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

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
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