Roger Olson’s ‘Arminian Theology’– Part Six

BEN: At one point you say (p. 70) “Scripture alone cannot prove one side right and other side wrong”. I think I must disagree. Scripture is consistent on these issues precisely because it reflects the consistent mind and revealed will of God. While it is true that equally good exegetes may come to different conclusions or privilege different texts in their interpretative schemes, this doesn’t mean they are both right. In fact they could be both wrong in their interpretations…. Read more

Roger Olson’s ‘Arminian Theology’– Part Five

BEN: One of the major emphases in Stanglin and McCall’s fine book on Jacob Arminius is that Arminius did not agree with Beza et al. on the issue of monergism, which is to say that God is the direct or effective cause of all things. Arminius continuously sought to exonerate God from the charge that he is the author of evil and sin, and the way he went about it was to say that human choices when it comes to… Read more

Roger Olson’s ‘Arminian Theology’– Part Four

BEN: On p. 55, you talk about Wesley’s treatise on divine sovereignty compared to Calvin’s view. Would you say that while Wesley agrees with Calvin that God is sovereign, absolutely so, and could do what He will, that they disagree on how God exercises that sovereignty. In other words, sovereignty for Calvin is the attribute which norms and directs all God’s other attributes, whereas for Wesley, sovereignty is exercised and normed by the love of God, the mercy of God… Read more

Roger Olson’s ‘Arminian Theology’– Part Three

BEN: On p. 51 you quote the Westminister Confession about ‘the chief end of humans being to glorify God and enjoy him forever’. You go on to quote Arminius to that effect. But what that Confession in fact does not say is ‘the chief end or purpose of God is to glorify himself!’ a rather different matter than it being the chief purpose of humans to glorify God. Could you clarify this please? Was Arminius only saying just what the… Read more

Roger Olson’s ‘Arminian Theology’– Part Two

BEN: Roger you seem to spend a good deal of effort trying to say that Arminian theology could rightly be called a form of Reformed theology, though one distinct from high Calvinism at various points. From a point of view of historical theology, I understand this, but wouldn’t it be better simply to say that both Calvinism and Arminianism are Protestant attempts to faithfully do Biblical theology, especially when it comes to doing justice to what the Bible says about… Read more

A.D. The Bible Continues– Episode 11

In this, the penultimate episode of Season One of A.D. the statue of Caligula still looms large as a problem for the Temple hierarchy and for the religious life in Jerusalem. The statue in reality never got to Jerusalem, but by the end of this episode it shows up in a crate on Pilate’s doorstep. The year Caligula attempted to put a statue in the Temple is A.D. 40. The other major story lines include: 1) the death of Joanna… Read more

Roger Olson’s Arminian Theology– Part One

Roger Olson’s fine book entitled Arminian Theology. Myths and Realities (IVP, 2006, 266 pages) is a must read for those who don’t really know much about the differences and similarities between Arminian theology and Calvinist theology. It is the burden of Roger’s book to clear away a lot of the myths and misconceptions about Arminianism, so that a true comparison of the two theological systems can be made. There are ten chapters in the book, each dealing with one of… Read more

Philip Jenkins on History and the Book of Mormon

[The following is a recent post by Philip Jenkins which I repost here by his kind permission] BW3 Ordinary Faith and Extraordinary History May 22, 2015 by Philip Jenkins 77 Comments As a historical source on the ancient Americas, the Book of Mormon is worthless. That observation, though, has not the slightest impact on the existence or growth of the LDS church, nor should it. Just why that is the case tells us much about the relationship between the claims… Read more

Jacob Arminius. Theologian of Grace– Part One

Of late there has been an attempt, rightly in my view, to clear away a lot of misconceptions and in fact misrepresentations of Arminian theology, including the misrepresentation of Arminius himself as either a Pelagian on the one hand, or some kind of hybrid between Calvin and Wesley on the other. Neither of these things are true. The two books which have done the most to clear away the clutter and misrepresentations are Roger Olsen’s 2006 book Arminian Theology (2006),… Read more

It’s a Good Day! Cyrille Aimee

 Read more

Follow Us!