Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.
By Roger E. Olson.
Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic (2006). 250 pp.
Baylor University professor of theology Roger E. Olson
tackles the daunting task of clearing up misconceptions held by those in the
so-called Reformed tradition regarding Arminian theology. After a lengthy
introduction in which he gives a quick overview of traditional Arminianism, he
launches into what is essentially his Top Ten List[1]
of misconceptions others hold regarding his theological tradition. In this
introduction the fundamental divide between the two traditions is made
apparent. Terms like “cooperation” and “nonresistance” are attributed to the
pre-salvation individual as they move from darkness into light. (p 36-6) The
prevenient grace necessary for this “cooperation” is not salvific in and of
itself. In this we can start to see where Calvinists often run with these ideas
and come to associate Arminianism with some form of Pelagianism.
Olson fills a much-needed gap in accurate understanding –
not just for Calvinists, but also for those in his own tradition!
Misconceptions abound, as Olson illustrates throughout his book with different
anecdotes from both sides of the theological aisle. The organizational
structure of the book makes it more than just a one time read. Rather, it
serves as a handy reference as different topics come up in a theological
discussion. Each chapter addresses one significant myth. In this regard, each
chapter stands alone. One potential downside for the individual reading the
book cover-to-cover is that this creates a fair amount of repetition. Olson
himself acknowledges this in his introduction. This “downside” however, is a
strength of this book. One does not have to read the entire book to understand
Olson’s argument. The information needed to understand each chapter is
contained within each chapter.
One area where I take issue with Olson would be in his use
of the phrases: “Arminians of the heart,” and “Arminians of the head.” He lumps
those who give Arminianism a black eye into the “Arminian of the head”
category, e.g. Finney, Limborch, and others. The implication here is that
Olson, and others of his persuasion “get it” in a way that other theologians
have not. Although the tone throughout Olson’s work is commendably irenic, this
phraseology does serve as a bit of a spiritual jab against those of us who do
not “get it.”
The best chapter in the book would be the 2nd
myth concerning a hybridization of Calvinism and Arminianism. This so called
“Calminianism” is not a coherent theological system. This chapter does an
excellent job explaining why this hybrid is not possible. “Of course, if we do
not care about logic, then we inhabit an artificially constructed Calminian
house built on sand.” (p 68) This chapter alone is worth the price of the book.
That said, on page 73 Olson displays the fundamental theological mistake[2]
of his system. Quoting Fritz Guy, Olson affirms that “[i]n the character of God
love is more fundamental than control.” Throughout Olson’s book there are
statements that demonstrate this idea of elevating the love of God above all
other attributes. This inappropriate elevation of one attribute of our Triune
God is where the rational for the primary error of Olson’s system can be found.
This book was an
immensely valuable read. Much that has previously simply been assumed has been
clarified in my thinking regarding Arminianism. Although I feel as though Olson
is defending his position using a theologically modified vocabulary[3], he has done a great
service to the church by laying out these myths in a helpful format. This was
theology done well. He did not resort to ad
hominem attacks, or turn the tables and exploit the “myths” of Calvinism.
He exhorts us to discuss this respectfully, with love, and without assumption.
We should “strictly avoid attributing beliefs to adherents of the other side
that those adherents explicitly reject.” (p 243) Even though many in the reformed camp infer that Pelagianism may appear
to be the logical conclusion of Arminian thought, to force that heresy on those
who do flatly reject the claims of Pelagius would be unfair. They may be
demonstrating a lack of understanding of the weight and logical conclusion of
their thought, but their ignorance is preferable to heresy![4]
[1]
Although he gives no credit to either David Letterman or his network, I’m sure
the omission is purely an oversight.
[2]
In my humble opinion…
[3]
His definitions of grace, predestination and election have been subtly modified
in order to make his theological system more coherent. Essentially it seems as
though his position is one based more on “taste” than biblical thinking. The
implications of scriptural passages such as Romans 9 don’t appeal to his
theological “taste,” so this is where he lands.
[4]
This statement is intended as a generalization, not as the backhanded insult it
may appear to be on the surface – many would say the same thing about
Calvinism.
No comments:
Post a Comment