Myth #4: the heart of Arminianism is belief in free will. Nonsense, Olson argues in his must-read Arminian Theology<\/em>. The heart of Arminian theology is the character of God, God\u2019s goodness, and its system yearns to glorify God by exalting his goodness. Myth #4: the heart of Arminianism is belief in free will. Nonsense, Olson argues in his must-read Arminian Theology. The heart of Arminian theology is the character of God, God\u2019s goodness, and its system yearns to glorify God by exalting his goodness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476,1643,337],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-calvinism","category-theology"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThe fundamental tension here is that Arminians think Calvinists must make God the author of evil and sin \u2014 since God (whether supra- or infralapsarian) predestines humans to sin. Arminianism begins with God\u2019s essential goodness and derives free will from that; it does not<\/em> begin with the necessity of free will.
\nArminius responded to William Perkins with this:
\n1. But you [Perkins] say that \u2018the will of man intervened in this desertion [from God].\u2019 [This point is about Calvinists saying God simply deserted Adam and Eve so they could sin.]
\n2. Because \u2018man was not deserted, unless willing to be deserted.\u2019
\n3. I [Arminius to Perkins] reply, If it is so, then truly man deserved to be forsaken.
\n4. But I ask whether man could have willed not to be forsaken.
\n5. But if you say he could, then he did not sin necessarily, but freely.
\n6. But if you say he could not [have so willed to be forsaken], then the blame redounds to God.
\nOver and over Olson provides evidence from the major Arminian writers that the fundamental problem Arminians had with this view was that it made God less than good, it made God sinful, that it was repulsive to the glory of God\u2019s holiness. In other words, the argument was grounded in the nature, attributes, and character of God. The argument was not grounded in the necessity of affirming free will.
\n\u201cSuffice it to say,\u201d Olson concludes, \u201cthat any critic would be hard-pressed to find any true Arminian, past or present, who holds free will up as the first principle of his or her theology\u201d (113).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"