BOOK REVIEW - "JACOB ARMINIUS: THE MAN FROM OUDEWATER" BY RUSTIN E. BRIAN

I don't know if you have had the same experience, but it seems most definitions of Arminianism comes from Calvinists, especially those who want to throw the whole theology under the bus and brand it as heresy, questioning the salvation of those who dare disagree with them.

For this reason, I've read a couple of books to see what Arminians really believe several years ago, and reread them recently. As you'd expect, one thing I'd want to read is a biography. "Jacob Arminius: The Man from Oudewater" by Rustin E. Brian is an excellent starting point.

Brian divides his book into three parts. The first three chapters evaluate Arminius' early life, his pastoral ministry, and his years as an educator. Chapters four through six investigates his theology concerning the Bible, his Christology, and - as you'd expect - his views on predestination and salvation. Next, he compares him to Pelagius (the chapter's title is Arminius is not equal to Pelagius), John Wesley, and Karl Barth. He concludes on how this relates to present time.

Interesting facts. Would you believe one of Arminius' teachers was Theodore Beza? Would you believe the starting point of Arminius' theology is not Predestination but his Christology? Would you believe Arminius' focus on free will was not whether the unregenerate could choose to follow Christ (Arminius agrees with Calvin on total depravity) but whether evil men do evil do so by their depraved free will as opposed to God predestining them to do evil and then condemning them for doing what they are made to do?

I highly recommend this book. It may not convince you that Arminianism is more accurate than Calvinism, but it helps us realize that Arminianism falls very nicely into the category of orthodox, evangelical, Biblically based theology. 

 

Are Our Foes The Only Ones Who Need To Learn To Fight Fair?

 The Night Watch by Rembrandt

 I recall reading a review on the book Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment by Gregg Allison. The reviewer, a Catholic, gave it a one star review, stating that if you really want to know Catholic teaching, you need to go to a Catholic (either not realizing or ignoring Allison based his book on the Roman Catholic Cathechism). He then added that if you want to understand Protestantism ... you need to go to a Catholic.

Allow me to give a story from last week, taken from a different perspective. I saw a cartoon by a political cartoonist quoting Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York (popularly known as AOC) saying, "If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them."

Yes, that quote would make most people scratch their heads. But one person pointed out that was part of what she said. The full quote was: "If we want to reduce violent crime, if we want to reduce the number of people in our jails, the answer is to stop building more of them. The answer is to make sure that we actually build more hospitals, we pay organizers, we get people mental health care and overall health care, employment, etc. It’s to support communities, not throw them away."

Do I agree with the congresswoman's rationale and solution? No. I find it simplistic, overlooking the sinfulness of man. But when I read the complete thought, I wasn't scratching my head anymore. While I differ with her ideas, I get where she's coming from and thus am able to have more respect for her than from that brief quote. 

On theological lines, it dawned on me that my impression of Arminianism was colored by Calvinism. In some cases, it was where people considered themselves a balanced medium between "Strong Calvinism" and Arminianism, often branding themselves as "Moderate Calvinists." Then there was R. C. Sproul's answer to the question of whether Arminians were Christians: "Just barely." While Sproul allowed that most Arminians were Christians, others denounce "free will" as a false gospel, and one Calvinist making it clear that those who believe an Arminian may be saved is in error.

So what did I do? I was already influenced by the book Four Views on Eternal Security which included two Calvinist views and two Arminian views and made realize that the debate is not as linear as I thought. Then I read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Roger E. Olsen and Jacob Arminius: The Man From Oudewater by Rustin E. Brian. Now, I know more about Arminianism and made me see the rumors of that theology's unorthodoxy are greatly exagerated.

When it comes to discussions on a view I disagree with, I like the view presented by author Andrew David Naselli. He said he likes to present his opponents arguments in a way that his opponent would say he gave an accurate representation. After all, those who disagree do so because they have reasons for their view. True, those reasons could be flawed, but then they think the same of my viewpoint. Besides, I'm not inerrant - I can be wrong just as much as they can.

Have you heard someone who does a good job of being fair to his opposition? Are there times when you make assumptions of somebody else's viewpoint and learned their opinion is not as off base as you thought it was?