Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Calvinist scholar Dr. Richard A. Muller laments that the theology of Arminius is “neglected both by his admirers and by his detractors.”1 Though he disagrees with the tenor of Arminius’ theology, Muller can objectively regret the loss of Arminius over the last four centuries, and place Arminius within his rightful Reformed context: “Arminius’ theology must, in fact, be interpreted in the context of the development of scholastic Protestantism as a scholastic theology in its own right.”2 Arminius is not some rogue heretic intent on the ruination of the Church. Muller confesses that, if Arminius is teaching a theological message “stylistically and doctrinally widely divergent from and foreign to the Reformed mind of his time, he could have been ignored or at least easily dismissed.”3 This is a remarkable statement that requires some attention.
Regardless, what we find in Arminius is a similar style of Reformed thinking, but a void of Calvinistic excess. The atonement in Arminius, for example, is substitutionary in nature and satisfactory to God the Father.5 Passages throughout Scripture (e.g., John 1:29; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:2) refer not to automatic, universal salvation, but to the explicit extent of the atonement. The atonement of Christ is capable of saving all people, without qualification, even though the atonement of Christ will not save all people without qualification, since the condition for the application of the atonement procured for all people is faith in Christ (cf. Rom. 3:25 ESV) by the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit. While in Arminius we will not find a strict limited atonement theory, such is due to his rejection of unconditional election, which actually necessitates, logically, a limited atonement theory in intent and extent.
In other words, Arminius may reject Calvinism, but he also rejects Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. For one searching for a moderate or middle position between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism, Arminius’ theology is just that, the via media. Why must a sufficient prior work be performed by the Spirit of God? Because, in our fallen and sinful state, the free will of man and woman towards God and His gracious offer of salvation in and through Christ is “not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and . . . weakened; 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 Calvinist R. C. Sproul confesses: “The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.”7 We are at a loss as to how Arminius could be stronger.
These issues are important for the Calvinist since, if a person must reject Calvinism, then there is a theology for such a person that is still broadly Reformed, still strictly Protestant and Trinitarian, and will keep the individual from erring theologically. In Arminius, one maintains original sin, and Adam as representative head of all fallen mortals; as a result each person is born totally depraved and completely incapable of coming to faith in Christ apart from the ministry of the enabling Holy Spirit; God will graciously save the believer but will condemn the unbeliever; the atonement of Christ is offered to all but applied solely to the elect — i.e., those who believe in Christ; and the one who by the inward grace of the Holy Spirit perseveres by faith in Christ shall be saved. God has always known such and they are named His elect.
I think Calvinists should advance Arminius for those who reject Calvinism. Arminius delivers one from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism; he warns them of the dangers of merit and good works within Roman Catholicism; he argues against merit and good works as means of obtaining salvation and the justification of God. In Arminius one learns her need to be born anew of the Spirit of God, by grace through faith in Christ, and justified by God in Christ; he guards people, with his avid Trinitarian theology, from the damnable errors of Unitarianism; he secures one theologically within a broadly Reformed context of a substitutionary atonement and an aggressively-motivated sufficient, necessary, and enabling grace of the Holy Spirit; his sole confidence in all his theological knowledge rests in the authority of the divine and infallible Word of God; and he rescues people tempted by the lure of Open Theism by connecting the knowledge and foreknowledge of God to His very essence. Such might be the attitude of modern Calvinists: “If you must reject Calvinism, then at least embrace Arminius.”
4 Ibid.
5 Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 225-26.
6 Jacob Arminius, “Twenty-Five Public Disputations: Disputation XI. On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers,” in The Works of Arminius, the London edition, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:192.
7 R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 126.
8 Arminius, 2:341.
9 Ibid.
Varnel Watson
Good article and even better discussion. For me Joseph D. Absher Arminius permanently dissolved Calvinist theology all together. Especially the misconception about missions
Calvinists do NOT believe in missions
REALLY?
#newsflash
Varnel Watson
and accept him they shall when thy get their free will back
Joe Absher
Good reading. Thank you. But I don’t think a Calvinist would promote Jacobus Arminius as a default.
Joshwa Bedford
Joe Absher I heard John McArthur once say that he would rather someone be an Arminian than a hyper Calvinist
Kelly Crites
Arminius was a smart man. And I love my arminian brothers and sisters.
Anonymous
yes they should Kyle Williams Duane L Burgess Link Hudson Philip Williams
Anonymous
Nah. The Remonstrants had far more in common with Rome than they did Protestants
Anonymous
Kyle Williams says who?
Anonymous
Troy Day Jacob Arminius. Just look at His doctrine of Salvation vs the Magisterial Reformation. It’s quite clear that the Remonstrance was a departure from the Protestant Faith and a tacit denial of salvation by grace alone
Anonymous
Kyle Williams departure from the Protestant Faith? says who?
Anonymous
Troy Day their denial of JBFA
Anonymous
Kyle Williams Journal of Business Finance and Accounting?
Anonymous
Troy Day justification by faith alone
Anonymous
Kyle Williams naaah There you go with your calvinator forum strategies. It has been LONG proven Arminues is no neither Semi-Pelagian but pure reformer. IF you claim Semi-Pelagianismn here you have to claim it on free-will Melanchthon as well which neither you nor Duane L Burgess would dare do Philip Williams Joseph D. Absher proved this long ago https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Arm_Semi_Differences.html
Anonymous
Troy Day i’m full Pelagian!
Anonymous
Philip Williams most pentecostals are
Anonymous
Kyle Williams and you are one of those Gnostic Calvinists!
Anonymous
Philip Williams in order to conflate Calvinism and Gnosticism, you must be totally uneducated in the claims of both systems. And that’s not ad hom, just a concrete fact of the matter.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams how much of Pelagius have you read?
Anonymous
Philip Williams most of what I know of Pelagius comes from what Agustine wrote in refuting his heresy. Pelagius has been condemned by all of orthodox Christianity (historic Protestantism)
Anonymous
Kyle Williams that’s no excuse for lies and calumny. Pelagius was acknowledged to be a holy man even by Augustine. He was a strong advocate of justification by faith. Christians believed in freewill as did Augustine after his conversion. Augustine reverted to his old Manichaen teachings during his controversy with Pelagius.
Do not follow a multitude to do evil.
Anonymous
Philip Williams lets NOT listen to reason but to calvinator forums Kyle Williams is quoting again The fake Pelagius argument has NOTHIGN to do with Arminues It is the usual copout red herring strawman argument
Anonymous
Troy Day I actually said nothing of Pelagianism, until you mentioned it. I said the Remonstrants were more aligned with Rome on the Nature of Grace.
Anonymous
Which historically checks out..
Anonymous
Kyle Williams one this we know about Augustine and Calvin. They both urged the authorities to murder their theological opponents. How well do you suppose they understood the gospel?
Anonymous
Philip Williams actually that’s not quite how that played out. Historical ignorance is a huge problem in the church. Breeds alot of conspiracy geared thinking. I’m not interested in that rabbit trail.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams the darkness flees from the truth. Augustine was the first to advocate putting to death those accused of heresy. Calvin aimed to have Servetus put to death and succeeded in doing so. Not even learned Calvinist deny that, but those obviously don’t include you.
Anonymous
Philip Williams Sacralism was an unfortunate marriage of Church and state that Jesus never intended. It was the way of the world in their day, it was a product of culture. Pagans were killing just as many. Remonstrants the same…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams sacralism is othodoxy. Orthodoxy is sacralism. But though they suffered from these orthodox, there have always been separatist who eventually found their haven in America.
Anonymous
Philip Williams a conclusion that can certainly only be drawn out of biblical illiteracy and historical ignorance
Anonymous
Which is why it is still the position of Rome and Constantinople…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams so you think these Catholics are separatists like me?
Anonymous
Why arminians should accept calvinist?
Anonymous
John Rodel Ojeda no reason really – they should reject it at all times
Anonymous
We should, all without exception believe in the Grace Gospel of Jesus taught by Paul in his epistles…
Anonymous
Skip Pauley true – as well as our God given FREE will
Anonymous
Skip Pauley true – but believe in whose interpretation of exactly what grace means is the question. No simple answers if people have different interpretations. Whose view, if anyone, is right. We need to think about this.
Anonymous
Arminianism, as with the overall theology of the early Church fathers, will never die. Calvinism experiences ebb and flow in popularity but Arminianism and other non-Calvinistic theological systems remain constant. I argue, though, that Calvinists should, because of this truth, advance the theology of Arminius among those who refuse to adopt Calvinism. Why? Because Arminius is as close as one gets to Calvinism without embracing Calvinism. Whether we consider Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius, Philipp van Limborch (and other lesser known Remonstrants like Jan Uytenbogaert, Gerhard Vossius, Caspar Barlaeus, Johann Oldenbarneveldt and Conrad Vorstius), John and Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury, Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, or H. Orton Wiley, not one of these theologians, including John Wesley himself, is as Reformed in his thinking as is the Dutch Reformed scholastic theologian Jacob Arminius.