Roger Olson is my favorite Evangelical Arminians. He has a unique ability to be an anchor of doctrinal stability and a provocative juggernaut of theological inquiry that causes us to scratch our heads and, many times, reshape our paradigms. I have used his The Mosaic of Christian Belief in The Theology Program for over six years and I don’t plan on changing it any time soon. He has been on Converse with Scholars (twice I think). He is a great and well respected Evangelical author and professor. All of this to say, I have much admiration and appreciation for Roger Olson…he keeps us on our toes.
Having said this, his recent blog post about Protestant Purgatory makes me wonder what is going on.
Don’t take the title of this post seriously. It comes from Roger himself when he says, “Once again, as I write, I am aware that some critics out there may rip what I say out of context (because they have in the past) and publicly accuse me of adopting a Roman Catholic doctrine. I can see the (admittedly small) headline in some state Baptist newspaper now: “Baptist seminary professor Roger Olson headed toward Rome!” Well, this is not a Baptist newspaper, but it’ll do.
While I am a fan of Roger Olson, I am a contemplative critic of his thesis here. I don’t really know where it has come from. The very idea of Purgatory goes against everything that the Reformation was about. Let me back up. In essence, this is what I am hearing Olson say: “There are some Christians who have done some really, really bad things and had some really, really bad attitudes. Therefore, I am considering that these Christians have to enter into an educational corrective half-way house before entering Heaven. Let’s call this a ‘Protestant Purgatory’.”
For those of you not familiar with Purgatory, this is a doctrine held by Roman Catholics but rejected by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. It is taken from the Lat. “purgare” meaning to purify. Officially and without internal debate, it can be said that Purgatory is a place that those who die in the grace of God (i.e. in a justified state) go to in order to be purified from the venial sins. “Venial” sins, as opposed to “mortal” sins, are sins that do not remove the justifying grace of God. They are the “small” sins, the white lies, calling in sicks when we were not sick, the candy thefts, and the “holy *%$# Batman’s” of our life. They are all those things that we forgot to do penance for (or simply did not have time!).
There is internal debate among Catholics concerning the nature and duration of Purgatory. Traditionally, it was a place of fire that could last millions of years. However, contemporary Catholicism has lightened the load quite a bit. Some current (and more palatable) descriptions I have heard include “a washing up before dinner” and “a timeless, instantaneous, and virtually painless purging of our wicked nature.” Either way, the idea is that there will be a time of suffering that all non-sainthooded Christians go through before entering Paradise. Very few escape its purging. But take heart, if you make it there, you are guaranteed to make it to Heaven eventually!
Biblically, Purgatory is very difficult to defend without reading the Tradition of the Roman Catholic church into certain passages. Theologically, the idea is that we must be completely clean before we get into God’s presence. No dirt under the fingernails. If we die and are “covered” legally by the blood of Christ, we need to have our fallen nature purged actually.
Protestants, including myself, believe that this amounts to a price-cut on the power and efficiency of the Cross. It is sort of a crucifix deflation. We believe that Christ paid for all sins and that there is simply no condemnation for those who have placed their faith in him (Rom. 8:1). Believers have been justified through the alien righteousness of Christ which was “imputed” or credited to our account. There is simply no way for us to atone for our own sin, not matter how big or small. Therefore, when God sees us, he sees Christ. Its that simple. No further cleansing needed.
Olson most certainly believes in the imputation of Christ righteousness and justification by faith. However, he seems to have fallen into this category that we all often trip into. Its a category that makes us pick up a bit of the load. Its a category that wants others to carry some of the load. Its a category that says “Grace is too radical.” Its the “other brother” in all of us that says “Father, this is not fair. He has just done too much wrong not to get punished at tincy bit.”
Using Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Augustine as examples, Olson puts on display their dark side. No, not their dark side before accepting Christ, but their dark side post-Christian. In essence, this is what it comes down to:
Luther: Advocated the total annihilation of the Jews.
Augustine: Advocated the total annihilation of heretics.
Zwingli: Arrested and tortured Hubmaier until he recanted of his heresy.
Calvin: (you knew it was coming) Advocated the burning of the anti-Trinitarian Servetus.
Olson does not like these historic Christian titans acting in such a way. Without getting into the details involved here or the cultural toleration and advocacy of such, let’s just say that none of us do. Its Olson’s “solution” that that makes me scratch my head. While not assigning them to the fires of Purgatory, he does not want them to get a “free” pass. He thinks that some intellectual atonement needs to be made before they are granted access to paradise. In his words:
“[W]ith regard to Augustine, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (among others) I’m faced with a dilemma. Are they in paradise now? Are they enjoying the bliss of being in the presence of Jesus? I am not their judge, but I would like to think so. But that presses me back to considering some concept like purgatory. Lull’s little dialogue book gave me the possible answer. (Remember–I’m talking about a hypothesis and not a new doctrine.)
What’s wrong with a Protestant believing that upon entering paradise a hate-filled Christian leader of the past who condoned torture and even murder (I don’t know what else to call the burning of Servetus even though it was technically legal–we still call “legal” stonings of women in certain countries “murder”) has to take a spiritually therapeutic “class” of correction?
I can imagine (only imagine, you realize!) Zwingli entering the pearly gates (imagery–because there’s no reason to believe paradise has gates!) and being greeted by Hubmaier who says ‘Ulrich, it’s nice to see you here. I’ve completely forgiven you. But Christ has assigned me as your tutor and guide during your orientation to paradise. Here, sit down, let me offer you some correction about treatment of people with whom you disagree.'”
What is wrong with hate-filled Christians going through corrective therapy as a consequence for their sinful thinking? Really? Are we being serious here? If Olson had simply said that we will all be learning in heaven, if Olson had said that all our thinking be instantaneously sanctified upon entering Paradise, maybe if this was not in the context of Purgatory, I might have been able to follow him a bit more. But to suggest that certain people are just too bad to get a true free pass evidences how difficult it is, even for someone as astute as Olson, to comprehend how radical God’s grace is and how sinful we all are. To single out these fellas is problematic as it seems, like the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, to place a breaking point on the grace of God.
I can’t help but think of the brother of the prodigal son who simply could not accept the free acceptance of his brother. I am sure the brother would not have complained had his father made the rebellious son go through some corrective training on family etiquette and loyalty. But the Father did not. There was no punitive correction of any kind. Grace is that crazy.
Are they in Paradise now? Are the enjoying the bliss of Jesus? I am not sure if Olson is truly teetering here between “maybe” and “maybe not”, but, by the grace of God, Christ purchased them and covered all their pride, murders, and ill-will toward others with his blood. A corrective course for those few who were really bad Christians is not the icing on the cake to the cross, even if they were taught by Jesus. There is simply no condemnation for those who are in Christ.
123 replies to "Baptist Seminary Professor Roger Olson Headed Toward Rome"
And with breaking the great 100 barrier, I’ll have to bow out now, as it took a long time for me to understand cultures beyond my own, and I don’t expect to convince anyone overnight not to judge those godly men who sought to do what was right in their own contexts. Thanks for the good discussion. Until next time.
cherylu, it’s clear to me that Calvin and all at his time were wrong. The problem is that almost all at the time were wrong, and had been since the time of Constantine.
But does that mean that Calvin isn’t worthy of entering heaven any more than that I’m not worthy of entering heaven? David said “against you, and you only, have I sinned.” He wasn’t saying that he hadn’t murdered; he was saying that even his murders were grievous because they offended against the Law of God. Calvin’s advocacy of murder did that; but so does my hate, and my lust. Only God’s grace can save us, and in that we stand at the same level — because without it we’re utterly dead in our sins; and with it, we’re raised to life.
-Wm
Hodge,
Here is another quote from this source:
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/jasonshome/servetus.html
Dr. Emilé Doumergue, the author of Jean Calvin, which is beyond comparison the most exhaustive and authoritative work ever published on Calvin, has the following to say about the death of Servetus: “Calvin had Servetus arrested when he came to Geneva, and appeared as his accuser. He wanted him to be condemned to death, but not to death by burning. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote to Farel: ‘I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death, but I desire that he should be spared the cruelty of the punishment’ – he means that of fire. Farel replied to him on September 8th: ‘I do not greatly approve that tenderness of heart,’ and he goes on to warn him to be careful that ‘in wishing that the cruelty of the punishment of Servetus be mitigated, thou art acting as a friend towards a man who is thy greatest enemy. But I pray thee to conduct thyself in such a manner that, in future, no one will have the boldness to publish such doctrines, and to give trouble with impunity for so long a time as this man has done.’
The civil authorities pronounced the death sentence yes. But the bottom line seems to be: Calvin had him arrested, was his accuser at least at a portion of his trial, and he wanted him to be put to death. It seems he both desired and worked toward having him put to death. It was not a mere condoning of what the civil government did. If the New Tesatment gives no warrant to putting a heretic to death, why was he so all fired determined to do so? That is what I find to be very appalling.
By the way, if you believe the only reason the NT doesn’t tell us to put heretics to death is because they had no way to do so, do you believe that to be true for adulterers and many other sexual crimes, disobedient children, witches, those worshipping idols, breaking the sabbath, etc, etc, etc? Do all of these people still need to be put…
yeah, and i just want to say, as i jump in for the last time 😉 that most Reformed folk would agree with Wm. I obviously disagree and think that the modern church needs a more fully developed doctrine of chaos and order in order to evaluate these things, but did want to mention that I’m in the minority (surprise, surprise) on the matter.
Cheryl,
Sigh. Have you been reading me or someone else. I said nothing toward anything you argued there. I already argued that Church and State are not separate and Calvin knew his ecclesiastical discipline would also be in support of civil punishment.
I also gave no hint that I believe the NT authors simply don’t roast heretics because they don’t have the means to do so. That is completely contrary to what I have been arguing. Please reread me.
And with that, I’m out. Really. 🙂
Hodge,
I already argued that Church and State are not separate and Calvin knew his ecclesiastical discipline would also be in support of civil punishment.
Have you been reading me? 🙂
I don’t think at all from what I read that Calvin only knew that church discipline would result in or be in support of civil discipline. My beef is that he wanted to see him dead for his heresies. And that is not what I believe the New Testament teaches.
And you have made this statement in one way or another several times now: I’ve already said that the NT writers wouldn’t suggest death to heretics because the Roman government wasn’t a Christian one. That is giving no hint that the NT writers don’t roast heretics because they don’t have the means to do so.?? Seems to me that is exactly what you were doing!
By the way are you really sure you are gone now??
William,
Just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to make any point at all about whether Calvin was worthy of heaven or not.
This discussion was really a sidetrack because some of us truly disagreed with what it seemed Hodge was saying in his defense of John Calvin here.
Hodge,
I know you are probably not going to see this because you are “out”, however it seems to me that with your whole idea of “chaotic agents” one could argue that Jesus was a “chaotic agent”. Jesus was disruptive to the social and religious norms of 1st Century Palestine. Had he not been executed his teaching would have likely caused a riot in Jerusalem. Thus according to your arguments it would appear that the Roman Empire was fully justified and right in executing Jesus since his teaching were disruptive to society. Yet the Bible seems to indicate that what the Roman Empire did through its agents (Herod and Pilate) was evil.
I think I’m noticing that people may be missing the larger point here in Olson’s article. The kind of purgatory he was musing about about dealt more with the correction of people’s hearts and ways of thinking rather than their punishment. I don’t think it was meant to be a theological treatise establishing some new new doctrine, but something all of us wonder about, and that is why some Christians seem to preach the gospel of grace and not live by it themselves like Calvin and Luther and Zwingli, and many modern day Christians as well.
Perhaps instead of Olson’s ‘counseling’ half-way house idea of purgatory, we should have sent the reformers to reform school instead, since they obviously did not personally practice the gospel of grace they preached. From the sound of it they needed a lot of correction themselves but no one was able to disagree with them without either being beheaded, burned at the stake, imprisoned or tortured. Doesn’t sound too graceful to me.
But then we see the same thing on Christian blogs all the time, by folks who insist upon being right no matter what the cost. Perhaps we should establish a sense of humor school for modern day folks who also take themselves too seriously to be disagreed with. 🙂
Ok, last time for real. 🙂
Michael,
To the unbelievers, believers are chaotic agents. The difference is that believers come along to reestablish unity in the truth rather than in lies. True chaotic agents work toward the destruction of the community in the long run. So we are chaotic agents to a community unified on what is ultimately chaotic. We, however, are agents of life in reality. So my argument is not that the government is always justified in its identification of chaotic agents, but that it is justified in using the sword it is given against them. In other words, the have the blessing of God to use the sword. They don’t always have the blessing to use it because sometimes they have misidentified who is that should receive that punishment. Hence, to Ahab, a chaotic agent in the long run, Elijah looks like a chaotic agent (“you troubler of Israel) because Israel’s unity is not founded in worshiping YHWH at the time, etc.
mbaker,
I’m glad you are not considering yourself right no matter the cost of biblical theology. I take your words as conceding the point, and will gladly put in a good word for you so you can get out parochial purgatory class early. 😉
And I don’t need Calvin to be right. To be honest, he’s not my favorite theologian. My kids read his Truth for All Time and Institutes, but I’ve always considered myself more of an Augustinian than a Calvinist per se. So it makes little difference to me that he is a huge sinner. My issue is with the modern syncretism of certain ideas in our culture with Christianity that then cause us to condemn others in history because they don’t share our supposedly “christian” views that are more enlightened.
cherylu, can I point out that you’re asking the wrong question? You’re getting offended that Calvin wanted Severetus killed at all. The correct question is whether Calvin was wrong to want Severetus killed. This is the point Hodge is trying to clarify. I agree with Hodge that it’s not an open-and-shut case, although I’m willing to add that I strongly suspect that Calvin was in fact wrong.
But one thing is clear from history: Calvin was no monster. He may have been grossly wrong, but if so, his error was an honest one, made with compassion.
Jesus was indeed tried for being a chaotic agent, both of insurrection and of blasphemy, and judicially found innocent. Nowhere is it claimed that He should not have been tried.
Yes, what the Roman empire did was evil — because they found Him innocent and declared Him so, and yet they killed Him anyhow. They didn’t try Him for causing a riot; if they had, they would have put the Jewish leaders on trial next to Him, and if justice had been done the leaders would have been killed.
It’s not clear to me that Severetus was guilty of blasphemy; he was certainly guilty of heresy, but that’s not a death-sentence crime according to the Bible. (Blasphemy is, although I only see power granted to the civil government to prosecute it in the Old Testament economy.)
-Wm
Wm,
No, I am upset because I believe Calvin guilty of wanting him killed for what seems to me to be a totally unBiblical reason.
I am not saying there is never justification for capital punishment. That is not at all my point.
I just seriously don’t see this as a case of warranted capital punishment from a Chrisitan perspective. Heresy is not a captial offence in the New Testament as far as I can tell. I know Hodge argues there was more to it then that. However, it was certainly heresy that was at the root of all of the controversy as far as I can tell.
And while I am not saying that Calvin was a monster, from many articles that I have read, it would appear that as the head of the church in Geneva for many years, he ruled with an iron hand over what was basically a theocracy. And the reach of the church and it’s discipline extended into the finest details of people’s life in the city of Geneva. How would you like to have your home searched once a year to be sure you had nothing deemed wrong and to be punished severely for such a thing as smiling at a baptism?
If what I have been reading is correct at all, things were truly quite out of hand in Geneva in those days when Calvin was the head of the church there. I see no Biblical, New Testament warrant for any of this. Do you?
I’m afraid you’ve missed the point of purgatory — that’s what it’s supposed to be about. It’s what happens when people lose what Grace is about.
You mean like ALL Christians except Christ. You certainly don’t understand what grace is. It’s not of works. If it were of works, it would not be grace. Grace is God’s freedom to save us, not our obligation to respond. The good works we do in response are not our own; they are God “working within us, both to will and to do His good pleasure.”
Furthermore, Christ made it clear that avoiding murder isn’t enough to save you; the hate in your heart for your brother is enough to condemn you to eternal hell.
You’re historically wrong — there was substantial disagreement in all the communities of those reformers without bringing out the sword. There were many debates which were simply debates.
Of course, there were also many debates which ended in blood — so you’re right that they needed correction. My own denomination, Baptist, is linked to one of the awful persecutions, that of the Anabaptists. Both the Reformed and the Roman Catholics joined to kill Anabaptists…
Hodge,
I’m not sure why you insist that Servetus would have caused rebellion. I can find nothing to indicate that he was trying to incite a insurrection. Rather he condemned Trinitarianism and infant-Baptism and was in turn condemned for doing so by pretty much everyone. I can’t find any evidence that he had a significant following or that he was inciting his followers to rebel. He didn’t even stay in Geneva for instance – he was just passing through and stopped to see Calvin preach. Heresy and Blaspheme should never be an excuse to execute someone and if a government, whether secular or theocratic, should decide to do so the church should raise it’s voice in opposition.
Wm,
mbaker made this comment: that is why some Christians seem to preach the gospel of grace and not live by it themselves like Calvin and Luther and Zwingli, and many modern day Christians as well.
You say she doesn’t understand what grace is. While I certainly can not speak for her, I would guess that what she was saying was that for people who preached with an emphasis on God’s grace, these folks certainly didn’t seem to offer much of that grace to others.
If that is what she is saying, I have to agree with her. I don’t see much grace in killing someone for heresy or in ruling a church and a town with an iron hand.
Thanks, Cheryl.
That is exactly what I was saying.
From what I can see, they charged him with blasphemy, which is given as a capital offense in the Law. Their charges were, as far as I can see, entirely wrong; he was a heretic, not a blasphemer. (I also believe that blasphemy would require a theocracy as in ancient Israel, which we do not have.)
Do a search for that word on this page– your argument is in support of that exact claim. But be of good cheer; by “monster” I take the poster to mean “extraordinarily unethical”. I think that’s what you mean as well. But he wasn’t; he was either quite ordinary for his society, or more merciful than it was.
He was a man of his time.
He didn’t rule. He preached and lobbied. He was opposed politically by people who triumphed on many issues over him. That’s not an “iron hand”.
He did not innovate there; he did what all the previous churches had done. He was wrong; but he was doing what appeared right at the time.
-Wm
Michael T, your post #115 seems to me to be accurate.
I think it’s clear that Christ ordered us to NOT kill heretics; we are supposed to chase them out of Church teaching positions, but we reserve the final reckoning to Christ.
Calvin, and all the other people in the town (except Servetus), were wrong. But that doesn’t mean they’re going to purgatory. (BOOM! Back on topic!)
-Wm
[…] speculated on the appropriateness of a Protestant form of purgatory. C. Michael Patton offered a response which is worth reading. Being a Protestant myself I don’t believe in purgatory and I’m not […]
[…] Baptist Seminary Professor Roger Olson Headed Toward Rome "A corrective course for those few who were really bad Christians is not the icing on the cake to the cross, even if they were taught by Jesus. There is simply no condemnation for those who are in Christ." (tags: article editorial grace theology blog) […]
http://xenos-theology.blogspot.com/2010/10/cs-lewis-purgatory-was-about.html
[…] While I am a fan of Roger Olson, I am a contemplative critic of his thesis here. I don’t really know where it has come from. The very idea of Purgatory goes against everything that the Reformation was about. Let me back up. In essence, this is what I am hearing Olson say: “There are some Christians who have done some really, really bad things and had some really, really bad attitudes. Therefore, I am considering that these Christians have to enter into an educational corrective half-way house before entering Heaven. Let’s call this a ‘Protestant Purgatory’.” …. Read this in full at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/baptist-seminary-professor-roger-olson-headed-toward-r… […]