In Professor Olson’s forthcoming work, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (AT), the purpose is not to defend Arminianism against centuries’ worth of assaults. Rather, Dr. Olson candidly says he wishes his work to be a true opening exposition to Arminian theology. He writes >>>
The affirmations of Arminianism…form the backbone of this book. Even though reasons why Arminians are not Calvinists will be provided, [AT] is not a polemic against Calvinism. Nor is it intended so much as a defense of Arminianism as a statement of true Arminian theology (p.43).
Thus, the entire Introduction (pp 12-43) provides a succinct primer on Classic Arminianism. Indeed, one reason why Olson believes so much confusion about Arminianism exists not only on the popular level, but also among scholarly critics is that a careful distinction is so often lacking between what Olson calls “true” or “classic” Arminians and those Arminians who dissented from James Arminius himself.
These dissenters Olson labels as “Arminians of the head” in distinction to “Arminians of the heart” (pp 17, 23). The former are represented by John Taylor (1694-1761) and Charles Chauncy (1705-1787), who, for the most part were the very ones toward which the great Puritan Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) aimed his brilliant intellectual powers (p.23).
Hence, what unfortunately has taken place is that no distinction appears between detractors within Arminianism and faithful followers of James Arminius’s original soteriological vision. Dr. Olson offers some critique of popular Calvinist authors like R.C. Sproul, Edwin H. Palmer, Kim Riddlebarger, W. Robert Godfrey and Michael Horton. Of course, this will come as no surprise to the readers.
What stands as a total shock, however, is Dr. Olson’s total rejection of Calvinists’ favorite whipping post in their critiques of Arminian Theology. None other than the great evangelist-revivalist, Charles Finney (1792-1875) himself gets axed from the tree of true Arminianism by Professor Olson. Of the Oberlin College President, Olson writes:
Finney rejected high Calvinism in favor of a vulgarized version of Arminianism that is closer to semi-Pelagianism…He denied original sin, except as a misery that has fallen on the majority of humanity and is passed on through bad examples (“aggravated temptation”). He believed that every person has the ability and responsibility, apart from any special assistance of divine grace (prevenient grace) other than enlightenment and persuasion, to freely accepting the forgiving grace of God…Finney vulgarized Arminian theology by denying something Arminius, Wesley and all faithful Arminians before him had affirmed and protected as precious to the gospel itself—human moral inability in spiritual matters, and the absolute necessity of supernatural prevenient grace for any right response to God, including the first stirrings of a good will toward God (p.27).
What remains problematic, especially for Calvinists in their future critique of Arminianism as presented by Dr. Olson, is the now defunct object of Calvinist scorn—Finnyism. Here is an Arminian theologian who himself charges Finney with semi-Pelagianism and, consequently, rejects him as the mainstream spokesman for classic Arminianism.
As Professor Olson offers his exposition of classic Arminianism, he does so centered around ten myths that arise pertaining to Arminianism. After the primer on Arminian theology is complete, the next ten chapters deal with a specific myth.
For example, the first myth with which he deals is the common perception that Arminian theology is the opposite of Calvinist/Reformed theology (p.44). Far being opposite, Dr. Olson argues that Arminianism belongs within the wider sphere of Reformed thinking. This will come as a surprise to Calvinist readers. Yet Olson meticulously makes his case beginning with James Arminius himself, who, Olson contends, had no idea he was rejecting Reformation theology (pp.48-49). Two areas linked Arminius with Reformed theology: God’s glory in Salvation and Covenant Theology, both for which Arminius considered non-negotiable (p.51)
That does not mean, however, that Arminius sold out to the strict Calvinism of his day. Having studied under Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza, Arminius developed profound theological reservations of Beza’s rigid Supralapsarianism.
Thus, the second myth Olson teases out is the popular notion that it is possible to maintain a hybrid theological position between Calvinism and Arminianism—“Calminians” Olson dubs them (p.61). There are definitive distinctions between the two visions of salvation proffered by Calvinists and Arminians. Here Dr. Olson writes whether grace is resistible or not and also includes a lengthy and helpful exposition of the nature of free will.
With that, I am…
Peter
(originally posted 7/29/06)
Comments