However, as you might expect, Olson is quite concerned that Lemke is mis-defining Arminianism in terms of those edges of Arminianism that do not represent all Arminians. For example, most open theists are Arminian, but it would not be true to say that most Arminians are open theists.
I suppose at this point most of you get a little frustrated with all the labels and fighting over terms. Believe it or not, I really don't care much for these labels on this level either. They are just tools to discuss things, not ends in themselves.
- So I'm Wesleyan, but I don't think Wesley was right on everything.
- I'm Arminian, but all this really means to me is that I believe anyone could in theory be saved.
- I'm Evangelical because the denomination to which I belong signed up, but my tradition really doesn't get worked up about the things most in this post WW2 movement get worked up about (penal substitution, a particular kind of use of the Bible, whether God judges us according to the light we have, a particular kind of social activism).
- I'm Protestant, but through the Anglican-Methodist stream, which doesn't get as worked up as Luther did on a number of issues, can be considered somewhat of a mediating tradition with catholicism, and is often accused of not being solidly Protestant enough.
- I'm Pietist, but at least believe I can articulate a coherent and systematic theology.
So here's to labels... ;-)