Baptist Seminary Professor Roger Olson Headed Toward Rome

What I got out of Olsen’s post was not so much about “payment” as about “learning”. I think maybe the underlying assumption is that Luther, Calvin, etc. passed from Earth to Heaven, they brought with them all their “baggage”. So since we can’t imagine a anti-semitic Luther in Heaven, then his attitude must have been “purged”.

It feels sort of like some of what I get maybe from N.T. Wright where heaven is described more like God putting the earth to rights rather than a radical discontinuity.

I’m not sure what to think about it, but I think you’re totally right that it can’t be about payment, Christ already did that.

Many pietistic premillennial dispensationalists use the “Tribulation” in the same way. Some christians weren’t good enough or weren’t “ready” to go in the “rapture” so they’ll have to “gut it out” here for 7 more years.

“Grace is that crazy.”
Yes, it is, and it really is hard to believe.
Thank you for this post to remind us of God’s sufficient grace.

I have heard it said that the concept of purgatory came from one of the Books of Maccabees; therefore, I have heard that it was actually a Jewish concept originally. I have not read those Books yet, unfortunately.

I have read a little bit about the 1500’s when Martin Luther pointed out basically how ridiculous it was for people to pay the church for someone to get out of purgatory early. And it sadly does seem to make sense that this process of belief and payment to the church funded the crusades at that time.

This has also helped me to see, if it in a purgatory view; if we must get right first to go to Heaven, how long would it take? A million years? A billion? Or how long before we are cleansed in a holding pattern? How long? I think I can ask a lot of questions here! And sum up a lot of Scriptures that would raise questions further!

But as far as forgiveness of people, I had read that, a very plausible if not validated reason, why the “woman caught in adultery and forgiven by Jesus” is often in “brackets” in our modern translations, is it does appear that there was a manuscript where it was deleted, and therefore a linage of handwritten manuscripts had the same deletion, for there were obviously some who could not believe that that could be forgiven, so somewhere it was removed in the Early Church. This does make sense to me.

Interesting point Sam. Have to think about that.

As a former Catholic, the very thought that Christ death on the cross wasn’t quite good enough to pay the price for all of my sins is simply repugnant to me. Christ, who said for as far as the east is from the west – I will remember your sins no more, is now going to remember the venial sins needed to be “purified” in purgatory! It is sheer blasphemy!

I can remember when I was in Catholic school how fearful I was wondering how long I would have to be in purgatory. I made sure that I said all the extra prayers which guaranteed time off of my sentence in purgatory. They never did explain how the theif on the cross, who did nothing but evil his whole life, was told by Jesus he would be with him in Paradise that very day! Guess he must have got a pass handed him. Ridiculous!!!!

I’m reminded of Dr. Hannah at DTS describing the shortcomings in Charles Finney’s theology. A student asked if he thought he would see Finney in heaven. Dr. Hannah replied, “I imagine Jesus welcoming Finney, putting his arm around him and shaking His head, ‘Charles, Charles, Charles …'”

I imagine we’ll all get a class of correction – not as punishment, but as a new understanding of the glory of Christ, the sufficiency of the cross, and the radical transformation of seeing Him as He is.

I also agree that to put it in terms of paying for something still owing runs counter to the gospel of Grace. However, even the Orthodox have teachings that resemble purgatory (like the heavenly toll-houses).

I think it is quite possible that we ALL need to undergo some kind of purging of the sinful nature after death and a full putting on of our god/spiritual nature. Since this would occur outside of time I don’t think time really means anything in terms of the duration the process takes. Since God doesn’t override our wills, perhaps we need to concede to or accept each part of the purging and perhaps sometimes the process is “painful” or difficult.

If I can’t magically become a “saint” after receiving the grace and salvation of Christ here on earth, why would I magically become one after death. Even if simply being in God’s presence transforms me it will still be a transforming, a purging of the sinful nature. Whether it takes a second, 10 minutes, or 10 years isn’t really knowable and doesn’t really matter – even a purging process that takes a second is still a process and could fit into some kind of definition of purgatory – but not necessarily the Roman Catholic one.

Andof course Beckwith chimes in on his comment section – “Preach it brother!”

Repeatedly the pre-reformers and reformers insisted that the Word of God is our sole authority, and many died in order to win the freedom from the awful fear that purgatory engendered in the hearts of people everywhere.

I am just wondering if this is a result of needing to maintain a rigorous hold on Arminianism. Didn’t we see that same thing happen with Open Theism? Just thinking out loud.

For those of you not familiar with Purgatory, this is a doctrine held by Roman Catholics but rejected by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.

While they may reject the term “purgatory” and don’t make belief in it a dogma of the faith, I’m not sure I’d say that the Eastern Orthodox reject the belief that there will be a purging and purification process after death for those who haven’t attained theosis in this life.

And then there are the toll-houses:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/__P2I.HTM

All due respect, I think you’re making way too much of Olson’s post. He is letting his imagination run, as did C.S. Lewis in the Great Divorce. Why is it so ludicrous to think that people will be enlightened when they get to heaven? That they will come to learn the error of their ways? This does not mean that they have not been forgiven or sanctified. The prodigal son realized his error before he came back to the father, did he not? Olson is a great thinker and I enjoyed his post. Like he said, he is not starting a new doctrine!

Peace,

R.A. Fiallos

I don’t think Roger Olsen is saying that some Christians are too evil in their nature for the blood of Christ alone to have sufficient merit to justify them. I think he is merely talking about the completion of the process of sanctification. I agree with Mr Olsen that it is inconceivable for heaven to contain hate-filled people.

All Christians fall short of being perfectly holy in their nature at the time of their death (incomplete sanctification), even though they posess a completely righteous status in God’s eyes from the time of their new birth (complete justification). Ephesians 5:27 says that Christ will present his people to himself “as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless”. So sometime between death and the marriage feast of the Lamb, I guess all Christians will undergo a transformation of their natures, purging out all remaining vestiges of sinfulness and bringing the fruit of the Spirit to perfect ripeness in their character. Who knows whether this is instantaneous or gradual? In contrast to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, this transformation may not be unpleasant because, as lovers of God, we will enjoy being conformed to his nature. My only reservation about Roger Olsen’s hypothesis is that he contemplates this spiritual make-over occurring after we enter heaven, whereas Ephesians 5:27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 21:27, Hebrews 12:14, Psalm 24:3-4, etc. suggest to me it must occur before we enter.

There was no punitive correction of any kind.

Quite. The Father in the Parable did not make his repentant son go through Purgatory, nor did he sacrifice someone else in his stead, unloading all his unsatisfied wrath, anger, and fury on a substitute. — God’s grace is indeed revolutionary.

But parables are not the same as allegories. In an allegory many points in the story refer to corresponding points in reality, whereas in a parable there is usually only one point of correspondence (one chief lesson to be learned) and everything else is just background details that flesh out the story. Otherwise the parable of the tenants in the vineyard would teach us that God would never have sent His Son to the world if the Israelites had heeded the earlier prophets and repented, and the parable of the wheat and the tares would teach us that evil entered the world because God was caught napping.

CMP:

When I read your post that Christian beliefs do not have a domino effect, I found myself agreeing with you. Now after reading about Olson, I am beginning to think again. As Lisa points out, this is but an outworking of Arminian understanding. Wrong beliefs beget more wrong beliefs?!

What do you say, Michael?

Leslie,

I definitely believe that wrong beliefs have a domino effect. I just don’t think that we have to see them as so interconnected that if you let go, adjust, or deny one thing that you believed before that the whole house of cards (Christianity) falls apart. Christianity is dependant on the person and work of Christ. If we get him wrong, it all falls apart.

I am not saying that Olson’s arminianism has led him to this, but I do believe that arminianism has many negative implications.

Arminianism taken to its extreme is Open Theism. Calvinism taken to the extreme is Hyper-Calvinism. Both are terrible errors.

Again, my main contention with this post is not about learning in heaven. I believe we all will learn a lot. It is not even about being corrected in heaven…I believe that we will forever be growing in our understanding and shaping our views in conformaty to the glory and revelation of God. The education system in Heaven will be wonderful!

The contention that I have with this post is how it singles out those few who Olson believes have done really bad things and don’t deserve (unlike others) to have direct access to the glories of heaven. Only these really bad people have to go through some type of intellectual calisthenics. Singling them out is the issue. It is really an issue of our attitude that we take on.

I have had so many people deny the Gospel because they cannot get it through their mind that Hitler could have repented on his deathbed and made it to heaven. They can’t get grace. They want him to pay, if only a little. It would seem that Olson wants Luther and the boys to pay, if only a little.

Mat 20:1-16
1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 “And when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 “And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place;
4 and to those he said, ‘You too go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ And so they went.
5 “Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing.
6 “And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; and he said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day long?’
7 “They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into the vineyard.’
8 “And when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.’
9 “And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius.
10 “And when those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; and they also received each one a denarius.
11 “And when they received it, they grumbled at the landowner,
12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14 ‘Take what is yours and go your way, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
15 ‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’
16 “Thus the last shall be first, and the first last.” (NAS)

But I do want to reiterate how much I appreciate Olson. If nothing else, this post makes us think. I tend to have the feeling that his “thinking out loud” here would be met with the same response even from Olson himself. In other words, I would be he agrees with what I say here.

The thief on the cross (apparently) was going right in (at least into “Paradise”).

Thanks for your thoughts, Michael.

Yes, I am convinced that we need to be careful as to distinguish between Christianity/Gospel itself, and our understanding of its implications.

I personally believe that Hyper-Calvinism is as wrong as Open Theism. But I would not consider myself a moderate Calvinist. I would just call myself a Calvinist. Period.

Again, thanks for the clarification, Michael.

Just as disappointing as Dr. Olson’s train of thought is his dismissal of one of his commenters as if he were swatting aside mosquito. The commenter said:

““What’s wrong with a Protestant believing that upon entering paradise … has to take a spiritually therapeutic “class” of correction?”

Perhaps the fact that such speculation raises possibilities nowhere hinted at in the Bible and even opposed by what the Bible says about salvation in Christ?

“I have trouble exonerating Augustine, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin of their hate-filled diatribes against and treatment of those they considered heretics.”

Whether or not we have trouble exonerating (forgiving) people is not the issue. God has forgiven them by the blood of the cross. Any errors in their thinking, be it anti-semitism or other forms of hatred, be it open-theism or other forms of error, be it even speculations regarding purgatory, will be taken away from them when they become like Christ upon seeing him.

Playing with unbiblical doctrine and defending it by calling it just a hypothesis is dangerous and will (not might) lead to error, especially when such speculation runs counter to what is already revealed in the Bible. If you believe these men were not fully prepared by the blood of Christ to enter Heaven, then they are in Hell. If you believe these men were covered by the blood of Christ, then nothing more is needed. Scripture does not allow anything extra and any speculation about something extra is simply unbiblical.”

Dr. Olson’s response:

“Well, you have stated very well the mindset of fundamentalist biblicism that I find obnoxious. Thank you.:

This response may be much more revealing than the post itself.

Olson’s last two sentences are very disturbing – “I have no particular biblical basis for it, so, no, I don’t exactly believe in it in the same way I believe in the deity of Christ or the resurrection. But I find it the only acceptable alternative, for me, anyway, to thinking of great Christian heroes of the past being in hell.”

To say it is “the only acceptable alternative” is irresponsible and unnecessary.

I agree Craig. It seems so contrary to an understanding of grace, mercy, and forgiveness, not to mention a realization of our own miserable failures as Christians.

The only acceptable alternative is the cross, not a class.

Had he mentioned that this class was TTP, then I I would be more welcoming of it 🙂

Olsen not only mistakes the freedom and power of grace, he also mistakes the grievousness of sin. All sin is a violation against God; when David said “against you only I have sinned” he wasn’t claiming that his sin hadn’t hurt Uriah and Bathsheba, but rather that his sin was enormous because it violated God’s holy person, nature, and law. When I accuse my wife unjustly I’ve sinned just as enormously as David.

I also have a minor, almost amusing correction to a historical detail in your post. Calvin advocated against burning Servetus on the grounds that it was too cruel. He petitioned the city council to have him quickly beheaded instead (and this petition is documented). This is FAR from being an enlightened view of religious freedom, but it’s the opposite of the monstrosity claimed against him. (I’ve read this in several places; it’s currently in Wikipedia, with the alleged quote, “I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated.”)

-Wm

To echo Phil McCheddar above, I think it is a mistake to think of
Olson or maybe even Catholics as presenting Purgatory as a way to pay for your sins, as if Christ didn’t accomplish this at the cross.

Instead is the finishing of our sanctification. What is the purpose of sanctification is we never finish it? If someone is instaneously sanctified after death despite not being sanctified in life at all, what is the point? Is it just an exercise in obedience and not really going towards something?

(I’m somewhat playing Devi’s advocate here)

Jeff Peterson, I totally agree with your comment #23. And if I might add, this is what happens if we do not keep a check on our theological pride!

It seems many are not quite seeing the distinction between “purgatory’ to cleanse sin (the RCC view) and Olson’s “purgatory” to complete sanctification.

All this talk of danger and anti-biblical doctrine (as typified in comments 23 and 24) seems to be predicated on the idea that Olson is denying the sufficiency of the cross for justification. IMO, that is NOT what he is saying. Therefore such charges are no more than a straw man.

Furthermore, I think assumptions are being made about how we “transition” to heaven. The only verse I can think of offhand that might address this is 1 John 3:2, but even in that verse, John clearly states that what we will be has NOT yet been made known. There IS mystery, and it is within that “unknown” that Olson speculates.

Olson is not questioning justification, he’s expoloring the concept of ultimate sanctification. After all, we are already, here on earth, fully justified, yet we are not fully sanctified (except for you Nazarenes – grin). But do we expect heaven to be the same – that we’re justified but we still sin? That’d be a novel idea. If not, how and when is perfection accomplished? At death? Show me that in scripture.

So, Craig (comment 24) disagrees that Olson’s idea of what could be called “final sanctification” is the only acceptable option. OK, then let’s hear some alternatives, backed up with scripture.

Dave, I don’t think anyone would (or should) argue that there is something that happens after death that makes us “purified from all effects of sin” (a phrase I am more comfortable with in this context since it does not imply too much.) If that were all the Olson was saying, fine and good. But he specifically singled out a few people who did and believed some very bad things and said that they would have to go through some “extra” purification due to their particular sinfulness. He more than implies that they need further correction if they are not going to be in hell.

In the end, again, it is the singling these fellas out b/c of their sin and assigning them a penalty that is the problem. And it does not matter how light this “slap on the wrist” seems to be…

After all, don’t you remember The Breakfast Club…it was not a nice thing to be in school on Saturdays!

Dave Z, I was also thinking of 1 John 3:2 which seems to imply that the operative element in a believer’s complete sanctification is seeing Christ just as he is. To me this indicates (1) an instantaneous change will take place, and (2) it will be Christ who initiates the change in me, not the girl I called a “monkey face” in 4th grade.

I also have a question about Sam’s comment in #3. While I’m certainly no authority on pietistic premillennial dispensational thought, I did grow up at Scofield Memorial Church in the ’50s and ’60s, just a mile east of DTS (both bastions of classical dispensationalism), and I never heard any speculation that the Tribulation will be useful for getting carnal Christians ready for Heaven. CMP, you said that notion intrigued you and I’d love to hear you elaborate.

@CMP – I guess the difference is that I don’t see his concept as a penalty. And Olson did not use that word.

I don’t see his examples as being singled out, but just as examples. We’re all going to need some “final sanctification,” however and whenever it happens, he just used some well-known folks as examples. I don’t think he was intending to let you (or me) off the hook!

The Breakfast Club was after my time, you young whippersnapper, you! (Though I did spend some Saturdays in school)

BTW, I love the way you fulfilled his prediction with your title. That was my Wednesday morning chuckle.

@Martin – yes, I see that too, but as you say, it is an implication, not a clear statement of an instant change. And it says the change will happen “when he appears.” Sounds more like a reference to Christ’s return than a reference to our death. Not sure I’m comfortable building an “instant final sanctification” doctrine on it, especially when John himself admits he doesn’t fully understand it.

So for me, the element of mystery remains.

Absolutely, there is way more to be discovered in eternity than we can possibly know now.

However, John is saying that “what” we will be has not been revealed in detail, but whatever it is, it will involve being “like him” which doesn’t leave room for continued sanctification. Further, the Net Bible renders it: “whenever it is revealed we will be like him…” which leaves open the question of “when,” (our death, rapture, 2nd coming, etc.). In other words, according to this verse, John doesn’t see the “when” or the exact nature of our physical/spiritual makeup as being as important as the mere fact of being with Christ and “like him.”

Concerning comment 31 (and 3), I believe it refers to “Partial Rapture”, which is not commonly taught. Watchman Nee taught it and I have heard that Moody did as well. It was suggested recently on Theologica. It teaches that only those believers who are watching and ready will be raptured while the carnal are left behind with the wicked. Back when I read it in Nee (and I considered myself to be watching and ready far more than those others), it intrigued me but it really doesn’t work. We are not destined for wrath (context is the wrath of the Day of the Lord) but to obtain salvation.

As to the article, it seems to me that purgatory and Rome are not the real issues here, but the nature of Salvation, as others have pointed out. Olson appears to be looking for an alternative to the Arminian doctrine that one can lose his Salvation. There is a far better alternative available. And it is found in Scripture, not speculation.

Isn’t there a standard evangelical belief in a final complete sanctification after death, vs the incomplete sanctification we attain while alive? Or did I just pick that up as folk theology?

“I have trouble exonerating Augustine, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin of their hate-filled diatribes against and treatment of those they considered heretics.”

Forget those guys. Have you read the stuff that God says about the idolaters and apostates? Does God have to go through purgatory too, so that He can one day be as clean as Olsen’s modern sensibilities and cultural assumptions of godliness would desire? Or is it rather the spirit of Elijah that mocks religious rebels for their stupidity that is parallel with the Spirit of God?

BTW, I always thought Augustine was rather well-mannered when he addressed heretics. Has Olsen actually read him or is he assuming something about Augustine from the Pelagian debates that was never there (maybe he’s watching too much of the movie King Arthur).

Either way, as someone pointed out, I can’t imagine someone more fitting for purgatory than the thief on the cross, i.e., a guy so bad the pagan Romans couldn’t even put him into prison-slavery, and thought it better to kill him for his crimes.

[…] see a variety of responses, some quite heated, at Roger’s blog. Also, scientia links a thoughtful critical response from Dallas Seminary grad and theological educator Michael […]

Michael,

There’s no room for anyone in the evangelical community to think out loud, is there? Put your thoughts back in the box – NOW!!!

– Leo

Touche

Leo,

My problem is the modern hubris that condemns other Christians for views that are passe in modern evangelicalism, but not necessarily unbiblical. I also don’t like the idea that only some people have to go through this as opposed to the really good people. BTW, I think your comment seeks to mock without engaging maturely with what is said, so that’ll be 10,000 years for you in purgatory. 😉

10,000 years in purgatory! Wow! Well, I know that a thousand years is as a day so that’s what…just over a week?

(OK, how do you do the little smiley?)

And to those saying that there is a distinction in seeing purgatory one way or another is a matter of semantics. I can say that chopping off my hand isn’t a punishment because I’m only trying to free up my arm. This is typical in these debates. Here’s Paul on the rapture:

1 Cor 15:51-52: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

Now, either the Christians in Paul’s day are perfect already, something only someone who has not read the rest of the letter could only claim, or glorification is instant and the process of sanctification is ended in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.
One could also say that purgatory lasts only until the second coming, but this would also mean that Paul believed the Corinthians had no need to go through it. The best explanation? There is no purgatory.

Dave,

That’s only if you’re a day-age theorist. If you’re young earth, it will be a literal 10,000 years. Of course, if you’re framework, you’ll never know when you’re going to get out. 🙂

Hodge, that might apply, but that reference is to a specific event – the last trumpet. I think of it as a resurrection reference, not necessarily applying to what happens at death. Would you say that we’re all raised imperishable at the moment we die?

With that in mind, do you still think the verse applies to this discussion? That’s not rhetorical, I’m really asking. It may be possible to draw inferences, but how much do we want to build on an inference?

Understand, I’m not saying you’re wrong or that Olson is right. I’m just not seeing any clear scriptural references to what exactly happens at death. So it’s hard to build a clear doctrine. That opens the door to speculation.

So how do you do the smiley?

Dave,

It absolutely applies. That’s why I said, Paul assumes that the Corinthians, being in the immature and awful state they are in, with all of their imperfections, have no need of further sanctification once the trumpet sounds. They are glorified immediately. If an intermediary time was needed for the purpose of sanctification then what he says here would make no sense. Now, one can say that there is a difference between resurrection and the state of the soul between death and resurrection, but my point would be that if this is necessary, why is it immediate for those resurrected and not for others?
Furthermore, the dead are immediately raised imperishable. Now, are we to conclude that those who die two seconds before the final trumpet, and were not completely sanctified, will not be changed in the twinkling of an eye, or does the passage assume that there is no intermediary state and that the Christian goes immediately from what is corruptible to what is incorruptible? In other words, both those who are alive when Christ returns and those who died are all instantly glorified in their bodies. They cannot sin any longer. They cannot be corrupted. I think the inference works one way and not the other, so the best explanation is that there is no such thing as an intermediary state that is necessary for “less sanctified” Christians to enter before they are perfected. The question that needs to be answered by those who believe in purgatory is why it is necessary for one group and not the other. The concept of purgatory makes sense to us, so that is why it is believed. What doesn’t make sense is to believe that it is only necessary for one group of wayward Christians and not another group of wayward Christians.

Colon and then closed parenthesis, : + ) 🙂

Hodge,

Just to be clear before I say this I do not believe in purgatory and am just thinking out loud here based upon earlier comments.

What if Roger Olsen had said that ALL Christians will have to go through a period of purification on the other side during which their character is conformed to the character of Christ? This time may very from person to person depending on the extent to which they were sanctified in the present life.

It is the nature of the intermediate state that I’m thinking about these days. Your explanation makes sense, but I’m trying to fit it into a larger picture. Do we, as CMP says in comment 19, continue to learn in heaven? I’m not sure we can find biblical support for that either. Actually, it seems to differ with 1Cor. 13:12b, “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

Of course, that verse does kinda support your view regarding the 1 John verse. 🙂

Maybe the thing that bugs about the idea of continued learning is that it implies an incompleteness in the afterlife. And it sounds an awful lot like a Christian variation of the folk theology of those who believe “we just go to a different plane to continue learning…”