Arminianism
- Grant Askham
- Sep 30, 2009
Arminianism
Historical overview :
Origin :
In 1610, a year after the death of James Arminius (a Dutch seminary professor ), his followers drew up what was called their “five articles of faith “ based on his teachings. These followers became known as Arminians and these teachings became known as Arminianism. These “five articles of faith “ were presented to the State of Holland in the form of a “Remonstrance “ or protest with an insistence that the “Belgic Confession of Faith “ and the “Heidelberg Catechism “ which were the Official expression of the doctrinal position of the Church of Holland, be changed to conform to the doctrinal views contained in the protest.
The Arminians objected to the doctrines upheld in both the Confession and the Catechism relating to : divine sovereignty, human inability, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. They demanded that the official standards of the Church of Holland be revised on these issues.
Synod of Dort :
A national synod was called to meet in Dort in 1618 for the purpose of examining the views of the “Remonstrance “ in the light of scripture. The Great Synod was convened by the Stattes-General of Holland on 13 Nov 1618. There were 84 Dutch delegates, among whom were 18 secular commissioners. There were also 27 delegates from various German states, Switzerland, England and Scotland. There were 154 sessions over seven months to consider the matters at hand. The last session was held on 9th May 1619.
Ben A Warburton wrote :
“The Synod had given very close examination to the “five points “ which had been advanced by the Remonstrats , and had compared the teaching advanced in them with the testimony of scripture. Failing to reconcile that teaching to the Word of God, which they had definitely declared could alone be accepted by them as the rule of faith, they had unanimously rejected them. They felt, however, that a mere rejection was not sufficient. It remained for them to set out true biblical teaching in relation to those matters which had been called into question. This they proceeded to do, embodying the Calvinistic position in five chapters, which have ever since been known as “The five points of Calvinism “ “
Historical roots:
The basic concepts of each of these systems goes back a lot further than the Synod of Dort, and neither John Calvin nor James Arminius originated the basic concepts of the two systems that bear their names .
The basic fundamental principles of both can be traced back many centuries prior to the lives of Calvin and Arminius. The basic doctrines of the Calvinist view, had been defended by Augustine against Pelagius in the 5th century.
William Cunningham 1960 wrote :
“As there was nothing new in substance in the Calvinism of Calvin, there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. The doctrines of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time of Clemons Alexandrinus, and seem to have been held by many of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, having been diffused in the church through the corrupting influence of pagan philosophy. Pelagius and his followers, in the 5th century, were as decidedly opposed to Calvinism as Arminius was, though they deviated much further from sound doctrine than he did. “
Pelagius denied that humankind had been corrupted by sin. He argued that the only problem with the fall was the bad example that Adam had set for all of mankind. He argued that every child born, comes into the world in the state that Adam did before the fall. His leading principle was that Man’s will is absolutely free, and therefore everyone has the power within themselves to believe the Gospel, as well as to keep the law of God completely.
Augustine argued that human nature had been corrupted so badly that nobody has the ability to obey either the law or the Gospel. That divine grace is essential if sinners are to believe and be saved, and this grace is extended only to those whom God predestined eternal life, before the foundation of the world. The act of faith therefore results not from the sinners free will (as Pelagius taught ), but from God’s free grace, which is bestowed on the elect only.
Augustine’s argument discredited Pelagianism so much that it collapsed, but a new system soon presented itself, teaching that man, with his own natural powers, is able to take the 1st step towards conversion, and that this then obtains the Spirit’s assistance. Cassian was the founder of this new “middle” way which came to be known as “semi Pelagianism “ He acknowledged the corruption of human nature at the fall, but on the other hand argued a system of universal grace for all men alike, making the final decision in the case of every individual, dependant on the exercise of Free Will.
George Smeaton 1889 wrote :
“..the 1st movement of the will in the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. This was their primary error. It is mine to be willing to believe, and it is the part of God’s grace to assist. They asserted the sufficiency of Christ’s grace for all, and that every one according to his own will obeyed or rejected the invitation, while God equally wished and aided all men to be saved.
The leaders of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected both Pelagianism and Semi-Palagianism on the basis of them being unscriptural.
Semi-Palagianism was rejected by the Synod of Orange in A.D. 529, just as Arminianism was rejected by the Synod of Dort 1100 years later.
These leaders had their differences, but were totally united in their view on the issues of the utter helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace.
Philosophical Basis :
J L Packer wrote :
The theology which became known as Arminianism stemmed from two philosophical principles :
• First that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility.
• Secondly that ability limits obligation
From these principles, Arminians drew two deductions :
• Since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible act, it cannot be caused by God, and is exercised independently of Him and
• Since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all whom hear the Gospel, ability to believe must be universal.
Scripture must therefore be interpreted as teaching the following positions
• Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe in the Gospel when it is put before him
• He is never so controlled by God that he cannot reject it
• God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foresight that they will of their own accord believe
• Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of everyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith for anyone (there is no such gift), what it did was create the possibility of salvation for everyone, if they believe.
• It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith. Those who fail here fall away and are lost.
Arminianism declared salvation man-dependent; saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his own, not God’s in him.
Arminianism therefore holds that God enables man to be saved by his faith.
Understanding Arminianism :
The best way to understand this set of beliefs, called Arminianism, is to compare the theological conflict which took place in the 17th century. In the columns below, the five points of Arminianism (as tabled to the Synod) and the points of Calvinism (as put out in response by the Synod) are set out side by side , so as to easily identify the differences.
The five points of Arminianism The five points of Calvinism
1. Free will or human ability
Although seriously affected by the fall, man was not left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in a manner as not to interfere with man’s freedom to choose. Each sinner possesses this Free Will and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. This freedom includes the ability to choose good over evil. His will is therefore not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner therefore has the ability to co operate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but does not have to be regenerated before he believes . Faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinners gift to God, and therefore man’s contribution to salvation. 1. Total inability or total depravity
Because of the fall, man is spiritually dead and is unable within himself to believe the Gospel. The sinner is deaf, blind, and dead to the things of God, his heart is corrupt and desperately deceitful. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature. Therefore he cannot, choose good over evil. It therefore takes more than the Spirit’s help to bring a sinner to Christ, it takes regeneration, by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive (to God and spiritual things ) and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation. It is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
2. Conditional Election
God’s choice of certain sinners for election, before the foundation of the world is based on the foreseeing that they would respond to His call. In other words He chose only those whom He knew would by themselves believe the Gospel. Election is therefore determined by, or based on what man would do. Faith was not given by God but resulted solely from mans will. It is left up to man to determine who would believe and therefore be elected for salvation. God chooses those whom He knew would, of their own free will choose Christ. The ultimate cause of salvation is therefore the sinners choice of Christ, not Christ’s choice of the sinner. 2. Unconditional Election
God’s choice of certain sinners for election before the foundation of the world, is on the basis of His sovereign will. This choice was never based on God foreseeing a response or our obedience. God gives faith and repentance to all those whom He has selected. The acts of repentance and obedience, are therefore the result and not the cause of election. Election is not determined by, or conditional to any response of man. Those whom He selected, He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ . God’s choice of the sinner, not man’s choice of God is the cause of salvation.
3. Universal Redemption or general Atonement.
Christ’s redemption made it possible for everyone to be saved, but did not in itself secure the redemption for anyone. Christ died for all, and every man, but only those that believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to forgive sinners, but only on the condition that they believe. His death did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Redemption is activated by man’s acceptance of it. 3.Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement.
Christ’s redemption was intended to save the elect only, and did in itself secure salvation for them. His death being a substitute for the penalty of sin for those specific sinners. His redemption secured everything necessary for salvation, including the faith required. The gift of faith is applied to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.
4. The Holy Spirit can be Effectually resisted
The Spirit calls inwardly, all those who are called by the Gospel outwardly. He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. Man is free and is therefore able to resist this call. The Spirit cannot regenerate until the sinner believes. Faith (which is man’s contribution ) precedes and makes possible this new birth. Therefore, man’s free will limits the Spirit in Christ’s saving work. The Spirit can only draw to Christ, those whom allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace therefore is not invincible, and is often resisted and thwarted by men. 4. The Effective Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace
In addition to the outward call of the Gospel, the Spirit gives a special inward call to the elect which ultimately brings them to salvation. The external call, which is made to all, is often rejected. However the inward call, made only to the elect cannot be rejected and always results in conversion. This call irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited by man’s will, neither is He dependant on man’s cooperation or response. The Spirit graciously causes the sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent. God’s grace is invincible, It never fails to bring to salvation those to whom it was extended.
5. Falling from Grace
Those whom have believed and are saved, can lose their salvation by failing to keep their faith.
Not all Arminians agree on this point. Perseverance of the Saints
Those chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, given faith by the Spirit, are eternally saved. They are kept by the power of almighty God, and thus persevere to the end.
Summary
Arminianism
• Salvation is accomplished by the combined efforts of God ( whom takes the initiative) and man (whom must respond). Man’s response id the determining factor.
• God has provided salvation for everyone, but this only becomes effective for those, whom of their own free will, chose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of Grace
• Man’s will plays the decisive role, and thus man and not God determines who will be the recipients of salvation.
• Salvation can be lost Calvinism
• Salvation is accomplished by the mighty power of a triune God. Father chose a people, the Son died for them and the Spirit makes it effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance causing them to willingly obey the Gospel.
• The entire process, Election, Redemption and Regeneration is the work of God and is by Grace alone
• God, not man determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation
• Salvation is eternal
When two creeds meet
Church history is filled with theological confrontations, but it is important to realize that these are not bad for the church and their net result is good.
God has always worked through His 3 agents namely : His Word, His Spirit and His man. Couple this to the fact that God’s revelation is progressive, in that He does not download all revelation to one person, or movement or do it all in one era. Throughout history, God has added pockets of revelation, to which men have responded, and so given birth to, or allowed the church to live in that revelation. In the context of God’s 3 agents, the problem has always been with man as the Word of God and the Spirit are infallible, and will never contradict the will of God. So man is the portal, through which the revelation will flow, and it is subject to his interpretation and the consequent implementation and just when we think we have it all sorted out, the cloud moves and God adds something more to the revelation for mankind. Man however has this resistance to change and propensity to want to keep things orderly and controllable.
And so when some catch, or receive the new revelation, and others don’t, or are slow to catch it then conflict is inevitable.
1Co 11:18 …….. I hear that there are divisions among you……
1Co 11:19 For there must also be heresies among you, that the approved ones may be revealed among you.
In the sovereignty of God, these “divisions”, or differences of opinion are used to reveal the truth and therefore if the church fathers had not, and still do not, examine each and every doctrine introduced to the church, the church would be riddled with heretical dogma.
When two creeds meet (and a creed is a statement of belief ) we should consider these honestly and carefully in light of scripture. If we fail to truthfully consider both sides of the issue theologically, not on the basis of process, or merely dismiss one side of the argument on the basis of history, or our current revelation, or maintaining the status quo, then we run the risk of violating the will of God and will be worthy of His judgment. We must always be honest and forthright with the word of God and the interpretations of men.
The standard of any theological issue /difference is Sola Scriptura , (scripture alone ). It is the Bible that must be the final judge in all issues of faith, life and practice. Unless this is maintained the church will be led astray by every wind of doctrine. The fundamental principle of interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture (Luther’s “analogy of faith” ), that is, Scripture is it’s own interpreter, therefore only theological teachings, or revelations, that can withstand the scrutiny of the Holy Writ are to be maintained.
Dr Charles Hodge wrote
How can a man be just with God ? the answer given to this question decides the character of our religion, and, if practically adopted our future destiny. To give a wrong answer is to mistake the way to heaven. It is to err where error is fatal, because it cannot be corrected. If God requires one thing, and we present another, how can we be saved ? If he has revealed a method in which He can be just and yet justify the sinner, and if we reject that method and insist upon perusing a different way, how can we hope to be accepted ?The answer therefore, which is given to the above question, should be seriously pondered by all who assume the office of religious teachers and by all who rely upon their instruction.
Not either / or
One would be tempted to, when viewing two sides of an argument or disagreement as in the arguments of Arminians vs. those of Calvinism to want to choose one or the other as the correct view, or interpretation of scripture in totality . The truth will not be found in one or the other, but it lies somewhere between the two.
In the words of Michael Eaton “ we should read books /articles /viewpoints, so as to stimulate our own minds and then come up with our own convictions. We should not read with the view to gain a transfer of information ”
The table below puts Michael Eaton’s views against his own on the matter of Calvinism vs. Arminianism :
Arminianism Calvinism Eaton’s views (developed Calvinism )
Universal atonement Limited atonement Universal atonement
Irresistible integration of justification and sanctification Irresistible integration of justification and sanctification A resistible link between justification and sanctification
Integrates salvation and inheritance Integrates salvation and inheritance Sharply distinguishes between salvation and inheritance
Disobedience = loss of salvation and loss of inheritance Disobedience = proved unreality of salvation, and therefore no inheritance Disobedience = loss of inheritance but not the loss of justification
Legalistic in that salvation is by works Introspective, in that proved-salvation is by works Neither legalistic, nor introspective, in that justification is by faith alone
Motivating, yet discouraging. Present salvation may be certain. Yet it could be lost because final salvation is by obedience Doubly discouraging, in that assurance of salvation is conditioned by the demand that good works be adequate. Doubly encouraging in that present and future salvation is secure. Motivating in that upon a secure base one may reach for inheritance.
Legalistic in that it maintains the continuing relevance of the Mosaic law Legalistic in that it maintains the continuing relevance of the Mosaic law Liberating in that the experience of the Spirit occupies the place once occupied by the Torah.
Man’s quest for independence
Mans desire for self –sufficiency was the root of the fall and is at the heart of this interpretation of salvation known as Arminians. Ma’s desire is independence from any supreme power which might either help, hinder, or control his actions.
John Owen wrote:
Never did any men, more eagerly endeavor the erecting of this Babel than the Arminians.
Their desire tends to one of two ends :
Firstly:
To exempt themselves from God’s jurisdiction, to free themselves from the supreme dominion of His all-ruling providence ; not to live and move in Him, but to have an absolute independent power in all their actions.
1. They deny the eternity and unchangeableness of God’s decrees, these having been established, they fear that they will be kept within bounds from doing anything but that which He has determined should be done. Therefore their idol freewill must be limited, their independence prejudiced and so they choose rather to believe that His decrees are temporary and changeable. That He does really change them according to the transformations He sees in us. How contrary to the pure nature of God, and how destructive to His attributes.
2. They question the foreknowledge or prescience of God. If God really knows all His works from the beginning, and really knows all that will follow, then it casts an infallibility on all their actions. Which means we can do nothing but what God foreknows. To deny His prescience is destructive to the very essence of the Deity and plain atheism.
3. They depose the all-governing providence of this King of nations, denying His energetic, effectual power, in turning the hearts, ruling the thoughts, determining the wills, and disposing the actions of men, by granting nothing but a general power and influence, to be limited and used according to the inclination and will of every agent ; and so making Almighty God a desirer that many things were otherwise than they are, and an idle spectator of most things that are done in the world.
4. They deny the irresistibility and uncontrollable power of God’s will. That often He wills and intends what he cannot accomplish. Where He intends and desires to save every man , it is wholly within their own power to decide whom He will save and whom not. Corrupt nature is still ready to attempt to be like God, or to think that “He is altogether like unto us “Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
Psa 1:2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psa 1:3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
Psa 1:4 The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away.
Psa 1:5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
Psa 1:6 for the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.
…,one of which inconveniences all men run into, who have not learned to submit their frail wills to the Almighty God, and captivate their understandings to the obedience of faith.
Secondly :
The second end at which the doctrine of the Arminians aims is, to clear human nature from the heavy imputation of being sinful, corrupted.
1. They deny the doctrine of predestination, whereby God has chosen some before the foundation of the world, that they should be Holy and have everlasting life, by the merit of Christ. This doctrine would make the Grace of God the sole cause for the good that is in the elect, and faith, the work and gift from God. This would show the free-will to be nothing, of no value.
2. They deny original sin and its demerit.
3. They argue that our sinful was in Adam when he was created and so comes from God Himself.
4. They deny the efficacy of the merit of the death of Christ, both that God intended by His death to redeem His church, or to acquire to Himself a holy people and, that Christ by His death has procured for us Grace, Faith. or righteousness in fulfilling the new covenant.
5. If Christ claims such a share in saving His people, they will claim that some will gain salvation without Him.
6. Having robbed God, Christ and Hid Grace, they adorn their idol freewill with many glorious properties no way due unto it.
7. They not only claim to their new –made deity(freewill ) a saving power, but also contend that he is very active and operative in the great work of saving our souls
a. In fitly preparing us for the grace of God, and so disposing of ourselves that it becomes due to us.
b. In effectually working out our conversion together with it
And so at length they have, with much toil and labor, have placed an altar for their idol in the holy temple, at the right hand of the altar of God, and on it offer sacrifices to their own net and drag , not to God.
Bibliography :
The five points of Calvinism : David Steele, Curtis Thomas, S Lance Quinn
Calvinism, Hyper Calvinism and Arminianism : Dr Kenneth Talbot, Dr Gray Crampton
The five points of Calvinism :Edwin H Palmer
No Condemnation : A new theology on assurance : Michael Eaton
