Arminius and Arminianism

by Owen H. Alderfer

Two incidents reported by Geoffrey F. Nuttall, London pastor, in Man’s Faith and Freedom state the case for this article.[1] He reports that an examination required for a higher degree in one of the English universities included, among several alternative questions, the topic, “Since Wesley we are all Arminians.” In the other incident Nuttall reported discussing an Arminian symposium in which he was involved with a knowledgable friend, a man who had authored books on subjects related to Methodism. The friend reported: “Do you know, I never realized that there was anyone called Arminius!”

The incidents say at least two things that bear consideration: First, Arminius and the spirit of Arminianism have had enormous bearing upon Christianity in the English speaking world. Second, this is true of us whether we have ever heard of Arminius or not. And this leads to the concerns of this study: Who was James Arminius and what were some of his central ideas? Beyond this, what is Arminianism and what are its principles and impact?

James Arminius

James Arminius began life in a time of considerable religious significance. When he was born (1560) John Calvin was alive; the Council of Trent was in session; Queen Elizabeth I was bringing about the Anglican Settlement; Menno Simons was leading the Anabaptists; Arminius’ native Holland was bleeding in religious war.

By the time Arminius came into his own his homeland had largely espoused Calvinism. After study at the new Dutch University of Leyden, Arminius studied abroad in Basle and Geneva where he became thoroughly oriented in Calvinistic thinking. Returning home he became popular as a preacher in Amsterdam. When he was called upon to answer attacks upon supralapsarian views of election Arminius questioned the very views he was to defend. Called to a chair of divinity at Leyden he aired views which favored human freedom and questioned the current positions on divine decrees.

From 1603 until his death in 1609 Arminius was engaged in controversy with Calvinistic leaders of the Reformed Church. Feeling that his contemporaries in the ministry and the theological chairs of the universities distorted the Scriptures and the Fathers Arminius sought to present what he thought was the Biblical view of the nature of God, the nature of man, and the way of salvation.

The nature of God. Arminius judged that current views which saw God as decreeing the Fall and the damnation of some men from all eternity made God the author of sin. Irenic in a time when peace-loving attitudes were uncommon, Arminius framed his thought in Calvinistic patterns and differed with his opponents only at points where he felt he must. He held that God ordained to save and damn certain particular persons; however, “The decree has its foundation in 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,…”[2] There are absolute decrees, but these are three and evangelical; viz., (1) “…to appoint his Son…for a Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, Priest, and King who might destroy sin by his own death,…by his obedience…obtain salvation…”; (2) “…to receive into favor those who repent and believe…; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent persons …”; (3) “…to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the means which were necessary for repentance and faith; …”[3] He asserted, “…As believers alone are saved, so only believers are predestinated to salvation. But the Scriptures know no Election, by which God precisely and absolutely has determined to save any one without having first considered him as a believer.”[4] It must be allowed that the sovereign God permits evil. Indeed, Arminius asserted, “…Even all actions whatever, concerning evil that can possibly be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence — employing solely one caution, ‘not to conclude from the concession that God is the cause of sin.’”[5]

The nature of man. In dealing with the question of human nature Arminius’ concern was for free will. He insisted upon the Absolute in but one quarter: “I am desirous, that we should…contend FOR THE NECESSITY OF GOD ALONE,. .. and that we should contend for the CONTINGENCY OF ALL OTHER THINGS AND EFFECTS.”[6 ]God is absolute and necessary; He has decreed and provided salvation — but conditionally. When He employs his creatures in the administration of his Providence He “… conducts all things in such a manner that…he does not take away from them their nature, natural properties or the use of them, but allows them to perform and complete their own proper motions.”[7] God’s creatures, including man, are free to be themselves. No less than Calvin, Arminius held that original sin offended God and resulted in punishment. This sin is not peculiar to first man, however; it is common to the entire race so that all are under wrath thereby.[8] The powers of free will “… are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but [they have] no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.”[9] “Preventing grace” comes to the rescue so that man is capable of responding to the call of God as he will.[10] Human freedom is hereby genuine. “All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God,…these things they can actually do, without any difference of the elect and of the reprobate.”[11]

Arminius was careful to point out that he was not Pelagian in his views, an error with which he had been charged. He declared that in his own abilities man is helpless; sufficiency of grace must be ascribed to him by the Holy Spirit, “…and such sufficiency may be ascribed…, as to keep at the greatest possible distance from Pelegianism.”[12] Man is fallen, the victim of original sin, but through prevenient grace, even in his state of guilt, he has genuine freedom and the power to resist grace and choose for against God.

Soteriology. Having broken from the logic-tight system of Calvinism at the point of predestination, Arminius likewise rejected a limited atonement. Interestingly, he turned to antiquity, quoting Prosper of Aquitain to indicate and support his view: “‘With respect both to the magnitude and potency of the price, and with respect to the one general cause of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world.’”[13] Though the atonement is universal in its provisions, not all will share in it. He wrote, “The accidental result of vocation, and that which is not of itself intended by God, is the rejection of the word of grace,…the resistance offered to the Holy Spirit.” The end of this is the judgment of God.[14]

In the soteriological process justification and regeneration are logically and temporally related for Arminius. Sinners are justified — accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ, he held, and wrote, “But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that… it may be well and properly said, To a man who believes, Faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, …”[15] Regeneration is closely associated with justification. Arminius declared: “…For Christ becomes ours by faith, and we are ingrafted into Christ,…that we may draw from him the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit, …” Justification expresses in a regenerate life in which “…a man…has a mind freed from the darkness and vanity of the world, and illuminated with the true and saving knowledge of Christ,…”[16] Such experience in the life of the believer leads to a clear assurance of salvation, for, “Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ, it is impossible for him who believes, and who knows that he believes, to doubt of his own salvation, …”[17]

Sanctification is the desired end in the living of the Christian life. By grace God purifies man who is a sinner, and yet a believer and leads him in deeper knowledge and purer life. Arminius wrote, “This sanctification is not completed in a single moment; but sin,…is weakened more and more by daily losses, …”[18] Arminius doubted that man can ever in this life be free from tension in this regard as he wrote, “… Man is not fully and perfectly regenerate so long as he is in the present life.” This, however, must be understood, “… as relating not to the essence and essential parts of regeneration itself, but to the degree and measure of the quantity.”[19] Further, Arminius had serious questions about the possibility of anyone keeping the law perfectly; whatever of progress a man makes in this direction must be credited to grace.[20] In spite of these ideas Arminius insisted that justification — though not a result of work — will be productive of good works. “Faith, and faith only, (though there is no faith alone without works,) is imputed for righteousness,” he wrote.[21]

Arminianism

Arminius was a prophetic figure. This is true not so much in the specific views he declared as in the spirit he represented. Irenic, tolerant, and open-minded he was the harbinger of a new climate that was coming to birth in the Western world, a spirit that would find expression in both secular and religious thought.

After Arminius died (1609) friends who followed his thinking drew up a statement of beliefs, “The Remonstrance” of 1610, in hope of bringing about peace in the church. These summarized Arminius’ thought.[22] The statements achieved an end opposite that desired. They became the core of a theological battle that ended with the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619. In this synod a strongly Calvinistic confession was adopted and the Arminians were condemned. Those rejected established a denomination which came to be known as the Remonstrant Brotherhood.[23]

Arminianism, though rejected at first, was shortly to gain acceptance in other places; however, the directions it took and the ideas associated with the movement were often far removed from the views of Arminius himself. Within less than a century the Anglican Church was reflecting Arminian views in the Books of Homilies, though the Thirty-Nine Articles were firmly Calvinistic in tone.[24] Primarily through these homilies Arminian thought was mediated to John Wesley, an ardent champion of Arminian thought.[25] Much the same movement could be traced elsewhere.

While there were those such as Wesley who represented a fairly “pure” Arminian thought, Arminianism in due time came to be associated with ideas far removed from those of Arminius. An enquiring attitude and a conciliatory spirit had been marks of the man; now, enemies of Arminius came to associate every movement of free thinking and irenic disposition with Arminianism. Indeed, some of the Remonstrants did move from earlier positions to heterodox views in Christology and anthropology; however, “Arminian” became a pejorative term which encompassed a host of questionable positions of the Enlightenment period.

An example of this development is seen in the times of Jonathan Edwards. As pastor at Northampton in 1734 he saw in New England a spreading “Arminianism,” by which he meant trust in human ability and a libertarianism which led to self-confidence. His preaching of justification by faith alone and against Arminian principles was a key factor in the revival that led to the Great Awakening in New England.

The climate of opinion was, however, against Edwards and in favor of “Arminianism.” Even by Edwards’ time, for the most part, Arminianism was a prevailing mood. Western man was coming to have confidence in his own abilities. The Arminianism which Edwards feared developed and expanded in the century and one-half after his time. By the twentieth century men had forgotten Arminius, but the spirit and views he represented, as conveyed by those called Arminians, were a part of the mental furniture of the majority of men in the Western world.

Notes

1. Geoffrey F. Nuttall, “The Influence of Arminianism in England,” in Gerald O. McCulloh, ed., Man’s Faith and Freedom, the Theological Influence of Jacobus Arminius. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), p. 46.
2. Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, I, 5, in The Writings of James Arminius, 3 vols., tr. by James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1956), Vol. I, p. 250.
3. Ibid., p. 247.
4. Arminius, Nine Questions, I; Writings, I, p. 380.
5. Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, II; Writings, I, pp. 251, 252.
6. Arrninius, Against the Thirty-one Articles, VI; Writings, I, pp. 293 ff.
7. Op. Cit., VII, pp. 296 f.
8. Arminius, Public Disputations, VII; Writings, I, pp. 485, 486.
9. Op. Cit., XI; pp. 523, 531.
10. Arminius, Against the Thirty-One Articles, IV, 1; Writings, I, pp. 287, 288.
11. Arminius, Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed; Writings, II, pp. 496, 497.
12. Arminius, Against the Thirty-one Articles, VIII; Writings, I, 299–301.
13. Op. Cit., XII; pp. 316-317.
14. Arminius, Public Disputations, XVI; Writings, I, pp. 570-574.
15. Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, IX; Writings, I, pp. 263, 264.
16. Arminius, Dissertation on Romans VII; Writings, II, pp. 225- 229.
17. Arminius, Nine Questions, VII; Writings, I, pp. 384, 385.
18. Arminius, Private Disputations, XLIX, “On the Sanctification of Man;” Writings, II, pp. 119-121.
19. Arminius, Dissertation on Romans VII; Writings, II, p. 247.
20. Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, VII; Writings, II, pp. 255, 256.
21. Arminius, Letter to Hippolytus a Collibus, V; Writings, II, p. 473.
22. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1919), Vol. III, pp. 545-549.
23. Lambertus Jacobus van Holk, “From Arminius to Arminianism in Dutch Theology,” in Gerald O. McCulloh, op. cit., pp. 28-29.
24. See especially Articles X, “Free-Will,” and XVII, “Of Predestination and Election.”
25. John Wesley, “On God’s Vineyard,” in Sermons on Several Occasions (New York: Waugh and T. Mason, 1836), Vol. II, p. 389. Here Wesley declares his dependence on the Homilies “…in setting their judgment on the grand point of justification by faith,…”