A Synthesis and Critique of James Arminius’s “Declaration of Sentiments”

By John E. Skidmore

Carl Bangs, a noted Arminius scholar, suggests that James Arminius should rightly be regarded as one of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers. He argues that Arminius’s teaching on salvation falls within the bounds of sixteenth-century Protestant theology; that Arminius’s view of “sin and grace are in general agreement with the sola gratia—sola fide emphasis of the Reformers.” [1] He argues that Arminius’s view of depravity does not differ from the view expressed by Calvin in his Institutes. Bangs states that it is Arminius’s view of predestination that is his point of departure from strict Calvinism. According to Bangs, Calvin’s view of predestination was not a universal teaching of the Reformed church, but was widely discounted outside of Geneva, even in his own time. He concludes that Arminius “articulates a position which he feels to be a valid Reformed theology of grace in harmony with the earliest sentiments of the Reformed churches in Switzerland and Holland, in harmony with the accepted Dutch confessions, and only partly divergent from Calvin himself.” [2]

Bangs further argues that much of what theologians have historically called Arminianism is foreign to the teachings of Arminius. He admonishes those who call themselves Arminians to reconsider the source of their own theology as something other than what the Dutch theologian taught. He argues that many who call themselves Arminians should engage in “theological reconstruction” if they want to do justice to the man whose name they embrace as their theological forebear.

This paper attempts to synthesize and critique Arminius’s beliefs concerning predestination as they are expressed in his Decla­ration of Sentiments of 1608. This paper will be divided into three parts. First, a brief biography of Arminius will place the theologian in his historic context. The second part summarizes Arminius’s presentation of the three schemes of predestination present in the Reformed churches of the sixteenth century, followed by a summary of Arminius’s own understanding of the doctrine. The third part presents and critiques Arminius’s objections to the prevailing views and his defense of his own view.

A Short Biography of James Arminius

James Arminius was born near Utrecht in Holland, in the year 1560. His father died when he was an infant, leaving his mother to care for three children. A clergyman from Utrecht took it upon himself to educate the young boy. Arminius resided with this clergyman until the age of fifteen. As part of his studies, he was taught Latin and Greek. Arminius was an exceptionally bright boy who excelled in his studies. During this period of his life, he dedicated himself to the service of God and had the reputation for being a pious young man.

In 1575, he entered the new University at Leyden, where he studied for six years. Once again, he proved himself to be an excellent student. Upon completion of his studies at Leyden, the city government of Amsterdam agreed to fund Arminius’s graduate studies in return for his promise to return to the city to become one of its ministers. He went to Geneva to study under Theodore Beza, the successor to John Calvin. From there, he proceeded to the University of Basle, where he delivered lectures to undergraduate students on various theological subjects. Upon completion of his training at Basle, he received the degree of Doctor of Theology. He returned to Geneva where he again undertook the study of theology for a period of three years. In 1587, after a brief tour of Italy, Arminius went to Amsterdam to become a pastor. After an examination before the Amsterdam Classis, he was licensed to preach and began his public ministry there.

In 1590, Arminius married the daughter of Laurence Jacobson Real, a judge and senator of Amsterdam. His wife, Elizabeth, bore him seven sons and two daughters. With the exception of two sons, all the children died in their youth. As a pastor, Arminius enjoyed the support of his congregation. In 1602, he was appointed to the theology faculty of the University of Leyden. His career at the University began with a cloud of suspicion regarding some aspects of his theology, and the suspicions followed him through the remainder of his life. It is not clear when Arminius reached his conclusions regarding predestination. What is known is that suspicions about his theology developed because of the answers many of his students were giving at their ordination exams. After years of being attacked, Arminius sought to vindicate himself from “false accusations” in his Declaration of Sentiments, which was delivered to the States General of the Provinces of the Netherlands in 1608. [3] Arminius states in the beginning of his treatise that “the Predestination of God, that is, the Election of men to salvation, and the Reprobation of them to destruction” has occupied his attention for many years. The Declaration primarily expresses his disagreement with the doctrine of predestination as it was taught in most of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, especially the supralapsarian strain of it. In this treatise, he also expresses his opinions on divine providence, free-will, grace, the perseverance of the saints, assurance, perfection of believers, the deity of Christ, justification, and his support for revisions to the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession.

Schemes of Predestination

In his Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius presents three views of predestination that were taught in the Netherlands churches and at the University of Leyden in his day, all three of which he rejected. The view which he is most concerned to refute places God’s absolute decree to save and reprobate specific individuals prior to the Fall. This view, which will come to be designated as supralapsarianism, will be called the “primary” view to distinguish it from the other two views, about which Arminius has much less to say. The two secondary views, which are designated as infralapsarian or sublapsarian, are more attractive to Arminius than the primary view, but he rejects them on logical grounds. Arminius follows his analysis of the three Reformed schemes of predestination with a presentation of his own view.

Reformed Schemes of Predestination

Supralapsarian Predestination

Arminius first presents the supralapsarian view of predestination in nine points. [4] In the first of these nine points, Arminius characterizes the supralapsarian position as follows:

God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, (whom he did not consider as being then created, much less as being fallen,) certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, (as others assert,) to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power. [5]

Arminius next states that those who advocate these nine points consider them to be “the foundation of Christianity, salvation and of its certainty.” According to Arminius, supralapsarians claimed that on these points “is founded the sure and undoubted consolation of all believers, which is capable of rendering their consciences tranquil; and on them also depends the praise of the grace of God, so that if any contradiction be offered to this doctrine, God is necessarily deprived of the glory of his grace, and then the merit of salvation is attributed to the free will of man and to his own powers and strength, which ascription savors of Pelagianism.” [6]

In order to simplify the supralapsarian scheme, Arminius reduces the doctrine to four principle points. The four points are as follows:

1. That God has absolutely and precisely decreed to save certain particular men by His mercy or grace, but to condemn others by His justice: and to do all this without having any regard in such decree to righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, which could possibly exist on the part of one class of men or of the other.
2. That, for the execution of the preceding decree, God determined to create Adam, and all men in him, in an upright state of original righteousness; besides which He also ordained them to commit sin, that they might thus become guilty of eternal condemnation and be deprived of original righteousness.
3. That those persons whom God has thus positively willed to save, He has decreed not only to salvation but also to the means which pertain to it (that is, to conduct and bring them to faith in Christ Jesus, and to perseverance in that faith); and that He also in reality leads them to these results by a grace and power that are irresistible, so that it is not possible for them to do otherwise than believe, persevere in faith, and be saved.
4. That to those whom, by His absolute will, God has foreordained to perdition, He has also decreed to deny that grace which is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and does not in reality confer it upon them; so that they are neither placed in a possible condition nor in any capacity of believing or of being saved. [7]

Arminius wholeheartedly rejects the supralapsarian scheme of predestination. He contends that “this doctrine of theirs contains many things that are both false and impertinent, and at an utter disagreement with each other.” Arminius finds so many faults with this scheme that he claims he does not have enough time to address them all. Therefore, he will limit his treatise to “those parts which are most prominent and extensive.” [8]

Two Secondary Views

According to Arminius, some theologians within the Reformed church described predestination as consisting of “God’s decree to make a minority of mankind partakers of his grace and glory while passing by the majority of mankind. From the latter God withheld the supernatural grace by which they might be saved, leaving them to be punished with eternal death. In these acts of saving and passing-by, God demonstrates his own liberty and justice.” [9] Those who hold this position distinguish between “predestination” and “reprobation.” Predestination, in this scheme, is only positive, referring to God’s election unto salvation. Reprobation refers to God’s passing-by of sinners, leaving them in their misery.

This scheme posits eight distinct steps with regard to the ends of salvation or damnation. First is the prescience of God, by which He foreknew those whom He had predestinated. Second is the divine predetermination, by which He foreordained the salvation of those persons whom He had foreknown. Third is the decree of predestination, which includes both election in eternity and preparation to receive grace in this life and glory in the life to come. The fourth step consists in executing this predestination by an efficacious call to faith in Christ (from which justification takes its origin) and the gift of perseverance unto the end. Fifth, the scheme of reprobation consists of two acts, those of preterition and pre-damnation. These acts are antecedent to anything within the person; that is, it has no regard for any actual sin. Sixth, two means are fore-ordained for the execution of the act of preterition: abandoning man to a state of nature, which by itself is incapable of everything supernatural; and non-communication of supernatural grace, by which their nature (if in a state of integrity) might be strengthened, and (if in a state of corruption) might be restored. Seventh, predamnation is antecedent to all things, yet it does by no means exist without a foreknowledge of the causes of damnation. It views man as a sinner, obnoxious to damnation in Adam, and on this account perishing through the necessity of divine justice. Eighth, the means ordained for the execution of this pre-damnation are just desertion and hardening. [10]

A second view of predestination that had some adherents in the Reformed church in Arminius’s day was somewhat different from the first view. Arminius summarizes this view as follows:

Because God willed within himself from all eternity to make a decree by which he might elect certain men and reprobate the rest, he viewed and considered the human race not only as created but likewise as fallen or corrupt, and on that account obnoxious to cursing and malediction. Out of this lapsed and accursed state God determined to liberate certain individuals and freely to save them by his grace, for a declaration of his mercy; but he resolved in his own just judgment to leave the rest under the curse [or malediction] for a declaration of his justice. In both these cases God acts without the least consideration of repentance and faith in those whom he elects, or of impenitence and unbelief in those whom he reprobates. [11]

Arminius states that this view “places the fall of man, not as a means fore-ordained for the execution of the preceding decree of Predestination, but as something that might furnish a fixed purpose or occasion for making this decree of Predestination.” [12] This relationship of predestination to the fall distinguishes the two secondary views from the primary view.

Arminius states that the two secondary schemes of predestination are similar in that “neither of them lays down the creation or the fall as a mediate cause, fore-ordained by God, for the execution of the preceding decree of Predestination.” Although similar in this way, the two minority positions are not identical. The first scheme places election and preterition before the Fall. The second scheme does not allow any part of election and reprobation to commence until man has fallen. Arminius is critical of the two secondary opinions because, given the other tenets of their scheme, it is impossible to view the Fall of Adam in any other way than as a necessary means for the execution of the decree of predestination. Arminius argues that “the inventors” of the two schemes are united by a common desire to avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which, he believes, is the fundamental error of the primary view. [13]

Arminius finds two reasons why the first scheme fails to exonerate God from the charge of being the author of sin. First, by the decree of reprobation, God determined to “deny to man that grace which was necessary for the confirmation and strengthening of his nature, that it might not be corrupted by sin.” For Arminius, this denial is tantamount to God making it necessary for man to sin. The second reason is that, according to the decree of reprobation, all those and only those whom God bypassed are damned. Arminius concludes from this that “sin must necessarily follow from the decree of reprobation or preterition,” and thereby makes the Fall of man a means of carrying out the decree of God. [14] Arminius finds this scheme inconsistent with itself and therefore should be rejected.

The second scheme, according to Arminius, is better than the first at avoiding the conclusion that God is the author of sin except that it retains certain explanatory expressions from which the necessity of the Fall might be deduced. One of these explanatory expressions is the “Divine permission” of sin. Arminius argues that the way this permission is defined does not remove the necessity of man’s sin. Some advocates of this type of predestination explain that the glory of God is exhibited in “the demonstration of mercy and of punitive justice.” Arminius argues that “such a demonstration could not have been made, unless sin, and misery through sin, had entered into the world, to form at least some degree of misery for the least sin.” Thus, according to their definition of God’s glory, sin is a necessity. Creation itself is made subservient to the decree of predestination and therefore cannot precede it, as the latter scheme asserts. This scheme, according to Arminius, also fails the test of internal consistency. [15]

Arminius’s Scheme of Predestination

After presenting the three views of predestination that were held by theologians within the Reformed Church in his day, Arminius expresses his own sentiments on predestination in twenty points. In his first four points, Arminius posits four “absolute decrees” of God. In the remaining sixteen points, he states why his scheme of predestination is to be preferred.

According to Arminius, the first decree consists in appointing Jesus Christ to be a mediator between Himself and sinful men. [16] Second, God decreed to save those penitents and believers who persevere to the end. God also decreed to damn impenitent and unbelieving persons. Third, God decreed to administer the means necessary for repentance and faith. Fourth, God decreed “to save and damn certain particular persons.” According to Arminius, this fourth decree is based on the foreknowledge of God, “by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere.” [17]

Arminius’s Arguments Regarding Predestination

In his twenty-point critique of supralapsarian predestination, Arminius provides three types of arguments to refute the supralapsarian view and to support his own view: theological, practical, and historical. First, he argues that the supralapsarian view is contrary to numerous points of Christian theology as it is revealed in Scripture. Second, he argues that the supralapsarian doctrine cannot be experienced or applied and actually leads to complacency on the part of both ministers and congregants. Third, he argues that the doctrine has not been accepted in the church historically, including the Protestant churches. In contrast, he argues that his view is consistent with Christian theology, can practically be applied and is a spur to godliness, and is consistent with the historic teaching of the church—including the Reformed confessions.

Theological Arguments

Arminius presents numerous theological points against the supralapsarian position and in favor of his own. The points he considers are: the nature of creation, the foundation of Christianity, the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of eternal life and punishment, the nature of sin, the nature of divine grace, the honor of Jesus Christ, the earnest pursuit of salvation, the gospel ministry, and the foundation of true religion.

The Nature of Creation

Although not his first point, the foundation of Arminius’s arguments regarding predestination is creation. He writes, “[Creation] is to be viewed as that act of God, which necessarily precedes and is antece­dent to all other acts that he can possibly either decree or undertake. Unless God had formed a previous conception of the work of creation, he could not have decreed actually to undertake any other act; and until he had executed the work of creation, he could by no means have completed any other operation.” [18]

Arminius defines creation as “a perfect act of God, by which he has manifested his wisdom, goodness and omnipotence.” Arminius argues that supralapsarian predestination is “diametrically opposed to the Act of Creation.” A previously determined reprobation is not a communication of good, but rather “a preparation for the greatest evil”; it is “an act of hatred” on God’s part. [19] Arminius asserts that his definition “is in complete concert with the act of creation.” He claims that his view affirms that the creation “had its origin in the goodness of God.” All of God’s works of providence over His creation are motivated by love for His creation and are consistent with God’s nature. [20]

Arminius’s chronological relationship of the creation before the decree is fundamentally flawed. In John’s vision of the beast, he sees those who follow the beast as being those whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life. Those who do not follow the beast are those whose names were written in the book “before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). The Apostle Paul speaks of God’s election to holiness, righteousness, and adoption as being made “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4-5). These passages teach that God’s decree of election precedes God’s creative acts. Elsewhere, Paul states that this plan of God to make known the mystery of His will is in accordance with His “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11). Contrary to Arminius’s assertions, these passages affirm that God’s predestination to salvation took place prior to the creation.

The Foundation of Christianity

Arminius rejects the claim by the supralapsarians that their view of predestination is the foundation of true Christianity, of salvation, and its certainty. He argues that the foundation of Christianity is “that decree of God by which Christ is appointed by God to be the Savior, the Head, and the Foundation of those who will be made heirs of salvation.” [21] Arminius deduces that supralapsarian predestination “is not that doctrine by which, through faith, we as lively stones are built up into Christ, the only corner stone, and are inserted into him as the members of the body are joined to their head.” [22]

Arminius summarizes the gospel as consisting of “an injunction to repent and believe” and “a promise to bestow forgiveness of sins, the grace of the Spirit, and life eternal.” He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine of predestination “contains within it no part of the gospel,” for the doctrine of predestination belongs to neither the injunction to repent nor to the promise of eternal life. The doctrine is surrounded by mysteries, known only to God, about who is chosen and by what means he will be brought to faith. For these reasons, Arminius concludes “that this doctrine of Predestination is not necessary to salvation, either as an object of knowledge, belief, hope, or performance.” [23] He asserts that it is his position on predestination that is the foundation of Christianity and salvation and is the “sum and substance of the Gospel, laid down in the Scriptures, and universally accepted in the churches.” [24]

Arminius denies that predestination has anything to do with this building up of the saints into a spiritual house, yet Peter informs his readers that they are “a chosen generation,” called by God for the purpose of showing “forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). This is a clear reference to the choosing of Israel to be God’s own people. Israel was not a special people because of their obedience but because God chose them. As the psalmist affirms, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance” (Ps. 33:12).

In the Apostle Paul’s elaboration on predestination in his letter to the Ephesians, he states that predestination includes adoption as God’s children “according to the good pleasure of his will” and that the riches of God’s grace are poured out generously “in all wisdom and prudence” (Eph. 1:5-10). Furthermore, Paul refers to all the blessings of redemption as an unfolding of the mystery of God’s will, which he calls a “plan” to unite all things in Christ. In Christ, believers obtain an inheritance because they have been called out beforehand according to the purpose of God. Paul continues by affirming that God works all things according to the counsel of His will. Paul affirms that it is God’s singular will and pleasure that predetermines who will be called to salvation—those who will be the beneficiaries of His grace and multi-faceted blessings. While not the totality of the gospel, predestination is part of God’s eternal plan, which is the foundation of Christianity and salvation.

The Nature of God

In another point, Arminius contends that the supralapsarian doctrine “is repugnant to the Nature of God, but particularly to those Attributes of his nature by which he performs and manages all things—his wisdom, justice, and goodness.” [25] First, Arminius argues that the doctrine teaches that God created something to be damned eternally in order to magnify His justice. He argues that the damnation of a creature is not a good end; therefore, it is contrary to God’s justice. Second, he argues that the object of supralapsarian predestination is to demonstrate the glory of God’s mercy and justice. Arminius asserts that, in the supralapsarian scheme, God’s glory is demonstrated “by an act that is contrary at once to his mercy and his justice.” This act is that “decree of God in which he determined that man should sin and be rendered miserable.” [26] Third, Arminius argues that the doctrine inverts the order of the wisdom of God revealed in 1 Corinthians 1:21. [27] Arminius believes this passage leaves no room for a predetermined salvation. [28]

Second, Arminius argues that the doctrine “is repugnant to the justice of God, not only in reference to that attribute denoting in God a love of righteousness and a hatred of iniquity, but also in reference to its being a perpetual and constant desire in him to render to every one that which is his due.” [29] He argues that the doctrine is inconsistent with justice because it affirms that God has absolutely willed to save certain individual men, and has decreed their salvation “without having the least regard to righteousness or obedience.” [30] Arminius infers from this teaching that “God loves such men far more than his own justice.” [31] Arminius argues that the doctrine is also opposed to justice, because it teaches that God wishes to subject His creature to misery without the creature committing any sin. The doctrine teaches that “God has willed to give to the creature not only something which does not belong to it, but which is connected with its greatest injury.” [32]

Arminius also argues that the doctrine is repugnant to the goodness of God. He defines goodness as “an affection [or disposition] in God to communicate his own good so far as his justice considers and admits to be fitting and proper.” [33] He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine teaches that “God, of himself, and induced to it by nothing external, wills the greatest evil to his creatures; and that from all eternity he has pre-ordained that evil for them, or pre-determined to impart it to them, even before he resolved to bestow upon them any portion of good.” [34] Arminius finds this teaching inconsistent with the goodness that Christ commands His followers to imitate. In this point, Arminius is primarily expressing his opposition to the doctrine of reprobation, which, he believes, is a violation of God’s wisdom, justice, and goodness.

While his reaction to the doctrine is a natural reaction, it is not one that is informed by Scripture. Paul addresses the issues of election and reprobation extensively in the ninth chapter of Romans, where he makes the case for Gentile adoption into the spiritual family of Abraham. He argues that physical descent from Abraham does not make one a child of God, for Abraham had more than one son, yet only Isaac’s descendants were chosen. One becomes a child of God, not by physical descent, but by God’s promise (vv. 6-8). Paul states that the declaration of the promise was to choose Isaac in one generation and Jacob in the next (vv. 9-13). In the latter case, Paul states that Jacob was called and Esau rejected while still in their mother’s womb. He emphasizes that this choosing was before either had done anything good or bad. He quotes the prophet Malachi, who revealed God’s sentiments regarding the twins: “I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau” (Mal. 1:2-3). Paul argues that their being chosen or rejected prior to being born is so that “the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” Arminius’s claim that the doctrine is opposed to the justice of God because it teaches that God has decreed to save some without regard for their righteousness or obedience is inconsistent with Paul’s teaching. By this argument, Arminius betrays his bent toward salvation by works. The Bible affirms that God considered righteousness and obedience when He elected some for salvation. However, the righteousness and obedience that are the bases of God’s election are Christ’s, not the sinner’s. God’s children are “chosen in Him.” God did not suspend His justice in order to save some; rather, the full force of His justice was poured out on Jesus Christ so that some would be saved (1 Pet. 2:4).

In condemning the doctrine of predestination because it violates God’s goodness, justice, and wisdom, Arminius is actually declaring God to be unjust. The Apostle Paul anticipates this objection to his teaching about God’s purpose in choosing one and rejecting another (Rom. 9:14-24). He first asks the rhetorical question, “Is God unjust?” He answers in the negative and then explains that it is God’s prerogative to have mercy on whomever He wills and to harden whomever He wills. He anticipates the next logical argument: “if God chooses, then how can anyone be found guilty, for they are only doing what they were made to do?” The Apostle does not provide a logical answer because the answer to this question takes us beyond human understanding. He answers simply by affirming that it is God’s prerogative to make one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use. In this passage, the Greek word timhn, which is translated “honor,” expresses the worth or value of an object. The word translated “dishonor” (atimian) is variously translated as shame, disrespect, vile, corruption (in the sense of decay), and reproach. In the Septuagint, atimian is used in the prophets to describe God’s punishment for sin. In 2 Timothy 2:20, Paul uses both terms to describe the various vessels in a house; some are for honorable uses and others for dishonorable uses. This example illustrates God’s purpose in creating both kinds of vessels—the potter decides beforehand the type of vessel he is creating. Arminius’s definition of predestination, based on foreknowledge, is not consistent with this illustration of predestination provided by the Apostle Paul.

The Nature of Man

Arminius argues that the supralapsarian doctrine is contrary to the nature of man “in regard to his having been created after the Divine image in the knowledge of God and in righteousness, in regard to his having been created with freedom of will, and in regard to his having been created with a disposition and aptitude for the enjoyment of life eternal.” [35] Arminius argues that, if man be deprived of any of these qualifications, admonitions to obey are ineffective. Arminius believes that the doctrine of predestination teaches that “God did undoubtedly create man after his own image, in righteousness and true holiness; but, notwithstanding this, he fore-ordained and decreed, that man should become impure and unrighteous, that is, should be made conformable to the image of Satan.” [36]

Arminius argues that another way in which the doctrine of supralapsarian predestination is contrary to the created nature of man is that it is “inconsistent with the freedom of the will, in which and with which man was created by God.” [37] Predestination “prevents the exercise of this liberty, by binding or determining the will absolutely to one object, that is, to do this thing precisely, or to do that.” [38] He concludes that predestination does violence to man even before he was created. He writes:

For, since by this Predestination it has been pre-determined, that the greater part of mankind shall not be made partakers of salvation, but shall fall into everlasting condemnation, and since this predetermination took place even before the decree had passed for creating man, such persons are deprived of something, for the desire of which they have been endowed by God with a natural inclination. This great privation they suffer, not in consequence of any preceding sin or demerit of their own, but simply and solely through this sort of Predestination. [39]

The Scriptures affirm the unqualified sovereignty of God but also affirm the responsibility of man for his own choices. This creates a tension in the human mind that cannot be resolved but must be accepted by everyone who holds to the authority of Scripture. One example of this tension is found in the circumstances of Joseph who was mistreated by his brothers, by Pharaoh’s wife, and by other servants in Pharaoh’s house. Joseph’s brothers acknowledge their guilt in betraying their brother. [40] Joseph also acknowledges their guilt, yet saw in their actions the hand of God. A second example of this tension is found in the hardening of Pharaoah’s heart during the episode of the ten plagues. [41] The Scripture expresses that, in some cases, Pharaoh’s heart “was hardened” and in other cases that God hardened his heart. The sovereignty of God over Pharaoh’s actions is affirmed when God reveals that He raised Pharaoh to power in order to show the world His own power.

God’s authority over all human kings is affirmed when he inspires the proverb, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it withsoever he will” (Prov. 21:1). This is affirmed by the prophet Ezra who reveals that Cyrus issued his edict to send the Israelites back to Jerusalem because the Lord stirred up his heart to do what had been prophesied by Jeremiah. The prophet Isaiah reveals that it was God who roused the Assyrians to plunder her neighbors in an act of judgment upon them, yet Assyria has a plan and a purpose to do evil, for which she will be judged by God (Isa. 10:5-7).

Perhaps the best example of this tension is found in the crucifixion of Christ. In his sermon to the multitude after healing the lame beggar, Peter states, “But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts 3:18). After Peter and John were arrested for preaching and released from prison, the apostles gathered together to pray for boldness to preach the gospel. In their prayer they acknowledge that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the peoples of Israel were gathered together “to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:27-28). The Scriptures affirm that the death of Christ was planned “before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

These examples affirm that God accomplishes His predetermined plans and purposes through the actions of individuals whom He holds responsible for the actions. As Louis Berkhof notes, God Himself does not always effectuate by His own direct action what He has decreed.

To decree is not to act. [42] Arminius rejects the tension that Scripture creates between the decree and the action that fulfills the decree.

The Nature of Eternal Life and Eternal Punishment

Arminius continues his attack on the supralapsarian doctrine, insisting that it is hostile to the nature of eternal life as described in the Scriptures. He argues that eternal life is called “the inheritance of the sons of God” and only those who believe in the name of Jesus Christ are the sons of God. [43] Arminius argues that eternal life is described as “the recompense of those who fight the good fight and who run well, as “a crown of righteousness,” “the reward of obedience,” and “a labor of love.” [44] Arminius concludes from these passages that “God therefore has not, from his own absolute decree, without any consideration or regard whatever to faith and obedience, appointed to any man, or determined to appoint to him, life eternal.” [45] For Arminius, faith alone does not save; faith plus obedience saves.

Arminius argues that “this predestination is also opposed to the Nature of Eternal Death, and to those appellations by which it is described in Scripture.” [46] Eternal death is called “the wages of sin”; “the punishment of everlasting destruction, which shall be recompensed to them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [47] It is also described as “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” and “a fire which shall devour the enemies and adversaries of God.” [48] From these passages, Arminius concludes that “God, therefore, has not, by any absolute decree without respect to sin and disobedience, prepared eternal death for any person.” [49] Arminius asserts that his definition agrees with the scriptural presentations of eternal life and eternal death. He argues that his definition makes sin to be real disobedience and the meritorious cause of condemnation. Furthermore, he argues that his position “harmonizes with the nature of grace” by “reconciling it most completely to the righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of the human will.” [50]

The Bible affirms that every man will be judged on the last day and receive either eternal life or eternal punishment. It is not the fact that there is eternal reward and punishment that separates the Calvinist from Arminius; the difference lies in the basis for the reward and punishment. Arminius arranges the passages of Scripture that address eternal life or death in a manner that supports his contention that every man receives a reward of life or death based on his own works, without any reference to the decree of God. He deduces from John 1:12 that a man’s faith earns him the right to be a child of God and receive an eternal inheritance. He fails to present that John 1:13 teaches that children of God are born of God, not of human will. He also fails to present fully the teaching of Titus 3:7, which speaks of Christians as God’s heirs because they have been “justified by his grace.” The context of the passage does not teach that God rewards those who do good as Arminius asserts. The Apostle Paul emphasizes that “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Arminius also fails to consider Paul’s words to the believers that at one time they were dead, but God made them alive (Eph. 2:4-9). They have been saved by grace through faith, not as a result of works. Paul adds that God saves in this manner so that no one may boast. Eternal life is not a reward for those who do good but a gift from God. Clearly, Arminius is an advocate of works righteousness and betrays one of the key emphases of the Reformers.

Arminius’s emphasis that eternal punishment is the reward for evil-doers is correct; the Bible affirms that hell is deserved and is the reward of unrighteousness. However, Arminius deduces from passages like Matthew 25:41 that eternal punishment was not predetermined by God but is the result of evil deeds. In this passage, Christ is pictured sitting on His throne on the last day, separating the sheep from the goats. To the sheep He says, “Come...inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (v. 34). Jesus states that the kingdom has been prepared specifically for this group of people. Moreover, it has been prepared for this group “before the foundation of the world.” They are specifically known before anything was created. On the other hand, the eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels, is the destiny of the goats. By implication, this place was also prepared for them before the foundation of the world.

The Nature of Sin

Arminius argues that supralapsarian predestination “is inconsistent with the Nature and Properties of Sin.” [51] First, he argues, sin is called “disobedience” and “rebellion,” neither of which can possibly apply to any person who sins of necessity because of a preceding divine decree. Second, Arminius argues, sin is the meritorious cause of damnation. God reprobates according to justice and wills reprobation in response to sin. Arminius concludes that, because sin is the cause of reprobation, it cannot be the means by which God executes the decree or will of reprobation. [52]

According to Arminius, predestination makes God to be the author of sin. First, the declaration that “God has absolutely decreed to demonstrate his glory by punitive justice and mercy, in the salvation of some men, and in the damnation of others” requires that sin had already entered into the world prior to the decree. Second, in order to obtain this objective, God had to insure the fall of man. Third, in order to insure that man would fall, God had to withdraw His sustaining grace prior to the first sin. Fourth, the doctrine ascribes to God actions that make sin a necessity. This implies that God’s primary and chief intention is to plunge man into sin, irrespective of man’s own inclination, will, or action. Arminius concludes from these arguments that supralapsarianism teaches that “it is God who sins and who, indeed, is the only sinner.” [53] Arminius argues that God’s justice and mercy are magnified by his conception of predestination because God is declared to be the cause of all good and salvation and man is the cause of sin and his own damnation. [54]

Arminius argues that predestination makes God the author of sin. By making God’s decree to judge a response to man’s sin, Arminius thinks he avoids that charge. As Loraine Boettner has observed, the existence of sin in the world is not something that can be explained logically or rationally. This problem is not unique to the Calvinist; it exists for all theists. [55] Arminius also argues that God’s decree binds someone to sin “irrespective of his own inclination, will, or action.” Arminius errs in equating a decree with an action. Passages already considered show that God decrees an end but man carries out what he devises in his own mind. God permits sin in order to accomplish His purposes; sin is completely under His control. Boettner explains that this was the teaching of the Reformers who accepted the Bible’s teaching regarding God’s sovereignty. He writes:

The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of his glory. We may rest assured that God would never have permitted sin to have entered at all unless, through his secret and over-ruling providence, he was able to exert a directing influence on the minds of wicked men so that good is made to result from their intended evil. He works not only all the good and holy affections which are found in the hearts of his people, but he also perfectly controls all the depraved and impious affections of the wicked, and turns them as he pleases, so that they have a desire to accomplish that which he has planned to accomplish by their means. [56]

Since the crucifixion of Christ was foreknown “before the foundation of the world,” and God purposed eternally to save “in Christ” through the blood of the eternal covenant, it is clear that God decreed to allow man to fall into sin even before He created him. [57] Sin is part of God’s plan for the world, yet its existence in the world is man’s responsibility.

The Nature of Divine Grace

Arminius argues that the doctrine of supralapsarian predestination is repugnant to the nature of divine grace and is destructive to it. First, he argues that predestination takes away free will. According to Arminius, grace gives man’s nature a right direction and corrects its depravity, allowing man to “possess his own proper notions.” [58] Second, the Scriptures describe grace as something which can be resisted, in contrast to the irresistibility taught by proponents of supralapsarianism. [59] Third, grace is intended for the good of those to whom it is offered and by whom it is received. Supralapsarianism, on the other hand, offers grace to reprobates only for the purpose of plunging them deeper into the abyss of hell. [60]

Arminius places the emphasis for salvation upon man’s free will. He advocates his position in spite of the fact that the Scriptures emphasize that salvation is a free gift of God. Arminius states that grace allows man to “possess his own proper notions.” He ignores passages such as Acts 16:14, where it is said that the Lord opened Lydia’s heart “that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” Lydia’s belief was dependent upon a work of God within her. The emphasis of the Bible is that sinners are “renewed” by the Holy Spirit; they are new creatures. [61] They do not re-create themselves but are made new by the Holy Spirit.

The Honor of Jesus Christ

Arminius argues that his concept of predestination honors Jesus Christ as “the foundation of predestination” and “the meritorious as well as communicative cause of salvation.” [62] In contrast, he concludes, the supralapsarian doctrine “is highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ our Savior.” [63] Arminius quotes an unnamed supralapsarian as teaching “that God has absolutely willed the salvation of certain men, by the first and supreme decree which he passed, and on which all his other decrees depend and are consequent.” [64] Arminius declares that Christ is not made the foundation of election in this scheme because men were predestined to be saved prior to Christ being predestined to save them. He also argues that it denies that Christ is the meritorious cause of the preordained salvation and relegates Him to be the mere minister and instrument that applies salvation to us. Indeed, he argues that, if God absolutely decreed the salvation of some, then it is impossible for them to have lost salvation in the first place. [65]

The eternal covenant to save sinners was made between the persons of the Trinity before the creation of man. It is inconceivable how Arminius can argue that the priority of a decree made by the Trinity can dishonor Christ. When salvation was pre-ordained, it was pre-ordained with Christ’s sacrifice as the basis.

Practical Arguments

In addition to his numerous theological arguments, Arminius also includes practical arguments in his attack on predestination. He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine cannot be experienced or applied and actually leads to complacency on the part of ministers and sinners. He argues that his view of predestination leads to the earnest pursuit of God and holiness.

The Earnest Pursuit of Salvation

Arminius argues that the supralapsarian doctrine is “hurtful to the salvation of men.” The doctrine is hurtful because “it prevents that saving and godly sorrow for sins that have been committed, which cannot exist in those who have no consciousness of sin.” [66] Arminius argues that a man who has sinned “through the unavoidable necessity of the decree of God, cannot possibly have this kind of consciousness of sin.” [67] A second reason that the doctrine undermines salvation is “because it removes all pious solicitude about being converted from sin unto God.” [68] A third reason that the doctrine undermines salvation is “because it restrains, in persons that are converted, all zeal and studious regard for good works.” [69] Arminius also argues that the doctrine of predestination undermines prayer because it makes prayer only an instrument of worship. [70] A fifth reason that the doctrine undermines salvation is that it takes away the “fear and trembling with which we are commanded to work out our own salvation.” [71] A sixth reason that the doctrine undermines salvation, is that it produces within men a twofold despair. First, it produces despair because they are unable to perform the duties God requires, and thus, they cease striving. Second, it produces despair because they cannot obtain that which they earnestly seek. When a person is taught that “God has determined not to confer salvation on them but damnation,” he despairs of pursuing righteousness and salvation. [72]

Arminius argues that his scheme of predestination promotes the salvation of men. It promotes salvation “by exciting and creating within the mind of man sorrow on account of sin, a solicitude about his conversion, faith in Jesus Christ, a studious desire to perform good works, and zeal in prayer—and by causing men to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.” [73] He argues that it also prevents despair from overtaking a Christian because it teaches that God rewards those who seek Him.

Arminius characterizes the supralapsarian position as rendering man entirely impassionate in the salvation process. The Scripture teaches that man is dead in sin and incapable of understanding spiritual truth. [74] Without the prior working of the Holy Spirit, a person cannot comprehend the gravity of his sin and his spiritual state. When the Holy Spirit renews a sinner, he has a new heart and a new mind for seeking God. His renewed state is the impetus for holy living. When confronted with his inability to follow God perfectly, the renewed person is forced to rest on Christ alone, not on his own righteousness. In this argument, Arminius has shown himself to be akin with the Galatians, who believed that they were being perfected by works of the flesh (Gal. 3:1-3).

The Gospel Ministry

Another practical argument Arminius employs is that supralapsarian predestination “inverts the order of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” [75] Arminius argues that supralapsarian predestination maintains that it is God’s absolute will to save particular individuals; God willed to give these certain individuals repentance and faith, and He does so “by means of an irresistible force, because it was his will and pleasure to save them.” [76] On the other hand, Arminius argues that, in the gospel, God pronounces eternal death on the impenitent and unbelieving. These threats are intended to deter them from unbelief and lead them to repentance.

The supralapsarian scheme teaches that God wills not to confer on certain individual men that grace which is necessary for conversion and faith because He has absolutely decreed their condemnation. [77] Arminius argues that “this Predestination is in open hostility to the ministry of the Gospel.” The doctrine is hostile to the ministry because no man can be a minister and co-laborer with God when God gives life to a dead man by an irresistible power. Neither can the Word preached be the instrument of grace and the Spirit. The second reason that the doctrine undermines the ministry of the Word is because it makes the gospel ministry the instrument of condemnation to the majority of those who hear it, without any consideration of previous rebellion. Third, according to this doctrine, when baptism is administered to reprobate children, “it is a seal of nothing, and thus becomes entirely useless.” Fourth, it hinders public prayers from being offered to God in faith when there are many among them whom God is not only unwilling to save but desires to damn. The doctrine thus discourages what the Apostle commands to be done: that prayers and supplications be made for all men. Arminius emphasizes that the reason for prayers on behalf of all men is because God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” [78] In the fifth place, Arminius argues, the doctrine renders pastors and teachers “slothful and negligent in the exercise of their ministry” because their diligence will not save the reprobate and neither will their sloth condemn the elect. [79]

Arminius states that the proper order of gospel preaching is established by his definition. First, that repentance and faith are required, then the promise of forgiveness, the grace of the Spirit, and eternal life. The ministry of the gospel is strengthened by his definition because it motivates preaching, sacraments, and prayer. In contrast, he asserts, predestination “completely subverts the foundation of religion in general, and of the Christian Religion in particular.” [80] His argument is that the New Testament teaching is summarized in Hebrews 11:6, which reads, “for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” God loves His creation, but His love of justice is greater so that it is His will and pleasure to bestow eternal life on those who seek Him and not on those who do not seek Him.

Arminius maintains that men are brought to salvation through the ministry of prayer, sacraments, and preaching. Men are capable of responding to the means without first being irresistibly renewed by the Holy Spirit. The Scripture teaches that man is saved through the preaching of the Word and through prayer when his heart is opened by the Holy Spirit to receive it. God has decreed to save sinners through means, not usually without means. Supralapsarian predestinarians believe in diligent study, persuasive preaching, and unceasing prayer because these are the God-ordained means of bringing men to Christ.

The Foundation of True Religion

Arminius argues that the two-fold love of God (love of rightousness and love of the creature), found in Hebrews 11:6, is the foundation of all true religion. Arminius maintains that this text opposes the two “fiery darts of Satan” that overturn true religion: security and despair. According to Arminius, the Hebrews text does away with security, for, if a man firmly believes “that God will bestow eternal life on those alone who seek him, but that he will inflict on the rest death eternal,” he cannot indulge himself in security. Likewise, if a person believes, that “God is truly a rewarder of those who diligently seek him,” he will not be in danger of falling into despair if he applies himself to the search. God’s love of justice is greater than His love for man; yet God’s love for justice does not prevent Him from rewarding those who diligently seek Him. According to Arminius, predestination denies this twofold love of God and thereby undermines the foundation of true religion. [81] In this argument, Arminius first denies the doctrine of security, then affirms it. After stating that security is one of the fiery darts of Satan, Arminius affirms that “those persons, therefore, who seek God, can by no means indulge in a single doubt concerning his readiness to remunerate.” [82] Here Arminius confuses the Reformed doctrine of security with presumption. While properly opposed to a faith without works, Arminius makes man’s efforts, rather than Christ’s, the basis for security. The doctrine of security, properly taught, lifts the redeemed sinner out of the pit of despair. While promoting assurance, Calvin opposed false security; arguing that true faith is a persevering faith that produces good works. [83] Calvin refers to an assurance of salvation that is unaccompanied by good works as a “stupid assurance.” [84]

Arminius also rejects the Reformed doctrine of predestination because he perceives that it undermines the pursuit of holiness and gospel preaching. Subsequent history has shown this argument to be fallacious. Gospel preaching and the pursuit of holiness have been hallmarks of the Reformed tradition. While that history is not without lapses and imbalances, it is incorrect to say that the doctrine produces laxity in the preaching or the behavior of the church.

Historical Arguments

Arminius intermingles three historical arguments with his theological and practical arguments against the supralapsarian position and in favor of his own position. He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine was neither espoused by the early church, nor by the early Reformers, nor by the Reformed creeds and catechisms.

The Early Church

Arminius argues that no church council in the first six centuries after Christ ever “admitted, decreed, or approved” the supralapsarian doctrine of predestination. Arminius argues that Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was not widely accepted in the councils that dealt with the Pelagian error. [85] Arminius further asserts that even Augustine’s doctrine did not agree with the supralapsarian doctrine. [86]

Most of the theologians of the first six centuries probably embraced a position similar to Arminius’s — that predestination is based on divine foreknowledge. Then, as now, the idea of reprobation was unpalatable to most people. The question for Augustine and the Reformers was not “is it palatable?” but “is it what the Bible teaches?” Augustine was a staunch advocate of predestination to eternal life before creation and denied that man had the will to seek God without divine intervention. On these points, he is united with the supralapsarians. It is only regarding reprobation that Augustine and the supralapsarians are not in agreement. [87] It should be remembered that Arminius dismissed the infralapsarian arguments on the grounds of internal inconsistency. Using an argument that he considers invalid to support his own position is disingenuous.

One of Arminius’s major assaults on the supralapsarian position is its purported novelty in church history. A survey of all of church history would be required to refute Arminius’s claim. While the novelty of the doctrine is debatable, the tables could be turned on Arminius at this point. His position regarding predestination is not articulated clearly and fully by any church council. When Arminius’s position is placed on a scale between those of Augustine and Pelagius, it is much closer to the latter than to the former. While no early church council embraced supralapsarianism, it condemned a position very close to Arminius’s own position.

The Reformed Confessions

Arminius makes the statement that he doubts whether the supralapsarian doctrine agrees with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. [88] In contrast, he asserts that his definition “agrees most excellently with the Dutch [i.e., Belgic] Confession and Catechism.” Arminius provides several examples from the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism in support of these bold assertions.

Arminius argues that the words “believers” and “unbelievers” should be substituted for the expressions “those whom” and “others” in the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession. Making these substitutions, the article reads:

We believe that—all Adam’s descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man—God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition [believers] whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving [unbelievers] in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.

Arminius is correct in his assertion that the supralapsarian doctrine is not explicitly taught in the unaltered article, but neither is it expressly denied. Supralapsarians do not deny that sinners plunged themselves into ruin. By making the substitution, Arminius attempts to make election dependent upon belief. Without the substitution, the article does not teach what Arminius asserts. What Arminius fails to consider is the implications of the clause “without any consideration of their works.” As noted previously, Arminius argues that God predestines to salvation those who diligently seek Him. If God chose to save those who would diligently seek Him, then He is considering their works. Contrary to Arminius’s teaching, the Confession explicitly denies that God considered man’s works when He chose them for salvation.

Arminius argues that his view of predestination agrees with Question 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism and the supralapsarian doctrine does not. [89] Arminius infers from the answer to this question of the Catechism “that God has not absolutely Predestinated any men to salvation; but that he has in his decree considered them as believers.” Arminius fails to consider what the Catechism teaches regarding faith. Answer 21 of the Catechism defines true faith as “an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart.” The Catechism affirms that faith is the work of the Holy Spirit, not something that resides in man naturally. Arminius also fails to consider what Zacharias Ursinus, the author of the Catechism, states with regard to Question 20. In his exposition of the Catechism, Ursinus alludes to election and reprobation as the reason why some believe and others do not when he writes, “But the reason why all men do not believe, nor apply these benefits to themselves, is a higher, and deeper question, one which does not properly belong to this place; ‘God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth’ (Rom. 9:18). And he will so reveal his mercy, that he will also exercise his justice.” [90]

Arminius also attacks the supralapsarian doctrine on the basis of Question 54 of the Catechism. [91] Arminius argues that the phrases “election to eternal life” and “agreement in the faith” stand in mutual juxtaposition so that “the latter is not rendered subordinate to the former.” He argues that the supralapsarian doctrine requires the latter to be subordinate to the former. In order to teach supralapsarianism, he argues, the text should read “the Son of God calls and gathers to himself, by his word and Spirit, a company chosen to eternal life, that they may believe and agree together in the true faith.” [92]

In his exposition of Question 54, Ursinus explains that there are three classes of men in the world: those who alienate themselves from the church voluntarily, those who exist inside the church as unbelievers, and those within the church who are the elect of God. Ursinus explains why these distinctions exist among mankind when he writes, “What now is the cause of this difference? The efficient cause of this difference is the election of God, who purposes to gather to himself in this world a church. The Son of God is the mediate executor of the will of the Father, whilst the Holy Ghost is the immediate executor. The word of God is the instrumental cause.” [93] Ursinus clearly places God’s sovereign will, not man’s free will, in the forefront of the discussion on the church. He follows the preceding comments with a discussion on the eternal predestination of God. He considers predestination to consist of election and reprobation. [94] He defines the two parts of predestination in this way:

The two parts of predestination are embraced in election and reprobation. Election is the eternal and unchangeable decree of God, by which he has graciously decreed to convert some to Christ, to preserve them in faith, and repentance, and through him to bestow upon them eternal life. Reprobation is the eternal, and unchangeable purpose of God, whereby he has decreed in his most just judgement to leave some in their sins, to punish them with blindness, and to condemn them eternally, not being made partakers of Christ, and his benefits. [95]

Ursinus declares that predestination, whether to election or reprobation, is based solely on “the good pleasure of God” and is unchangeable. This section of Ursinus’s commentary provides a sound refutation of Arminius’s claims regarding predestination in general and the Catechism’s teaching about it in particular. Arminius also appeals to the fourteenth article of the Belgic Confession in support of his contentions. [96] From this statement of the Confession, Arminius concludes that “man did not sin on account of any necessity through a preceding decree of Predestination: which inference is diametrically opposed to that doctrine of Predestination against which I now contend.” [97] Arminius focuses on the statement in the Confession that explains man’s role in the Fall but fails to consider the sixteenth article of the Confession, which addresses the eternal decree of God in electing some to salvation while passing by the rest. [98]

Article 16 of the Confession explicitly teaches the infralap­sarian position, but it does not exclude the supralapsarian position. The Confession does not address, and thereby leaves open the possibility, of God’s eternal decree of reprobation. What the article clearly teaches is that election to salvation proceeds from the eternal counsel and goodness of God—a doctrine that Arminius emphatically rejects.

The Majority of Christians Reject Predestination

Arminius’s final point is that “this doctrine of Predestination has been rejected both in former times and in our own days, by the greater part of the professors of Christianity.” [99] Arminius argues that his scheme of predestination is the one that the majority of Christians have approved. He argues that in his own day both the Lutheran and Anabaptist churches, not to mention that of Rome, consider the doctrine to be erroneous. Arminius argues that Luther and Melancthon initially approved it but later deserted it. Arminius argues that this doctrine of predestination is the source of endless controversy in the Protestant churches and hinders the acceptance of the Reformed faith more broadly. He writes:

There is likewise no point of doctrine which the Papists, Anabaptists, and Lutherans oppose with greater vehemence than this, and through whose sides (sic) they create a worse opinion of our Churches or procure for them a greater portion of hatred, and thus bring into disrepute all the doctrines which we profess. They likewise affirm “that of all the blasphemies against God which the mind of man can conceive or his tongue can express, there is none so foul as not to be deduced by fair consequence from this opinion of our doctors.” [100]

Arminius’s assertion that Lutherans, Anabaptists, and even Roman Catholics would be more willing to embrace the Reformed faith were it not for the doctrine of predestination is naïve and absurd. As Berkhof points out, Arminius’s view of predestination has more affinity with the Lutheran view, which avoids discussion of God’s decrees altogether. [101] Lutherans had long rejected the hand of brotherhood with the Reformed over consubstantiation; predestination was not the major difference between the two groups. The Anabaptists had separated from other Protestants over infant baptism and a host of other doctrines. Roman Catholicism had branded the Reformed as heretics over papal authority, sacraments, and justification. Furthermore, Roman Catholicism had an Augustinian strain within it prior to the Reformation, so predestination was not the primary reason Catholics rejected the Reformation.

Conclusion

In his theological arguments, Arminius asserts that the supralapsarian position undermines other doctrines such as God’s love, His goodness, His justice, and man’s free will. Arminius’s major problem with Reformed predestination is that, in his mind, it makes God the author of sin. His scheme of four decrees begins with God’s election of Christ as mediator between God and sinful men. In this scheme, God foresees that man would sin, yet continues to create man, knowing that he would rebel and, of necessity, be damned for eternity. Arminius’s scheme seems to leave God open to the charge of recklessness. He is more willing to limit God’s freedom than man’s freedom. He rejects what he cannot reconcile logically, even against the testimony of Scripture.

Arminius is also guilty of inconsistency in his definition of predestination. He argues that man only believes and perseveres because of God’s assisting grace; to deny this would make him a Pelagian—something he is very careful to avoid. To deny man the ability to believe and persevere without assistance from God is to deny man the freedom he so longs to preserve. Arminius dismisses the positions of the sublapsarian Calvinists because he considered them inconsistent, yet his position is inherently inconsistent.

It is clear in the Declaration of Sentiments that Arminius is not in agreement with the mainstream Reformers’ sola gratia—sola fide teaching. Salvation may be by grace, but it is not by grace alone in Arminius’s scheme. Throughout the work, he emphasizes that it is unjust for God not to consider works when determining a person’s eternal state.

Nothing could be more inconsistent with the sola gratia—sola fide tradition of the Reformation. While properly recognizing the importance of obedience, Arminius confuses the necessity of good works with merit. All the Reformers denied that works were meritorious.

Another major departure from the spirit of the Reformation is his denial of assurance to the believer. After attributing the doctrine of assurance to Satan, he then states that a person who diligently seeks God should not have any doubts about God’s willingness to accept him. On this point, Arminius is grossly inconsistent.

Arminius addresses the Declaration of Sentiments to politicians, not to theologians. Because his purpose is to exonerate himself before politicians and preserve his position at the University of Leyden, it is often short on exegesis of specific scriptural texts. He seeks revision of the Reformed standards so that the supralapsarian position is explicitly excluded. It appears that Arminius’s intent is to divide the Calvinists within the Dutch church in order to accomplish other ends. Arminius’s commitment to Erastianism may also be a major driving force behind this method.

The Declaration of Sentiments confirms Bang’s conclusion that Arminius considered himself among the mainstream Reformers of the sixteenth century. In fact, Arminius asserts that it is the supralapsarians who have departed from the mainstream of Protestant teaching. He attempts to use the Reformed catechisms and confessions to refute supralapsarianism, while his position denies what those documents clearly teach regarding free will, election, and grace. In commending Arminius as a co-laborer in the mainstream of the Reformation, Bangs shows himself to be in need of serious theological reconstruction.

Notes

1. Carl Bangs, Church History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (June, 1961):155-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3161969.
2. Ibid.
3. James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols (Vols. 1 & 2), and W. R. Bagnall (Vol. 3), 1:189; online edition, http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminius. [Hereafter, all pagination references refer to volume 1.]
4. Ibid., 190-93.
5. Ibid., 190.
6. Ibid., 193.
7. Ibid., 193-94.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., 217.
10. Ibid., 218.
11. Ibid., 219.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., 220.
14. Ibid., 220-21.
15. Ibid., 222.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., 223.
18. Ibid., 203.
19. Ibid., 202.
20. Ibid., 224.
21. Ibid., 194.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 195.
24. Ibid., 223.
25. Ibid., 200.
26. Ibid.
27. The ESV translates this text as follows: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”
28. Arminius, Works, 200.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 201.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Genesis 42:21; 45:4-5; 50:20.
41. Exodus 7-13; esp. 9:16.
42. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 105.
43. Titus 3:7; John 1:12.
44. Matthew 5:12; Hebrews 6:10; Revelation 2:10; 2 Timothy 4:7, 8.
45. Arminius, Works, 204.
46. Ibid.
47. Romans 6:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9.
48. Matthew 25:41; Hebrews 10:27.
49. Arminius, Works, 204.
50. Ibid, 225.
51. Ibid., 204.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., 205-206.
54. Ibid., 225.
55. Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932), 228.
56. Ibid., 230.
57. 1 Peter 1:20; Ephesians 3:11; Hebrews 13:20.
58. Arminius, Works, 204.
59. Ibid., 205. Arminius cites Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Hebrews 12:15; Matthew 23:37; and Luke 7:30 to support his position.
60. Arminius, Works, 205.
61. Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
62. Arminius, Works, 225.
63. Ibid., 205.
64. Ibid., 206.
65. Ibid., 207.
66. Ibid., 206.
67. Ibid., 207. Arminius finds evidence for this statement in 2 Corinthians 7:10.
68. Ibid. Arminius finds evidence for this statement in Revelation 2:3; 3:2.
69. Ibid. See Titus 3:14.
70. Ibid., 208.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid., 209.
73. Ibid., 225.
74. Ephesians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:14.
75. Arminius, Works, 208.
76. Ibid., 209.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid., 210; 1 Timothy 2:1-4.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid., 210.
81. Ibid., 214-15.
82. Ibid.
83. John Calvin, Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 10:12.
84. Calvin, Institutes, 3.17.11.
85. Arminius, Works, 196.
86. Ibid., 197.
87. Augustine appears to base reprobation on divine foreknowledge; Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, 170. See also, Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 1:451.
88. Arminius, Works, 197-98.
89. Ibid., 198. Question 20 reads: “Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ? Answer: No; only those who are ingrafted into him, and, receive all his benefits, by a true faith.”
90. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary of the Heidelberg Cathechism, trans. G. W. Williard, 4th ed. (Cincinnati: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), 34ff.
91. “Question 54. What believest thou concerning the ‘holy catholic church’ of Christ? Answer: That the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself by his Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith.”
92. Arminius, Works, 199.
93. Ursinus, Commentary, 292.
94. Ibid., 293ff.
95. Ibid., 297.
96. The Confession reads: “Man knowingly and willingly subjected himself to sin, and, consequently, to death and cursing, while he lent an ear to the deceiving words and impostures of the devil.”
97. Arminius, Works, 198.
98. This article reads, “God shewed himself Merciful, by delivering from damnation, and by saving, those persons whom, in his eternal and immutable counsel and according to his gratuitous goodness, he chose in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any regard to their works. And he shewed himself just, in leaving others in that their fall and perdition into which they had precipitated themselves.”
99. Arminius, Works, 226.
100. Ibid., 216.
101. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 100.