Roger Olson's book: "Reformed and Always Reforming"

Post Reply
User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Roger Olson's book: "Reformed and Always Reforming"

Post by _Rick_C » Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:46 pm

I came across this new book here:
Jesus Creed:
Blog discussion of Roger Olson's new book:
"Reformed and Always Reforming:
The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology
"

excerpt from Jesus Creed:
Scot McKnight wrote:
Two streams flow into Evangelicalism today according to Roger Olson in his fine new study, Reformed and Always Reforming. Here are the two streams, and they derive also from the fine studies of Mark Noll, the Dean of American Church history and evangelicalism: Pietism and Puritanism.

Many today, like John Piper in his recent statement (and I will be responding to him soon), really do think the Puritan strain is the only genuine evangelical strain and that the Pietists are Romantics or Liberals or something else (like Arminians).

Pietism adds a strong experiential dimension to classic Protestantism according to Olson (47). Pietism is inwardly focused and tends toward synergism, as seen in Arminianism. This looks back to John Wesley.

Puritanism adds a strong intellectual dimension and it tends to be publicly focused and is Reformed and Calvinistic. These folks look back to Jonathan Edwards (and John Winthrop, a Puritan).
On the Jesus Creed blog, distinctions are made between what some see as "dogma" (absolutely necessary beliefs) and "doctrinal opinions" (which can be seen as secondary and/or non-essential beliefs; even though one may agree with certain "dogmatic opinions"). Put another way, one can be a Calvinist (or Arminian) and be fully convinced; but yet not set this out as an "absolute necessity."
----------------------------------------------

From book's amazon(dot)com link, an excerpt:
Book Description
The community of evangelicals sometimes seems so broad as to defy definition, but theological conservatism has been one consistent marker. Now, says theologian Roger Olson, postconservatism is moving beyond conventional battles against liberalism and heresy to posit a dynamic and realistic approach. While conservatives strive to preserve tradition and protect orthodoxy, postconservatives urge openness to doctrinal reform without abandoning orthodoxy. Where differences exist between doctrine and Scripture, doctrine must be brought into conformity with the Word. Postconservatives want to free evangelical theology from its paradoxical captivity to rationalism and its obsession with "facts" so that it may recognize truth in experience and personal knowledge. Theologians, pastors, seminarians, and serious thinkers will find many depths to plumb in this exhaustive survey of critics, advocates, and fellow travelers on the evangelical journey.

From the Back Cover
"In his new book, Olson sets forth a genuinely evangelical theology that rejects modernity and fundamentalism. His focus on a personal relationship with Christ over propositions and the need to continually revise theology in light of the Word of God are important corrections to conservative evangelical tendencies. Anyone interested in a truly gospel-oriented theology will benefit from engaging with his arguments." --Alan G. Padgett, Luther Seminary, editor of the Journal for Christian Theological Research
One book reviewer sees a current: "Conservative Evangelicalism vs. Postconservative Evangelicalism." I agree, you can't miss it.

Roger Olson is a classical Arminian who views himself as in the Pietist tradition as contrasted with, if not opposed to(?), the Puritan (and Calvinistic).

For some time now I've seen myself as a postconservative (evangelical), having read some of Olson's articles several years ago. The term was new to me then (in about 2001). Btw, I would also classify N.T. Wright as a postconservative, though these "battles" don't rage quite so loudly in Europe, that I know of, and he may not identify himself as such as a result.

Are you conservative or postconservative?

Just posting to see if a discussion might happen. This book is on my wish list.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

__id_2602
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2602 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:40 pm

I don't understand these labels. Are we FUNDAMENTALIST, ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS, yes or no? Is Olson getting caught up in Brian Maclaren and his heretical movement?

All I know is Calvinism IS FALSE, yet I am a Bible-believer, militantly so. I am a Pentecostal/Charismatic, and I believe in Sola Scriptura to the core. Holy Living is essential to Salvation, and it was John Wesley who got it right on nearly everything.

All we need to do is AFFIRM THE TRUTH and go out and DO what the Bible commands. These labels bother me, and those spouting them or talking about them the most are usually unorthodox people.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:00 pm

Hello Providential,
You wrote:I don't understand these labels. Are we FUNDAMENTALIST, ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS, yes or no? Is Olson getting caught up in Brian Maclaren and his heretical movement?
I've been following the Jesus Creed discussion which is up to Reforming 7 now. Olson isn't an open theist or theological liberal. He has been accused compromising or getting dangerously close to the edge of the "slippery slope" of theological liberalism (not on the Jesus Creed blog, but elsewhere).

I don't consider myself a fundamentalist---which is why I've called myself a postconservative for a few years---and believe in historic Christian doctrines (orthodoxy). Btw, I don't consider Arminianism nor Calvinism as essential doctrines that one must believe, neither one nor the other....

However, there seems to be some confusion on what "postconservative" really means (as seen in the Jesus Creed blog). I had understood it to mean essentially "postfundamentalist." But right now it looks like they're identifying it with "Arminian" (which I am if I had to choose a category: Who says I have to choose a category?)!
You also wrote:All I know is Calvinism IS FALSE, yet I am a Bible-believer, militantly so. I am a Pentecostal/Charismatic, and I believe in Sola Scriptura to the core. Holy Living is essential to Salvation, and it was John Wesley who got it right on nearly everything.
I'm those things too and agree with what you posted.

On the JC blog someone asked if Olson is kind of trying to make a severance between Calvinists and Arminians. Someone replied that he isn't trying that at all but is, rather, attempting to get the Calvinists to acknowledge that Arminians are just as orthodox as they are. In other words, he seems to want to find a place where Calvinists will "allow" Arminians to believe as they do (without them calling their orthodoxy into question).
Lastly you wrote:All we need to do is AFFIRM THE TRUTH and go out and DO what the Bible commands. These labels bother me, and those spouting them or talking about them the most are usually unorthodox people.
"What does it mean to be an evangelical?" is a hot topic on the internet on theology blogs and in many Christian circles (conferences, etc.).

In about 2001 I stopped calling myself an "evangelical" for the most part because the word had much less meaning than it had earlier then. Now I'm unsure what "postconservative (evangelical)" means(?)! So till the confusion settles and some kind of meaning is linked to these words:

I think I'll drop both labels off myself!
Thanks (a lot) for your reply!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”