Jump to content

Arminianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromArminians)
"Arminism" and "Arminians" redirects here. Not to be confused withArmanismorArmenians

Part ofa serieson
Arminianism
James Arminius
Jacobus Arminius
Background
Documents
Doctrine
Historical theologians
Modern theologians
Movements
iconChristianity portal
Part ofa serieson
Protestantism
Latin version of the Christian cross which is used by virtually all Protestant denominations
Concepts
History
Branches
Movements
iconChristianity portal

Arminianismis a movement ofProtestantisminitiated in the early 17th century, based on thetheologicalideas of theDutch ReformedtheologianJacobus Arminiusand his historic supporters known asRemonstrants.Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in theRemonstrance(1610), a theological statement submitted to theStates General of the Netherlands.This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines ofCalvinismrelated to its interpretation ofpredestination.

Classical Arminianism,to which Arminius is the main contributor, andWesleyan Arminianism,to whichJohn Wesleyis the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Central Arminian beliefs are that God's preparing (prevenient)gracetoregenerationis universal, and that God'sjustifyinggrace allowing regeneration is resistible.

ManyChristian denominationshave been influenced by Arminian views, notably theBaptistsin the 17th century, theMethodistsin the 18th century, and thePentecostalsin the 20th century.

History

[edit]
Further information:History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate

Precursor movements and theological influences

[edit]

According toRoger E. Olson,Arminius' beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.[1]Denominations such as theWaldensiansand other groups prior to theReformationhave, similarly to Arminianism, affirmed that each person may choose the contingent response of either resisting God's grace or yielding to it.[2]AnabaptisttheologianBalthasar Hubmaieralso promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.[1]Thesoteriologicaldoctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.[3][4]In particular,Mennoniteshave been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinism soteriology.[5]Anabaptist theologyseems to have influenced Jacobus Arminius.[3]At least, he was "sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view, and Anabaptists were commonly in attendance on his preaching."[4]Similarly, Arminius mentionsDanishLutherantheologianNiels Hemmingsenas holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.[6]

Emergence of Arminianism

[edit]
Portrait ofJacobus Arminius,fromKupferstich aus Theatrum Europaeumby Matthaeus Merian in 1662

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor and theologian in the late 16th and early 17th centuries.[7]He was taught byTheodore Beza,Calvin'shand-picked successor, but after examination of the scriptures, he rejected his teacher's theology that it is God whounconditionally electssome forsalvation.[7]Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God wasof believers,thereby making itconditional on faith.[7]Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especiallyFranciscus Gomarus,but Arminius died before a national synod could occur.[8]

Arminius died before he could satisfy the request by Holland's States General for a 14-page paper outlining his views. Arminius's followers replied in his stead, crafting theFive articles of Remonstrance(1610), in which they express their points of divergence from the stricter Calvinism of theBelgic Confession.[8]This is how Arminius's followers were calledRemonstrants,and following aCounter Remonstrancein 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.[9]

After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convincePrince Maurice of Nassauto deal with the situation.[7]Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod atDordrecht.ThisSynod of Dortwas 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. Part of this publication was the famousFive points of Calvinismin response to the five articles of Remonstrance.[8]

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.[7]Most of the early Remonstrants followed a classical version of Arminianism. However, some of them such asPhilipp van Limborch,moved in the direction ofsemi-Pelagianismand rationalism.[10]

Arminianism in the Church of England

[edit]
Main article:Arminianism in the Church of England

In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrines[11]were held, in substance, before and in parallel of Arminius.[12]TheThirty-nine Articles of Religion(finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.[12]Arminianism in theChurch of Englandwas fundamentally an expression of negation of Calvinism, and only some theologians held toclassical Arminianism,but for the rest they were eithersemi-PelagianorPelagian.[7][12][13]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.[14]English Arminianism was represented by ArminianPuritanssuch asJohn GoodwinorHigh AnglicanArminians such asJeremy TaylorandHenry Hammond.[12]Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such asWilliam Laudfought Calvinist Puritans.[12]They actually saw Arminianism in terms of astate church,an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.[7]This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) ofCharles I of England.[12]Following theEnglish Civil War(1642–1651)Charles II of England,who tolerated thePresbyterians,re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.[15]It was dominant there after theRestoration (1660)[16]for some fifty years.[12]

Baptists

[edit]

The debate between Calvin's followers and Arminius's followers is characteristic of post-Reformation church history. The emerging Baptist movement in 17th-century England, for example, was a microcosm of the historic debate between Calvinists and Arminians. The first Baptists—called "General Baptists"because of their confession of a" general "or unlimited atonement—were Arminians.[17]The Baptist movement originated withThomas Helwys,who left his mentor John Smyth (who had moved into shared belief and other distinctives of the DutchWaterlanderMennonites of Amsterdam) and returned to London to start the first English Baptist Church in 1611. Later General Baptists such asJohn Griffith,Samuel Loveday, andThomas Granthamdefended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected the Arminianism of Arminius. The General Baptists encapsulated their Arminian views in numerousconfessions,the most influential of which was theStandard Confessionof 1660. In the 1640s theParticular Baptistswere formed, diverging from Arminian doctrine and embracing the strong Calvinism of the Presbyterians andIndependents.Their robust Calvinism was publicized in such confessions as theLondon Baptist Confession of 1644and 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 asFree Will Baptists.[18]

Methodists

[edit]

In theMethodist-Calvinist controversy of the early 1770s involvingAnglicanministersJohn WesleyandGeorge Whitefield,Wesley responded to accusations ofsemi-Pelagianismby embracing an Arminian identity.[19]Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs ofArminiusand largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius' teachings.[20]Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-centuryEnglish Arminianismand by some Remonstrant spokesmen.[21]However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius' beliefs.[22]Wesley defended hissoteriologythrough the publication of a periodical titledThe Arminian(1778) and in articles such asPredestination Calmly Considered.[23]To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief intotal depravitywhile clarifying other doctrines notablyprevenient grace.[24][25]At the same time, Wesley attacked thedeterminismthat he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.[26]He typically preached the notion ofChristian perfection(fully mature, not "sinlessness" ).[7]His system of thought has become known asWesleyan Arminianism,the foundations of which were laid by him and his fellow preacherJohn William Fletcher.[27][28]Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.[29][30]In the 1830s, during theSecond Great Awakening,traces ofPelagianinfluence surfaced in theAmerican Holiness Movement.Consequently, critics ofWesleyan theologyhave occasionally unfairly perceived or labeled its broader thought.[31]However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.[25][30]

Pentecostals

[edit]

Pentecostalismhas its background in the activity ofCharles Parham(1873–1929). Its origin as a movement was in theAzusa Street Revivalin Los Angeles in 1906. This revival was led byWilliam J. Seymour(1870–1922).[32]Due to the Methodist andHolinessbackground of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.[33][34]During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.[35]Today, the two largest Pentecostal denominations in the world, theAssemblies of Godand the Pentecostal Church of God denominations, hold to Arminian views such asresistible grace,[36]conditional election,[34]orconditional security of the believerfor the first.[37]

Current landscape

[edit]

Protestant denominations

[edit]

Advocates of Arminianism find a home in many Protestant denominations,[38]and sometimes other beliefs such as Calvinism exist within the same denomination.[39]TheLutherantheological tradition bears certain similarities to Arminianism[40]and there may be some Lutheran churches that are open to it.[41]Faiths leaning at least in part in the Arminian direction include some ofhigh-churchAnglicanism.[42]Anabaptistdenominations, such as theMennonites,Hutterites,AmishandSchwarzenau Brethren,adhere toAnabaptist theology,which espouses a soteriology that is similar to Arminianism "in some respects".[43][44][41]Arminianism is found within theGeneral Baptists,[44]including the subset of General Baptists known asFree Will Baptists.[45]The majority ofSouthern Baptistsembrace atraditionalistform of Arminianism which includes a belief ineternal security,[46][47][48][41]though many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance.[49]Certain proponents of Arminianism may be found within theRestoration movementin theChristian Churches and Churches of Christ.[45]Additionally, it is found in theSeventh-day Adventist Church.[41]Arminianism (specificallyWesleyan–Arminian theology) is taught in theMethodistchurches,[50]inclusive of those denominations aligned with theholiness movementsuch as theEvangelical Methodist Church,Church of the Nazarene,theFree Methodist Church,theWesleyan Church,[45]andthe Salvation Army.[51]It is also found in a part of theCharismatics,including thePentecostals.[45][52][44][53]

Scholarly support

[edit]

Arminian theology has found support among theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists spanning various historical periods and theological circles. Noteworthy historical figures includeJacobus Arminius,[54]Simon Episcopius,[10]Hugo Grotius,[10]John Goodwin,[55]Thomas Grantham,[56]John Wesley,[57]Richard Watson,[58]Thomas Osmond Summers,[58]John Miley,[59]William Burt Pope[58]andHenry Orton Wiley.[60]

In contemporary Baptist traditions, advocates of Arminian theology includeRoger E. Olson,[61]F. Leroy Forlines,[62]Robert Picirilli[63]and J. Matthew Pinson.[64]Within the Methodist tradition, prominent supporters encompassThomas Oden,[62]Ben Witherington III,[65]David Pawson,[66]B. J. Oropeza,[67]Thomas H. McCall[61]and Fred Sanders.[68]The Holiness movement boasts theologians like Carl O. Bangs[69]andJ. Kenneth Grider.[64]Furthermore, scholars such as Keith D. Stanglin,[61]Craig S. Keener[70]andGrant R. Osborne[71]also support Arminian perspectives.

Theology

[edit]

Theological legacy

[edit]

The original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius are commonly called Arminianism, but more broadly, the term may embrace the teachings ofSimon Episcopius,[72]Hugo Grotius,John Wesley,and others. Arminian theology usually falls into one of two groups: Classical Arminianism, drawn from the teaching of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, drawing primarily from Wesley. The two groups overlap substantially.

In 529, at theSecond Council of Orange,the question at hand was whether the doctrines of Augustine on God's providence were to be affirmed, or ifsemi-Pelagianismcould be affirmed. Semi-Pelagianism was a moderate form ofPelagianismthat teaches that the first step of salvation is by human will and not thegraceof God.[73]The determination of the Council could be considered "semi-Augustinian".[74][75][76]It defined that faith, though a free act of man, resulted, even in its beginnings, from the grace of God, enlightening thehuman mindand enabling belief.[77][78][79]This describes the operation ofprevenient graceallowing the unregenerate to repent in faith.[80][81]On the other hand, the Council of Orange condemned the belief in predestination to damnation[82]implied by theAugustinian soteriology.[83]Since Arminianism is aligned with those characteristic semi-Augustinian views,[76]it has been seen by some as a reclamation ofearly churchtheological consensus.[84]Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism[85]or more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.[86]

Classical Arminianism

[edit]
Portrait ofSimon Episcopius,(Anonymous)

Classical Arminianism is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants.[87]Theologians as Forlines and Olson have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism",[88][89]while others as Picirilli and Pinson prefer to term it "Reformation Arminianism"[90]or "Reformed Arminianism".[91]

The teachings of Arminius held toSola fideandSola gratiaof theReformation,but they were distinct from particular teachings ofMartin Luther,Huldrych Zwingli,John Calvin,and otherProtestant Reformers.[92]

Classical Arminianism was originally articulated in theFive Articles of Remonstrance."These points", note Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, "are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from hisDeclaration of Sentiments."[93]A list of beliefs of classical Arminianism is given below:

God's providence and human free will

[edit]

Arminianism acceptsclassical theism,which states that God isomnipresent,omnipotent,andomniscient.[94]In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.

Besides, Arminianism view on God'ssovereigntyis based on postulates stemming from God's character, especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.[95]On the first hand, divine election must be defined in such a way that God is not in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author ofevil.It would not correspond to the character of God.[96]On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.[97]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 for God to operate according to a limited mode ofprovidence.This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires for God'selectionto be a "predestinationby foreknowledge ".[98]

In that respect, God's foreknowledge reconciles with human free will in the following way: Humanfree willis limited by original sin, though God'sprevenient gracerestores to humanity the ability to accept God's call of salvation.[99][100]God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, and therefore the future is certain and notcontingenton human action. God does not determine the future, but He does know it. God's certainty and human contingency are compatible.[101]

Roger Olson expressed those defining ideas in a more practical way: "" Arminianism, "[...] is simply a term we use in theology for the view, held by some people before Arminius and many after him, that sinners who hear thegospelhave the free will to accept or reject God's offer of saving grace and that nobody is excluded by God from the possibility of salvation except those who freely exclude themselves. But true, historical, classical Arminianism includes the belief that this free will [to repent and believe unto salvation] is itself a gift of God through prevenient grace. "[102]

Condition of humanity

[edit]

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 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."[103]

Extent and nature of the atonement

[edit]

Atonement is intended for all:Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation throughfaith.[104]

Jesus's death satisfies God's justice:The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through thecrucifixion of Christ.Thus Christ's death atones for the sins of all, 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."[105]Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might bejustified:(1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness. "[106]W. Stephen Gunter concurs that Arminius would not take a rigid position on the doctrine ofimputed righteousness(the righteousness of Christ is imputed for righteousness of the believer).[107]For Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Arminius would not object to saying rather that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to righteousness".[107]Forlines put it this way: "On the condition of faith, we are placed inunion with Christ.Based on that union, we receive His death and righteousness ".[108]

Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied bypenal substitution.[109]Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfiedgovernmentally.[110]According to Roger Olson, historical and contemporary Arminians have held to one of these views.[111]

Conversion of man

[edit]

God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace, often calledprevenientgrace,acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads toregenerationunless finally resisted. "[112]The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.[113]

Man has a freed will to respond or resist: Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.[114]

Conversion issynergistic:As Roger Olson put it: "[Arminius]' evangelical synergism reserves all the power, ability and efficacy in salvation to grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it. The only" contribution "humans make is nonresistance to grace."[115]

Election of man

[edit]

Election is conditional:Arminius definedelectionas "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."[116]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."[116]

God predestines the electto 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 throughadoption,glorification,andeternal life.[117]

Preservation of man

[edit]

Related toeschatologicalconsiderations, Jacobus Arminius[118]and the first Remonstrants, includingSimon Episcopius[119]believed ineverlasting firewhere thewickedare thrown by God atjudgment day.

Preservation is conditional:All believers have fullassurance of salvationwith the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[120]Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and theHoly Spirit"to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."[121]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 fromfalling."[122][123]

Possibility of apostasy

[edit]

Arminius believed in the possibility for a believer to commitapostasy(i.e., desert Christ by cleaving again to this evil world, losing a good conscience, or by failing to hold on to sound doctrine). However, over the period of time Arminius wrote on this question,[124]he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.[125]For instance, Arminius declared in 1599 that this matter required further study in theScriptures.[126]Arminius said also in his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), "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; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding."[127]

But in his other writings he expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: Arminius wrote in c. 1602, that "a person who is being 'built' into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process". Concerning the believers he said "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."[128][129]He continued by saying that the covenant of God (Jeremiah 23) "does not contain in itself an impossibility of defection from God, but a promise of the gift of fear, whereby they shall be hindered from going away from God so long as that shall flourish in their hearts."[130]He then taught that had King David died in his sins he would have been lost.[131][107]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".[132]

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.[107][133]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".[134]Stanglin, and McCall, point out that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".[93][107]Bangs observed that for Arminius "properly speaking it is impossible for a believer to fall away [but] it may be possible for a believer to cease believing."[135]Oropeza concludes that, according to Arminus, falling away is ultimately possible.[136]

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote aRemonstrance(1610) based quite literally on their leader's "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607) which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.[93]In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.[137]Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), theRemonstrantsbecame 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. They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618) which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.[138]Picirilli remarks: "Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger."[139]They later expressed this same view in theRemonstrant Confession(1621).[140]

Forgivability of apostasy

[edit]

Stanglin points out that Arminius held that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, then it was forgivable.[107][141]If it came from "rejection" it was not.[142]Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.[143]However, other classical Arminians as theFree Will Baptistshave taught that apostasy is irremediable.[144][145]

Wesleyan Arminianism

[edit]
Portrait ofJohn Wesley,byGeorge Romney
Further information:Wesleyan theologyandMethodism

John Wesleythoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught.[22]Wesleyan Arminianism is classical Arminianism with the addition ofWesleyan perfectionism.[146][147]Here are mentioned some positions on specific issues within Wesleyan Arminianism:

Nature of the atonement

[edit]

Steven Harper proposed that Wesley's atonement is a hybrid of thepenal substitutiontheory and thegovernmentaltheory.[148]However, theologians Robert Picirilli, Roger Olson and Darren Cushman Wood consider that the view of Wesley concerning atonement is by penal substitution.[149][150][151]Wesleyan Arminians have historically adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.[111]

Preservation and apostasy of man

[edit]

Wesley accepted the Arminian view that genuine Christians couldapostatizeand lose their salvation, as his famous sermon "A Call to Backsliders" clearly demonstrates. Harper summarizes as follows: "the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation [...] the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy."[152]Wesley believed that such apostasy was not irremediable. 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 [...] innumerable are the instances [...] of those who had fallen but now stand upright."[153]

Christian perfection

[edit]

One issue that typifies Wesleyan Arminianism isChristian perfection.[7]According to Wesley's teaching, Christians could attain a state of practical perfection, meaning a lack of all voluntary sin by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, in this life. Christian perfection (orentire sanctification), 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".[154]It is "a restoration not only to the favour, but likewise to the image of God," our "being filled with the fullness of God".[155]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."[156]

Other variations

[edit]

Corporate view of election

[edit]
Main article:Corporate election

The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. According to the corporate election view, God never chose individuals to elect to salvation, but rather He chose to elect the believing church to salvation.[157]Jesus was the only human ever elected and individuals must be "in Christ" through faith to be part of the elect.[158][159]Corporate election draws support from a similar concept of corporate election found in the Old Testament and Jewish law. Identity stemmed from membership in a group more than individuality.[160]

Arminianism and other views

[edit]
Further information:Salvation in Christianity § Protestantism

Divergence with Pelagianism

[edit]
Allegory of the theological dispute between the Arminianists and their opponentsby Abraham van der Eyk (1721), allegorically represents what many Arminians thought about the Synod: the Bible on the Arminian side was outweighed by the sword, representing the power of the state, andCalvin's Instituteson the other.

Pelagianismis a doctrine denyingoriginal sinandtotal depravity.No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;[161]both Arminius and Wesleystronglyaffirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.[162]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]."[163]David Pawson, a British pastor, decries this association as "libelous" when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine.[164]Most Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.[165][166]

Divergence with semi-Pelagianism

[edit]

Some schools of thought, notablysemi-Pelagianism,which teaches that the first step of Salvation is by human will,[73]are confused as being Arminian in nature. But classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism hold that the first step of Salvation is through theprevenient graceof God, though "the subsequent grace entails a cooperative relationship."[167][168]

Divergence with Calvinism

[edit]

Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharinghistorical rootsand 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.[169]

Similarities

[edit]
  • Human spiritual condition – Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine oftotal depravity,but differ in their understanding of how God remedies this human condition.[170]

Differences

[edit]

Divergence with open theism

[edit]

The doctrine ofopen theismstates 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).[182]Some Arminians, such as professor and theologian Robert Picirilli, reject the doctrine of open theism as a "deformed Arminianism".[183]Joseph Dongell stated that "open theism actually moves beyond classical Arminianism towardsprocess theology."[184]There are also some Arminians, like Roger Olson, who believe Open theism to be an alternative view that a Christian can have.[185]

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
  1. ^abOlson 2014,p. 1.
  2. ^Visconti 2003,pp. 253–.
  3. ^abSutton 2012,p. 86.
  4. ^abBangs 1985,p. 170.
  5. ^Bender 1953."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."
  6. ^Olson 2013b."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." )
  7. ^abcdefghiHeron 1999,p. 128.
  8. ^abcWynkoop 1967,chap. 3.
  9. ^Loughlin 1907.
  10. ^abcOlson 2009,p. 23.
  11. ^Tyacke 1990,p. 24,.
  12. ^abcdefgMcClintock & Strong 1880.
  13. ^Tyacke 1990,p. 245. "Of the various terms which can be used to describe the thrust of religions change at the time Arminian is the least misleading. It doesnotmean 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. "
  14. ^MacCulloch 1990,p. 94. "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."
  15. ^Delumeau, Wanegffelen & Cottret 2012,pp. 65–66.
  16. ^Wallace 2011,p. 233. "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."
  17. ^Gonzalez 2014,pp. 225–226.
  18. ^Torbet 1963,pp. 37, 145, 507.
  19. ^Gunter 2007,p. 78.
  20. ^Gunter 2007,pp. 66–68.
  21. ^Keefer 1987,p. 89. "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 [...]."
  22. ^abGunter 2007,p. 82.
  23. ^Gunter 2007,p. 77.
  24. ^Gunter 2007,p. 81.
  25. ^abGrider 1982,p. 55.
  26. ^Grider 1982,pp. 55–56.
  27. ^Knight 2018,p. 115.
  28. ^Grider 1982,p. 56.
  29. ^Grider 1982,pp. 53–55.
  30. ^abBounds 2011,p. 50,.
  31. ^Bounds 2011,p. 50. "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."
  32. ^Knight 2010,p. 201.
  33. ^Knight 2010,p. 5.
  34. ^abSatama 2009,pp. 17–18.
  35. ^Olson 2009,p. 93.
  36. ^Stanglin & McCall 2021,p. 240. "[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 [...]"
  37. ^AG 2017.
  38. ^Olson 2014,pp. 2–3,. "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-pietists] 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."
  39. ^Akin 1993."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."
  40. ^Dorner 2004,p. 419. "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."
  41. ^abcdOlson 2012.
  42. ^Satama 2009,p. 16.
  43. ^Sutton 2012,p. 56. "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."
  44. ^abcOlson 2014,pp. 2–3.
  45. ^abcdOlson 2009,p. 87.
  46. ^SBC 2000,chap. 5.
  47. ^Harmon 1984,pp. 17–18, 45–46.
  48. ^Walls & Dongell 2004,pp. 12–13, 16–17.
  49. ^Walls & Dongell 2004,pp. 7–20.
  50. ^Stanglin & McCall 2021,p. 139.
  51. ^Stanglin & McCall 2021,p. 241.
  52. ^Akin 1993,.
  53. ^Gause 2007."Pentecostals are almost universally Wesleyan-Arminian rather than Calvinist/Reformed, with rare exceptions among denominational Charismatic."
  54. ^Olson 2009,p. 21.
  55. ^More 1982,p. 1.
  56. ^Pinson 2011,p. 7.
  57. ^Olson 2009,p. 24.
  58. ^abcOlson 2009,p. 25.
  59. ^Olson 2009,p. 26.
  60. ^Olson 2009,p. 28.
  61. ^abcDriscoll 2013,p. 299.
  62. ^abOlson 2009,p. 29.
  63. ^Keathley 2014,p. 716.
  64. ^abKeathley 2014,p. 749.
  65. ^Kirkpatrick 2018,p. 118.
  66. ^Stegall 2009,p. 485, n. 8.
  67. ^Wilson 2017,p. 10, n. 30.
  68. ^Stanglin & McCall 2012,p. 125.
  69. ^Olson 2009,p. 47.
  70. ^Marberry 1998,p. 30.
  71. ^Osborne, Trueman & Hammett 2015,p. 134. "[...] Osborne Wesleyan-Arminian perspective."
  72. ^Episcopius & Ellis 2005,p. 8. "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."
  73. ^abStanglin & McCall 2012,p. 160.
  74. ^Oakley 1988,p. 64.
  75. ^Thorsen 2007,ch. 20.3.4.
  76. ^abBounds 2011,pp. 39–43.
  77. ^Denzinger 1954,ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 5–7.
  78. ^Pickar 1981,p. 797, ch. Faith.
  79. ^Cross 2005,p. 701.
  80. ^Olson 2009,p. 81.
  81. ^Stanglin & McCall 2012,p. 153.
  82. ^Denzinger 1954,ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 199. "We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil."
  83. ^James 1998,p. 102. "Some Scholars, especially Catholics, understand Augustine not to have articulated a doctrine of double predestination. Others, Protestants and secular scholars, are more divided on the issue. [...] From our analysis, the Bishop of Hippo may will have believed in double predestination, though he does not unequivocally develop such a doctrine."
  84. ^Keathley 2014,p. 703, ch. 12.
  85. ^Magnusson 1995,p. 62.
  86. ^Olson 2014,p. 6.
  87. ^Pinson 2002,p. 137.
  88. ^Forlines 2011.
  89. ^Olson 2009.
  90. ^Picirilli 2002,p. 1.
  91. ^Pinson 2002,pp. 149–150.
  92. ^Pinson 2003,pp. 135, 139.
  93. ^abcStanglin & McCall 2012,p. 190.
  94. ^Olson 2009,pp. 90–91.
  95. ^Olson 2014,p. 11.
  96. ^Olson 2013a."Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is notsovereigntybutGod's character.If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell.[...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue isnotprovidence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue isGod's character."
  97. ^Olson 2010."Classical Arminianism does NOT say God never interferes with free will. It says God NEVER foreordains or renders certain evil. [...] An Arminian COULD 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 AS ARMINIANS [...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."
  98. ^Olson 2018."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. ""
  99. ^Picirilli 2002,pp. 42–43, 59-.
  100. ^Pinson 2002,pp. 146–147.
  101. ^Picirilli 2002,p. 40.
  102. ^Olson 2017.
  103. ^Arminius 1853a,p. 526.
  104. ^Arminius 1853a,p. 316.
  105. ^Arminius 1853c,p. 454.
  106. ^Pinson 2002,p. 140.
  107. ^abcdefGann 2014.
  108. ^Forlines 2011,p. 403.
  109. ^Pinson 2002,pp. 140–.
  110. ^Picirilli 2002,p. 132.
  111. ^abOlson 2009,p. 224,.
  112. ^Picirilli 2002,pp. 154-.
  113. ^Forlines 2001,pp. 313–321.
  114. ^Olson 2009,p. 142.
  115. ^Olson 2009,p. 165.
  116. ^abArminius 1853c,p. 311.
  117. ^Pawson 1996,pp. 109-.
  118. ^Arminius 1853c,p. 376. "First, you say, and truly, that hell-fire is the punishment ordained for sin and the transgression of the law."
  119. ^Episcopius & Ellis 2005,ch. 20, item 4.
  120. ^abPicirilli 2002,p. 203.
  121. ^Arminius 1853b,pp. 219–220.
  122. ^Arminius 1853b,pp. 465, 466. "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 "."
  123. ^Arminius 1853c,pp. 412, 413. "[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".
  124. ^Stanglin & Muller 2009.
  125. ^Cameron 1992,p. 226.
  126. ^Arminius 1853b,pp. 219–220, A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. [1599]
  127. ^Arminius 1853a,p. 665. "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 "".
  128. ^Oropeza 2000,p. 16. "Although Arminius denied having taught final apostasy in hisDeclaration of Sentiments,in theExamination 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."
  129. ^Arminius 1853c,p. 455, Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination. [c. 1602]
  130. ^Arminius 1853c,p. 458, Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination. [c. 1602]
  131. ^Arminius 1853c,pp. 463–464, Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination. [c. 1602]
  132. ^Arminius 1853a,p. 667, Disputation 25, on Magistracy. [1602]
  133. ^Stanglin 2007,p. 137.
  134. ^Arminius 1853a,p. 388, Letter to Wtenbogaert, trans. asRemarks on the Preceding Questions, and on those opposed to them.[1605]
  135. ^Bangs 1960,p. 15.
  136. ^Oropeza 2000,p. 16,. "If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away".
  137. ^Schaff 2007.
  138. ^De Jong 1968,pp. 220-, art. 5, points 3–4. "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."
  139. ^Picirilli 2002,p. 198.
  140. ^Witzki 2010.
  141. ^Stanglin & McCall 2012,p. 174.
  142. ^Stanglin 2007,p. 139.
  143. ^De Jong 1968,pp. 220-, chap. 5.5. "Nevertheless we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are ve xing 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."
  144. ^Picirilli 2002,pp. 204-.
  145. ^Pinson 2002,p. 159.
  146. ^Olson 2009,p. 189, note 20.
  147. ^Sayer 2006,Ch. Wesleyan-Arminian theology. "Evangelical Wesleyan-Arminianism has as its center the merger of both Wesley's concept of holiness and Arminianism's emphasis on synergistic soteriology."
  148. ^Pinson 2002,pp. 227-. "Wesley does not place the substitionary 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."
  149. ^Picirilli 2002,pp. 104–105, 132–.
  150. ^Olson 2009,p. 224. "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."
  151. ^Wood 2007,p. 67.
  152. ^Pinson 2002,pp. 239–240.
  153. ^Wesley & Emory 1835,p. 247, "A Call to Backsliders".
  154. ^Wesley 1827,p. 66, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection".
  155. ^Wesley & Emory 1835,p. 73, "The End of Christ's Coming".
  156. ^Wesley 1827,p. 45, "Of Christian Perfection".
  157. ^Ridderbos 1997,p. 351. "[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."
  158. ^Walls & Dongell 2004,p. 76. "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."
  159. ^Barth 1974,p. 108. "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."
  160. ^Abasciano 2005.
  161. ^Pinson 2002,pp. 138–139.
  162. ^Arminius 1853b,p. 192.
  163. ^Arminius 1853b,p. 219. The entire treatise occupies pages 196–452
  164. ^Pawson 1996,p. 106.
  165. ^Pawson 1996,pp. 97–98, 106.
  166. ^Picirilli 2002,pp. 6-.
  167. ^Schwartz & Bechtold 2015,p. 165.
  168. ^Forlines 2011,pp. 20–24.
  169. ^Gonzalez 2014,p. 180.
  170. ^Olson 2009,pp. 31–34, 55–59.
  171. ^Olson 2009,p. 68.
  172. ^Calvin 1845,3.21.7. "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."
  173. ^Alexander & Johnson 2016,p. 204. "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."
  174. ^Olson 2009,p. 159.
  175. ^Grudem 1994,p. 692.
  176. ^Olson 2009,p. 221.
  177. ^Nicole 1995,p. 400.
  178. ^Grudem 1994,p. 970. "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."
  179. ^Grudem 1994,p. 860. "[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. "
  180. ^Keathley 2010,p. 171. "John Bunyan’sPilgrim’s Progresshas 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?” "
  181. ^Davis 1991,p. 217. "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."
  182. ^Sanders 2007,Summary of Openness of God.
  183. ^Picirilli 2002,pp. 40, 59-. Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and Open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections
  184. ^Walls & Dongell 2004,p. 45.
  185. ^Olson 2009,p. 199, note 67.

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arminianism&oldid=1234259576"