ris3n's Apologetics Codex

Concept

Arminianism

Intro

There are ads on our codex that pay for hosting and keep the codex free. If you can, please consider whitelisting ris3n.com or allowing scripts to support the work.

Sponsored

Arminianism is one of the three main Protestant ways of answering a hard question: how do God's sovereignty in salvation and human freedom fit together?

The Calvinist answer says God chooses individuals for salvation unconditionally, and his grace cannot finally be resisted by those he chose. The Arminian answer agrees that salvation is a work of God from start to finish, but says God chose to save those he foresaw would freely receive his gospel. Grace enables the human response, but does not force it. Christ died sufficiently for all people, even though only believers receive the benefit.

The system gets its name from Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), a Dutch Reformed theologian whose followers (the Remonstrants) wrote the Five Articles of Remonstrance in 1610 after his death. The Synod of Dort answered them in 1618-19 with what became known as TULIP, the five points of Calvinism. So Arminianism is older than the systematized version of Calvinism it is contrasted with; both are Reformed Protestant in roots.

The Arminian package has five connected pieces: conditional election (God elects in view of foreseen faith), universal atonement intent (Christ died for all, applied to believers), total depravity (Arminians fully affirm the Fall and human inability apart from grace), prevenient and resistible grace (God's grace frees the will to respond, but can be refused), and conditional perseverance (most Wesleyan Arminians hold that genuine believers can fall away). Methodism and most Pentecostal traditions are Arminian; the Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian traditions are Calvinist.

In full

The Reformed-Protestant soteriological system descending from Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and codified in the Remonstrants' Five Articles of Remonstrance (1610), characterized by conditional election, universal atonement intent, prevenient (resistible) grace, libertarian human freedom, and conditional perseverance. Arminianism is one of the three principal Protestant soteriologies in the Free Will / Sovereignty cluster, distinguished from Calvinism by locating election in God's foreknowledge of free creaturely response rather than in His unconditional decree, and from Open Theism by retaining classical exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future free choices.

Core claim

God genuinely wills the salvation of all (universal salvific will, 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9), provides Christ as a sufficient atonement for all, restores to fallen humanity (by prevenient grace) a freed capacity to respond to or resist the gospel, and elects to salvation those whom He foreknows will freely persevere in faith. Salvation is monergistic in its effecting (only God saves) but synergistic in its appropriation (the creature must freely receive grace). Human freedom is libertarian.

The Five Articles of Remonstrance (1610)

Drafted by Simon Episcopius and the followers of Arminius after his death, addressed to the States General of Holland; the document Dort answered. The five articles, point-for-point counter to what would become TULIP:

  1. Conditional election. God elects to salvation those who, by His grace, believe in Christ and persevere, election is in view of foreseen faith (Rom 8:29, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined").
  2. Universal atonement (intent). Christ died sufficiently and intentionally for all; the atonement's saving benefit is applied only to believers (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim 2:4-6).
  3. Total depravity / inability apart from grace. Apart from grace, fallen humanity cannot do any saving good, the article agrees with Calvinism on the depth of the Fall.
  4. Resistible (prevenient) grace. God's grace freely enables response to the gospel but does not compel it. Grace can be (and often is) resisted (Acts 7:51, "you always resist the Holy Spirit"; Matt 23:37).
  5. Conditional perseverance. Whether genuine believers can finally fall away from grace was left explicitly open by the Remonstrants in 1610; later Arminian and Wesleyan theology generally affirms that apostasy is possible (Heb 6:4-6; Heb 10:26-27; 2 Pet 2:20-22).

Biblical foundation

Historical development

  • Pre-Augustinian Fathers (2nd-4th c.), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, John Chrysostom: the dominant Eastern and early Western emphasis on free will and human cooperation with grace. Arminian theology often traces a continuity with this patristic stream against the later Augustinian / Calvinist line.
  • Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), Dutch Reformed pastor and professor at Leiden. Declaration of Sentiments (1608) sets out his position publicly; he died before the controversy was adjudicated.
  • The Remonstrants (1610), Simon Episcopius and forty-five followers of Arminius file the Five Articles of Remonstrance with the States General. Hugo Grotius is among their early defenders (and contributor to the governmental theory of the atonement).
  • Synod of Dort (1618-19), convened by the Dutch Reformed Church to adjudicate; the Remonstrants are condemned, ministers deposed, some exiled. The Canons of Dort are the Calvinist counter-statement.
  • John Wesley (1703-1791), recovers Arminian theology within the 18th-c. evangelical revival; Predestination Calmly Considered (1752); founds Methodism on Arminian soteriology with a strong doctrine of sanctification.
  • 19th c., Methodist and Holiness movements expand Wesleyan-Arminianism in Britain and America; Charles Finney and revivalism deepen the synergistic emphasis.
  • 20th-21st c., Thomas Oden (Classic Christianity; the consensual-orthodox revival), Roger Olson (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, 2006), ris3n Walls (Why I Am Not a Calvinist, with Joseph Dongell, 2004; Hell: The Logic of Damnation), I. Howard Marshall, F. Leroy Forlines, Robert Picirilli (Reformed Arminian tradition).

Variants

  • Reformed (Classical) Arminianism, closer to Arminius and the original Remonstrants; emphasizes total depravity and penal-substitutionary atonement; sometimes affirms unconditional security (e.g., Picirilli, Forlines). Distinct from Wesleyan Arminianism.
  • Wesleyan Arminianism, the dominant strand in Methodist, Holiness, and Pentecostal traditions; emphasizes prevenient grace, sanctification, and the possibility of entire sanctification ("perfection in love").
  • Semi-Pelagianism, sometimes confused with Arminianism but historically distinct: semi-Pelagianism holds that the first step toward God can be taken by unaided human will, then assisted by grace. Arminianism explicitly rejects this, prevenient grace must precede every saving response.

Spread of positions (where Arminianism stands)

  • vs. Calvinism, the principal historic opponent; point-for-point opposite on each of the Five Points / TULIP. Arminian-Calvinist debate is the dominant intra-Protestant soteriological fault line.
  • vs. Molinism, significant overlap (both affirm libertarian freedom, universal atonement intent, and conditional election in some sense); Molinism adds middle knowledge as a metaphysical mechanism for reconciling sovereignty with libertarian freedom. Many contemporary Arminians (e.g., Kenneth Keathley) are functionally Molinist.
  • vs. Open Theism, Arminianism retains exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future free choices and rejects Open Theism's revision of omniscience. Roger Olson and ris3n Walls have both been explicit critics of Open Theism while defending Arminianism.
  • vs. Pelagianism, Arminianism explicitly rejects Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism; prevenient grace is the load-bearing concept that distinguishes Arminian synergism from Pelagian self-salvation.
  • on freedom: Arminianism requires libertarian freedom (the capacity for genuine alternative possibilities); rejects Calvinist compatibilism as failing to ground genuine moral responsibility under unconditional election.

Standard objections (steel-manned)

  • The boasting / merit objection (the principal Calvinist charge). If election is conditioned on foreseen faith, doesn't the believer have grounds to boast? Arminian reply: faith is itself a gift made possible by prevenient grace; the believer contributes only the receptivity of empty hands. "Why one and not another?" reduces, on the Arminian account, to creaturely freedom, a difference within the creature, not an unequal distribution of divine love.
  • The sovereignty objection. Doesn't conditional election make God's eternal plan dependent on the creature, undermining divine sovereignty? Arminian reply: sovereignty includes the sovereign decision to grant libertarian freedom and to make redemption depend in part on its exercise. Foreknowledge of free choice is not control by free choice (cf. Foreknowledge vs Causation).
  • The Romans 9 objection. Texts like Rom 9:11-13 ("Jacob I loved, Esau I hated") and Rom 9:18 ("He has mercy on whom He desires") read most naturally as unconditional. Arminian reply: Romans 9 concerns corporate and vocational election (Israel's role in salvation history), not the individual eternal destinies of Jacob and Esau personally.
  • The assurance objection. If perseverance is conditional, can the believer have assurance? Arminian reply: assurance is grounded in present trust in Christ and the witness of the Spirit (Rom 8:16), not in a metaphysical guarantee of future persistence.

Tensions

  • The Calvinist-Arminian debate is the dominant intra-Protestant soteriological dispute and has not been resolved in 400 years.
  • Within Arminianism, the conditional perseverance question (can a true believer apostatize?) divides Wesleyan-Arminians (yes) from many Reformed Arminians (functionally no).
  • The relation of Arminianism to Molinism is contested: many Arminian theologians are de facto Molinist, but Olson and others insist Arminianism does not require middle knowledge.
  • Prevenient grace is the load-bearing concept; if it is universal, why isn't its enabling effect universally salvific?

See also