Item description for Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities by Roger E. Olson...
Overview "To say, 'This man is an Arminian,'" John Wesley once complained, "is like saying, 'This is a mad dog.'" Calvinists have propagated misrepresentations of Arminian theology that Olson wants to set at rest concerning the sovereignty of God, grace, justification by faith, predestination, atonement, and more. A rousing defense. 264 pages, hardcover. InterVarsity.
Publishers Description In this book, Roger Olson sets forth classical Arminian theology and addresses the myriad misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it through the ages. Irenic yet incisive, Olson argues that classical Arminian theology has a rightful place in the evangelical church because it maintains deep roots within Reformational theology, even though it maintains important differences from Calvinism. Myths addressed include: Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement
Citations And Professional Reviews Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities by Roger E. Olson has been reviewed by professional book reviewers and journalists at the following establishments -
Christianity Today - 01/01/2007 page 61
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: InterVarsity Press
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 9.32" Width: 6.34" Height: 1.01" Weight: 1.15 lbs.
Release Date Oct 1, 2006
Publisher IVP-InterVarsity Press
ISBN 0830828419 ISBN13 9780830828418
Availability 1 units. Availability accurate as of Sep 25, 2017 05:57.
Usually ships within one to two business days from La Vergne, TN.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
More About Roger E. Olson
Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He is a prolific author whose volumes include The Story of Christian Theology and The Mosaic of Christian Belief. He is also coauthor of 20th-Century Theology.
Roger E. Olson currently resides in the state of Texas.
Roger E. Olson has published or released items in the following series...
Reviews - What do customers think about Arminian Theology: Myths And Realities?
Know what you're talking about Mar 17, 2007
Olson does a great job here of presenting a survey of the Arminian position. If you're going to criticize Arminianism (a popular pastime) you need to know what you're talking about. Be sure you're not burning down straw men - this book is a must for anyone interested in the Arminianism/Calvinism debate. Thankfully he also provides "rules of engagement," so instead of fighting one another, Arminians and Calvinists can work together in meaningful ways.
A Widely-Appreciated Contemporary Statement of Classical Arminian Theology Mar 13, 2007
I am deeply grateful for Olson's book. It helped me clarify my own position in relation to Arminianism and Calvinism and provided resources for further study. Although I'm not an Arminian, I definitely share the heart of Arminian theology which embraces and defends God's loving and just character. In company with them, I reject Calvinism because I think it logically leads to the unconditional divine damnation of some which impugns God's character. Olson considers himself a "classical Arminian," a follower of the teachings of Protestant theologian Jacob (or James) Arminius (1560 - 1609). The term "Arminianism" derives from his name and theology. However, as Olson points out, there are many who use that term that do not have a clear understanding of Arminius' theology. This is true not only of many who claim to oppose it but also of many who claim to support it. There are also, according to Olson, theologians such as Henry Thiessen and Thomas Oden who embrace and teach Arminian theology although they don't consider themselves Arminians.
One reason Arminianism is misunderstood is the failure to distinguish between what Olson calls "Arminianism of the heart" and "Arminianism of the head". Both use the term, but the former is considered true, classical Arminianism in terms of Reformed, conservative theology. The latter, on the other hand, incorporates some naturalistic, liberal theology that's influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and has more in common with the older, rejected theologies of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. The term "Pelagianism" is derived from the theology of Pelagius (c. 354 - c. 420/440), an ascetic monk who affirmed human freedom but denied original sin, an inherited sinful nature from Adam. Semi-Pelagians don't deny original sin as Pelagians do, but they generally define it in such a way that denies the bondage of the will (integral to the doctrine of total depravity) to allow for a natural human freedom to obey God. According to Olson, semi-Pelagianism was a theology condemned by the Second Council of Orange in A.D. 529 because "it affirmed human ability to exercise a good will toward God apart from special assistance of divine grace; it places the initiative in salvation on the human side, but Scripture places it on the divine side" (pg. 81). Olson reveals that unlike semi-Pelagianism, classical Arminianism embraces the doctrine of total depravity (including the bondage of the will). However, it is mitigated by God's supernatural prevenient grace and, therefore, includes the doctrine of the "freed will," a will that is libertarian in nature (i.e., it is free to resist God).
Philip Limborch (1633 - 1712) is used by Olson as an early, prime example of a defector of classical Arminianism, one who embraced a type of semi-Pelagianism while associating himself with the Arminians. Charles Finney (1792 - 1875), the influential revivalist-theologian, is also given as an example of "a vulgarized version of Arminianism that is closer to semi-Pelagianism" (pg. 27). Classical Arminianism is often erroneously associated with Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism by opponents, usually Calvinists (those who embrace, in some form, the theology of John Calvin [1509 - 1564]). This is one reason why many Christians don't want to wear the Arminian label. Olson wrote his book as an attempt to define the orthodox parameters of true Arminianism to distinguish it from the counterfeits while also allowing for variety among Arminians within those parameters. He deserves respect for the effort.
Although Olson provided clarity on some issues, his book raises questions regarding others. One issue involves the Arminian idea of two types of redemption through Christ's atonement: "one universal for all people and one especially for all who believe" (pg. 33). According to Olson, "Arminians believe that Christ's death on the cross provided a universal remedy for the guilt of inherited sin so that it is not imputed to infants for Christ's sake." Therefore, "all children who die before reaching the age of awakening of conscience and falling into actual sin (as opposed to inbred sin) are considered innocent by God and are taken to paradise." How does this doctrine of universal redemption from the guilt of original/inherited sin which results in infant salvation relate to the doctrines of divine election and grace? Olson does not clearly answer this. Arminians are adamant about their rejection of the Calvinistic doctrines of the unconditional election of some and irresistible grace, yet here appears to be a case of both unconditional election and irresistible grace for infants, especially those who die. This is also a clear case of inclusivism where a volitional faith in Christ is unnecessary for salvation. Some Christians try to get around this by either denying that all infants are elect or affirming a post-mortem opportunity to have the requisite faith that conditions election or, more precisely, predestination.
Another questionable issue involves the doctrine of sin. The Arminian doctrine of two types of redemption through Christ's atonement is based on a distinction between two types of sin: original sin and actual sin. Universal redemption via prevenient grace covers the first whereas particular redemption through a volitional act of faith, which God foreknows and conditions the individual's destiny on, covers the second. As a non-Calvinist, I share the classical Arminian belief that God is not the author of sin and evil. However, this belief requires a lucid doctrine of sin that Olson failed to provide. To teach, as some Arminians do, that "actual sin is always an expression of original sin" (pg. 58) fails to provide the lucidity we need in terms of moral freedom and responsibility. Some actual sins are caused by moral freedom of the libertarian type, not original sin. They are avoidable, and that is why we are obligated not to commit them and guilty if we do. Clarity on this issue is crucial to understanding how anybody is damned, including those who have never known the gospel, when it is God's desire that they be saved. Clarity regarding sin is also critical for Arminians in their defense against the idea that God unconditionally damns some to hell for sin they could not avoid. It is also crucial for those Arminians who believe that salvation can be forfeited. According to Olson, "Arminius himself never settled the matter" on this issue (pg. 187). However, even among those who believe in "once saved always saved," there is disagreement regarding the nature of sin in a believer's life and how to determine whether one is a true Christian. Living a life of holiness, as well as having assurance of salvation, requires clarity on the doctrine of sin!
Olson states in his introduction that his book is not so much a defense of Arminian theology as a true statement of it. It is intended to address ten common misconceptions or "myths" about Arminianism, not provide in-depth biblical exegesis to support it. The book is also not a polemic against Calvinism, its primary historical opponent, although it does provide reasons why Arminians are not Calvinists. I repeat again that I am grateful for Olson's book. It is one of the most important books in my library! Like Olson, I was raised in a Pentecostal environment where Arminianism to some degree was assumed. However, it was through asking serious questions about certain issues like the ones I've raised in this review that I came to realize that many who call themselves Arminians don't have satisfying answers to them. May continued dialog bring them to the fore and may quality Arminian and Arminian-influenced books continue to be written. May God richly bless you Dr. Olson.
Powerful, helpful defense of Arminianism Feb 18, 2007
If you're looking for a systematic presentation of Arminian theology, this is not the book for you. Rather, what Olson does powerfully is to defend Arminianism against ten common charges, which Olson destroys as myths.
As an Arminian myself, this book helped me to check some false arguments in my own theology, as well as look behind some of the dead-end walls that had caused me to doubt Arminianism. For example, in arguments with Calvinist brothers, I had often stopped at "free will" as a reason for why God would intentionally limit His deterministic control of the universe in the realm of human moral choices. And my Calvinist brothers would (rightly) take me to task, saying that I was exalting human free will above God's sovereignty in importance. Did I really want to do that? And of course, the answer had to be "no."
But Olson asks another "why" question beyond free will, and points out that Arminians believe in free will not for its own sake, but because it is a necessary component of God's loving character. Thus the correct comparison is not between God's sovereignty and human free will, but between God's sovereignty and God's revealed loving character. And the question is not, "is God sovereign or is He loving?" but rather, "Which quality of God is more properly basic to His nature? Which one rules the day?" The Calvinist answer is that God is most basically to be seen as sovereign, whereas Arminians say that God is most basically to be seen as loving.
A great book, well-written with snappy prose, easily apprehended, and powerfully effective.
Understanding Arminians Feb 7, 2007
Olson has blown the traditional Straw man out of the picture in this book. Here, he takes on the ideas that theologians have been painting as Arminian and informing readers that most of those views are really Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian. From there, the author takes on common myths and helps the reader understand that a true Arminian can hold to the truths proclaimed in the Reformation and still be 100% Arminian.
While turning theology on its head (surprisingly to those who have been taught an incorrect view of Arminian though), I do have to take issue with some of the redundancy in the chapters. Olson essentially cites the same information from the source in order to prove 2 different ideas. Also, he definitely ingrains that Henry Theissen was an Arminian, despite his own understanding of Arminian Theology. I am sure that the Olson intended the citations and statements to remind readers of the facts they are supporting, but they were noticeable.
Truly, the book makes quite a few Calvinistic Theologians rethink some things that have been said, printed and thought previously. Thanks, Roger Olson!
Arminianism Jan 21, 2007
A long over due book. Finally, an author has allowed Arminius to speak for himself. Highly recommended.