Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2006 by Pinson, J Matthew

Another place where one might wish for more clarity is Olson's discussion of prevenient grace as partially regenerative. He argues that classical Arminians see those under the sway of prevenient grace as partially but not completely regenerated. Thus, there is an "intermediate stage" between being completely unregenerate and fully regenerated, when the will is "freed to respond to the good news of redemption in Christ" (p. 164). Most Arminian theologians will be ill at ease with this concept, preferring to say that that saving faith logically precedes regeneration in the ordo salutis. Obvious related questions are, "Why is prevenient grace necessary if Christ's atonement reverses inherited guilt and releases people from the condemnation for Adam's sin? Would this not mitigate total depravity, rendering prevenient grace superfluous?"

As a second criticism, many Arminiens, with Calviniste, will be uncomfortable with Olson's view that divine love is the "guiding vision" of Arminien theology (pp. 72-73). They, along with Arminius, would say that God's justice or holiness is the guiding vision in Arminianism as much as in Calvinism. This is the view of recent Arminiens such as Forlines, Oden, and Picirilli.

Third, Olson is quite clear that classical Arminianism is incompatible with open theism and that he disagrees with the latter. Still, traditional Arminians will be concerned about Olson's footnote regarding open theism: "I consider open theism a legitimate evangelical and Arminien option even though I have not yet adopted it as my own perspective" (p. 198, n. 65).

For the fourth criticism, a few comments are in order regarding Olson's treatment of justification and atonement in Arminianism. Olson correctly notes that Wesleyans in the nineteenth century and afterward have disagreed with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as the sole meritorious cause of the believer's justification and the concomitant penal-satisfaction doctrine of atonement. He states clearly that he regrets this development and prefers the contemporary Wesleyan theologian Thomas Oden's approach, which defends both these doctrines. The difficulty is that Olson seems to hope fondly that these doctrines are not at the core of Wesleyan Arminianism and that Wesleyans can choose between the mainstream Wesleyan view and Oden's view. This hope seems to root itself in one of the few profound misunderstandings in Olson's entire book: Wesley's doctrines of atonement and justification.

While Wesley uses imputational language in his discussion of justification, he falls far short of a Reformed understanding of the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the meritorious cause of the believer's justification before God. Furthermore, Wesley melds satisfaction and governmental motifs in his doctrine of atonement, arguing that Christ's death atones only for the believer's past sins. Thus, Olson's interpretation of Wesley's views on atonement and justification is flawed. This likely accounts for what seems to be his hope that Wesleyans can recover from these theological views by going back to Wesley himself.