Arminianism

Precursor movements and theological influences

Arminius's beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.^[1] Before the Reformation, groups like the Waldensians similarly affirmed individual freedom over any predetermined predestination.^[2] Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) also promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.^[1] The soteriological doctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.^[3][4] In particular, Mennonites have been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinist soteriology.^[5] Anabaptist theology seems 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 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.^[6] 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.^[7] Early critics of Arminians even cited Castellio as a primary inspiration behind the Arminian movement.^[8]

Dutch Arminianism

Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.^[9] 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.^[9] Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was "of believers", thereby making it conditional on faith.^[9] Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus.^[10]

In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius presented his theology to magistrates of the States General of the Netherlands in The Hague.^[11] 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.^[10] This is how Arminius's followers were called Remonstrants, and following a Counter Remonstrance in 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.^[12]

After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau to deal with the situation.^[9] 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.^[10]

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.^[9] 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.^[13]

Arminianism in the Church of England

In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrines^[14] were held, in substance, before and in parallel with those of Arminius.^[15] The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.^[15] 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.^[9][15][16] 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 did not follow classical Arminianism.^[17] English Arminianism was represented by Arminian Puritans such as John Goodwin or High Anglican Arminians such as Jeremy Taylor and Henry Hammond.^[15] Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such as William Laud fought Calvinist Puritans.^[15] They saw Arminianism in terms of a state church, an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.^[9] In many cases, "Arminianism" was in some ways a label applied by their enemies.^[18] This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) of Charles I.^[15] Following the Interregnum (1649–1660), King Charles II, who tolerated the Presbyterians, re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.^[19] It was dominant there after the Restoration (1660)^[20] for some fifty years.^[15]

Baptists

The Baptist tradition emerged in the early 17th century in England. The first Baptists, led by the theologian Thomas Helwys, were later called "General Baptists" because of their doctrine of general atonement, an Arminian doctrine.^[21] Later General Baptists, such as John Griffith, Samuel Loveday, and Thomas Grantham, defended a soteriology similar to Classical Arminianism that reflected the original teaching of Arminius. The General Baptists encapsulated their views in numerous confessions, the most influential of which was the Standard Confession. In the 1640s the Particular Baptists were formed, diverging from any Arminian doctrine and embracing the strong Calvinism of the Presbyterians and Independents. Their robust Calvinism was publicized in such confessions as the First London Confession of Faith of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689. The Second London Confession was used by Calvinistic Baptists in America, and later revised in 1742, forming the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, whereas the Standard Confession of 1660 was used by the General Baptists and their American heirs known as Free Will Baptists.^[22]

Methodists

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.^[23] Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs of Arminius and largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius's teachings.^[24] Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and by some Remonstrant spokesmen.^[25] However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius's beliefs.^[26] Wesley defended his soteriology through the publication of a periodical titled The Arminian (1778) and in articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered.^[27] To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief in total depravity while clarifying other doctrines, notably prevenient grace.^[28][29] At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.^[30] He typically preached the notion of Christian perfection (fully mature, not "sinlessness").^[9] 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.^[31][32] Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.^[33][34] 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.^[35] However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.^[29][34]

Pentecostals

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).^[36] Due to the Methodist and Holiness background of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.^[37] During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.^[38] 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.^[39][40][41]

Protestant denominations

Advocates of Arminianism find a home in many Protestant denominations,^[42] and sometimes other beliefs such as Calvinism exist within the same denomination.^[43] The Lutheran theological tradition bears certain similarities to Arminianism^[44] and there may be some Lutheran churches that are open to it.^[45] Newer Evangelical Anglican denominations also show a level of openness to Arminian theology.^[45] 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".^[46][47][45] Arminianism is found within the General Baptists,^[47] including the subset of General Baptists known as Free Will Baptists.^[48] The majority of Southern Baptists embrace a traditionalist form of Arminianism which includes a belief in eternal security.^{[49][50][51][45]} Though it is not the predominant, Calvinism is well represented within the convention.^[52] Certain proponents of Arminianism may be found within the Restoration movement in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.^[48] Additionally, it is found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.^[45] Arminianism (specifically Wesleyan–Arminian theology) is taught in the Methodist churches,^[53] 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,^[48] and the Salvation Army.^[54] It is also found in a part of the Charismatics, including the Pentecostals.^{[48][55][47][56]}

Scholarly support

Arminian theology has found support among theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists spanning various historical periods and theological circles. Noteworthy historical figures include Jacobus Arminius,^[57] Simon Episcopius,^[13] Hugo Grotius,^[13] John Goodwin,^[58] Thomas Grantham,^[59] John Wesley,^[60] Richard Watson,^[61] Thomas Osmond Summers,^[61] John Miley,^[62] William Burt Pope^[61] and Henry Orton Wiley.^[63]

In contemporary Baptist traditions, advocates of Arminian theology include Roger E. Olson,^[64] F. Leroy Forlines,^[65] Robert Picirilli^[66] and J. Matthew Pinson.^[67] Within the Methodist tradition, prominent supporters encompass Thomas Oden,^[65] Ben Witherington III,^[68] David Pawson,^[69] B. J. Oropeza,^[70] Thomas H. McCall^[64] and Fred Sanders.^[71] The Holiness movement boasts theologians like Carl O. Bangs,^[72] H. Ray Dunning^[73] and J. Kenneth Grider.^[67] Furthermore, scholars such as Keith D. Stanglin,^[64] Craig S. Keener^[74] and Grant R. Osborne^[75] also support Arminian perspectives.

Theological legacy

The Pelagian-Augustinian framework can serve as a key paradigm for understanding Arminianism's theological and historical legacy.^[76] Before Augustine (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.^[77][78] Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.^[79] The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as "human monergism".^[80][81] This view was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431).^[82] In response, Augustine proposed a view in which God is the ultimate cause of all human actions, a compatibilist form of theological determinism.^[83] The Augustinian view is therefore referred to as "divine monergism".^[84] However, Augustinian soteriology implied double predestination,^[85] which was condemned by the Council of Arles (475).^[86]

During this period, a moderate form of Pelagianism emerged, later termed semi-Pelagianism.^[87] This view asserted that human will initiates salvation, rather than divine grace.^[88] The Semi-Pelagian view is therefore described as "human-initiated synergism".^[89] 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.^[90][91][92] This highlights the role of prevenient grace enabling human belief.^[93][94] This view, often referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", is therefore described as "God-initiated synergism".^{[95][96][97][98]} The council also rejected predestination to evil.^[99] As Arminianism aligns with key aspects of this view,^[95] some see it as a return to early Church theological consensus.^[100] Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism^[101] or, more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.^[102]

Theological main traditions

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.^[103]

Classical Arminianism

Classical Arminianism is a Protestant theological position which affirms that God's prevenient grace for regeneration is universal and that the grace allowing both regeneration and ongoing sanctification is resistible.^{[104][105][106]} This theological system was developed from the Arminius's teachings and maintained by some of the Remonstrants, such as Simon Episcopius^[107] and Hugo Grotius.^[108]

The thought of Jacobus Arminius was first notably expressed in his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) and was later articulated in the Five Articles of Remonstrance.^[109] Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of covenant theology.^[110][111] Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".^[112][113] Others prefer the terms "Reformation Arminianism"^[114] or "Reformed Arminianism",^[115] highlighting how Arminius upheld core principles of the Reformation such as sola fide and sola gratia.^[116][117]

God's providence and human free will

Arminianism holds that God is both omnipotent and omniscient.^[120] His power and knowledge are not subject to any external limitation but are exercised in accordance with his own divine nature and character.^[121] This understanding of God gives rise to two fundamental principles. First, divine action must be conceived in such a way that God is never, even secondarily, the author of evil, since this would contradict his character, especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.^[122][123] Second, human responsibility for evil must be preserved.^[124] These two principles shape the Arminian understanding of divine sovereignty. God exercises a limited mode of providence, deliberately governing creation without determining every event, and his election is understood as a "predestination by foreknowledge".^[125] Consequently, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, fully compatible with human freedom of action.^[126]

Human free will

Election of man

Reconciliation with God

Unlimited atonement with conditional application to faith

Historically, Arminius, in agreement with certain Reformed theologians, held that reconciliation with God is based in forgiveness made possible through an expiation grounded on penal substitution. In this view, at the crucifixion, Christ bears the penalty due to human sin, thereby satisfying divine justice. This atonement provides a universal provision of salvation, which is applied conditionally on the basis of faith and repentance.^[149][150] This understanding of penal substitution became the dominant view in classical Arminianism.^[151]

Other Arminians, following Hugo Grotius, argue that reconciliation with God is based on forgiveness made possible through an atonement grounded in the governmental theory.^[152] In this approach, Jesus is not strictly punished in the place of human beings. Nevertheless, his sufferings constitute an expiation intended to satisfy the justice of God. This universal provision of forgiveness is likewise applied on the basis of faith in God and repentance from sin. This position later exerted significant influence within Methodism.^[153]

Wesley's view of atonement is either understood as a hybrid of penal substitution and the governmental theory,^[154] or it is viewed solely as penal substitution.^{[155][156][157]} Historically, Wesleyan Arminians have adopted either penal substitution or the governmental theory of atonement.^[158]

Conversion of man

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.^[166] It functions through a dynamic influence-and-response relationship, allowing individuals to accept or reject it freely.^[167][139] Thus, conversion is described as a "God-initiated synergism".^[95]

Justification and sanctification

Preservation of man

Development of the classical Arminian view on apostasy

Arminius believed in the possibility of apostasy. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,^[186] he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.^[187][188] In 1599, he stated that the question required more scriptural examination.^[189] In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1608), 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."^[190]

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.^[191][192] 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.^[193] He then taught that had David died in sin, he would have been lost.^[194][170] 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".^[195]

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.^[170][196] 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".^[197] Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".^[198][170] He suggested that strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.^{[199][188][200]}

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a Remonstrance (1610) based quite literally on his Declaration of Sentiments (1608), which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.^[198] In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.^[201] 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.^[202] They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618), which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.^[203] They later expressed this same view in the Remonstrant Confession (1621).^[204]

Concerning the remediability of apostasy, Arminius maintained that apostasy resulting from "malicious" sin remained forgivable,^[170][205] whereas apostasy arising from a deliberate "rejection" of faith was not.^[206] Following Arminius, the Remonstrants held that, although apostasy was possible, it was not ordinarily regarded as irremediable.^[207][208] By contrast, other classical Arminians, including the Free Will Baptists, have regarded apostasy as irrevocable and therefore beyond remedy.^[209][210]

Divergence with Pelagianism

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;^[224] both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.^[225] 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]."^[226] This association is considered as libelous when attributed to Arminius's or Wesley's doctrine,^[227] and Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.^[228][229]

Divergence with Semi-Pelagianism

Semi-Pelagianism holds that faith begins with human will, while its continuation and fulfillment depend on God's grace,^[88] giving it the label "human-initiated synergism".^[89] In contrast, both Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism affirm that prevenient grace from God initiates the process of salvation,^[230][231] a view sometimes referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", or "God-initiated synergism".^[95][96] Following the Reformation, Reformed theologians often categorized both "human-initiated synergism" and "God-initiated synergism" as "Semi-Pelagianism",^[232] often leading to mistaken belief that Arminianism aligned with Semi-Pelagianism.^[233][234]

Divergence with Calvinism

Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharing historical roots and many theological doctrines, diverge most notably on the concepts of divine predestination and election. Some view these differences as fundamental, while others consider them relatively minor distinctions within the broader spectrum of Christian theology.^[235]

Regarding human spiritual condition, Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, but differ on how God addresses this condition.^[236] Regarding reconciliation with God, whether it is grounded in substitutive expiation^[237] or in a more subjective model of atonement,^[238] Arminians maintain that reconciliation is offered universally. Accordingly, through prevenient grace, God restores to every person the spiritual capacity to respond to him.^[239] Calvinists, by contrast, limit reconciliation to the elect, to whom alone God extends an effectual call.^[240]

Arminians affirm a divine providence that permits libertarian free will, whereas Calvinists hold a compatibilist divine determinism,^[241] under which God is considered the ultimate cause of everything, including human faith.^[242] Consequently, Arminians hold that election to final salvation is conditional on faith,^[243] whereas Calvinists consider it unconditional.^[244] As a result, Arminians believe that justifying grace is resistible,^[239] while Calvinists hold that converting grace is irresistible.^[240] Likewise, concerning perseverance, Arminians believe that preservation in final salvation is conditional on faith and can be lost through apostasy, while still affirming present security in Christ against external threats.^[185] Calvinists, on the other hand, hold to the perseverance of the saints, maintaining that the elect will persevere in faith until the end of their lives.^[245] This doctrine has given rise to two divergent interpretations, one rejecting and the other supporting an absolute assurance of salvation.^[246]

Divergence with open theism

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).^[247] Some Arminians reject open theism, viewing it as a distortion of traditional Arminianism.^[248] They believe it shifts away from classical Arminianism toward process theology.^[249] Others view it as a valid alternative perspective within Christianity, despite not aligning it with Arminian doctrine.^[250]