Incubator escapee wiki

Arminianism

Article Discussion
(Redirected from Arminian)

Template:Short description Template:Redirect2 Template:Use dmy dates

File:Arminius 5.jpg
Jacobus Arminius in a 1625 engraving by W. Swanenburgh

Arminianism is a movement of Protestantism initiated in the early 17th century, based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination.

Classical Arminianism, to which Arminius is the main contributor, and Wesleyan Arminianism, to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Central Arminian beliefs are that God's prevenient grace, which prepares regeneration, is universal and that His grace, allowing regeneration and ongoing sanctification, is resistible.

Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views, notably the Baptists in the 17th century, the Methodists in the 18th century, and the Pentecostals in the 20th century.

HistoryEdit

Template:Further

Precursor movements and theological influencesEdit

File:Jean Paul Laurens Castellion (cropped).jpg
Laurens, Jean Paul. (1892). Sébastien Castellion.

Arminius' beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.Template:Sfn Before the Reformation, groups like the Waldensians similarly affirmed individual freedom over any predetermined predestination.Template:Sfn Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) also promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.Template:Sfn The soteriological doctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In particular, Mennonites have been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinist soteriology.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Mennonites have been historically Arminian in their theology whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not. They never accepted Calvinism either in the Swiss-South German branch or in the Dutch-North German wing. Nor did any Mennonite confession of faith in any country teach any of the five points of Calvinism. However, in the 20th century, particularly in North America, some Mennonites, having come under the influence of certain Bible institutes and the literature produced by this movement and its schools, have adopted the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or "once in grace always in grace." In doing so, they have departed from the historic Arminianism of the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement."</ref> Anabaptist theology seems to have influenced Jacobus Arminius.Template:Sfn At least, he was "sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view, and Anabaptists were commonly in attendance on his preaching."Template:Sfn Similarly, Arminius mentions Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (1513–1600) as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "I am using 'Arminianism' as a handy [...] synonym for 'evangelical synergism' (a term I borrow from Donald Bloesch). [...] It's simply a Protestant perspective on salvation, God's role and ours, that is similar to, if not identical with, what was assumed by the Greek church fathers and taught by Hubmaier, Menno Simons, and even Philipp Melanchthon (after Luther died). It was also taught by Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (d. 1600)—independently of Arminius. (Arminius mentions Hemmingsen as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.)"</ref> Another key figure, Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563), who opposed Calvin's views on predestination and religious intolerance, is known to have influenced both the Mennonites and certain theologians within Arminius's circle.Template:Sfn Early critics of Arminians even cited Castellio as a primary inspiration behind the Arminian movement.Template:Sfn

Emergence of ArminianismEdit

File:Allegory of theological dispute-Abraham van der Eyk-MBA Lyon H1151-IMG 0428.jpg
Eyk, Abraham van der (1721). Disputes Between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants in 1618.

Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.Template:Sfn He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, but after examination of the scriptures, he rejected his teacher's theology that it is God who unconditionally elects some for salvation.Template:Sfn Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith.Template:Sfn Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus.Template:Sfn

In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius presented his theology to magistrates of the States General of the Netherlands in The Hague.Template:Sfn After his death, Arminius's followers continued to advance his theological vision, crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance (1610), in which they express their points of divergence from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession.Template:Sfn This is how Arminius's followers were called Remonstrants, and following a Counter Remonstrance in 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.Template:Sfn

After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau to deal with the situation.Template:Sfn Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This Synod of Dort was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (102 people), while the Arminians were excluded (13 people banned from voting), with Calvinist representatives from other countries (28 people), and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. The Canons of Dort responded, among other topics, to Arminian doctrines, anticipating their later articulation as the Five points of Calvinism.Template:Sfn

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.Template:Sfn Most of the early Remonstrants followed a classical version of Arminianism. However, some of them such as Philipp van Limborch, moved in the direction of semi-Pelagianism and rationalism.Template:Sfn

Arminianism in the Church of EnglandEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

File:John-Goodwin (cropped).jpg
Glover, George. (1641). John Goodwin.

In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrinesTemplate:Sfn were held, in substance, before and in parallel with those of Arminius.Template:Sfn The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.Template:Sfn Arminianism in the Church of England was fundamentally an expression of negation of Calvinism, and only some theologians held to classical Arminianism, but for the rest they were either semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Of the various terms which can be used to describe the thrust of religions change at the time Arminian is the least misleading. It does not mean that the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius was normally the source of the ideas so labelled. Rather Arminian denotes a coherent body of anti-Calvinist religious thought, which was gaining ground in various regions of early seventeenth-century Europe."</ref> In this specific context, contemporary historians prefer to use the term "proto-Arminians" rather than "Arminians" to designate the leanings of those divines who generally didn't follow classical Arminianism.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "If we use the label 'Arminian' for English Churchmen, it must be with these important qualification in mind [of been related to the theology of Arminius]; 'proto-Arminian' would be a more accurate term."</ref> English Arminianism was represented by Arminian Puritans such as John Goodwin or High Anglican Arminians such as Jeremy Taylor and Henry Hammond.Template:Sfn Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such as William Laud fought Calvinist Puritans.Template:Sfn They actually saw Arminianism in terms of a state church, an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.Template:Sfn This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) of Charles I of England.Template:Sfn Following the English Civil War (1642–1651) Charles II of England, who tolerated the Presbyterians, re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.Template:Sfn It was dominant there after the Restoration (1660)<ref>Template:Harvb: "According to Edwards, it was only after the Restoration that non-Calvinist views come to be adopted by many of the clergy of the Church of England. Foremost among those who rejected Calvinism had been the Arminians, and Edwards appeared on the scene as a defender of Calvinism against Arminianism at a time when it was more often the Dissenters who were battling it and calling attention to the triumph of Arminianism in the Church of England."</ref> for some fifty years.Template:Sfn

BaptistsEdit

The Baptist movement emerged in 17th-century in England. The first Baptists—called "General Baptists" because of their confession of a "general" or unlimited atonement—were Arminians.Template:Sfn The Baptist movement originated with Thomas Helwys, who left his mentor John Smyth (who had moved into shared belief and other distinctives of the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites of Amsterdam) and returned to London to start the first English Baptist Church in 1611. Later General Baptists such as John Griffith, Samuel Loveday, and Thomas Grantham defended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected the Arminianism of Arminius. The General Baptists encapsulated their Arminian views in numerous confessions, the most influential of which was the Standard Confession of 1660. In the 1640s the Particular Baptists were formed, diverging from Arminian doctrine and embracing the strong Calvinism of the Presbyterians and Independents. Their robust Calvinism was publicized in such confessions as the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689. The London Confession of 1689 was later used by Calvinistic Baptists in America (called the Philadelphia Baptist Confession), whereas the Standard Confession of 1660 was used by the American heirs of the English General Baptists, who soon came to be known as Free Will Baptists.Template:Sfn

MethodistsEdit

File:Camp meeting of the Methodists in N. America J. Milbert del M. Dubourg sculp (cropped).jpg
Milbert, Jacques Gérard. (c. 1819). Camp meeting of the Methodists in N. America

In the Methodist-Calvinist controversy of the early 1770s involving Anglican ministers John Wesley and George Whitefield, Wesley responded to accusations of semi-Pelagianism by embracing an Arminian identity.Template:Sfn Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs of Arminius and largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius' teachings.Template:Sfn Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and by some Remonstrant spokesmen.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "What Wesley knew of Arminius came to him through two basic sources. First, he knew something of Arminius through Remonstrant spokesmen. [...] Wesley's second source of Arminian theology was the English Church in general, particularly the writers of the seventeenth century. This was by far his predominant source [...]."</ref> However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius' beliefs.Template:Sfn Wesley defended his soteriology through the publication of a periodical titled The Arminian (1778) and in articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered.Template:Sfn To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief in total depravity while clarifying other doctrines notably prevenient grace.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.Template:Sfn He typically preached the notion of Christian perfection (fully mature, not "sinlessness").Template:Sfn His system of thought has become known as Wesleyan Arminianism, the foundations of which were laid by him and his fellow preacher John William Fletcher.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In the 1830s, during the Second Great Awakening, traces of Pelagian influence surfaced in the American Holiness Movement. Consequently, critics of Wesleyan theology have occasionally unfairly perceived or labeled its broader thought.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "The American Holiness movement, influenced heavily by the revivalism of Charles Finney, inculcated some of his Soft Semi-Pelagian tendencies among their preachers and teachers [...]. This has provided critics of Wesleyan theology with fodder by which they pigeonhole inaccurately larger Wesleyan thought."</ref> However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

PentecostalsEdit

Pentecostalism has its background in the activity of Charles Parham (1873–1929). Its origin as a movement was in the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906. This revival was led by William J. Seymour (1870–1922).Template:Sfn Due to the Methodist and Holiness background of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.Template:Sfn During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.Template:Sfn Today, Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God hold to Arminian views such as resistible grace, conditional election, and conditional security of the believer.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb: "[T]he specifically Pentecostal denominations —such as the Assemblies of God, founded in 1914— have remained broadly Arminian when it comes to the matters of free, resistible grace and choice in salvation [...]."</ref>Template:Sfn

Current landscapeEdit

Protestant denominationsEdit

File:Benjamin Randall (cropped).jpg
Anonymous (1915). Benjamin Randall (founder of the Free Baptist denomination).

Advocates of Arminianism find a home in many Protestant denominations,<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Methodism, in all its forms (including ones that do not bear that name), tends to be Arminian. (Calvinist Methodist churches once existed. They were founded by followers of Wesley's co-evangelist George Whitefield. But, so far as I am able to tell, they have all died out or merged with traditionally Reformed-Calvinist denominations.) Officially Arminian denominations include ones in the so-called 'Holiness' tradition (e.g., Church of the Nazarene) and in the Pentecostal tradition (e.g., Assemblies of God). Arminianism is also the common belief of Free Will Baptists (also known as General Baptists). Many Brethren [anabaptists-pietist] churches are Arminian as well. But one can find Arminians in many denominations that are not historically officially Arminian, such as many Baptist conventions/conferences."</ref> and sometimes other beliefs such as Calvinism exist within the same denomination.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches."</ref> The Lutheran theological tradition bears certain similarities to Arminianism<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Through its opposition to Predestinarianism, Arminianism possesses a certain similarity to the Lutheran doctrine, in the shape which the latter in the seventeenth century more and more assumed, but the similarity is rather a superficial one."</ref> and there may be some Lutheran churches that are open to it.Template:Sfn Newer Evangelical Anglican denominations also show a level of openness to Arminian theology.Template:Sfn Anabaptist denominations, such as the Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish and Schwarzenau Brethren, adhere to Anabaptist theology, which espouses a soteriology that is similar to Arminianism "in some respects".<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Interestingly, Anabaptism and Arminianism are similar is some respects. Underwood wrote that the Anabaptist movement anticipated Arminius by about a century with respect to its reaction against Calvinism."</ref>Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Arminianism is found within the General Baptists,Template:Sfn including the subset of General Baptists known as Free Will Baptists.Template:Sfn The majority of Southern Baptists embrace a traditionalist form of Arminianism which includes a belief in eternal security,Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn though many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance.Template:Sfn Certain proponents of Arminianism may be found within the Restoration movement in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.Template:Sfn Additionally, it is found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.Template:Sfn Arminianism (specifically Wesleyan–Arminian theology) is taught in the Methodist churches,Template:Sfn inclusive of those denominations aligned with the holiness movement such as the Evangelical Methodist Church, Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church,Template:Sfn and the Salvation Army.Template:Sfn It is also found in a part of the Charismatics, including the Pentecostals.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Pentecostals are almost universally Wesleyan-Arminian rather than Calvinist/Reformed, with rare exceptions among denominational Charismatic."</ref>

Scholarly supportEdit

Arminian theology has found support among theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists spanning various historical periods and theological circles. Noteworthy historical figures include Jacobus Arminius,Template:Sfn Simon Episcopius,Template:Sfn Hugo Grotius,Template:Sfn John Goodwin,Template:Sfn Thomas Grantham,Template:Sfn John Wesley,Template:Sfn Richard Watson,Template:Sfn Thomas Osmond Summers,Template:Sfn John Miley,Template:Sfn William Burt PopeTemplate:Sfn and Henry Orton Wiley.Template:Sfn

In contemporary Baptist traditions, advocates of Arminian theology include Roger E. Olson,Template:Sfn F. Leroy Forlines,Template:Sfn Robert PicirilliTemplate:Sfn and J. Matthew Pinson.Template:Sfn Within the Methodist tradition, prominent supporters encompass Thomas Oden,Template:Sfn Ben Witherington III,Template:Sfn David Pawson,Template:Sfn B. J. Oropeza,Template:Sfn Thomas H. McCallTemplate:Sfn and Fred Sanders.Template:Sfn The Holiness movement boasts theologians like Carl O. BangsTemplate:Sfn and J. Kenneth Grider.Template:Sfn Furthermore, scholars such as Keith D. Stanglin,Template:Sfn Craig S. KeenerTemplate:Sfn and Grant R. Osborne<ref>Template:Harvnb: "[...] Osborne Wesleyan-Arminian perspective".</ref> also support Arminian perspectives.

TheologyEdit

Theological legacyEdit

File:Meister von Großgmain - Hl. Augustinus - 4859 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg
Master of Großgmain. (c. 1498). Augustinus.

The Pelagian-Augustinian framework can serve as a key paradigm for understanding Arminianism's theological and historical legacy.Template:Sfn Before Augustine (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.Template:Sfn The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as "humanistic monergism".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn This view was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431).Template:Sfn In response, Augustine proposed a view in which God is the ultimate cause of all human actions, a stance that aligns with soft determinism.Template:Sfn The Augustinian view is therefore referred to as "divine monergism".Template:Sfn However, Augustinian soteriology implied double predestination,Template:Sfn which was condemned by the Council of Arles (475).Template:Sfn

During this period, a moderate form of Pelagianism emerged, later termed Semi-Pelagianism.Template:Sfn This view asserted that human will initiates salvation, rather than divine grace.Template:Sfn The Semi-Pelagian view is therefore described as "human-initiated synergism".Template:Sfn In 529, the Second Council of Orange addressed Semi-Pelagianism and declared that even the inception of faith is a result of God's grace.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn This highlights the role of prevenient grace enabling human belief.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn This view, often referred to as "Semi-Augustinian," is therefore described as "God-initiated synergism".Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn The council also rejected predestination to evil.Template:Sfn As Arminianism aligns with key aspects of this view,Template:Sfn some see it as a return to early Church theological consensus.Template:Sfn Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of CalvinismTemplate:Sfn or, more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.Template:Sfn

Arminian theology generally divides into two main variations: Classical Arminianism, based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, a closely related variation shaped primarily by John Wesley.Template:Sfn

Classical ArminianismEdit

Definition and terminologyEdit

File:James Arminius 2.jpg
Bailly, David (1620). Jacobus Arminius.

Classical Arminianism is a Protestant theological view, that asserts God's prevenient grace for regeneration is universal and that the grace allowing regeneration and ongoing sanctification is resistible.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn This theological system was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants, such as Simon Episcopius<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Episcopius was singularly responsible for the survival of the Remonstrant movement after the Synod of Dort. We may rightly regard him as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers."</ref> and Hugo Grotius.Template:Sfn

Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of covenant theology.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Its core teachings are summarized in the Five Articles of Remonstrance, reflecting Arminius's views, with some sections directly from his Declaration of Sentiments.<ref>Template:Harvnb "These points [of Remonstrance] are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his Declaration of Sentiments.</ref> Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Others prefer "Reformation Arminianism"Template:Sfn or "Reformed Arminianism",Template:Sfn as Arminius upheld the principles of Reformation such as Sola fide and Sola gratia.Template:Sfn

God's providence and human free willEdit

Arminianism accepts classical theism, which states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.Template:Sfn In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.

Besides, Arminianism's view of God's sovereignty is based on postulates stemming from God's character. On the first hand, divine election must be defined so that God is not, in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of evil. It would not correspond to the character of God,<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not Template:Em but Template:Em. Template:Em. [...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is Template:Em providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is Template:Em."</ref> especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.Template:Sfn On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Classical Arminianism does Template:Em say God never interferes with free will. It says God Template:Em foreordains or renders certain evil. [...] An Arminian Template:Em believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs. [...] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will – as if that were central in and of itself. Classical Arminians have gone out of our way (beginning with Arminius himself) to make clear that our sole reasons for believe in free will Template:Em [...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."</ref> Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures.

On one hand, it requires God to operate according to a limited mode of providence. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires God's election to be a "predestination by foreknowledge".<ref>Template:Harvnb: "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without 'prevenient grace' (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. 'A' is called 'limited providence,' 'B' is called 'predestination by foreknowledge.'"</ref> Therefore, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, aligning his certainty with human freedom of action.Template:Sfn

Philosophical view on free willEdit

Arminianism is aligned with classical free-will theism, adopting an incompatibilist position. It asserts that the free will essential for moral responsibility is inherently incompatible with determinism.Template:Sfn In Arminian theology, human beings possess libertarian free will, making them the ultimate source of their choices and granting them the ability to choose otherwise.Template:Sfn This philosophical framework upholds the concept of divine providence, allowing God's influence and supervision over creation.Template:Sfn However, it permits the idea of God's absolute control over human actions, as long as such control does not involve human responsibility.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Spiritual view on free willEdit

Arminianism holds that all human are initially deprived of the Holy Spirit and, as a result, exist in a moral state of total depravity.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In this condition, human free will is incapable of choosing spiritual good without the aid of divine grace.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Arminius likely believed that every person is born in this depraved condition because Adam, as humanity's representative, sinned against God—a view later shared by several prominent Arminians.Template:Sfn Like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, Arminius agreed that human free will is spiritually "captive" and "enslaved".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn However, through the action of prevenient grace, human free will can be "freed",Template:Sfn meaning it can be restored with the ability to choose the spiritual good, particularly the capacity to accept God's call to salvation.Template:Sfn

Extent and nature of the atonementEdit

File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Hugo de Groot.jpg
Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt (1631). Hugo de Groot (1583–1645).

Atonement is intended universally: Jesus's death was for all people; Jesus draws all people to himself, with the opportunity for salvation through faith.Template:Sfn

Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus, Jesus's death atones for all sins but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy [...] or that man is justified before God [...] according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."Template:Sfn Justification, therefore, is seen through mercy by the imputation of righteousness.Template:Sfn While not rigidly defined, this view suggests that the righteousness of Christ is attributed to believers, emphasizing that union with Christ (conditioned on faith) transfers his righteousness to them.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect, which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by penal substitution.Template:Sfn Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied governmentally.Template:Sfn Historical and contemporary Arminians have held one of these views.Template:Sfn

Conversion of manEdit

In Arminianism, God initiates the process of salvation by extending his grace, commonly referred to as prevenient grace, to all people. This grace works within each individual, drawing them toward the Gospel and enabling sincere faith, leading to regeneration.Template:Sfn It functions through a dynamic influence-and-response relationship, allowing individuals to accept or reject it freely.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Thus, conversion is described as a "God-initiated synergism."Template:Sfn

Election of manEdit

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."Template:Sfn God alone determines who will be saved, and he decides that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. Arminius states, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."Template:Sfn

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.Template:Sfn

Preservation of manEdit

Related to eschatological considerations, Jacobus Arminius<ref>Template:Harvnb: "First, you say, and truly, that hell-fire is the punishment ordained for sin and the transgression of the law."</ref> and the first Remonstrants, including Simon EpiscopiusTemplate:Sfn believed in everlasting fire where the wicked are thrown by God at judgment day.

Preservation is 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.Template:Sfn Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and the Holy Spirit "to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."Template:Sfn Furthermore, Christ and the Spirit are ever present to aid and assist believers through various temptations. But this security was not unconditional but conditional—"provided they [believers] stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling."<ref>Template:Harvnb: "This seems to fit with Arminius' other statements on the need for perseverance in faith. For example: 'God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ'."</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb: "[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation".</ref>

Possibility of apostasyEdit

File:Simon Episcopius, by Anonymous.jpg
Anonymous (1743). Simon Episcopius.

Arminius believed in the possibility of apostasy. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,Template:Sfn he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In 1599, he stated that the question required more scriptural examination.Template:Sfn In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), Arminius said, "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect."<ref>Template:Harvnb: "William Nichols notes: 'Arminius spoke nearly the same modest words when interrogated on this subject in the last Conference which he had with Gomarus [a Calvinist], before the states of Holland, on the 12th of Aug. 1609, only two months prior to his decease'".</ref>

However, Arminius elsewhere expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: In c. 1602, he noted that a person integrated into the church might resist God's work and that a believer's security rested solely on their choice not to abandon their faith.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Although Arminius denied having taught final apostasy in his Declaration of Sentiments, in the Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination [c. 1602] he writes that 'a person who is being "built" into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process'. Concerning the believers, 'It may suffice to encourage them, if they know that no power or prudence can dislodge them from the rock, unless they of their own will forsake their position.'"</ref>Template:Sfn He argued that God's covenant did not eliminate the possibility of falling away but provided a gift of fear to keep individuals from defecting as long as it thrived in their hearts.Template:Sfn He then taught that had David died in sin, he would have been lost.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".Template:Sfn

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In 1605, Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore, he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".Template:Sfn Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn He suggested that strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb: "If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away".</ref>

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a Remonstrance (1610) based quite literally on his Declaration of Sentiments (1607), which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.Template:Sfn In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.Template:Sfn Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever.Template:Sfn They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618), which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish."</ref> They later expressed this same view in the Remonstrant Confession (1621).Template:Sfn

Forgivability of apostasyEdit

Arminius maintained that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, it was forgivable.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn If it came from "rejection," it was not.Template:Sfn Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Nevertheless, we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen."</ref> However, other classical Arminians, including the Free Will Baptists, have taught that apostasy is irremediable.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Wesleyan ArminianismEdit

Template:Further

Distinctive aspectEdit

File:John Wesley by George Romney.jpg
Rommey, George (n.d.). John Wesley.

John Wesley thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught.Template:Sfn Wesleyan Arminianism is a merger of classical Arminianism and Wesleyan perfectionism.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Evangelical Wesleyan-Arminianism has as its center the merger of both Wesley's concept of holiness and Arminianism's emphasis on synergistic soteriology."</ref>Template:Sfn

Nature of the atonementEdit

Wesley's view of atonement is either understood as a hybrid of penal substitution and the governmental theory,<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Wesley does not place the substitutionary element primarily within a legal framework [...]. Rather [his doctrine seeks] to bring into proper relationship the 'justice' between God's love for persons and God's hatred of sin [...] it is not the satisfaction of a legal demand for justice so much as it is an act of mediated reconciliation."</ref> or it is viewed solely as penal substitution.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb: "Arminius did not believe [in the governmental theory of atonement], neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians."</ref>Template:Sfn Historically, Wesleyan Arminians adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.Template:Sfn

Justification and sanctificationEdit

In Wesleyan theology, justification is understood as the forgiveness of sins rather than being made inherently righteous. Righteousness is achieved through sanctification, which involves the pursuit of holiness in one's life.Template:Sfn Wesley taught that imputed righteousness, which refers to the righteousness credited to a believer through faith, must transform into imparted righteousness, where this righteousness becomes evident in the believer's life.Template:Sfn

Christian perfectionEdit

Wesley taught that through the Holy Spirit, Christians could achieve a state of practical perfection, or "entire sanctification", characterized by a lack of voluntary sin.<ref>Template:Harvnb "[Entire sanctification is] purity of intention."</ref> This state involves embodying the love of God and neighbor.<ref>Template:Harvnb "[Entire sanctification is] loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves."</ref> It does not mean freedom from all mistakes or temptations, as perfected Christians still need to seek forgiveness and strive for holiness. Ultimately, perfection in this context is about love, not absolute perfection.Template:Sfn

Preservation and apostasy of manEdit

Wesley believed genuine Christians could apostatize. He emphasized that sin alone does not lead to this loss; instead, prolonged unconfessed sin and deliberate apostasy can result in a permanent fall from grace.Template:Sfn However, he believed that such apostasy was not irremediable.Template:Sfn

Corporate election variationEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. In the corporate election view, God chose the believing church collectively for salvation rather than selecting individuals.<ref>Template:Harnvb: "[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."</ref> Jesus is seen as the only person elected, and individuals join the elect through faith "in Christ".<ref>Template:Harvnb: "The most conspicuous feature of Ephesians 1:3–2:10 is the phrase 'in Christ', which occurs twelve times in Ephesians 1:3–14 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."</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb: "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."</ref> This view is supported by Old Testament and Jewish concepts, where identity is rooted more in group membership than individuality.Template:Sfn

Arminianism and other viewsEdit

Template:FurtherTemplate:Protestantism

Divergence with PelagianismEdit

Pelagianism is a doctrine denying original sin and total depravity. No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;Template:Sfn both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.Template:Sfn Arminius referred to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."Template:Sfn This association is considered as libelous when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine,Template:Sfn and Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Divergence with Semi-PelagianismEdit

Semi-Pelagianism holds that faith begins with human will, while its continuation and fulfillment depend on God's grace,Template:Sfn giving it the label "human-initiated synergism".Template:Sfn In contrast, both Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism affirm that prevenient grace from God initiates the process of salvation,Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn a view sometimes referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", or "God-initiated synergism".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Following the Reformation, Reformed theologians often categorized both "human-initiated synergism" and "God-initiated synergism" as "Semi-Pelagianism",Template:Sfn often leading to mistaken belief that Arminianism aligned with Semi-Pelagianism.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Divergence with CalvinismEdit

Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharing historical roots and many theological doctrines, diverge notably on the concepts of divine predestination and election. While some perceive these differences as fundamental, others regard them as relatively minor distinctions within the broader spectrum of Christian theology.Template:Sfn

SimilaritiesEdit

  • Human spiritual condition: Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, but differ in their understanding of how God remedies this human condition.Template:Sfn

DifferencesEdit

  • Nature of election: Arminians believe election to final salvation is conditional on faith,Template:Sfn while Calvinists hold that unconditional election is based on God's predeterminism<ref>Template:Harvnb: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."</ref> making Him the ultimate cause of everything, including human faith.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "It should be conceded at the outset, and without any embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God."</ref>
  • Nature of grace: Arminians believe that, through prevenient grace, God universally restores the individual spiritual ability to choose and that subsequent justifying grace is resistible.Template:Sfn Calvinists however, assert that God's effectual call is given only to the elect and that subsequent grace is irresistible.Template:Sfn
  • Extent of the atonement: Arminians, along with four-point Calvinists, advocate for a universal atonement, contrary to the Calvinist doctrine that atonement is limited to the elect.Template:Sfn Both sides, excluding hyper-Calvinists, believe the Gospel invitation is universal and should be presented to everyone without distinction.Template:Sfn
  • Perseverance in faith: Arminians believe preservation to final salvation is conditional on faith and can be lost through apostasy. They contend for a present security in Christ, relying on His protection from all external forces.Template:Sfn Calvinists, on the other hand, hold to the perseverance of the saints, asserting that the elect will persevere in faith until the end of their lives.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "The Perseverance of the Saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again."</ref> However, a believer cannot know with certainty if they are elect until they reach the end.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "[T]his doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, if rightly understood, should cause genuine worry, and even fear, in the hearts of any who are 'backsliding' or straying away from Christ. Such persons must clearly be warned that only those who persevere to the end have been truly born again."</ref> This leads to different interpretations on the assurance of final salvation within Calvinist circles.<ref>Template:Harvnb: "John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress has blessed multitudes of Christians, but his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, is disturbing. He recounts how, in his seemingly endless search for assurance of salvation, he was haunted by the question, 'How can I tell if I am elected?Template:'"</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb: "Calvin, however, has greater confidence than Luther and the Catholic tradition before him that the believer can also have great assurance of his election and final perseverance."</ref>

Divergence with open theismEdit

The doctrine of open theism states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely determined (or "settled") because people have not made their free decisions yet. God therefore knows the future partially in possibilities (human free actions) rather than solely certainties (divinely determined events).Template:Sfn Some Arminians, reject open theism, viewing it as a distortion of traditional Arminianism.<ref>Template:Harvnb. Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections.</ref> They believe it shifts away from classical Arminianism toward process theology.Template:Sfn Others view it as a valid alternative perspective within Christianity, despite not aligning it with Arminian doctrine.Template:Sfn

See alsoEdit

Notes and referencesEdit

CitationsEdit

Template:Reflist

SourcesEdit

Template:Refbegin

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

|CitationClass=web }}

|CitationClass=web }}

|CitationClass=web }}

Template:Refend

External linksEdit

Template:Arminianism footer Template:Methodism footer Template:Christian theology Template:Christian History Template:Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church Template:Authority control

Retrieved from "https://zalansite.site/mediawiki/index.php?title=Arminianism&oldid=538"