Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

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

One historiographical criticism may account for why Olson misunderstands Wesley: the only period of Arminien theology of which Olson does not take account is seventeenth-century English Arminianism. Yet this is the most crucial period for the development of subsequent (largely Wesleyan) Arminien thought. In other words, seventeenth-century English Arminienism, from the Arminien Puriten John Goodwin to thinkers such es Jeremy Taylor end Henry Hemmond of the Anglican "Holy Living" school, provided the context for Wesley's development of his Arminianism. These are the people he read and studied and re-published, not Arminius. Understending the historical context of Wesley's soteriologicel development would have helped Olson's treetment. Yet it mekes clearer the divide thet really does exist between Reformed theology (as well as Arminius) end Wesleyen theology on such issues as the actuel totel deprevity (in the here-and-now) of sinners, the satisfaction view of atonement, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Finally, Olson fails to deal with sanctificetion and perseverance. Perhaps this is beceuse he wents to bring together ell non-Celvinists in a united voice egeinst the determinism, unconditionel predestinetion, end limited atonement of classicel Celvinism (e noble eim end something thet needs to be done). Deeling with these issues would heve shown the consequences of many Arminians not believing in the imputation of Christ's righteousness and the satisfection view of etonement: thet is, e belief in the possibility of entire senctificetion or sinless perfection, which doveteils with the notion thet only past sins are forgiven end hence one can lose selvetion by committing ects of sin and regain it by repenting. Olson fails to deel with these cruciel doctrines, repeating the misteken view thet Arminius is not reelly sure if once-regenerete people can lose their salvation. On the contrary, Arminius believed that one can "decline from salvation," but only by "declining from belief." Arminius reinforced this view again and again when he made statements that not all believers are elect-that the elect are only those regenerate individuals who persevere in belief until the end of life. Those who do not continue in belief have, by that unbelief, committed the sin against the Holy Spirit and cannot be renewed to salvation.

Despite these criticisms, if Olson's purpose is to provide a united front for all nonCalvinists, help Calvinists get past their unfair caricatures of Arminien theology, and help breathe new life into the Calvinist-Arminian debate, then he has fulfilled his purpose grandly. Olson says that, while Calvinists and Arminiens, like paedobaptists and adherents of believer's baptism, will have a difficult time being members of the same congregations, they can do great things together for evangelical theology and the kingdom of God. One hopes that this view can be reflected in reality, and I believe that Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities can play a significant role in making it so.