Arminian Theology

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
Roger E. Olson
IVP 2006

This is a very interesting book that claims to introduce Arminian theology as it really is and not as it's opponents too often portray it. As such, Olson is adamant that Arminianism is at least as much a legitimate option for evangelical Christians as Calvinism (and in his view more so).

I have to admit that I was intrigued as I have till now based my judgment of Arminianism almost exclusively on Calvinist resources. I also have to admit serious ignorance of what Arminianism actually teaches. I honestly thought that Arminianism more or less taught simply the opposite to the five points of Calvinism and was surprised that evangelical Arminians affirm total depravity and some also affirm perseverance of the saints (two out of the five points of Calvinism). In this respect, Arminianism can be seen as a kind of moderate Reformed theology rather than the antithesis of it.

Olson's book goes through a series of ten "myths" about Arminianism and seeks to dispel each one. The book focuses a lot on historical theology and unfortunately there is very little biblical exegesis. I don't say this to score a cheap point. It is not a reflection on Arminianism's inability to base its conclusions on the biblical text. I simply think that Olson has chosen to focus on what some of Arminianism's most important theologians have taught. He makes the point that true Arminianism is both misunderstood by its opponents and perhaps by many who claim to embrace it. This confusion amplifies the problem, but the fact is that true Arminianism is more Calvinistic (if I can put it that way) than many of it's proponents think. Olson says that much of modern day evangelicalism is semi-Pelagian not truly Arminian. The problem is that Calvinists looking on, think that when they see semi-Pelagianism they are actually seeing Arminianism, and so Arminianism is semi-Pelagian. But Olson makes a good case for distinguishing sharply between the two. I found Olson's counterpoints a real eye-opener.

The "myths" that Olson seeks to dispel are that:

1. Arminianism is simply the opposite of Calvinism/Reformed theology
2. A hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible
3. Arminianism is not an orthodox evangelical option
4. The heart of Arminianism is belief in free will
5. Arminian theology denies the sovereignty of God
6. Arminianism is a human-centred theology
7. Arminianism is not a theology of grace
8. Arminians do not believe in predestination
9. Arminian theology denies justification by grace alone through faith alone
10. All Arminians believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement

The corresponding realities are therefore:

1. Arminianism is more like a branch of Reformed theology than its opposite
2. Although Calvinism and Arminianism share much in common, they are distinct theological systems on a number of key points and no hybrid is possible on these points
3. Arminianism is an orthodox evangelical option and affirms all the fundamental points of the historic Christian faith
4. The heart of Arminianism is the loving and gracious character of God
5. Arminianism affirms the sovereignty of God but sees it as choosing to give human freedom rather than meticulously controlling all human choices
6. Arminianism is not an "optimistic" theology of human nature, but agrees with Calvinists that human beings are dead in trespasses and sin by nature
7. Arminianism is a doctrine of grace, recognising that no-one can come to God unless drawn by God's grace through the Holy Spirit. The difference with Calvinism being that Arminianism understands God to draw everyone in the same way and such grace to be resistible
8. Arminians believe in predestination but not unconditional election and reprobation, rather they either affirm the predestination of the church corporately or of believers through God's foreknowledge
9. Arminians strongly affirm the central Reformation insight of justification by grace alone through faith alone, including Arminius and Wesley
10. Many Arminians affirm penal substitionary atonement, including Arminius and Wesley

Late in the book, Olson says that it is incumbent when criticising a position to engage with its proponents (and indeed its best proponents) and allow them to put forward what they actually think. I have certainly been guilty of not doing this.

It seems to me that Calvinists looking to deal with Arminianism fairly could do a lot worse than use Olson's book as a reference. I only wish that Olson had done a lot more exegesis to back up the arguments for his position. Had he done so, the book would have been much more valuable.