Christian Theology Book Review

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

Why an Arminian theology book?
I find Calvinism unconvincing, and Arminianism makes sense to me. I figured it was time to read a book explaining Arminianism and defending it against Calvinist criticism. Olson most particularly points out that Arminians do not start from an a prior assumption of free will. They start from the goodness of God as revealed in Scripture, and libertarian free will is a natural conclusion. Yes! I've been saying for years that I don't have a problem with the Calvinist idea that God in his sovereignty does not give humans free will to do good if that's how God chose to do it, but that when I look at the Bible I see plainly that God chose to do it differently. He chose to give us free will.

And another thing! Arminians generally treat Calvinists with respect and recognize that it's within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but Calvinists often don't extend the same courtesy. That's a poor witness. Arminianism was and is an orthodox Christian theology, and it should be treated as such.

What is Olson doing?
Olson's book is not a defense of Arminian theology per se. Rather, it is a response to ten specific misunderstandings of Arminian theology. (Although misunderstandings may be an overly-charitable characterization; many of these are just lies that Calvinist theologians and preachers have pushed.)

For each myth, Olson explains why it is not true, and he cites the writings of Jacob Arminius and various other prominent Arminians throughout the centuries. Olson effectively uses the words of Arminians themselves to put to rest the charges (lies) leveled by Calvinists. It's hard to continue to believe a myth when Arminius and generations of Arminians after him all explicitly deny those myths, and clearly teach a theology that contradicts them. In particular, Olson often cites:

• Jacob Arminius
• Simon Episcopius
• Hugo Grotius
• Philip Limborch
• John Wesley
• Jon Fletcher
• Richard Watson
• Thomas Summers
• William Burton Pope
• John Miley
• Charles Finney
• H. Orton Wiley
• Thomas Oden

No true Scotsman
Olson must continually mention that some who claimed Arminianism actually departed from the teachings of Arminius and taught something unfortunately close to semi-Pelagianism (e.g., Limborch and Finney) while others have departed entirely into Arianism and liberal theology. Olson denies that those teachers represent classical Arminianism, while noting that many prominent Calvinists have encountered Arminian theology only in these twisted forms. They've never read Arminius or any writings of faithful Arminians. That is part of the reason for this book: to make people aware that classical Arminianism—as taught by Arminius, Wesley, and many others—is an orthodox, faithful theology that is Christian, Reformed, and evangelical.

---

Introduction
Olson starts by defining a lot of terms.

• Calvinism - "shared soteriological beliefs" of people who follow John Calvin. His theology focuses on God's sovereignty, and its particular beliefs can be summarized by TULIP: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.
• Reformed theology - broader than Calvinism but often confused with it, this theology encompasses Calvin and many of his Reformation contemporaries
• Arminianism - a framework developed by Jacob Arminius; a "Protestant theology that rejects unconditional election (and especially unconditional reprobation), limited atonement, and irresistible grace because it affirms the character of God as compassionate, having universal love for the whole world and everyone in it, and extending grace-restored free will to accept or resist the grace of God, which leads to either eternal life or spiritual destruction"
• Arminianism of the heart - the original Arminian theology as taught by Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and others. It does not deny total depravity. It is doctrinally orthodox.
• Arminianism of the head - a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian theology, which is rooted in "an Enlightenment-based emphasis on free will that is most often found in liberal Protestant circles" which "denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation."
• synergism - "any theological belief in free human participation in salvation." Arminianism is an orthodox, "evangelical synergism"
• monergism - a broad term, but it "especially means that God is the sole determining agency in salvation."
• Pelagianism - a heretical version of synergism that "denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives."
• semi-Pelagianism - a heretical version of synergism that "embraces a modified version of original sin but believes that humans have the ability, even in their natural or fallen state, to initiate salvation by exercising a good will toward God."
• free will - Calvinists believe in compatibilist free will (that is, free will which is compatible with determinism) which means a person is not able "to do other than what he or she in fact does." By contrast, Arminians believe in noncompatibilist (libertarian) free will which is "the agency that allows persons to do otherwise than they do."
• predestination - Arminians believe in conditional predestination (God predestines according to his foreknowledge) whereas Calvinists believe in unconditional predestination (God foreordains when he predestines.)
• common grace -
• prevenient grace - God's gift that restores the human ability to cease resisting the gospel. Prevenient grace restores human free will.
• Remonstrants - an early group of Arminius's followers, notably including Simon Episcopius, who produced a document (the Remonstrance) summarizing Arminian beliefs.

Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
Jacob Arminius and most of his faithful followers fall into the broad understanding of the Reformed tradition; the common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism is significant.

Reformed theology is a disputed term, but Olson points out that Arminius considered himself Reformed and believed his theology was a branch of Reformed theology, as did many of his contemporary Reformed theologians. Only later did his theology get pushed out as Calvinists redefined the boundaries of Reformed theology and now consider Arminianism as a departure from Reformed theology, not a form of Reformed theology. Olson points out that Arminianism has significant areas in common with Calvinism, and many scholars and theologians today and in history have recognized Arminianism as being at least closely related to Calvinism and Reformed theology. It is in no ways the opposite of Calvinism or Reformed theology. There is only the barest difference between Arminius and Calvin in most respects.

This actually rings true to me. As I was reading this book and hearing Arminius, Wesley, and others describe their theology, it was difficult at times to distinguish it from what I hear from Calvinists. Arminianism is not Calvinism, but it seems pretty close.

Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is Possible
In spite of common ground, Calvinism and Arminianism are incommensurable systems of Christian theology; on issues critical to both sides there is no stable middle ground between them.

Calvinism and Arminianism are not compatible. Of the five points of Calvinism, Arminians absolutely reject three of them. Arminians accept total depravity (T), reject unconditional election (U), limited atonement (L), irresistible grace (I), and have a variety of opinions about perseverance of the saints (P).

Thus, Olson points out that those who claim to be two-point Calvinists (accepting total depravity and perseverance of the saints) are nothing more than classical Arminians.

At the heart of the incompatibility between the two theologies is which view of God predominates: "Contrary to popular belief, then, the true divide at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian debate is not predestination versus free will but the guiding picture of God: he is either primarily viewed as either (1) majestic, powerful, and controlling or (2) loving, good, and merciful." (page 73)

Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option
Classical Arminian theology heartily affirms the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy and promotes the hallmarks of evangelical faith; it is neither Arian nor liberal.

Arminians deny the heresies of Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelegianism, humanism, and they deny that Arminianism is an inevitable slippery slope to liberal theology. Arminius affirmed the supremacy of Scripture, as did Wesley. Both affirmed the trinity and the divinity of Christ. By all measures, Arminianism is both within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and orthodox Protestantism.

Ah, but what about the Calvinist charges that by denying monergism the Arminians also deny justification by grace through faith alone? "But what is a person (e.g., John Wesley) heartily and warmly teaches the former while denying the latter?" (94) Olson points out that Arminians strongly deny that the two are linked, and that the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace offers the explanation. If Calvinist critics do not accept this explanation, well, that explains why they are Calvinists, but it does not mean Arminians have denied any fundamental Reformation doctrine.

Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will
The true heart of Arminian theology is God's loving and just characters; the formal principle of Arminianism is the universal will of God for salvation.

Arminianism stars with God's goodness. Free will is a downstream consequence of that, not the starting point. Arminians believe that unconditional election (as Calvinists teach) implies double predestination and makes God the author of evil, which is impossible due to God's goodness and love, which is a primary motif of Scripture.

Clearly Calvinists disagree. But the Arminian sees God's goodness in Scripture, recognizes that it is only free will that allows a theology that does not make God a sinner. Goodness and love are the start. Free will is never the point. It's only a consequence, an effect, a conclusion from from the evidence.

No Arminian starts with free will. Classical Arminianism is not an argument from humanism or Enlightenment thought.

Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God
Classical Arminianism interprets God's sovereignty and providence differently than Calvinism without in any way denying them; God is in charge of everything without controlling everything.

"The only thing the Arminian view of God's sovereignty necessarily excludes is God's authorship of evil." (p116) "God permits and limits them without willing or causing them." And here is where Olson explains various categories of God's providence.

• preserving or sustaining providence: God's upholding of the created order. E.g., gravity. Even deists believe in sustaining providence.
• concurring providence: God's "consent to and cooperation with creaturely decisions and actions." Every deliberate action, even lifting one's hand, is enabled by God's concurring providence.
• governing providence: God's control over the world, including moral choices and actions. Calvinists say God's governing providence is de facto over every choice. God determines it all. Arminians say God's governing providence is de jure but only partly de facto—he has the right to control and determine everything, but he choose to allow human free will.

In short, Arminians reject the Calvinist view of total de facto governance because that view of God's sovereignty makes God the author of evil, and anything that makes God the author of evil would by consequence make God's character morally ambiguous at best. Arminians believe that if we do not have free will (as the Calvinists believe) then this would mean God "plans, guides, and directs" sin to happen.

Arminians believe that God controls everything, except he gives humans the free will ability to choose sin. "God is the cause of everything but evil, which he only permits." (120) This leads to the idea that although God does not cause evil, he—in his divine providence—concurs with a human's choice to sin. Or, we can talk of God's antecedent and consequent wills. The antecedent will is when God wills to allow human beings the free will to choose sin. His consequent will is when, after humans choose to sin, God concurs in their decision rather than withdraw his concurrence to their free will choice.

It seems all a bit muddled, but the point is this: Arminians do not deny the sovereignty of God. They just believe that the Calvinist version of sovereignty makes God out to be evil. In the Arminian view, God in his sovereignty has allowed human beings the free will to choose sin, which he permits. That is, "sinful and evil acts are never planned or decreed by God; God only decrees to allow them." (p126) That sounds like a distinction without a difference unless free will is real, and we really could choose to not sin (with the help of prevenient grace.) This brings us once again to the two kinds of free will:

• compatibilist free will or philosophical free will: the Calvinist view, which is that we have free will to do what God has already predestined or predetermined for us.
• libertarian (noncompatibilist) free will: the Arminian view that we have actual free will, as in we actually could choose to do something different than we did.

There seems to be a conflict between God's foreknowledge and free will. One way to solve this is open theism, which denies God's timelessness and, in a sense, denies that God does actually know the future before it happens. That's not the way classical Arminianism goes. Classical Arminians do generally believe in the timelessness of God, just like Calvinists.

Arminians hold a high view of God's sovereignty. They believe "God's voluntary self-limitation" explains why God is not the author of evil. Arminians believe that in the Calvinist framework, God is the author of evil and thus God is not good. Obviously Calvinists don't see it that way. But Arminians cannot help but see in Calvinism a system that makes God out to be evil. This is manifestly untrue, so Calvinism fails. (In the Arminian view.)

Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology
An optimistic anthropology is alien to true Arminianism which is thoroughly God-centered. Arminian theology confesses human depravity, including bondage of the will.

Arminians believe God's prevenient grace grants us the libertarian free will to accept the offer of salvation. Therefore all the glory is God's, none is ours. The Arminian view is more that we have "freed will" rather than "free will." God frees our will by his prevenient grace. Arminius writes, "No man believes in Christ except him who has been previously disposed and prepared by preventing or preceding grace." (p145)

So, Arminians do believe in original sin and total depravity. They also believe that God's prevenient grace frees our will from its natural fallen state, allowing us to choose what is right.

Crucially, though: in the Arminian view, original sin does not include condemnation. There is no guilt for original sin, only for actual sin—which is inevitable.

Calvinists respond that universal prevenient grace is a denial of original sin and total depravity. One can understand that point of view, but the Arminian sees it differently, and it's important to remember that Arminians should be judged for what they actually believe and teach, not what Calvinists think are the logical conclusions of their beliefs.

Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace
The material principle of classical Arminian thought is prevenient grace. All of salvation is wholly and entirely of God's grace.

Arminians are big on grace. It's all about grace! We do nothing good without grace. "Humans are dead in trespasses and sins until the prevenient grace of God awakens and enables them to exercise a good will toward God in repentance and faith." (p159)

Prevenient grace has four aspects: calling, convicting, illuminating, and enabling. In the Arminian view, the prevenient grace is not saving grace, but it awakens a person and frees his will to be able to respond to the gospel. Thus prevenient grace leads the Arminian to a three-stage view of the human condition: unregenerate, freed, and regenerate.

Calvinists sometimes respond to Arminianism by asking, "Isn't the bare human decision to accept and not resist God's grace and mercy unto salvation a meritorious work?" (p166) No! That decision is already the work of God's prevenient grace.

This is a fundamental point of disagreement. Arminians believe that salvation is all grace, but that grace is resistible. Calvinists respond that if grace is resistible, then salvation is no longer all grace. To which Arminians reply, "A gift that can be rejected is still a gift if freely received." This is a fundamental disagreement. Again, Calvinists say that the mere accepting of the gift of salvation is a meritorious good work, and Arminians disagree.

Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination
Predestination is a biblical concept; classical Arminians interpret it differently than Calvinists without denying it. It is God's sovereign decree to elect believers in Jesus Christ and includes God's foreknowledge of those believers' faith.

Calvinists believe God fore-ordains when he predestines. Arminians believe God predestines based on his foreknowledge. Further, Arminians interpret the biblical "unconditional election" as corporate, not individual. God unconditionally elects a people. The people consists of those who will believe.

From the Arminian point of view, they look at Calvinism and wonder, if God already preordains people's destinies, why Jesus was necessary? Does not the election and predestination, in the Calvinist sense, make Jesus an afterthought? Clearly Calvinists don't think so, but from the Arminian point of view, the Calvinist framework undercuts the necessity of Christ.

Olson pauses for a brief discussion of Molinism (middle knowledge) and of open theism, which are two frameworks that seek to solve the contradictions between foreknowledge and free will. Middle knowledge is the idea that God knows what any given creature would do in any given situation. So, he "envisions every possible world, he knows intuitively what person X, who is endowed with libertarian free will, would do at any given moment and in any given situation." Olson points out that a number of Arminians view middle knowledge as being incompatible with libertarian free will, so it doesn't really solve the problem.

Open theism is the view that God does not know the future exhaustively. He cannot know it, because it hasn't happened yet. Olson points out that very few Arminians have adopted open theism.

Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
Classical Arminian theology is a Reformation theology. It embraces divine imputation of righteousness by God's grace through faith alone and preserves the distinction between justification and sanctification.

Arminians believe in imputed and imparted righteousness, as do Calvinists. Arminius distinguished justification from sanctification. Wesley did to, pointing out that "justification as imputed righteousness always results in inward transformation that produces works of love." (Olson's summation, p212.) Wesley rejected imputation of righteousness without transformation through inward righteousness, but he didn't confused or conflate the two. In Arminianism, there is no thought of a works-based salvation: justification is not sanctification, and sanctification is never the cause of justification.

This chapter had too many fine points of hairsplitting for me. The distinctions were hard to understand. I am satisfied that Arminius and his followers believe in justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement
There is no one Arminian doctrine of Christ's atonement. Many Arminians accept the penal substitution theory enthusiastically while others prefer the governmental theory.

Arminius taught penal substitutionary atonement. Grotius taught the governmental theory of atonement, as did many subsequent Arminians. But not all. Wesley, for example, taught penal substitution.

Olson takes pains to point out that the governmental theory is substitutionary, a fact Calvinist critics often fail to mention. It just isn't penal substitution. Jesus paid a penalty, but not the actual penalty, as a substitution.

Conclusion
In his conclusion, Olson restates what he said at the beginning. Don't attribute to someone a belief that he explicitly rejects or denies, even if you think it is a logical and necessary consequence of his beliefs. You can point it out and say it's the logical consequence, and you can point out that the other side is illogical in denying it. But don't claim the other side believes what they explicitly reject and deny.

---

Archive | Search