Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities - 2

Myth #2. A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible

My notes from chapter 2 of Roger Olson's "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities:

In spite of common ground they are incommensurable systems of Christian theology.


The major difference between the two systems centers on the middle 3 points of the Calvinist’s TULIP – unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace. 63

Almost all attempts to blend the two systems (Calminianism) end up being Calvinistic or Arminian. 68

We need to shoulder the responsibility of choosing between Calvinism and Arminianism. 69

“I have concluded that appealing to Scripture alone cannot prove one side right and the other side wrong.” 70

People of equally good faith come down on different sides.

*We must choose whether we see God as primarily sovereign ruler or primarily loving and compassionate father.

Both struggle mightily to explain large chunks or Scripture; both have to admit mysteries that border on contradictions within their systems. 71

Quoting philosopher Jerry Walls, “the free will theologian cannot fully explain why some choose Christ while others do not. The Calvinist cannot tell us why or on what basis God chooses some for salvation and passes others by. 72

“Both believe God is supremely great and good. But one side starts with God’s greatness and conditions God’s goodness in that light; the other side starts with God’s goodness and condition’s God’s greatness in that light.” 73

The true divide is the guiding picture of God. He is primarily viewed as majestic, powerful and controlling OR loving, good and merciful. 73

Wesley: “It is unthinkable that so much evil would abound if God has determined all human choices.” 74

Arminians do not believe in absolute free will:

“At the point of God’s call, sinners under the influence of Prevenient grace have genuine free will as a gift of God; for the first time they can freely say yes or no to God. Nothing outside the self determines how they will respond.” 76

_______________

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the following:

1. Do you agree of disagree with the statement that a hybrid of the two is not possible?

2. Do you agree that there are portions of Scripture that are difficult to explain in light of your theological preference?