So after Roger Olson deleted my comment asking him for clarification on what he meant by saying he does not read anything I write “on principle,” I wrote to him directly:
September 24, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Nope. Haven’t read either one. As a matter of principle I don’t read anything by Norman Geisler or James White.
May I inquire as to what “principle” would lead you to ignore not only my writings, but Dr. Geisler’s as well? Given how widely Dr. Geisler and I disagree, would it be our common commitment to inerrancy, perhaps? I had left a comment asking about this, but it was deleted. I look forward to hearing from you.
وفي المحاماة عن الانجيل وتثبيته
Well, needless to say, I did not get even the common courtesy of a response. I have no idea why Dr. Olson is so unfriendly toward me, or what he has against me, but as of now, it does not seem he feels any compulsion to explain his behavior. Perhaps we have here a touch of hyper-Arminianism, the “your god is so disgusting to me I don’t really consider you a fellow believer anyway” type thing? Hard to say, since, obviously, he has no interest in explaining himself. So, as is so often the case, this will be a one-sided discussion, the Arminians doing the monologue, the Reformed folks providing the dialogue. Nothing new there!
I did encounter another interesting comment in the thread at Olson’s blog (unlike him, I have no problems reading what he has to say, even when I find him far off the mark).
September 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Hello Dr. Olson,
I can’t wait for your book to arrive at my front door. Your book on “Arminian Myths” was fantastic as it addressed the issues clearly and precisely.
Have you read White’s blog on his premature objection to your book…he apparently had nothing else to go on but what you stated on “September 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm”.
I realize you’d rather not read White but I hope you will change your mind as far as responding to any substantive future comment he may make on you book in the future. If you ask me, his exegesis of Biblical texts is lacking and he makes too much emphasis his style of exegesis.
September 26, 2011 at 11:23 pm
What you said….
Let me respond to Nelson first. Nelson identifies as “premature” my objection to Olson’s book. The problem is, of course, anyone who read my blog article realizes that I was specifically responding to Olson’s words in his own comments on his blog. I was not commenting on his book, but was asserting that Olson was providing his own summary statement of the thesis of his book. Do forgive me for assuming that the author would accurately summarize his own book! As for having nothing else to go on, unlike Dr. Olson, I have been reading his materials for quite some time. None of this, however, is even slightly relevant to the accuracy of what I said in responding to Olson’s statements. Next, I find it ironic that Nelson would criticize my exegesis. He provides no examples, something we are very accustomed to. But then he uses this strange language of speaking of my “style” of exegesis. I wonder what that means? Is he referring to a grammatical–historical methodology of exegesis? Given what I have read on Olson’s blog, I get the feeling that the kind of people he attracts are a good bit to my left, and hence would be much more comfortable with a view of Scripture that leaves much to the imagination. That is, my belief that there is a clear word from God and that the Scriptures are sufficient to communicate this to us may not be something that Nelson is fully committed to. Of course, Olson’s three word response provides no meaningful assistance in further understanding his unwillingness to engage my writings or my viewpoints.
A number of people have attempted to purchase the Kindle version of Olson’s new book for me, but have been unable to do so as of yet. I appreciate the attempts, and look forward to having the opportunity to work through Olson’s book as soon as it is made available.