what most (or any) Calvinists believe even if, from my perspective, it is the good and necessary consequence of what they do believe. Simple fairness requires us to represent our opponents' beliefs fairly before stating the ends to which we think they should and perhaps will lead.

Roger Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798

[walt]

Oh boy...

[Alan Kurschner]

Dr. Olson,

I have not read your book yet, but it is on my reading list. However that should not disqualify individuals such as myself for critiquing Arminian theologians such as the classic Arminian John Miley who taught explicitly that the grace of the cross only makes men "savable." Miley wrote,

"One is that the atonement is only provisory in its character; that it renders men savable, but does not necessarily save them. Another, and the consequence of the former is the conditionality of salvation.[…] a real conditionality in accord with the synergism of the truest Arminianism." Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 169.

Nor is it an Arminian myth to assert that Arminians believe that libertarian freedom of the individual is fundamental to their theological system.

Again Miley writes of his own Arminianism,

"Theology gives importance to the question of freedom. Our position on so cardinal a question must influence our interpretation of the Scriptures as the source of theology, and chiefly determine the cast of our doctrinal system.[…] freedom is fundamental in Arminianism." Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 275.

How do you respond to these statements of Miley? Have you addressed them directly in your book? If so could you provide me a page number?

Also, have you, or do you plan to respond to Gary Johnson who has read your book and written a widely-read three part article responding to it?

Thanks,
Alan Kurschner

[Frank]

I have read enough ridiculous literature to read yet another book proclaiming arminianism. I have studied these false doctrines enough and heard enough bad preaching about them. Why waste my time with this poisonous doctrine. Look at all the gimmicks being used by American churches these days and you will see the end result of the arminian teaching.

I think the best a doctrinally sound christian could do is ignore the book and not be drawn into yet another fight.

From the debates I have had with arminians through the years there are two basic problems that they all seem to have - VOLUNTARY IGNORANCE and PRIDE.

[Ivan]

Roger,

Being born and raised in a Baptist culture that NEVER read original sources like Calvin or Luther, you can imagine all the garbage I was fed regarding Luther and Calvin... all in the name of "Bible believing Christianity" of course.

Our preachers and writers presented us year after year with a Christ that is powerless, is nagging sinners as he keeps showing up at knocking, pleading for sinners to open their heart's door. Nag, Nag, Nag. Jesus was presented as a nuisance, when it came to sotierology..

Please do not take it personally, Roger, However, I lived under Arminian teaching for some 25 years. I then purchased and read Knowing God by J I Packer and a few months later was reading Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God again by Packer.

Roger, the God of Arminianism is too small, too human, too status quo. He is tame and dull.

I have found Christ to be out of the box of Arminianism. He is the radical king who steps into the picture and affects huge change in hearts and lives, and not only that but the cosmos.

The Christ of Calvinism actually saves us! He actually accomplishes an atonement, a full redemption. He is the savior not only of filthy no good sinners like you and me, but he is also the Savior of the Cosmos that is suffering now in great pain. Christ will bring a new cosmos, a new heaven and a new earth!

I spent 25 years under Arminianism of the Baptist movement, why would I want to read yet another Arminian book, when I was reading original sources, and in that camp for 25 years?

I still recall the day, with awe and amazement while reading Packer's Knowing God that I stopped, looked at my wife and said, "Diane, the God of this book is much bigger than the God I have ever heard about in my 25 years of church life". I started down another path, and never looked back at the old paths.

Roger, would you consider reading Putting Amazing Back into Grace, by Mike Horton?

Thanks for Posting, Roger,

[jsb]

Ivan, if you have read the great Arminians, e.g., Wesley and Fletcher, as you state, you cannot see some small God there. Let's get rid of such caricatures. Olson's book is necessary for some very obvious reasons. And I would critique those who mischaracterize Calvinism, too (as in the example you cited. Sheesh.) But after 20 years of studying the two sides, and rejecting Calvinism, I do not therefore reject Calvinists as brothers in arms. Return the favor, eh?

Did you ever read Fletcher's plea for reconciliation? Isn't it tremendous? Do you think this pastor had a small God?

[Danny]

Inreresting debate. I feel that if I was an arminian it would necessitate my reading of Olson's book to try to stop the inconsistencies in my own mind. For now I'll stick with the sovreign God of the Bible who's big enough to pull me out of the most dispicable life you've ever heard. Holy Spirit before irresistabel decision.

peace out!

[Ryan]

I would have to say that this post itself seems to be a bit "mean-spirited." I cannot imagine how the phrase about Olson being hoisted by his own petard could have been meant in a loving way...? It may not have been intended in a caustic manner, but it did come across that way. From one Christian to another, it seems that we have reverted to a childish "he started it" mentality.

[Alando Franklin]

One thing that always puzzles me is that a proper understanding of the DOG inevitably leads to humility. This is the intended affect Scripturally speaking, yet, from my limited observation here and elsewhere there seems to be a glaring defienciency among the reformed community.

Many would do well today to heed the advice of Dr. Roger Nicole found here:

http://www.founders.org/library/nicole1.html

[Jim]

Wow, comments on this blog have been quite harsh!!! So much for portraying the love of God. I hope most of you commenters have read the entire book, and not just portions.
Olson is very careful how he words this argument. He is not attacking, but rather defending what he considers unjust accusations.
He even makes the point that some who call themselves Armininians are semi-pelagians or "Arminians-of-the-Head". He indicates that these are not true Arminians, nor are consistent with scripture.
He claims that Arminians hold to total depravity, believe in conditional election, believe in God's total sovereignty over all of the universe, a strong view of grace - it is all of God, none of humans, and perseverance of the saints, and more.
Just read the book with an open mind. If you approach it with a closed mind, you won't understand what he is saying and might as well not read it.

[matt bownds]

Thanks Kim for the post. I've found most of the comments very helpful too. I'd just add two things that bother me here (I'm currently nearing the end of Olson's book):

1. How many of the comments (including the original post) begin with "I haven't read the book yet, but..." I would humbly suggest that before making lengthy comments on Olson and what he says about Arminianism, people read the book!

2. Olson is portrayed by the post and many comments as "mean-spirited" and similar. Having read most of the book that's not something he's seemed to me. Occasionally he over-generalizes when it comes to Calvinism but on the whole I find his tone fairly irenic considering the topic. And I'm a convinced Calvinist.