A Critique of Roger Olson's Critique of Scholastic Evangelical Theology

Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary professor, Roger Olson, has a blog post here with his objections to "Scholastic Evangelical Theology" and support for his alternative "Intuitive Evangelical Theology."  More on that in a moment.  But first, what kind of animal is Scholastic Evangelical Theology and its intuitive counterpart?

As I would define Scholastic Evangelical Theology it is simply theology by an Evangelical which tries to take into account all  the available evidence when rendering a judgment about the nature of God, God's actions in the world, and the relations of the world with God.  It's the most systematic theology one can imagine. Described in that way, I find the discipline hard to resist.


Alternatively, my interpretation of Olson's preferred intuitive methodology is that one should do one's theology by reading the Bible as an average lay person would read the Bible, namely, intuitively.  Intuitive Evangelical Theology seems to hold that all that one needs to know, or all that one can know of theology is to be found in this way.  If you think that might be a mischaracterization or oversimplification then read the blog post linked to above and judge for yourself.  (In fact, read that blog post period! Do it.)  At any rate, as described I find that view EASY to resist.

Why do I find this easy to resist?  For starters, I've been reading Arminius and Calvin of late, and where those two team up together against you, well, take note.  Contra Olson they believed (and argued for) such things as divine simplicity, aseity, immutability, etc.--things which Olson either disbelieves or withholds belief about.  (Granted, many of the Reformers were wary of a good deal of what they thought of as the more "speculative theology" of the Scholastics, but the basic "Scholastic Package" of classical theism was not an item of much debate).

But the more important point is, his recommended approach is just untenable if we're intent on doing serious theology.  Take this paragraph for instance:

What ordinary lay Christian, just reading his or her Bible, without the help of any of the standard conservative evangelical systematic theologies, would ever arrive at the doctrines of divine simplicity, immutability, or impassibility as articulated by those systematic theologians (e.g., “without body, parts or passions” as the Westminster Confession has it)? Without body, okay. But without parts or passions?

Well, ummm, probably not very many.  But, so what?  What ordinary lay Christian, just reading his or her Bible, would arrive at the following conclusions:

• The Holy Spirit IS God
• There is exactly one God and there are three persons who are equally God (rather than say, one God--the Father--and a divine Son and a divine Holy Spirit)
• The universe is billions of years old
• The earth goes around the sun
• Humans have free will
• There is exactly one god
• Satan is a fallen angel
• All dead babies go to heaven
• The Father doesn't really have a back
• Heaven isn't far up in outer space such that if we could only build a fast enough rocket we could fly there like Jesus on the day of his Ascension
• If you muster up enough faith you can move a mountain or have a sweet pad like Joel Osteen 

I could do this all day.  The point: lay persons left to themselves will inevitably reach ALL sorts of DIFFERENT conclusions.  How do I know this?  IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY.  Intuitive theology may perhaps be good enough if you just want to get by, but it's not a rigorous or reliable methodology.

Ed Feser has a powerful response to the Olson post.  Read it too.  (Do it).  But I can't go without commenting on one other passage:

[Scholastic Evangelical Reformers] all articulate, defend and promote as “biblical orthodoxy” what is, in my opinion, a barely Christianized version of Greek philosophical theology. The story of that begins, of course, with the second Christian Apologists Justin Martyr and Athenagoras and the Alexandrian church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Even Athanasius and the Cappadocians were steeped in it—although they struggled to Christianize Greek philosophical theology. I don’t think they were entirely successful.

I am weary of hearing this line of thought from theologians.  I tire of it.  Perhaps some day I will write a whole post devoted to the subject.

So what's WRONG with Greek philosophical theology, exactly?  Did the Greeks get everything wrong?  Were there no good arguments?  If there were good arguments, should we not believe the conclusions because the arguments come from Greeks? Is this a racist thing or what!?  (I jest.  Sort of). Is something immediately called into question because a Greek believed it?  Should we mistrust the Apostle Paul because he quotes Epimenides and Aratus affirmatively?  Plato's Republic--is everything false in there?  Have you ever actually read all of Plato's Republic?  Phaedo?  The Laws? How about Aristotle's Metaphysics: have you read it or just read about it?  Philo?  Plotinus?  The truth is, the Church Fathers were anything if not discerning with respect to their adoption and rejection of elements of Greek thought, more discerning, I'm afraid, than many contemporary theologians who think they know better.

Let's change the subject: Is Intuitive Evangelical Theology a barely Christianized version of 19th German philosophy?  Is Intuitive Evangelical Theology a barely Christianized version of the contemporary scientific method applied to hermeneutics (i.e. the historico-critical method)?   Would an ordinary lay person think it useful to learn Greek or Hebrew or Latin?

OK, I've said enough.  Read the Feser piece if you didn't obey me already.  As always, the comment section is open for objections (or praises).