Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

by Roger E. Olson

In this book, Roger Olson sets forth classical Arminian theology and addresses the myriad misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it through the ages. Irenic yet incisive, Olson argues that classical Arminian theology has a rightful place in the evangelical church because it maintains deep roots within Reformational theology, even though it maintains important differences from Calvinism. Myths addressed include: Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, Religion, History, Faith

250 pages, Hardcover

First published September 5, 2006

About the author

Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He is a prolific author whose volumes include The Story of Christian Theology and The Mosaic of Christian Belief. He is also coauthor of 20th-Century Theology. Olsen identifies as an Arminian and a Baptist.

Reviews

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

One can only be grateful for Roger Olson’s book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP, 2006). Calvinists (or Reformed) should buy this book and add it to their library. This is especially true for Calvinists who engage in theological dialog with Arminians on the internet or at the workplace or at school. For you, Olson’s book will be referred to often. It will prove useful in at least four ways: (1) probably most important, it will help you avoid attacking straw men; (2) it will allow you to correct some professing Arminians’ understanding of Arminianism – perhaps causing them to want to disassociate with the label ‘Arminian;’(3) it will help you see, in stark contrast, the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism; and (4) it will make you aware of the main reasons why Arminians say they reject Calvinism, making you aware of some of the major objections to Calvinism that some people have.

Olson’s project is, mainly, a descriptive one. That is, he is simply explaining what Arminian theology is. Thus the book isn’t intended, primarily, to function as an argument for Arminian theology as the correct biblical model on matters such as salvation, grace, the atonement, free will, predestination, election, etc. Olson’s project, then, “is simple and straightforward: to correctly delineate true Arminian theology and to begin to undo the damage that has been done to this theological heritage by both its critics and its friends” (43). Olson contends that the purpose of his book is “not persuasion … but information” (ibid). It also is not meant to function as a “polemic against Calvinism” (ibid).

Olson’s strategy in delineating true Arminian theology vis-à-vis “the imposter” is to speak to ten “myths” that abound about Arminianism. These myths are: (i) Arminian theology is the opposite of Calvinist/Reformed theology; (ii) a hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible; (iii) Arminianism is not an orthodox evangelical option; (iv) the heart of Arminianism is belief in free will; (v) Arminian theology denies the sovereignty of God; (vi) Arminianism is a human-centered theology; (vii) Arminianism is not a theology of grace; (viii) Arminians do not believe in predestination; (ix) Arminian theology denies justification by grace alone; and (x) all Arminians believe the Governmental theory of the atonement. These ten chapters framed in by an introduction that offers a “primer” on Arminian theology, and a conclusion that offers rules for engagement for Calvinists and Arminians.

Put briefly, Olson concludes on the above: (i) Arminian theology is the opposite of Calvinist theology in a few areas, but there is common ground in other areas. Arminius was a Reformer and his views were allowed by some, just not “high Calvinists.” It is arbitrary to exclude him from Reformation theology since it is broad enough to encompass him and he is only excluded by an arbitrary definition of “Reformed” to mean “monergism” to mean “meticulous divine control.” (ii) Though there is agreement and common ground on many issues, there are fundamental differences regarding free will, sovereignty and providence, &c. that imply a contradiction of simultaneously held, so no hybrid is possible on pain of logical contradiction. (iii) Arminianism is an orthodox evangelical option. Real Arminianism – the theology of Arminius, Wesley, &c – holds to sola fide, sola gratia, sola Scriptura, soli Deo Gloria, solo Christo, the inspiration and infallibility of Scriptura, etc. (iv) The heart of Arminian theology is the loving character of God and the idea of real personal relationships, not libertarian free will. Another key doctrine is prevenient grace. (v) Arminian theology does not deny the sovereignty of God, unless that is taken to mean “meticulous control over all of creation, including the foreordination of evil.” But that is just a stipulation. Arminians have had a high view of sovereignty and providence. (vi) Arminian theology is not human centered. It does not believe in some innate goodness of man. Man is totally depraved and can do no good without God’s prevenient grace. (vii) Arminian theology is a theology of grace. Many non-Arminians have noted this. Again, man could do no good without God’s grace. Man cannot be saved without grace. (viii) Arminians believe in predestination, it is just cashed out differently than in Calvinism. It is a conditional predestination. God predestines to save all those who freely believe on Jesus Christ. (ix) Arminius did not deny justification by faith alone, neither the imputed righteousness of Christ’s active and passive obedience. Many other Arminians have followed suit. Some Arminians have held problematic views, but then so have some Calvinists. (x) Not all Arminians hold to the Governmental theory of the atonement, though some have and that is a viable option. Arminius and others held to a penal substitution view.

Overall, Olson’s tone is irenic and he keeps with his didactic aim fairly consistently. I did feel he was a bit condescending at times towards Calvinists, but perhaps this is justified by what he takes to be hundreds of years of misrepresentations and hurtful comments directed towards his theological niche. An ironic and unfortunate aspect to the book was that Olson displayed his own unfamiliarity with Calvinism and seemed unable to use less emotionally charged words when describing it. He appealed to metaphors that were not self-explanatory – such as the claim that Calvinism makes God the “author of sin” – and failed to explain what he meant by the terms. Given his desire to be more descriptive in his approach, and his admitted wide target audience rather than specialists (10), he failed to make some important distinctions and qualifications. One of his main desires was to show that Arminianism is a legitimate evangelical option (at one level, this is true). Thus when questions arise about Arminianism’s position on myriad Protestant “givens,” for example, he explained the Arminian position and then concluded things like this: “Even though Arminians give these great doctrines their own distinctive spin, based on their reading of Scripture, they stand on the same ground of Protestant orthodoxy with Calvinists, pointing away from themselves and to the glory and love of God revealed in Jesus Christ” (246). No doubt this is what they believe, but the same sentiments are uttered by Mormons when accused of denying certain Christian doctrines.

I do not wish to be taken as claiming that Arminians are like Mormons, outside of salvation and the church militant, only to point out that using the same language doesn’t necessarily mean much. Frequently Olson responds to charges by claiming that Arminians have said the opposite. For example, Arminians say believe that grace is necessary for salvation and that salvation is all of grace, and, in one sense, they do believe this. But, Mormons say that they believe in one God, the trinity, &c, and in one sense, they do. Other times I think Olsen confused misrepresentations with logical entailments. So, some of the things said against Arminians were meant as logical conclusions from their position. Thus, we wouldn’t have outright misrepresentation. Olson’s response to this was that we must (always?) explicitly tell our audience that we are drawing a logical conclusion and that the opposite party says that they do not believe what we attribute to them. Though this is good advice in some situations, I found it a bit pedantic and desperate to claim this always has to be done just to lump more Calvinists in the “misrepresentation” bin. For example, I don’t think most thinking people think Arminians have highlighted Ephesians 2:8 with a thick, black permanent maker – thus rendering it absent from their Bibles. It seems to me that the charitable interpretation of some Calvinists who claim that Arminians deny sola gratia is that they are claiming that the Arminian position logically denies the biblical teaching on sola gratia, whether they come right out and say this or not. Or, that since the Arminian position holds an unbiblical view of grace, then that they hold to salvation by grace alone is true in an attenuated way, and ultimately uninteresting as a biblical statement on the matter. But, if some people have given the impression that Arminians deny salvation by grace alone in any sense, they should be corrected. And, if Calvinists have contributed to this misunderstanding, they should take more caution to properly represent their opponents.

I appreciate Olson’s desire to make sure people understand what he takes to be the correct biblical teaching on these matters. I empathize with his frustration at misrepresentations of his position, and some of the hurtful things that can be said in zealous attempts to show a position in error. I am positive he has a genuine desire to be faithful to the Bible. I am thankful for the time he took to lay out his position on many issues in a clear and concise way. I would not claim that his Arminianism will keep him from salvation, or that we are not both united to Christ, part of the same body. I do not agree with Arminian theology, and his book cemented that even more for me, but that doesn’t mean we are not brothers in the Lord – no matter our inter family squabbles. Having shown my desire to not commit fratricide, I must now desist with the three-hanky and commence with some critical analysis.

For those interested, I continue this review here amd make some heavy critical comments.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/0...

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read overall. Orton does a great job to delineate very clearly what Arminian theology is and is not. If you are drawn towards discussing Calvinist-Arminian issues, this should be on top of your reading list in order to understand better the Arminian position, which is so frequently misrepresented.

While the book is thorough, it can be sometimes a bit dull to read, as each of the ten chapters, covering ten myths, are written in the exact same structure: introduction to the theological issue, statement of Arminius' position and then a historical sweep through notable Arminian theologians (Episcopius, Limborch, Wesley, Watson, Burton Pope, Summers, Finney, Miley, Wiley, Thiessen, Oden, ...) followed by a short conclusion. On the positive side, this allows to recover very quickly the stance of each of these theologians on each of the ten theological issues.

This book did not make me an Arminian, but I really enjoyed reading this crystal clear exposition of Arminian theology. I will surely come back to it.

[Mike Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is an unfortunately deep divide between Calvinists and Arminians in American evangelicalism. Roger Olson attempts to heal that divide by eliminating straw man accusations Calvinists make of the conditional election position and other tenets of Arminianism. Olson writes with unusual candor and balance, often admitting the weaknesses of his own views.

This book excels at explaining the various tenets of Arminian theology, but it is not meant to be a theological defense. In fact, there are very few Bible verses cited. The book is a helpful place for Arminians and Calvinists alike to better understand this theological system before picking up a systematic treatment of these doctrines.

[Lizzy Tonkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I very much appreciated this. It was academic, fair, and accessible.

A few different times, Olson indicated that different Arminian theologians interpreted particular Scripture passages in line with church fathers, the medieval church, previous generations, etc. and I wish he would have gone deeper into this. But I recognize the Calvinism/Arminian debate is a rather modern discussion as both John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were 17th Century thinkers.

Would definitely recommend to anyone who is interested in better understanding what Classical Arminian theologians thought, believed, and taught.

[Donner Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where I live, the predestination-free will debate does not quite draw as much interest as in the West for 2 oft-cited reasons: the debate is quite frankly unsolvable by human minds this side of eternity, secondly, one needs to question in what way does it affect our Christian conduct whichever position one comes down to in the end. But notwithstanding these important considerations, I for one have always felt the need for a rationally coherent way of making sense of this aspect of reality and when one works through these issues, one actually begins to see how this seemingly abstract idea does essentially affect how one prays, reads the scriptures, preaches the gospel and relates to God and others, even if one does not consciously think about it. At the same time, the complexity of the case should always keep us within the reasonable bounds of epistemic humility.

Roger Olson has articulated a succint and attractive view of Arminian Theology visa-vis the popular myths and caricatures surrounding it. Besides clearing the fog, I think he does subtly and winsomely manage to commend to 'those with ears to hear' the strength of the Arminian position. There is no doubt that those who already have very firm convictions of their own will remain unpersuaded. I personally think that Roger is spot on that the key to Arminian Theology is not libertarian free will per se, though that is certainly an indispensable part of its position but the very character of God as love as well as the very nature of personal relationships. This contra an earlier reviewer is hardly an 'emotional' argument but a biblical and theological one, in the same way that the Calvinist would root his view on the sovereignty of God, that cannot in any conceivable way be reduced.

What we see on different sides of the debate is a different theological motif being adopted as the controlling key that determines how one reads the biblical evidence - in the one, it's the love of God and in the other the sovereignty of God. (This does not mean that Arminians deny God is sovereign - myth 5 in the book - or that Calvinists reject God is love; just that their emphases differ and hence these attributes are conceptualized differently) The motif once chosen, often implicitly, will bring out a different pattern, and hence a different way of explaining the human-divine interaction. Great minds have wrestled with this philosophical conundrum and it is fascinating just to read how they each try to construct their case. What I appreciate most about Olson's book is his gentle and respectful tone, combined with the clarity and force with which he lays out the classical Arminian position. Once the terms are defined and the misconceptions cleared away, the real debate can then properly ensue. This is what the book seeks to do, which he succeeds admirably and on this count alone, it is certainly a helpful contribution to the intra-ecclesial disputation of this difficult but important subject.

[Sean Dickard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent example of honest, irenic theology. Olson isn't trying to prove someone else wrong or arguing to win a debate - he seeks to correct misrepresentations of Arminian theology and present a clear articulation of it. He addresses common "myths" about Arminianism and corrects them by examining the theology of Arminian theologians of the past several centuries - always beginning with Arminius himself. He is not afraid to point out the theologians who departed from Classical Arminianism and the ways in which they affected others' theology or perception. But he consistently demonstrates the historic transmission and development of Classical Arminianism through the centuries and sufficiently argues that it is consistent with Protestant and evangelical theology - not "barely Christian" or "semi-heretical." This is a great book for anyone who wants to know what Arminian theology really teaches (whether you velieve it or not), rather than how it is often (poorly) portrayed.
Olson does a good job demonstrating how theology should be done. He seeks to highlight similarities and unity wherever possible, yet is honest and clear about differences between theological positions. He does his best to present opposing views as they would present themselves, yet is still honest about how he (and those who agree with him) perceives that view and why he disagrees with it. And finally, as said above, he is not trying to prove anyone wrong or convince anyone to change their mind, but is trying to clearly articulate the doctrines of Classical Arminianism so that it can be understood properly.

[Josh Pannell · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading Olson's "Against Calvinism" I wasn't sure how much I would enjoy this book. I am so glad that my initial thoughts were proven wrong. Though Olson's writings are still full of sarcasm, demeaning statements, straw men, card stacking, and glittering generalities, I still found this book both helpful and informative overall.

Olson's primary argument in this book is a distinction between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. Olson does an incredible job. The historical research in this book is outstanding. Because of the nature of the "myths" Olson addresses, at times this book's repetition does get tedious. Olson defends his view very well. This is a must read for any person desiring to understand Historic Arminianism.

[Adam Balshan · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars [Theology]
(W: 2.65, U: 3.5, T: 4.25)
Exact rating: 3.47
#11 of 42 in genre

Writing: 2.65
3 stars for the style, rhetoric, and neatness of prose; 2.5 stars for organization along overlapping topical themes (each chapter is against a "myth"), which produces lots of repetition [-1/4].

Use: 3.5
Worthy to be put into the hands of any Calvinist wanting an exhaustive engagement with the theology throughout all centuries, and concerning all notable or representative writers. A good resource for the serious Arminian theologian who wants the tradition of Arminius and those who followed him disambiguated from later Arminians who disagreed or departed that tradition.

Truth: 4.25
Rare discernment in both theology and edifying ecclesiological rhetoric.

[Sean Crowe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Was disappointed with this book, but not because of the subject. I am unashamedly reformed and read this to better understand the Arminian position, which I did a little bit, but mostly from the other Arminians Olsen quoted. That said, what disappointed me most was that he accuses Calvinists of mischaracterizing and misrepresenting Arminianism, but then he did the same thing with Calvinism. Second, I thought there were much better Calvinists he could have interacted with. All in all, this book only served to confirm my Calvinists convictions, so I guess the book wasn't all bad :-)

[Evan Minton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before you can criticize someone's position, you must know precisely what it is that you're criticizing. Unfortunately, when Arminian soteriology is criticized by Calvinists, more often than not, they're attacking straw men (i.e beliefs that Arminians don't actually hold). In this book, Roger Olson sets the record straight. In each chapter, he debunks "myths" about Arminian theology that are touted in Calvinist circles and in Calvinist writings and explains what Arminians ACTUALLY believe as opposed to what our critics SAY we believe. He does this by surveying the writings of Arminian thinkers throughout the centuries, starting with Jacob Arminius himself and then going on through John Wesley, and other major Christian theologians up to the modern era. When you look at the writings of the major Arminian theologians throughout the century, it is clear that Arminianism is much misunderstood by many of its critics.

I do have one criticism of this book, and that is what Olson said in chapter 9 about Molinism. I think his assertion that it logically entails or collapses into determinism is false. The ironic thing is that just before Olson made this statement, he quoted a citation of William Lane Craig **which actually includes the reason** why Molinism doesn't collapse into determinism. Mainly, if human beings chose to act differently in the circumstances in which God has placed them, then God's middle knowledge (which is logically prior to the creative decree) would have been different. God knows "If Bob were in circumstance S, he would freely choose action A over action B" and God can foreordain Bob to choose action A by decreeing that Bob should find himself in circumstance S. By actualizing circumstance S, lo and behold, Bob chooses A. God foreordained the choosing of A, yet Bob's freedom is in tact. Now, there's nothing about the circumstances that forced Bob to choose A. Neither would God be mistaken if Bob decided to choose B. If Bob chose B, then it would not be the case that logically prior to creating the world that God knew "If Bob were in circumstance S, he would freely choose A instead of B". No, in this case, God's middle knowledge would contain a different proposition, namely: "If Bob were in circumstance S, he would freely choose action B instead of action A". This explanation is found in the William Lane Craig quote that Olson cited prior to making the assertion that Molinism makes free will impossible. It must be that Olson didn't understand what Craig meant.

Most Classical Arminians fall into this mistake. And I don't blame them. Before I became a Molinist, I thought the same thing. I don't want to belabor this point. I simply want to point out to readers that Olson's critique of Molinism is in error. For those wanting to go further into why Molinism doesn't entail determinism, see my article "Molinism and Divine Foreordination" -- http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.com/201...

Anyway, overall, this is a fantastic work. Anyone who wants to know precisely what we Arminians believe should get this book and read it. Now, if you're looking to get a book defending Arminianism exegetically, you will be disappointed. Not much exegesis is done in this work. That's because that's not the goal of this book. As I said in the first paragraph of this review, this is a "setting the record straight" book. It's telling the reader WHAT Arminians believe. WHY Arminians believe what they believe is a different subject. Indeed, it's most important to ask WHAT someone believes before you can even consider the WHY. For the question of why you should adopt an Arminian view of soteriology, you should read Olson's other books.

[Steve Stanley · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5–4 stars

My favorite quotes from the book:

“Every theology student should read books by proponents of the various theologies rather than merely read about those theologies by their critics.” (13)

“One principle that ought to be observed by all parties is *Before you disagree make sure you understand*. In other words, we must make sure that we can describe another's theological position as he or she would describe it before we criticize or condemn. Another guiding principle should be *Do not impute to others beliefs you regard as logically entailed by their beliefs but that they explicitly deny*.” (41)

“Before speaking or writing about another theology, we must be sure we have read it and are able to describe it as its own best representatives described it. In short, before saying 'I disagree' we must be able to truly say 'I understand.' . . . both Calvinists and Arminians should admit the weakness of their own theologies and not pretend that the other alone contains tensions, apparent inconsistencies, difficulties explaining biblical passages and mysteries. We should strictly avoid double standards. If we point out apparent inconsistencies in the other party's theology and argue that inconsistency shows weakness, we should not pretend our own theology is free from flaws. . . . both Calvinists and Arminians should strictly avoid attributing beliefs to adherents of the other side that those adherents explicitly reject.” (243)

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Roger E. Olson's "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities", is a welcome text to anyone interested in theology. Olson winsomely defends Arminianism from frequent criticisms leveled at it by opponents (mostly Calvinists).

Olson addresses ten "myths" that theological opponents often make against Arminianism, such as "the heart of Arminianism is belief in free will" and "Arminians do not believe in predestination." In each chapter, Olson explains the myth and then, relying on classical Arminian and Wesleyan scholars and theologians (especially Jacob Arminius and John Wesley), demonstrates how Arminians actually approach the topic. In the end, the myths are dispelled and the critiques of Arminianism are demonstrated to be fallacious. Through selecting from the writings of Arminian theologians such as Simon Episcopius and Thomas C. Oden, Olson introduces the reader to many orthodox Arminian thinkers while at the same time, pointing out the serious errors made by some thinkers who claimed to be Arminian but who often distorted Arminianism (e.g. Philip Limborch, Charles Finney). This is helpful because while many Reformed theologians are well-known in evangelical circles (John Calvin himself, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, etc...), most evangelicals are probably unfamiliar with names like H. Orton Wiley and Oden.

There were some issues I had with this book. For one, Olson assumes that his audience will not read it all the way through (like I did) and so he often repeats himself in subsequent chapters. He also focuses most of his attention on answering Calvinist contentions of Arminianism; it is reasonable to assume that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and other Christian denominations take issue with certain aspects of Arminianism (interestingly, Olson relies heavily on Oden and writes of him glowingly; Oden, in turn, seeks to recover the "early Christian ecumenical/patristic consensus" and so perhaps Olson may have more forcefully written of how Arminianism AGREES with Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism on some points), although, granted, that would make the book that much longer and denser. Olson is fairly objective in this book; he often explains differences in theology (e.g. penal substitution vs. governmental theory) but only quietly admits his own position. He allows tremendous grace for Christians to hold to different positions, but sometimes I think he should have been more aggressive in pointing out difficulties with some of these positions (i.e. open theism). Lastly, this is not really a systemic exposition of Arminian theology but more of an Arminian apologia, directed primarily against Calvinist critics. Anyone looking for a more systemic exposition of Arminianism should turn elsewhere.

Olson closes his book with a plea for understanding and unity among Arminians and Calvinists. He acknowledges that there are distinct differences that cannot be reconciled between the two traditions but he also points out that Arminians and Calvinists also hold many things in common, such as the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and that from these similarities, both sides can work toward the common good and the Kingdom of God.

[Steve Irby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities," by Roger Olson, one of the nicest theologians I have ever conversed with.

This was a very good book. Interestingly, Olson often leaned on the work by John Mark Hicks Ph. D. Dissertation, "the theology of grace in the thought of Jacob Arminius and Philip van Limborch," excerpts of which were very good.

I skipped the intro etc.

Myth 1, Arminian theology is just the opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology:

Olson points out that it seems Arminius seemed perplexed at the problems some had with his synergism. That along with Beza's letter of recommendation for Arminius to preach would point to Arminianism as initially being thought of or seen as corresponding to RT.

"Arminianism is a correction of reformed theology rather than a departure from it," p 49.

Quoting H. Orton Wiley: "In its purest forms, Arminianism preserves the truth found in the Reformed teachings without accepting its errors," p 51.

To Arminius the difference between monergism vs synergism was no issue between the two schools of thought and therefore Arminius was a Reformer reformer in the one school of RT.

Myth 2, A hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible:

Olson maintains that persons who wish to create a unified theology which proclaims to be a bridge between, or merger of, Calvinism and Arminianism are suggesting incoherence. Tulip aside, monergism and synergism are what they are and there is no semi-synergistic or partial monergistic soteriology that maintains logic.

Olson points out that to the Arminian a determining model of God paints God as morally ambiguous at best. He also includes the main difference between these two schools. The Calvinist reads Gods goodness through His greatness; the Arminian reads Gods greatness through His goodness; love is the Arminians filter while Omnipotence is the Calvinists filter. It is in this--who we are directs how we filter--that we should theologically "comfortably" shake hands as brothers. But no, there is no mutual theology. I agree.

Myth 3, Arminianism is not an Orthodox Evangelical option:

He quickly lists the many heterodox and unorthodox views that Arminianism has been linked to and how this is just not possible. While there are adherents of a system who may go places with it which its founder and major advocates never intended (Arminius, Wesley, Watson, Miley, Wiley, et al) that doesnt mean it leads to the dreaded heresy. Heresy hunting is not that interesting to me so I didnt note much about it.

Myth 4, The Heart of Arminianism is belief in free will:

Olson here fights the argument held from pew to seminary that Arminianism is all about affirming the free will of man and conversely that Calvinism is all predestiniarian.

"First, commitment to the freedom of the will is not the highest value or principal in Arminian doctrinal construction. That pride of place belongs to the character of God as discerned from a synoptic reading of scripture using the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the hermeneutic control. Arminians believe in free will because they see it everywhere assumed in the bible, and because it is necessary to protect Gods reputation. [...] And Arminians do not see any way to embrace divine determinism (monergism) and avoid making God the author of [all] sin and evil," p 98.

Olson states that Arminianism begins with Gods goodness and ends up at free will as a result of it. Calvinism begins with Gods power and has to justify His sin and evil, appealing to a hidden will of God, something fly enough to baptize Auschwitz, Hiroshima and 9/11.

Myth 5, Arminian Theology denies the Sovereignty of God:

I've heard this one more than once. It seems that determinism's model of sovereignty is the only one allowable and of one doesnt affirm God as omnicausal then they have a low view of His sovereignty.

"God can and does exercise control, but not to the exclusion of human liberty and not in such a way as to make Him the author of sin and evil. [...] If Gods sovereignty were already completely exercised de facto, why would anyone need to pray for Gods will to be done on earth?" p 117.

To be honest, after going over Arminius' own words he was way to much a determinist for me.

Myth 6, Arminianism is a human centered theology:

This section really showed how true to the Reformation Arminius really was. Some of his quotes sound extremely Calvinist theologically when speaking anthropologically. You expect him to be wearing a "I'm a wretch" tee shirt while screaming "no one is good but God." While mostly true--im not a wretch, I was rescued from this body of death; the Spirit of Christ is good in me--Arminius seemed to focus on it more than one would think. One thing is clear: accusations of Pelagianism or Semi Pelagianism are totally misguided when aimed at Arminius or his theology.

Myth 7, Arminianism is not a theology of grace:

It seems Arminius was baffled by this objection: a gift freely received rather than a gift forced on one was just as much a gift (if not more so). Even synergism in Arminus' take has the work on Gods side.

Myth 8, Arminians do not believe in predestination:

It seems Olson will posit an Arminianism which runs on a simple foreknowledge view that God "sees" who will accept His grace and based on that He predestined them to salvation.

I take that back: he appeals to corporate election as do I. And in this chapter Olson is also going to analyze Molinism and Open Theism along side of predestination to see if these two can fit in the Arminian family.

"For Arminius, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is shipwrecked on the rock of Gods goodness at every turn," p 183.

For Arminius predestination meant that Jesus Christ was predestined to be the savior of sinners. And he considered the Calvinist doctrine to be insufficiently Christocentric.

Arminius actually uses both of my aforementioned: God decrees the means of salvation through Christ and God also decreed by His fore knowing who will and who wont accept His grace for salvation.

Olson's analysis of Molinism is that it lands on determinism and of open theism that it takes too much away from predestination, but he is open to see where it goes. This book is also 16 years old and based on his blog I believe he is even more open to open theism today than when this work was published.

Myth 9, Arminian theology denies justification by faith alone through grace alone:

Again, quote after quote Olson documents how the Remonstrance O.G.s corresponded to the Magisterial Reformers in justification.

Myth 10, All Arminians believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement:

I find this an odd claim. Other than Grotius and Miley I havent heard of anyone holding this view. I think that the reason why the claim is made that Arminianism doesnt uphond penal substitution is because this model of the atonement has been spun to be the sum total of the Kerygma and anything that deviates from it is a deviation from pure gospel. The result of which would be to position Arminianism as heresy.

[Zach Hollifield · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this to be a fine summary and introduction to Arminian Theology. Helpful in dispelling some myths about classical Arminianism–though I think Olsen is wrong, in some places, that these are only myths and not what the majority of “free will evangelicals” actually believe.

Ultimately, I don’t think he is convincing on free will not being the central motif of the system. He claims it is God’s character and for relationship. But probe deeper and the reason these would be at risk is…you guessed it: a libertarian understanding of free will which must be held intact lest God be mean and we be robots.

Finally, I think some of his presentations of of the issues are just awful. I’ll leave the worst one here:

“Contrary to popular belief, then, the true divide at the heart of the Calvinist-Arminian split is not predestination versus free will but the guiding picture of God: he is primarily viewed as either (1) majestic, powerful, and controlling or (2) loving, good, and merciful. Once the picture is established, seemingly contrary aspects fade into the background, are set aside as "obscure" or are artificially made to fit the system. Neither side absolutely denies the truth of the other's perspective, but each qualifies the attributes of God that are preeminent in the other's perspective. God's goodness is qualified by his greatness in Calvinism, and God's greatness is qualified by his goodness in Arminianism.” (p73)

Calvinists and Arminians both should experience physical revulsion reading such a formulation of the debate.

In all, a helpful introduction for Calvinists and Arminians alike.

[J. Rutherford · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found Olson's book to be very useful, but also desperately lacking (in areas beyond just the usual Arminian-Calvinist divide in which I find myself on the opposite side of Olson). This book is incredibly useful as resource for getting to know historical and contemporary Arminian theology, for an Arminian this will help them understand their theology better, for a Calvinist this will furnish you with a better understanding of the theology that many Evangelicals adhere to. Though it is a useful resource, I found that Olson disingenuously described a few Calvinist beliefs and that he did a better job unintentionally proving that the Libertarian definition of free will and human responsibility is the heart of Arminianism over either God's nature (as he claims) or free will (as many opponents claim). If someone unfamiliar with contemporary Calvinism reads this book they will come away having a insufficient and distorted understanding of it, so if you are going to read this book also read a good contemporary treatment of Calvinistic belief from a Calvinistic writer (Packer, Piper, Sproul, Carson, Schriener, etc...).

For my full review of Olson's Arminian Theology go here; https://allforthegloryofhiskingdom.wo...

[Pat · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly objective view of some of the myths about Arminian theology and the actual reality. The author presented views by certain Calvinist theologians and scholars and then presented the opposing views of their Arminian peers (even the ones that aren't necessarily favorable to Arminianism). I particularly liked the author's conclusion in which he encouraged open dialogue among Calvinists and Arminians rather than the demonizing (my word) that often takes place. One quote from the book that I liked was, "Before you disagree make sure you understand." In other words, get the facts first before drawing up your conclusions.

[Joshua Smart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book on Arminianism by Roger E. Olson... clearly the appropriate nickname for it is the REO Freewagon.

It's a wonderful book that works through ten common myths (straw-men really) about Arminian theology, e.g. that Arminian's have a low view of sovereignty and grace. In each chapter Olson outlines the basic objection then gives his own response, followed by quotes from Arminius, the Remonstrants, Wesley, 19th century Arminians, and 20th century Arminians that counter the myth. It is a very thorough piece of scholarship written at a popular level.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 5 out of 5]

Много ясно представяне на основните богословски и исторически маркер без заиграване с философията и без излишна полемика или враждебност.

[Erik Eliason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks to Roger Olson's book, I finally know whether or not I am an Arminian! (For those who don't know me, this is a joke.) Dr. Olson's work does exactly what the title and subtitle suggest: it explicates classical Arminian theology while dispelling common myths attributed to it. He does this by first giving a sense of the current theological biases regarding Arminianism and laying out the basic doctrines and beliefs of the theological system. He then addresses a common myth per chapter for ten chapters in total. He finally concludes by offering four "rules of engagement" between Calvinists and Arminians with both irenicism and conviction.

Due to Olson's desire to dismantle common myths surrounding Arminianism, the book frequently comes off in an exasperated and frustrated tone. Given the author's own experiences surrounding Calvinist and Arminian debates, this is entirely understandable. However, it is slightly repetitive, and those who don't empathize with Olson might find it off-putting at times. But Olson has a clear irenic tone at the end of the book, and he frequently clarifies what he means, so his genuine commitment to truth and Christian unity is readily apparent.

Due to the overlapping subjects throughout the book (it's hard to discuss salvation, grace, sin, and faith without reference to each other), it can feel repetitive, especially in the middle chapters. However, the book really recovered for me once he shifted to explaining predestination in Arminian theology. He included discussions of Barthian election, Molinism, and Open Theism, which helped clarify some of my thoughts on these matters.

Olson displays a deep familiarity with classical Arminian sources, which is something I greatly appreciated about this book. I have studied Calvin and Wesley, but Arminius and the Remonstrants are quite hazy in my knowledge of church history. He excellently lays out the difference between the "Arminianism of the heart" and the "Arminianism of the head," the former being born out of concerns for the character of God and the message of Christ and the latter being born of out more humanistic (even deistic) tendencies. Thanks to this book, I now know about James/Jacob Arminius, Simon Episcopius, Phillip Limborch, William Burt Pope, Thomas Oden, and others. Best of all, I now know where to look when I want to read their original sources.

If one can understand Dr. Olson's frustration with the false portrayals of Arminianism, this book is a worthwhile introduction to Arminian theology. He not only states the basics of Arminianism, but he cites his sources, leaving enough information to his readers in case they want to know more. I don't personally agree with every statement he makes, but he is a well-learned theologian and a clear writer. I am so used to reading unclear academics that I found myself thinking he was being too simple! But since his goal was to offer a basic introduction, he clearly succeeded. I think any honest and sincere reader will be able to follow his arguments and understand his conclusions. While this is not one of my favorite works, I think it is definitely worth reading, especially the first two and final three "myth" chapters. For those who have a more antagonistic stance to Arminianism, the middle chapters will provide a challenge and request to Calvinists to stop misrepresenting Arminians. You may not agree, but apply charity to your fellow Christians by first explaining their beliefs as they see them before criticizing their theology.

I will end with Dr. Olson's four "rules of engagement," which I wholeheartedly agree with and will try my best to live by:

1) Before criticizing someone's views, make sure you first read and understand what they are saying. Do not rely on secondary sources, especially hostile ones.
2) Do not set up straw men in order to tear them down.
3) Admit where your theology appeals to mystery and don't pretend that you have all the answers. No chest thumping or double standards.
4) Don't misattribute beliefs to your opponent, even if you are convinced that they believe them by true and necessary consequence. If someone explicitly denies something, don't claim they believe it. Calvinists don't believe that God is the author of evil, even if you believe their beliefs entail such a thing. And Arminians don't believe that Man plays a decisive role in his salvation or that God isn't fully sovereign, even if you think their beliefs entail these ideas. Promote irenicism while contending for your beliefs. People deserve at least this much, especially your fellow Christians.

[Nathan Casebolt · Rating 3 out of 5]

While eating in the college cafeteria as a young student, I spoke favorably of John Calvin. Years passed before a friend confessed how much I had shocked him. His pastor taught that Calvin was a heretic burning in Hell to this day, so my friend concluded I must be headed in the same direction.

While I’ve never considered debates between Calvinists and Arminians as anything but intramural friendlies, not everyone agrees. For every Arminian who thinks Calvinism a damnable heresy, there’s a Calvinist who thinks Arminians are humanists who reverse the power dynamic between God and man.

Theologian and professor Roger E. Olson of Baylor University is anxious to disperse this mutual animosity. As an Arminian, he doesn’t believe there exists a middle ground on the issues that divide. I agree and appreciate that he doesn’t fuzz away the differences. Rather, he defines and defends what he considers true Arminianism so Calvinists can grapple with the real thing rather than strawmen.

To this end, Olson structures each chapter around busting a myth; for instance, the first chapter meets the Calvinist challenge that Arminianism is not really a Reformed theology. Olson supports each of his chapters with original quotations, starting from Jacobus Arminius himself, then from his Remonstrant heirs, John Wesley, and both 19th- and 20th-century Arminian theologians.

Olson’s account is clarifying. He contends that both Arminians and Calvinists understand God’s glory in salvation as the main thing. But where Calvinists contend that God’s glory (not to mention sovereignty) is jeopardized if even the smallest atom is subject to free human decision, Arminians contend that God has already revealed in Jesus that his highest glory is that of love both genuine and universal.

Love limited and coerced is no love at all. From this, not to mention from Scriptures that seem to teach a universal atonement, flows the foundational doctrine of prevenient grace: that although all are dead in trespass and sin, and thus incapable in themselves of exercising a good will toward God, the death of Jesus imparts enough grace to everyone that anyone can stop resisting the call to salvation.

Olson distinguishes between this “Arminianism of the heart” and the “Arminianism of the head” represented by Philip Limborch, Charles Finney, and America’s liberal denominations. These fall into semi- or straight-up Pelagianism, recognizing man as either neutral or positive toward God, unfettered by a sin nature, and lacking nothing more serious than knowledge to make the right decision.

True Arminians cling to their Reformation roots, giving glory to God alone for the grace which renews dead sinners to eternal life, and diverging from their Calvinist brethren only to the extent of holding that God opts to display his glory through a genuine offer of salvation to anyone and everyone, thus limiting his own coercive power in deference to his revealed character of love.

I found Olson’s approach clear, balanced, irenic, and satisfying. He aims at a popular audience, so the text is neither drowning in footnotes nor drowsing in jargon. Whether you agree with him or not is less important than recognizing that neither John Calvin nor Jacobus Arminius are likely burning in Hell. Perhaps, then, their modern-day disciples can ratchet down the rhetoric that does such damage to the one and undivided Body of Christ.

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though there's certainly quite a bit I disagree with in here in specific use of terminology & a few minor points, in substance I largely agree with Olsen throughout this text & think he does a very good job of highlighting truth's vs misconceptions about Arminianism. I would need to look into some of the Reformed sources he cites I know some of them are generally held as liberal by many Reformed, but these are the same Reformed who say the Synod of Dort changing the path of Reformed theology was simply what all the Reformed thought during the council & not aware this was not always the understanding of Reformed theology. If you are a Reformed or Arminian this book I would highly recommend even saying must have if you intend to do dialogue with friends or across traditions. Both to understand truth's & misunderstandings across traditions. Here are the 10 Myth's he addresses.

1 - Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
2 - A Hybrid of Calvinism & 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-Centered 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

To put what I think the biggest highlight of this book is part of the conclusion & it's exhortation.
"Adherents of both within evangelicalism should agree on some basic rules of discourse. First, before speaking or writing about another theology, we must be sure we have read it and are able to describe it as its own best representatives describe it. In short, before saying 'I disagree' we must be able to truly say 'I Understand.' Calvinist who attack Arminianism should have at least a passing acquaintance with Arminius and two or three solid evangelical Arminian theologians. Arminians should refrain from criticizing Calvinism until they have read Calvin and some Reformed theologians who follow him closely.
Second, critics should always be sure they are not assaulting a straw man... Calvinist bristle when detractors describe Calvinism as stoic fatalism. They should avoid doing the same kind of thing to Arminianism.
Third, both Calvinist & Arminians should admit the weaknesses of their own theologies and not pretend that the other one alone contains tensions, apparent inconsistencies, difficulties explaining biblical passages and mysteries. We should strictly avoid double standards. if we point out apparent inconsistencies in the other party's theology and argue that inconsistency shows weakness, we should not pretend our own theology is free of such flaws.
Finally, both Calvinist and Arminians should strictly avoid attributing beliefs to adherents of the other side that those adherents explicitly reject. This often happens because critics think they see where certain beliefs of the others must logically lead and then attribute the 'good and necessary consequence' (as they see it) of a belief to the others even though the others deny it (243)."

[Jeffrey Reynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

I will admit - like a lot of people, I received my impression of what Arminian Theology was from those who consider it to be a flawed belief if not a false gospel. Thus, I wanted to learn what Arminians really believe, and unsurprisingly it is more mainstream to evangelical (and even reformed) Christianity than it has been characterized (and often cariacturized).

I've seen two patterns in other writings - there are either two categories that everybody fits into (Calvinism or Arminianism) or there is a middle ground, with the authors invariably calling the middle ground "Moderate Calvinism" as opposed to "Strong Calvinism" and putting all Arminians in another box. (Reading another book, "Four Views On Eternal Security", confirmed my suspicion that no, all Arminians don't fit into the same box. Another pattern is to consider Arminianism Pegalianism (a heresy from the 4th century) or at least Semi-Pegalianism. Roger Olsen here shows that Arminianism is not the same as any form of Pegalianism. Olsen considers Charles Finney and the later Remonstrats to be more Semi-Pegalian (what Olsen refers to as "Arminianism of the Head") than Classical Arminianism as taught by Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the early Remonstrats (or "Arminianism of the Heart").

The myths pointed out here include Arminianism being the opposite of Reformed, being non-evangelical, being focused on man rather than God, being centered on free-will, and being opposed to God's Sovereignty, all of which are wrong. The one that interested me - who has never considered myself in either camp - is the myth that you can be a hybrid between the two. Olsen allows for a person, like me, to say they don't know, but shows that while there is common ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, they are different enough you can't be both.

The purpose of this book is not so much to convince the reader that Arminianism is the truth. Olsen points out that there are weaknesses in both theologies, areas where Scripture causes conflict with both theologies that can't be resolved, and that both theologies have unbiblical extremes. Rather, the focal point is defending Arminianism which has been defined more by Calvinists to the point where some wonder if an Arminian is even a Christian and that Arminians avoid the name because of the negative connotations Calvinists give it.

This isn't the easiest book to read, because in disproving ten myths of Arminianism theology, the ten chapters have the same pattern: Over the top (and sometimes slanderous) comments from Calvinists about Arminians, and proof from the writings of Arminius, Wesley, and later Arminians that the Calvinists' accusations are inaccurate. I was convinced by the third or fourth chapter and just skimmed the rest.

I do highly recommend this book. Too often in arguing against a view, we portray that view in a way that our opponent would consider at best inaccurate if not a complete misrepresentation of that belief. And Arminianism is very often misrepresented.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read Olson on Arminianism as a Reformed theology just a bit, so I was curious to read more of his work on the subject, and this book didn't disappoint.

The text is primarily an attempt to correct 10 misunderstandings that others (generally Calvinists) have about Arminianism. It isn't a defense of Arminianism or a systematic theology, but more of a historical guide to show clarity on what true Arminians actually believe. I've found these misrepresentations to come up in Reformed circles (in my world, it's been spoken of as more or less a heresy) and Olson does a good job of clarifying. He mainly seeks to put it properly in a Protestant camp, showing its connections to the Reformation and even modern Calvinism. There's little here to defend any of it, or to put it in conversation with Catholic or Orthodox traditions.

The book can be a little repetitive (as Olson acknowledges) because the chapters do require some overlapping material. A fair bit of it could be covered just by saying, "Ignore Limborch - he missed the boat," but even so, it was an interesting read, and presenting sometimes repetitive arguments was necessary (especially for readers who might not read straight through).

This is certainly worth it for anyone wanting an accessible entry into the conversation.

[Kenneth L. Holmes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Armenian Theology Defended, Explained

This book will clarify the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism in an understandable and easy to digest format. For those of you who are "closeted" Arminians" shame on you. For you Calvinists who slam Arminians Shame on you! For all of us who slam one another based on our slightly differing theologies Shame on US! There is a world out there that needs to hear the clear Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He sought me and He bought me with his Redeeming Blood! We should hold hands and proclaim the truth. Read this book and better understand where I an Arminian am coming from. Read some of the books in the bibliography. And above All read and understand Both Arminius and Calvin before you argue. You will see that we really aren't that much different after all. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the Power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes to the Jew first and also the Greek (pagan). I cannot see from this one verse how any human could be excluded from Gods wonderful Grace.

[Devon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was hard to rate for me. For the good, I really believe he explains Arminianism in a coherent way even displaying some disagreements in the tradition. I walked away from this book with greater understanding of Arminianism in distinction from Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism which was one of my greatest concerns with Arminian theology. What knocked this book down for me was the writing style. Not necessarily the style of how it was written in flow but the incessant reference back to “well they say this and this is why they are wrong” almost felt like complaining about a bully on the playground by trying to convince them why you are cool. I could not get that feeling out as I read the book so it made parts quite tedious. Overall I am glad I read the book. I just wish it focused less on why the myths are disingenuous and more just on the reality of Arminian thought. It would have made it much more enjoyable to me.

[Kaleb Blackburn · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5
It’s definitely not something I would recommend for the casual reader to understand their own theology (I think there are better resources), but overall I think it does it’s proper job of dispelling certain myths about Arminianism.

Most of the criticisms theologically are super nitpicky and not necessary for a review because obviously there will be disagreements. The book is for a more intermediate understanding of the topic because he uses terms that he never defines and assumes the reader will understand.

Organizationally, I didn’t really like how he used the same 5-6 Arminian theologians the entire book for each topic. I feel like the space could have been used better.

Overall, the book gave me a good understanding of a topic I wanted more understanding in!

[Collin · Rating 4 out of 5]

As much as I disagree with the doctrine Mr Olsen espouses, I must hand it to him that he offers a pretty fair, objective, and clarifying argument for what is called “Arminianism”. Having read many who would hold the opposite view (let’s be real: that’s most of the venerable pastors and preachers of the church), I have always wanted to understand this view. It strikes me as a very fair defense of Olsen’s view on this topic. He records the historical and doctrinal roots of Arminianism and makes a reasonable case for such. It is the case that both Arminians and Calvinists will often “strawman” one another’s arguments. Olsen’s book is a step away from that towards conversation and clarity.

[Justin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I realize this wasn't intended to be an exegetical defense of Arminian theology, but rather a historical account of classical Arminianism. However, some degree of exegesis would have been helpful in coming to a full understanding of how Arminius and his theological progeny came to their conclusions.

Also, the inclusion of Limborch in this book was often perplexing, as he seems to have strayed into semi-Pelagianism - or at least out of classical Arminianism - often enough to make me wonder why he was included, except perhaps to demonstrate where "Arminianism of the head" has its brain stem.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely academic, but well written. Dr. Olson is careful to reference original source documentation written by theologians, from Arminius himself and Episcopius (an immediate successor) to John Wesley and more contemporary thinkers such as Thomas Oden. The book makes an excellent case for the orthodoxy of Arminian belief and lays a solid groundwork for respect and fair debate among those of differing theological persuasions.

[JWS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very informative and researched

Whether you agree or disagree with Arminianism or Calvinism, Olson does a good job of teaching what each believes, generally. He also shows us that there are individuals within each viewpoint that hold different beliefs from each other. Each viewpoint is not a monolithic structure but a basic house with differences within that house. Olson shows that Classical Arminianism is thoroughly Christian and Christ honoring.