Review Essay: Roger E.
Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
By John L. Drury
The most recent
issue of Christianity Today addresses
the resurgence of Calvinism among younger evangelicals. Accompanying any such
Reformed resurgence is the reappraisal of the status of Arminians within the
Evangelical camp. Although it seems odd to even question whether Arminians are
welcome among some of the very institutions they established, the question is
being raised and cannot be ignored.
Roger E. Olson's
timely book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities offers a sustained description of Arminianism as a genuinely
Evangelical and Protestant tradition. His motivation is both theological and
sociological. Theologically, he intends to clear up misunderstandings about
what Arminians actually believe. Sociologically, he aims to prevent any
impending squeeze-out of Arminians from the Evangelical camp that the recent
Reformed resurgence may entail. The result is an accessible introduction to
Arminian theology that could be used in both Arminian and Calvinist circles: as
a formative textbook for the former and as a supplemental text promoting generosity
among the latter.
I am in the
process of a reviewing an advance copy of this book for Koinonia
Journal. I am half way through it and would like to
"think out loud" about its strengths and weaknesses. I may continue
these thoughts next week after I finish reading the rest of the book.
Myth-Busting Structure.
The structure of the book is particularly interesting. Instead of laying out a
deductive presentation of Arminian theology, Olson walks through ten common
myths about Arminian theology. This "response-to-critics" approach
reveals the polemical context which generated this book (Olson works at Baylor,
a moderate Baptist institution that has become a haven for fallouts of the
fundamentalist forms of Calvinism in the recent SBC takeover). Unfortunately,
some may read this book as overly defensive and so miss the alternative vision
Arminianism offers. This defensive position may serve to perpetuate the
assumption that Calvinism is the gold standard by which all theologies are to
be judged. However, a generous reader will discern that Olson is wisely
engaging in a strategy of ad hoc
apologetics: address the common objections to one's position in order to show
that it has been misunderstood. Thus read, Olson's book is less a defense of Arminianism than it is a description of Arminianism. Such an
accurate description is much needed for all the parties involved.
Historical Mode of Argumentation. Within each chapter, Olson dispels the myth at hand by tracing the
"true" Arminian position as exposited by Jacobus Arminius, Simon
Episcopius, John Wesley, 19th Century Methodists, and 20th Century Evangelical
Arminians (esp. Nazarenes). Thus he offers a historical mode of argumentation:
he is identifying the tradition of genuine Arminian thought, distinguishing it
from Calvinism on the one side and its supposed bad reputation on the other.
Such a historical approach allows the classical authors to speak for themselves
through copious quoting, and accordingly initiates the reader into the Arminian
tradition. However, Olson's approach tends to give the impression of a united
Arminian theological heritage that may overlook the genuine diversity of
Arminians. Arminius, Wesley, Miley, and Dunning are all different thinkers
working in different contexts with different approaches and assumptions. They
form more of a web than a line, both in their relationship to each other and
vis-a-vis Calvinism. Furthermore, the construction of a "true"
Arminian line requires the exclusion of the "false" Arminians. For
Olson, this includes the later proto-liberal Remonstrants, the
"vulgarized" Arminianism of Finney, and contemporary process theology.
The complex historical relationship of Arminianism to Protestant liberalism,
progressive revivalism, and process philosophy is very real, and these marginal
figures cannot be simply set aside as aberrant or fallen Arminians. Olson's
explicit exclusion of Finney is particularly suspect. Can such a significant
and influential evangelical
Arminian can be
so easily excised from the story of Arminian theology? This story serves
Olson's ends well by distancing Arminian theology from figures and movements on
the current Evangelical hit-list. But such exclusionary tactics raise the
question: on what basis does Olson differentiate a "true" from an
"false" Arminian? It seems that for Olson the current strictures of
American Evangelical identity are in the driver's seat, rather than anything inherent
to Arminianism. Thus, Olson ironically engages in the very theological politics
practiced by Calvinists which drove him to write this book in the first place.
Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed
Theology.
Reality:
Jacobus Arminius and most of his faithful followers fall into the broad
Reformed tradition; the common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism is
significant.
Comment: This
chapter is helpful because it reminds us that, at least genetically, Arminianism
is a branch of the Reformed tradition. However, as a Wesleyan I find this
version of the story a bit misleading, because although Jacobus Arminius and
the Remonstrants are best understood as a revision within Calvinism, the
Wesleyan tradition
(fathering the
world Methodist movement, grandfathering the American Holiness Movement, and
great-grandfathering the Charismatic movement) is best understood as an
independent tradition with its own spirit, governing ethos, and trajectory of
development. Arminianism could be regarded as a speculative theological
foundation commandeered by most (but certainly not all) Wesleyans. In other
words, I'm not Wesleyan as an expression of my Arminianism; I'm Arminian
because I'm Wesleyan!
Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible.
Reality:
In spite of common ground, Calvinism and Arminianism are incommensurable
systems of Christian theology; on issues crucial to both there is no stable
middle ground between them.
Comment: This
was one of my favorite chapters, because it cut through the sloppiness of many
attempts to resolve the tension between these two traditions of thought. Olson
makes a great case for rigorous doctrinal reflection. I believe there may be
resolutions to some of these problems, but not without revising the foundations
upon which these systems of thought are built. For instance, Karl Barth
performs a massive overall to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, but he
does so by means of a Christocentric actualistic ontology that is a serious
departure from classical theism. In the same way, there may be a distinctively
Arminian (or at least a Wesleyan-Pentecostal) revision of these doctrines, but
not without some kind of break from the traditions out of which these two
systems emerged. So I am in complete agreement with Olson on the diagnosis of
the issue: the two traditions are incommensurable and any Frankenstein Monster
drawing on pieces from both will just terrorize the village. I differ with
Olson only on the matter of prognosis: that we should consider revising the
foundations that created these differences.
Whether
comparable differences will remain after the revision remains to be seen
(because this work is unfinished).
Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option.
Reality:
Classical Arminian theology heartily affirms the fundamentals of Christian
orthodoxy and promotes the hallmarks of evangelical faith; it is neither Arian
nor liberal.
Comment: This
chapter is probably the most important in achieving Olson's aim: making space
for Arminian theology within the Evangelical movement. Dispelling the
ridiculous myth that all Arminians are Arian in their Christology and
Rationalistic in their approach to the Bible is particularly helpful. My only
response is to suggest that Arminian forms of Evangelicalism may differ enough
from their Calvinist brethren to justify an honest inheritance dispute. Olson
implies that the Calvinist and Arminian accounts of the inspiration of
Scripture are indistinguishable. Since the Arminian-Calvinist debate circles
around the problem of divine and human agency, it would seem that each side
would have a distinctive take on the divine inspirition of the human words of
the Bible. This is a case were Olson - in order to achieve his primary purpose
of de-stigmatizing Arminian theology - has managed to avoid the deeper issues
at stake.
Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will.
Reality:
The true heart of Arminian theology is the character of God as love and
justice; the formal principle of Arminianism is the universal will of God for
salvation.
Comment: This
may be the most important constructive chapter in Olson's book. Why so?
Whenever Arminians treat the abstract philosophical concept of “Free Will” as
their starting point, they get into trouble. I may have a minor nit to pick
over Olson's choice of the technical phrase "formal principle" to
describe God's universal will for salvation (is this a "principle,"
and, if so, is it "formal"?). But this technical attribution does not
overdetermine the argument of this chapter. His point is quite simple yet
significant: Arminians start with a
particular understanding of God, which then leads them to affirm free will.
Keeping this straight is not only helpful when dealing with Calvinist critics;
it’s just a good idea to start with God in any theological discussion.
Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God.
Reality:
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.
Comment:
Although for a thoughtful Arminian this myth is laughable, it is repeated so
frequently that it requires attention in a myth-busting book. Of course a Calvinist
might claim that Arminians logically undermine the sovereignty of God. But
Arminians certainly do not deny it! The sovereignty of God is the Calvinist
watchword, and they are correct to observe that Arminians do not place as great
an emphasis on it as they do. But a different approach is not a denial. This
distinction is easy to see but hard to remember.
So this chapter performs
a great service for the continued dialogue.
They only
concern I would like to raise is whether a black-coffee Calvinist has an
inherently more consistent position when arguing from a foundation in classical
theism. Arminians (like many Christians before them) are forced to introduce
subtle distinctions such as God's "ordained" versus
"permissive" will (John Damscene) or God being "in charge"
of everything without "controlling" everything (Roger Olson).
Calvinists have an uncanny ability to cut through this mishmash and follow
through on the deterministic implications of classical theism. I don't want to go
there with them, but I don't care for all the cooked up distinctions either.
Could it be that the whole way of thinking about God in the first place is
creating the kinds of problems solved by Calvinists on the one side and
Arminians on the other? Could a revised understanding of God's identity and his
relationship to the world avoid determinism without introducing dubious
distinctions?
Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology.
Reality:
An optimistic anthropology is alien to true Arminianism which is thoroughly God-centered;
Arminian theology confesses human depravity including bondage of the will.
Comment: This is another
helpful myth-buster, simply for the wealth of textual evidence
Olson brings to
the table to establish that the Arminian tradition has strongly affirmed Total
Depravity. Despite many charts and graphs to the contrary, the "T" in
TULIP has never been a major point of contention between Calvinists and Arminians.
Arminians are pessimistic about humanity and its sin; they are optimistic only
about grace - which makes one very optimistic indeed! I have nothing to add to
or subtract from this chapter.
Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace.
Reality:
The material principle of classical Arminian thought is prevenient grace; all
of salvation is wholly and entirely of God's grace.
Comment: Olson
here presents the classical Arminian position on grace. This may be one of the
clearest explanations of prevenient grace on the market right now. A must read.
After reading this chapter, however, I am beginning to wonder whether this
little term can really do all the work assigned to it. Arminians try to solve
every problem by invoking prevenient grace as a one-size-fits-all
soteriological concept. If you fall asleep in a theology course at a
Wesleyan-Arminian college and are woken by a question from the professor, just
say "prevenient grace" and you'll probably be right. Olson goes so
far as to identify prevenient grace as the Arminian "material
principle," which seems a bit heavyhanded. I do not wish to reject the
notion of prevenient grace, but I am looking for an adequate reformulation set
on more secure ground. Fletcher's Proto-Charismatic personalizing of Wesleyan
soteriology by assigning to the Spirit (the third person of the trinity) the
work of prevenient grace (a mediating term lacking semantic concreteness) is
perhaps helpful, although we must remember that the Spirit is the Spirit of
Jesus Christ and that he is the prevenience of grace. Some kind of robustly
trinitarian personalizing of the concept of prevenient grace is needed to
refuel Arminian theology at this point.
Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination.
Reality:
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.
Comment: I loved
this chapter because this is such a common myth. The debate between Calvinists
and Arminians is too often framed as between predistination and free will. The
fact of the matter is that both Calvinists and Arminians believe in both
predestination and free will. The question is how to define and relate the two
concepts. The Arminian position on predestination is characterized by assigning
priority to God's foreknowledge. "Those he foreknew he also
predestined." Olson dedicated the second half of the chapter to
differentiating Classical Arminianism from Molinist "middle
knowledge" and open theism. Although I am not committed to either Molinism
or open theism, I do think it unfortunate that Olson has determined to cut such
a narrow path for Arminians. Many Open Theist I talk to consider themselves
"consistent Arminians" or at least "revisionist Arminians."
Maybe they are wrong about that (and I think Olson makes a good case that the
Arminian position requires an affirmation of foreknowledge), but the author's
political intention to distance Arminianism from controversial territory even within the Evangelical camp is glaring.
Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through
Faith Alone.
Reality:
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.
Comment: This
chapter is especially helpful as a corrective to the claim that Arminian
theologies are by definition a Catholic compromise. This comes from Calvinists
in the form of an accusation (which is Olson's obvious concern), but it is oft
repeated by Arminians as a strength. Although it is true that Wesley has a
"Catholic spirit" and many
Arminians are
more comfortable drawing on the Catholic spiritual tradition than their
Reformed counterpoints, Arminians are at bottom Protestants. Even if Arminians
come to conclusions that make rapprochement
with Roman Catholics more likely, the questions they are asking reflect
typically Protestant concerns. Hopefully this chapter will remind
Arminians to
speak in a more nuanced way about their relationship with Roman Catholicism.
Beware of easy ecumenism; reconciliation requires work!
Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the
Atonement.
Reality:
There is no one Arminian doctrine of Christ’s atonement; many Arminians accept
the penal substitution theory enthusiastically while others prefer the
governmental theory.
Comment: As a
Wesleyan-Arminians who uses substitionary categories to understand the
atonement, I found this chapter especially reassuring. I had worried that my
move away from governmental to more substitionary (including but not limited to
penal imagery) thinking put me at risk of abandoning my heritage. Olson
collects sufficient evidence to the contrary. He does not outright reject the
governmental theory, but his "enthusiastic acceptance" of penal substitutionition
shows. Nevertheless, this is one of the strongest chapters simply because it
(unlike some of the others) acknowledges and even explores the diversity within
the Arminian tradition.
MISSING! - Myth 11: Arminian Theology Undermines the Assurance of
the Believer
Reality:
Not all Arminians deny the eternal security of the believer, and even those who
do still teach a Biblical doctrine of assurance based on the internal testimony
of the Spirit.
Comment: I am
adding this myth because I find it almost ridiculous that a book on Arminian
theology written in the American Evangelical context would not address the
matter of eternal security. Olson is certainly right to turn his attention to
other more foundation matters (eteranl security may be a major point of
contention at the popular level, it is not the crux of the matter between
Arminians and Calvinists). But it should not be ignored wholesale! In an
earlier book co-written with Stanley Grenz, Olson posits a spectrum of
theologies with folk theology on one extreme as that which should be avoided.
Maybe Olson has identified the argument over eternal security as matter for
"folk theologians" and can thus be safely set aside. Perhaps the
publishers wanted an
Drury
even 10 myths,
and this one simply had to go. Whatever the reason, it's absence is
disappointment.
Conclusion: Rules of Engagement for Evangelical Calvinists and
Arminians.
(1) Understanding precedes
evaluation.
(2) Avoid straw man arguments.
(3) Admit our own paradoxes and
mysteries.
(4) Avoid attribution of
beliefs not actually held by opponent; instead, identify perceived logical
consequences.
Comment: Olson's
conclusion contains the "payoff" of the book. He pleads with
evangelicals to approach their polemics with proper charity. Following these
four rules is a good place to start in treating each other with intellectual
(and Christian) respect. Whatever one thinks of Arminian theology and/or
Olson's version of it, any reader should heartily accept these rules of
engagement. Olson has followed them in his description of Calvinists; I have
tried to follow them in my description of Olson; I trust that we will follow
them in the comment board and beyond.
September
2006
