# Arminian scholars?



## HoldFast

I was just speaking with a friend about a certain "free will" book and he encouraged me to put the book down and read something from "real Arminian exegetes/scholars." I then asked him to recommend a few and he couldn't think of anyone but assured me they must exist. I told him I know of several modern Arminians who write on theology but I wouldn't call them scholars because their work lacks meaningful discussion and is generally filled with caricatures and blatant dishonesty.

Are there any modern Arminian scholars (producing scholarship with knowledge of the biblical languages) worthy of reading? Thanks!


----------



## Marrow Man

I think some of the folks at Asbury Theological Seminary (e.g., Bill Witherington) are generally considered to be good Arminian scholars. Thomas Oden is another name that comes to mind. Also, Seth Stark could probably give a couple of folks at Biola/Talbot who are good scholars who happen to also be Arminian (e.g., William Lane Craig).


----------



## CharlieJ

Norman Geisler has done work highly regarded by many evangelicals. So has Charles Ryrie. William Lane Craig is highly respected in his field. Thomas Oden is very broadly respected, and probably more scholarly than any of the others. I'm not sure of Gordon Fee's soteriological inclinations, but if he is Arminian(ish), he would be an important exegete.


----------



## Wayne

> Are there any modern Arminian scholars (producing scholarship with knowledge of the biblical languages) worthy of reading?



Urban myth.



> I then asked him to recommend a few and he couldn't think of anyone but assured me they must exist.



Just keep reading the good stuff till he comes back with a name. 

"There are too many good Puritans to read, and life is too short, to bother with much else."

I said that!

EDIT: Charlie ! You went and ruined the mood !


----------



## Marrow Man

Wayne said:


> "There are too many good Puritans to read, and life is too short, to bother with much else."
> 
> I said that!





Words to live by!


----------



## Marrow Man

Roger Olson is another name. He claims to be a proud Arminian!


----------



## Kiffin

Arminian scholar is like a jumbo shrimp. An oxymoron. Jk.


----------



## kvanlaan

I've always thought along the lines of the previous posts - there is not enough time in this lifetime to know my Bible well enough and then read good theology anyway. Why bother with delving into the manure pile to look for diamonds?


----------



## DMcFadden

It has been a while since making this comment, so for the "benefit" of you newbies, here goes . . .

My seminary was absolutely addicted to "on the one hand, but on the other hand" thinking. The fruit of that is seen in some of its most famous graduates (e.g., Rob Bell).

in my opinion it is dangerous to be so ignorant of other Bible-believing Christians that we don't read them. Witherington, for instance, is a first class Jesus scholar. Bock, at Dallas, is a progressive dispensationalist. Wesley did more than any of us on the PB ever have.

However, after too many years of reflexively trying to read all sides of all issues, I have concluded that at nearly 58 years of age, I have not had the time so far nor is my life likely to be long enough to have the time to read everything on every issue. I'm with Wayne on this one. My library purges have been of the tendentious nonsense. And, ALL of my recent additions (with the exception of an occasional book purchased due to a current controversy such as Rob Bell on hell) to my library have been of solid and Reformed authors.


----------



## MW

Joshua_B said:


> Are there any modern Arminian scholars (producing scholarship with knowledge of the biblical languages) worthy of reading? Thanks!


 
In the Zondervan Counterpoint series there are volumes on eternal security and sanctification which include Arminian scholars. Chad Owen Brand edited a volume called Perspectives on Election with an Arminian contributor. I assume these men are reputed in their places and callings. I didn't notice anything distinctively new in their presentations but they do attempt to present their arguments in an academic way.


----------



## Whitefield

I am a product of Arminian theological education, and I would say that if scholarship has anything to do with truth, then there are no Arminians I would categorize as scholars.


----------



## Wayne

If you were going to purpose to read Arminian literature, then by all means _ad fontes!_ Read Jacob Arminius and be done with it.


----------



## Marrow Man

Arminius (and Wesley) would be far closer to orthodox soteriology than many modern Arminians. For example, they would take the doctrine of original sin seriously. Many modern Arminians are practically Pelagians. But most of the serious scholars named above would not fall into this category.


----------



## Whitefield

Marrow Man said:


> Arminius (and Wesley) would be far closer to orthodox soteriology than many modern Arminians. For example, they would take the doctrine of original sin seriously. Many modern Arminians are practically Pelagians. But most of the serious scholars named above would not fall into this category.


 
As a side note. Although Wesley pays lip service to the historical doctrine of "original sin" (in a sermon by that title), he effectively destroys any real significance to the doctrine with his invention of "prevenient grace".


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Gordon Fee on the Spirit (unsure of his "Arminianness") and N.T. Wright (not really Arminian but not really Calvinist) on Jesus. Geisler and Zaccahrius have both been big for apologetics. One of the major traps of Reformed theology is the thought that we have all the answers and all the best people. Not true. There are plenty of other good Christians who have much to offer.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Roger Olson wrote a book _Arminian Theology_. It is written with the idea of clearing up misconceptions about Arminianism that Calvinists have. I have only gotten through the intro so far, but it is interesting.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Marrow Man said:


> Roger Olson is another name. He claims to be a proud Arminian!


Yup. The only person who immediately came to my mind. He has spent a great deal of time trying to rehabilitate Arminianism from claims of semi-Pelagianism in favor of prevenient grace, and no sound denunciation of Arminianism's cousin, open theism.

AMR


----------



## valiant4truth

I had the privilege of sitting under an Arminian at the University of Aberdeen who was a good and godly man and very much a world renowned scholar. His name is I. Howard Marshall. He is firmly committed to evangelical Christianity and takes a firm stand in support of penal substitution (something odd for many Arminian scholars). My calvinism was strengthened by responding to his well-reasoned arguments.


----------



## INsearch

I would suggest to simply read Jacobus Arminius. He is the closest you will get to Orthodox Arminian Theology. Oddly, Jacobus actually believed in Total Depravity :O I also believe that it was the 5 points of Arminius that caused...er...I can't remember the name of the synod, but the 5 points of calvinism came about in opposition to his 5 points.


----------



## INsearch

*double post*


----------



## Notthemama1984

Joshua,

All Arminians will believe in Total Depravity and original sin. They simply believe that prevenient grace causes a partial regeneration that removes original sin and its affects.


----------



## MLCOPE2

INsearch said:


> I can't remember the name of the synod, but the 5 points of calvinism came about in opposition to his 5 points.



The Synod of Dort.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Charles Ryrie is a four point Calvinist. The only part it fights is limited atonement. I know that is a philosophical and theological inconsistency, but I wouldn't label him an Arminian.


----------



## Marrow Man

valiant4truth said:


> I. Howard Marshall



Ah, yes, how could we forget him! Excellent reminder!


----------



## Osage Bluestem

How is it that arminianism is more popular than calvinism in evangelical christianity yet has very little scholarship as compared with calvinism?


----------



## Grillsy

Osage Bluestem said:


> How is it that arminianism is more popular than calvinism in evangelical christianity yet has very little scholarship as compared with calvinism?



Because pop-Arminianism and self determinism and pie-in-the-sky teaching are much more palatable to the wicked person than Biblical truth. 

Also reading good theology can be difficult. It takes work and patience. Going in to Walmart and grabbing the latest "Christian" bestseller takes minimal effort and rarely more than $13 bucks. Those types of books are also aimed at making the reader feel good about his/herself rather than pointing to Christ.


----------



## DMcFadden

The "free will" autonomy and self-determination that animates Arminian thought is tailor made for the Zeitgeist of American democracy. An analog would be why the credo baptist position tends to do so well. Self-determination inclines toward "deciding" to "accept Christ and get baptized" and makes sense to those socialized in the Burger King ("have it your way") mindset of the time.


----------



## INsearch

You know I will have to go back and look at the 5 points of Arminius, but I have a feeling that if your a 3 point calvinist, then you would be pretty close to classic Arminianism. (i'm probably wrong though) 


Here they are.

(1) election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
(2) the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;
(3) unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
(4) grace is not irresistible; and
(5) believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.





wikipedia said:


> Classical Arminianism
> Classical Arminianism (sometimes titled Reformed Arminianism or Reformation Arminianism) is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants;[10] its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:
> Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."[11]
> Atonement is intended for all: Jesus' death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.[12]
> Jesus' death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus' work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy… or that man is justified before God… according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."[13] Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."[14]
> Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and His grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted." [15] The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.[16]
> Man has free will to respond or resist: Free will is limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.
> Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."[17] God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."[17]
> God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.[18]
> Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer: Justification is sola fide. When individuals repent and believe in Christ (saving faith), they are regenerated and brought into union with Christ, whereby the death and righteousness of Christ are imputed to them for their justification before God.[19]
> Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[20] Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renunciation of saving faith. Such apostasy is irremediable.[21]
> The Five articles of Remonstrance that Arminius's followers formulated in 1610 state the above beliefs regarding (I) conditional election, (II) unlimited atonement, (III) total depravity, (IV) total depravity and resistible grace, and (V) possibility of apostasy. Note, however, that the fifth article did not completely deny perseverance of the saints; Arminius, himself, said that "I never taught that a true believer can… fall away from the faith… yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such as kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding."[22] Further, the text of the Articles of Remonstrance says that no believer can be plucked from Christ's hand, and the matter of falling away, "loss of salvation" required further study before it could be taught with any certainty.
> The core beliefs of Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrants are summarized as such by theologian Stephen Ashby:
> Prior to being drawn and enabled, one is unable to believe… able only to resist.
> Having been drawn and enabled, but prior to regeneration, one is able to believe… able also to resist.
> After one believes, God then regenerates; one is able to continue believing… able also to resist.
> Upon resisting to the point of unbelief, one is unable again to believe… able only to resist.[23]


----------



## sastark

I was going to name William Lane Craig (though he calls himself a "Molinist") and Norman Geisler, but y'all beat me to it. As for Arminius himself, he had this to say:



> Next to the perusal of the Scriptures, which I earnestly inculcate,* I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's commentaries*, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself; for *I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture*, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy.


----------



## Notthemama1984

INsearch said:


> You know I will have to go back and look at the 5 points of Arminius



Here are the five articles of Remonstrance:



> Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.
> 
> Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
> 
> Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."
> 
> Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
> 
> Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Also reading good theology can be difficult. It takes work and patience. Going in to Walmart and grabbing the latest "Christian" bestseller takes minimal effort and rarely more than $13 bucks. Those types of books are also aimed at making the reader feel good about his/herself rather than pointing to Christ.



The irony remains that some of the best theology ever produced can be read for free on the Internet.


----------



## INsearch

I think that something that should be pointed out..and you can correct me if you want, but the modern forms of what we today would call "arminianism" is fairly removed from the classical form. The classical form though espousing theology that we believe to be wrong was still rather conservative, and I'm sure Jacobus Arminius would be rolling over in his grave to see what was being taught in the name of his "theological" tradition


----------



## Notthemama1984

Roger Olson has stated that what passes for "Arminianism" today is really semi-Pelagianism. Classical Arminianism is much different.


----------



## athanatos

INsearch said:


> I think that something that should be pointed out..and you can correct me if you want, but the modern forms of what we today would call "arminianism" is fairly removed from the classical form. The classical form though espousing theology that we believe to be wrong was still rather conservative, and I'm sure Jacobus Arminius would be rolling over in his grave to see what was being taught in the name of his "theological" tradition



I think Calvin would be in a similar position. I was a Determinist and didn't believe in any meaningful sense of free will when I "converted" to what I understood Calvinism to be. I based it on physics and my understanding of psychology.


----------



## Marrow Man

Keep in mind, however, that when most people speak of "Arminianism," they have the modern view in mind rather than the classical view. I would suspect that there are probably very few classical Arminians, and most of them may be confined to academia.


----------



## Grimmson

Wayne said:


> Are there any modern Arminian scholars (producing scholarship with knowledge of the biblical languages) worthy of reading?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I then asked him to recommend a few and he couldn't think of anyone but assured me they must exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep reading the good stuff till he comes back with a name.
> 
> "There are too many good Puritans to read, and life is too short, to bother with much else."
> 
> I said that!
> 
> EDIT: Charlie ! You went and ruined the mood !
Click to expand...

 
I do not typically when judging a person’s scholarship look at first if the person is a Calvinist, or what we typically consider today to be an Arminian. I start out by looking at their area of expertise and quality of their work that they produce. We should not write them off just because they are not a Calvinist, for we too can and should be willing to learn something by them. Therefore I do not dwell on that particular aspect of their theological position, but instead look at their work. As a result there are several scholars, whom I respect, that I do not know what their position is. One example is with Craig S. Keener, I do not know where he falls in the spectrum, but I thought The IVP Bible Background Commentary was useful and worth buying. There have been several Calvinists who’s work I have read, and yet I was not satisfied with their treatment of a text or historical issue. I will not be throwing names around. Let us keep this post at what it was meant for that that is to discuss, and this is modern Arminian scholars knowledgeable of the biblical languages that are worth reading; instead of using this time to say that they are not scholars or go into Remonstrate. If you do not know of any worth reading then acknowledge that and move on.


----------



## HoldFast

Grimmson said:


> Let us keep this post at what it was meant for that that is to discuss, and this is modern Arminian scholars knowledgeable of the biblical languages that are worth reading; instead of using this time to say that they are not scholars or go into Remonstrate. If you do not know of any worth reading then acknowledge that and move on.



This.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I just remembered Grant Osborne. I read his _Hermeneutical Spiral_ and found his grasp of language very very good. I would assume his other writings would be along the same line of scholarship.


----------



## MMasztal

Kiffin said:


> Arminian scholar is like a jumbo shrimp. An oxymoron. Jk.


 
You took the words out of my mouth!


----------



## Apologist4Him

Thinking back, before I changed theological camps, one of the shocking discoveries to me at the time was (is) the lack of...systematic theology (and advanced theology) books by Arminian scholars. I am amazed by the number of volumes written by John Calvin, even those in the Arminian camp _should_ acknowledge his love for Scripture. I do not know of any one person who has written more commentary on the Scriptures than John Calvin.


----------



## travstar

sastark said:


> I was going to name William Lane Craig (though he calls himself a "Molinist")



Probably because he is a Molinist. The tenets proposed both by classical and modern Arminians are far cries from God's alleged "Middle Knowledge."


----------



## py3ak

I have heard good things about Francis Watson's _Institutes_, though of course they are not a product of contemporary Arminian scholarship.


----------



## J. Dean

INsearch said:


> I would suggest to simply read Jacobus Arminius. He is the closest you will get to Orthodox Arminian Theology. Oddly, Jacobus actually believed in Total Depravity :O I also believe that it was the 5 points of Arminius that caused...er...I can't remember the name of the synod, but the 5 points of calvinism came about in opposition to his 5 points.


 
As I recall, Arminius was not definite on the issue of losing salvation. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this one.


----------

