User:David Schroder/Arminianism

For the Armenian nationality, see Armenia or the Armenian language.

For the theological doctrines of Arius, see Arianism.

Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought in Protestant Christian theology founded by the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. It is perhaps most prominent in the Methodist movement and found in various other evangelical circles today.

History

Main artcle: History of Calvinist-Arminian Debate

Jacobus Arminius

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor and theologian in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, but he rejected his teacher's theology as making God the author of sin. Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith. Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, but Arminius died before a national synod could occur.

The Remonstrants & Calvinist Reaction

Arminius followers, not wanting to adopt their leader's name, called themselves the Remonstrants. When Arminius died before he could satisfy Holland's State General's request for a 14-page paper outlining his views, the Remonstrants replied in his stead crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance. After some political manuevering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau deal with the situation. Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This Synod of Dort was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (Arminians were excluded) with token Calvinist representatives from other countries, and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. Part of this publication was the famous Five points of Calvinism in response to the five articles of Remonstrance.

Arminians across Holland were removed from office, imprisoned, banished, and sworn to silence. Twelve years later Holland officially granted Arminianism protection as a religion, although animosity between Arminians and Calvinists continued.

John Wesley & Methodism

The debate between Calvin's followers and Arminius' followers is distinctive of post-Reformation church history. The heated discussions between friends and fellow Methodist ministers John Wesley and George Whitfield were characteristic of many similar debates. Wesley was a champion of Arminius' teachings, defending his soteriology in a periodical titled The Arminian and writing articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered. He defended Arminius against charges of semi-Pelaganism, holding strongly to beliefs in original sin and total depravity. At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized unconditional election and maintained a belief in the ability to lose salvation. Wesley also clarified the doctrine of prevenient grace and preached the ability of Christians to attain to perfection.

Current Landscape

Advocates of both Arminianism and Calvinism find a home in many Protestant denominations. Denominations leaning in the Arminian direction include Anglicans, Methodists, General Baptists, Pentecostals, and Charismatics. Denominations leaning in the Calvinist direction include Particular Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. The majority of Southern Baptists, including Billy Graham, accept Arminianism with an exception allowing for perseverance of the saints^[1], ^[2], ^[3] although many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance.^[4] The majority of Lutherans hold to a mediating view taught by Philip Melanchthon.

Recent theological proponents of Arminianism include:

Robert Shank (author of Elect in the Son)
Robert Picirilli (pastor, former academic dean and professor at Free Will Baptist Bible College, and author of Grace, Faith, and Free Will)
F. Leroy Forlines (lead author of The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions)
Stephen Ashby (professor at Ball State University and contributor to Four Views on Eternal Security)
David Pawson (British teacher/theologian and author of Once Saved, Always Saved?)
Roger Forster (author of God's Strategy in Human History and general editor of the Randall House Bible Commentary series)

Theology

Classical Arminianism

Classical Arminianism (sometimes titled Reformed Arminianism or Reformation Arminianism) is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by the Remonstrants^[5]; its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakend; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."^[6]

Atonement is intended for all: Jesus' death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have oppertunity for salvation through faith.^[7]

Jesus' death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect are paid in full through Jesus' work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteoussness through mercy...or that man is justified before God...according to the rigour of justice without any forgiveness."^[8] Stephen Ashby clarifies "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's rightouessness."^[9]

Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and His grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convict them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picrilli states "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted." ^[10] The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistably in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.^[11]

Man has free will to respond or resist: Free will is limited by God's sovereignty, but God sovereignly allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.

Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."^[12] God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."^[13]

God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.^[14]

Eternal security is also conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.^[15] Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only commited through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.^[16]

The Five articles of Remonstrance that Arminius' followers formulated in 1610 state the above beliefs regarding (I) conditional election, (II) unlimited atonement, (III) total depravity, (IV) total depravity and resistable grace, and (V) possibility of apostasy. Note, however, that the five articles completely denied perseverance of the saints; Arminius, himself, said that "I never taught that a true believer can...fall away from the faith...yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such as kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding."^[17]

The core beliefs of Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrants are summarized as such by theologian Stephen Ashby:

1. Prior to being drawn and enabled, one is unable to believe...able only to resist.

2. Having been drawn and enabled, but prior to regeneration, one is able to believe...able also to resist.

3. After one believes, God then regnerates; one is able to continue believing...able also to resist.

4. Upon resisting to the point of unbelief, one is unable again to believe...able only to resist.^[18]

Wesleyan Arminianism

See also: Methodism

John Wesley has historically been the most influential advocate for the teachings of Arminian soteriology. Wesley thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught, maintaining strong doctrines of original sin, total depravity, conditional election, prevenient grace, unlimited atonement, and possibly apostasy.

Wesley departs from Arminius primarily on three issues:

Atonement – Wesley's atonement is a hybrid of the penal substitution theory and the governmental theory of Hugo Grotius, a lawyer and one of the Remonstrants. Steven Harper states "Wesley does not place the substitionary element primarily within a legal framework.... [R]ather [his doctrine seeks] to bring into proper relationship the 'justice' between God's love for persons and God's hatred of sin.... [I]t is not the satisfaction of a legal demand for justice so much as it is an act of mediated reconciliation." ^[19]
Possibility of apostasy – Wesley fully accepted the Arminian view that genuine Christians could apostasize and lose their salvation, as his famous sermon "A Call to Backsliders" clearly demonstrates. Wesley disagrees with Arminius, however, in maintaining that such apostasy was not final. When talking about those who have made "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim 1:19), Wesley claims that "not one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands...[i]nnumerable are the instances...of those who had fallen but now stand upright."^[20]
Christian perfection – According to Wesley's teaching, Christians could reach perfection in this life. Christian perfection, according to Wesley, is "purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God" and "the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked." It is "loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves." ^[21] It is "a restoration not only to the favour, but likewise to the image of God," our "being filled with the fullness of God."^[22] Wesley was clear that Christian perfection did not imply perfection of bodily health or an infallibility of judgment. It also does not mean we no longer violate the will of God, for involuntary transgressions remain. Perfected Christians remain subject to temptation, and have continued need to pray for forgiveness and holiness. It is not an absolute perfection but a perfection in love. Furthermore, Wesley did not teach a salvation by perfection, but rather says that, "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."^[23]

Other Variations

Since the time of Arminius, his name has come to represent a very large variety of beliefs. Some of these beliefs, such as Pelagianism (see below) are not considered to be within Arminianism orthodoxy and are dealt with elsewhere. Some doctrines, however, do adhere to the Arminian foundation and, while minority views, are highlighted below.

Open Theism

Main article: Open theism

The doctrine of open theism states that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, but is rather most-powerful, most-knowing, most-present. As such, open theists resolve the issue of human free will and God's sovereignty by claiming that God is not logically capable of predetermining human choices - salvation or otherwise. Clark Pinnock is one of the most well-known propenents.

Some Arminians, such as professor and theologian Robert Picirilli, reject the doctrine of open theism as a "deformed Arminianism".^[24] Joseph Dongell stated that "open theism actually moves beyond classical Arminianism towards process theology."^[25] The majority Arminian view accepts classical theism - the belief that God's power, knowledge, and presence have no limits outside of His divine character. Most Arminians reconcile human free will with God's sovereignty and foreknowledge by holding three points:

Human free will is limited by original sin, though God's prevenient grace restores to humanity the ability to accept God's call of salvation.^[26]
God purposely exercises his sovereignty in ways that do not illustrate its extent - in other words, He has the power and authority to predetermine salvation but he chooses to apply it through different means.^[27]
God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, and therefore the future is certain and not contingent on human action. God does not determine the future, but He does know it. God's certainty and human contingency are compatible.^[28]

Other Views of Election

See also: Conditional election

The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith, but two other views (closely related to each other) deserve merit. They are examined in greater detail in the article for conditional election.

Corporate Election View

Some Arminians reject the concept of individual election entirely, prefering to understand the doctrine in corporate terms. According to this corporate election, God never chose individuals to elect to salvation, but rather He chose to elect the believing Church to salvation. Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Ridderbos says "[The certainty of salvation] does not rest on the fact that the church belongs to a certain "number", but that it belongs to Christ, from before the foundation of the world. Fixity does not lie in a hidden decree, therefore, but in corporate unity of the Church with Christ, whom it has come to know in the gospel and has learned to embrace in faith."^[29]

Corporate election draws support from a similar concept of corporate election found in the Old Testament and Jewish law. Indeed most Biblical scholarship is in agreement that Judeo-Greco-Roman thought in the 1st century was opposite of the Western world's "individual first" mantra - it was very group-oriented in nature.^[30] Identity stemmed from membership in a group more than individuality.^[31] According to Romans 9-11, supporters claim, Jewish election as the chosen people ceased with their national rejection of Jesus as Messiah. As a result of the new covenant, God's chosen people are now the corporate body of Christ, the church (sometimes called spiritual Israel - see also Covenant theology). Pastor and theologian Dr. Brian Abasciano claims "What Paul says about Jews, Gentiles, and Christians, whether of their place in God’s plan, or their election, or their salvation, or how they should think or behave, he says from a corporate perspective which views the group as primary and those he speaks about as embedded in the group. These individuals act as members of the group to which they belong, and what happens to them happens by virtue of their membership in the group."^[32]

Election In Christ View

Some scholars, theologian Robert Shank among others, also maintain that Jesus was the only human ever elected and that individuals must be "in Christ" (Eph 1:3-4) through faith to be part of the elect. Joseph Dongell, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, states "the most conscipuous feature of Ephesians 1:3-2:10 is the phrase 'in Christ', which occurs twelve times in Ephesians 1:3-4 alone...this means that Jesus Christ himself is the chosen one, the predestined one. Whenever one is incorporated into him by grace through faith, one comes to share in Jesus' special status as chosen of God."^[33]

Markus Barth illustrates the inter-connectedness that many theologians see between this view and the Corporate view proper: "Election in Christ must be understood as the election of God's people. Only as members of that community do individuals share in the benefits of God's gracious choice."^[34]

Comparison to Other Views

Common Misconceptions

Arminianism, like any major belief system, is frequently misunderstood both by critics and would-be supporters. Listed below are a few common misconceptions.

Arminianism supports works-based salvation - No well-known system of Arminianism denies salvation "by faith alone" and "by faith first to last". This misconception is often directed at the Arminian possibility of apostasy, which critics maintain requires continual good works to achieve final salvation. To Arminians, however, both intial salvation and eternal security are "by faith alone"; hence "by faith first to last". Belief through faith is the condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God; unbelief is the condition for exit from the Kingdom of God - not a lack of good works.^[35] ^[36] ^[37]
Arminianism denies original sin and total depravity - No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;^[38] both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.^[39] See the comparison to Calvinism below for where the two systems diverge.
Arminianism denies Jesus' substitutionary payment for sins - Both Arminius and Wesley believed in the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's atonement through substitution.^[40] Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied individually^[41] while Hugo Grotius and many of Wesley's followers taught that it was satisfied corporately.^[42]

Comparison to Pelagianism

Main article: Pelagianism. See also: Semi-Pelagianism, and History of Calvinist-Arminian Debate

Pelagius was a British monk and opponent of Augustine of Hippo and Jerome in the early 5th Century AD. When he arrived in Christian Rome from Britain, Pelagius was appalled at the lack of holiness he found. Pelagius preached justification through faith alone, but also believed salvation was finished through good works and moral uprightness. Furthermore, Pelagius completely denied the double predestination and irresistible grace affirmed by Augustine. Several of his students - notably Caelestius - went further than their teacher and rejected justification by faith.

Through the influence of Augustine and Jerome, the teachings of Pelagius and Caelestius were rejected by the Papacy as heretical. Historically Pelagianism has come to to represent any system that denies original sin, holds that by nature humans are capable of good, and maintains morality and works are part of the equation that yields salvation. Semi-Pelagianism is a variation on the original more akin to Pelagius' own thought - that justification is through faith, but that Adam's original sin was merely a bad example, humans can naturally seek God, and salvation is completed through works. Both systems reject a Calvinist understanding of predestination.

Many critics of Arminianism, both historically and currently, claim that Arminianism condones, accepts, or even explicitly supports Pelagianism of either variety. Arminius refered to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."^[43] David Pawson, a British pastor/theologian, decries this association as "libelous" when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine.^[44] Indeed most Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism; nonetheless, partially due to Calvinist opponents,^[45] ^[46] the two terms remain intertwined in popular usage. Listed below are similarities and contrasts between Arminianism and Pelagianism.

Similarities: Both systems reject doctrines of Calvinistic predestination and irresistible grace. Both systems accept the Biblical importance of works, morality, and striving to become more holy.

Differences: Arminianism maintains original sin, total depravity, substitutionary atonement, and salvation through faith alone. Arminianism maintains that works and holiness, while important, have no determining effect on salvation at any point in the process.

Comparison to Calvinism

Main article: Calvinism

Ever since Arminius and his followers revolted against Calvinism in the early 17th century, soteriology has been largely divided between Calvinism and Arminianism. On the conservative side of Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism and on the liberal side of Arminianism is Pelagianism, but the overwhelming majority of Protestant, evangelical pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between.

Similarities

Total depravity - Arminians affirm with Calvinists the doctrine of total depravity. The differences come in the understanding of how God remedies this depravity.
Substitutionary effect of atonement - Arminians also affirm with Calvinists the substitutionary effect of Christ's atonement and that this effect is limited only to the elect. Classical Arminians would agree with Calvinists that this substitution was an individual penal satisfaction for all of the elect, while most Wesleyan Arminians would maintain that the substitution was corporate and governmental in nature.

Differences

Conditionality of Election – Arminians hold that election to eternal salvation comes through (within) Jesus and therefore has the condition of faith attached. The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election states that salvation cannot be earned and therefore has no human conditions, so faith is not a condition of salvation, but rather the means to it.
Nature of Grace – Arminians believe that through God's prevenient grace, he restores free will concerning salvation to all humanity, and individuals, therefore, are able either to accept the Gospel call through faith or resist it through unbelief. Calvinists hold that an individual's response to the Gospel call is determined by God, not man, since God exercises irresistible grace when calling the elect to salvation.
Extent of Atonement – Arminians hold to a universal drawing and universal extent of atonement instead of the Calvinist doctrine that the drawing and atonment is limited in extent to the elect only.
Perseverance – Arminians believe that future salvation and eternal life is secured in Christ and protected from all external forces but is conditional on remaining in Christ and can be lost through apostasy. Traditional Calvinists believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which says that because God chose some unto salvation and actually paid for their particular sins, he keeps them from apostasy. Non-traditional Calvinists (and other evangelicals) advocate the similar but different doctrine of eternal security that teaches if a Christian was once saved, even if he apostasizes that person does not lose his or her salvation.

Notes

History
see History of Calvinist-Arminian Debate for additional notes
(1) ^ "The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 Revision" (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv)
(2) ^ Harmon, Richard W. Baptists and Other Denominations (Nashville: Convention Press, 1984) 17-18, 45-46
(3) ^ Walls, Jerry and Dongell, Joseph Why I Am Not a Calvinist (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004) 12-13, 16-17
(4) ^ Ibid., 7-20
Classical Arminianism
(5) ^ Ashby, Stephen "Reformed Arminianism" Four Views on Eternal Security (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 137
(6) ^ Arminius, James The Writings of James Arminius (three vols.), tr. James Nichols and W.R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), I:252
(7) ^ Ibid., I:316
(8) ^ Ibid., III:454
(9) ^ Ashby Four Views, 140
(10) ^ Picirilli, Robert Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 154ff
(11) ^ Forlines, Leroy F., Pinson, Matthew J. and Ashby, Stephen M. The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2001), 313-321
(12) ^ Arminius Writings, III:311
(13) ^ Ibid.
(14) ^ Pawson, David Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance (London: Hodder & Staughton, 1996), 109ff
(15) ^ Picirilli Grace, Faith, Free Will 203
(16) ^ Ibid., 204ff
(17) ^ Arminius Writings, I:254
(18) ^ Ashby Four Views, 159
Wesleyan Arminianism
(19) ^ Harper, Steven "Wesleyan Arminianism" Four Views on Eternal Security (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 227ff
(21) ^ Wesley, John "A Call to Backsliders" The Works of John Wesley, ed. Thomas Jackson, 14 vols. (London: Wesley Methodist Book Room, 1872; repr, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 3:211ff
(22) ^ Wesley, John "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection", Works
(23) ^ Wesley, John "The End of Christ’s Coming", Works
(24) ^ Wesley, John "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection", Works
Other Variations
(25) ^ Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 40 - Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and Open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections. See 59ff
(26) ^ Dongell, Joseph and Walls, Jerry Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 45
(27) ^ Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 42-43, 59ff
(28) ^ Ashby, Four Views on Eternal Security, 146-147
(29) ^ Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 40
(30) ^ Ridderbos, Herman Paul: An Outline of His Theology trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 350-351
(31) ^ Abasciano, Brian Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (T&T Clark Publishers, 2006), ISBN 0567030733
(32) ^ Ibid.
(33) ^ Ibid.
(34) ^ Dongell, Joseph and Walls, Jerry Why I am Not a Calvinist, 76
(35) ^ Barth, Markus Ephesians (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 108
Comparison to Opposing Views
(36) ^ Pawson Once Saved, Always Saved? 121-124
(37) ^ Picirilli Grace, Faith, Free Will 160ff
(38) ^ Ashby Four Views on Eternal Security 142ff
(39) ^ Ibid., 138-139
(40) ^ Arminius, Writings 2:192
(41) ^ Picirilli Grace, Faith, Free Will 104-105, 132ff
(42) ^ Ashby Four Views on Eternal Security 140ff
(43) ^ Picirilli Grace, Faith, Free Will 132
(44) ^ Arminius Writings, II:219ff (the entire treatise occupies pages 196-452)
(45) ^ Pawson Once Saved, Always Saved?, 106
(46) ^ Ibid., 97-98, 106

External Links

The Works of Arminius
What is an Arminian? by John Wesley
Sermon #58: "On Predestination" by John Wesley
The Nature of Wesleyan Theology by J. Kenneth Grider
Eternal Security by Gordon Olson
Eternal Security by Daniel Corner
Eternal Security by Frederick E. Lewis
The Perseverance of the Saints - PDF article showing the differences and similarities between Arminian and Calvinist viewpoints on the perseverance of the saints while arguing for assurance of salvation
Characteristics of Wesley's Arminianism by Luke L. Keefer, Jr.
Arminianism from the Catholic Encyclopedia
A Comparison of Arminian Theology with the Calvinist Tradition (from a conservative Calvinist perspective)
Is Arminianism Biblical? (from a Calvinist perspective)
Armininaism Exposed by Mark Herzer (from a Calvinist perspective)