Suggested Reading List for Arminian Newbies

When I first started learning about Arminianism, I didn't know who I should read. There wasn't much out there at that time and I didn't know where to go, so I just read Arminius himself. That was hard. He's very good, but I could have used an introduction first. Here's a few books I have read over the years, and if I had to do it over again, I would have read them in this order:

Intro to Arminianism - Just Getting Started

1. Arminian Theology - Myths and Realities by Rodger Olsen

Great at explaining what Arminians believe and don't believe.

2. Life in the Son by Robert Shank

Excellent Exegeses of most passages dealing with falling from grace.

3. Free Grace a sermon by John Wesley

Gives a short critique of Calvinism.

Intermediate Arminianism - Putting the Pieces Together

4. Why I am not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell

Strong systematic approach and solid Arminian reasoning.

5. Elect in the Son by Robert Shank

A case for corporate election.

6. The Works of James Arminius

Your now ready for the big dog. He may yet be a wild ride, but give it a try. As far as putting exegeses, systematic theology and sound reasoning together, I haven't found anyone better.

Advanced Arminianism - If you Like to Ask Why, Why, Why Like a Three Year Old

7. God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of James Arminius by Richard Muller

Great at walking through God's attributes using Arminius' reasoning.

8. The Only Wise God by William Craig Lane

Readable, thoughtful, reconciliation between God's foreknowledge and freewill.

9. Redemption Redeemed by John Goodwin

Detailed study on the Atonement.

Enjoy!!!

Comments

The Seeking Disciple said…
All great reads and I too highly recommend them.
December 22, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more