If you have been following this column for some time now and have grown accustomed to reading about bibliology, the title of this article may surprise you. We are going to switch directions for a time to give attention to a portion of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Providence, free-will, predestination, election, reprobation, perseverance—these are all trigger words, words which are sure to spark a measure of controversy, discomfort, and discord among most Anabaptists, and indeed, among most Christians. This is a major issue, but many of us struggle to find good answers. In this series we are going to examine the teachings of Jacob Arminius, one of the more notable theologians of church history, in hopes that we can find some.
What does the Bible have to say about salvation? Christians have given countless explanations, but most of them could be summarized under one of two views: Calvinism/Reformed or Arminian. While the nuances within these belief systems are varied and are much more complicated than these two labels can represent, these systems give us boxes to begin sorting beliefs. Nonetheless, the terms “Arminian” and “Calvinist” are loaded with much baggage, known more according to the beliefs of those who have taken the views to the extremes than by the views of those who have aimed to be biblical. It could be questioned whether the terms are redeemable. Yet inasmuch as the Bible is our ultimate authority, these terms give us viable reference points as we develop a biblical soteriology.[1]
We must understand that, while theological systems are helpful to a point, they at times interfere with a proper understanding of Scripture. We need a theology that prioritizes Scripture over systems. Scripture sometimes overlaps with Arminian doctrines, as it does with Calvinism. We must take care not to misinterpret Scripture due to a bias either toward or against either system. We also need a theology that prioritizes Scripture over sentimentalism, which allows the truth of Scripture to stand tall even when it doesn’t fit with what we have always believed or want to believe.
I encourage you not to dismiss this discussion as mere theological quibbling or useless rambling. This is not a question of irrelevant theological quandaries; it’s a question of biblical truth. What we believe about salvation reveals much about our ideas of who God is, who man is, what sin is, and how we experience salvation. But at a more fundamental level, it reveals our understanding of Scripture. Will we resist the clear teachings of Scripture on the most difficult issues, or will we submit our wills and believe the truth? How we answer that question shows us much about whether or not we have surrendered ourselves to the truth of God’s word.
In what follows, we will take a magnified look at what Arminius believed. I will be quick to say that I am in no means placing Arminius’ theology on par with Scripture. He was a man only. But he was a faithful Christian, dedicated to the Scriptures and well-versed in them. Much can be learned from his writings. We ought not build our theology on what men say or have said, but solely on the word of God. There is no other authority. That said, much can be learned from Christians long gone, especially if their words accord with Scripture. I do not intend to promote Arminius himself, but rather to look at his understanding of Scripture so we can benefit from his careful insights.
I would like to see this discussion in that vein. While Arminius was just a man, he dedicated himself to the faithful study of Scripture. He developed a cohesive explanation of the gospel and of Christianity that is both compelling and biblical. Yet he may not believe everything you think he believes. Much of what constitutes modern Arminian theology is in distinct contrast with what Arminius himself believed. Modern Arminianism tends to be man-centered, but Arminius strongly emphasized God’s sovereignty over all things. Modern Arminianism tends to emphasize human free-will, especially in salvation, but Arminius taught that salvation can only be experienced through God’s gift of faith. His views on predestination, providence, man’s free-will, and God’s grace are invaluable for us as we develop a robust theology of salvation.
In this and the following articles, we will explore what Arminius himself believed and taught (a view we will call “Classical Arminianism”), then examine what Modern Arminianism believes, then highlight some differences between Classical Arminianism and Modern Arminianism, looking especially at those areas where Modern Arminianism has departed from Classical Arminianism, and indeed, from Scripture.
What Arminius Believed (Classical Arminianism)
James Arminius (also Jacobus Arminius or Jacob Arminius) was a Dutch theologian who ministered in the years following the Reformation of the 1500s. He was born in 1560, four years before John Calvin’s death. His name is best remembered in connection with the theological system that was developed from his teachings, named Arminianism. His views are often contrasted with Calvin’s though, remarkably, they shared many beliefs in common. Arminius interacted primarily with the children of the Reformation, many of whom had begun taking Calvin’s views to an extreme. Arminius appealed to Scripture for a more balanced view of salvation, arguing most notably that salvation does not exist apart from genuine faith and continued faithfulness to Christ.
His emphasis on the necessity of faith contrasted with the main teaching of his day, which taught that God saves whosoever He wills, regardless of whether or not they demonstrate faith or the results of faith. He stiffly maintained that no one can be considered a believer if he does not have genuine faith. Thus he carefully defined the biblical doctrine of predestination[2] as including faith as necessary for anyone to be saved. If one does not have faith, he is not saved, plain and simple.
In contrast to what we often think, Arminius had a high view of God’s sovereignty, placing under God’s authority all things, all events, and all people. He said:
[God’s providence] preserves, regulates, governs and directs all things and nothing in the world happens fortuitously or by chance. Beside this, I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; only we must observe a distinction between good actions and evil ones, by saying that “God both wills and performs good acts,” but that “He only freely permits those which are evil.” Still farther than this, I very readily grant, that even all actions whatever, concerning evil, that can possible be devised or invented, may be attributed to Divine Providence employing solely one caution, “not to conclude from this concession that God is the cause of sin.[3]
He knew but one limitation to God’s sovereignty—He cannot be the cause of sin. But apart from this condition, he believed that all creation, all intelligent creatures, and all men, are entirely subject to God’s divine will.
But I want to spend the bulk of this article discussing his views on predestination. Much of his writing regarding salvation centers on predestination. It is a primary reference point by which we learn much about what he believed about God, man, free-will, grace, and particularly about how salvation is experienced. He did not define predestination as a single decree of God, but rather as a succession of decrees. He lists four absolute decrees of God, each one dependent on the previous. I have summarized them here for clarity, attempting as much as possible to maintain his original meaning.
- God decreed to save sinners through Christ.
- God decreed to receive into favor such sinners as repent, believe, and persevere. Likewise, He decreed to leave in sin, and under wrath, all who will not repent or believe.
- God decreed to administer sufficient means for repentance and faith; and to administer such according to His divine wisdom and His divine justice.
- To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This 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 persevere.[4]
Let’s look at each of these in order. First, God decreed that salvation would be offered to sinners through Christ. This is fundamental to the gospel and must be retained if we are to call ourselves Christians. First and foremost, God decided that He would make salvation possible for those who had rebelled against him. That is, Adam himself and each and every person born of Adam. All of us. Were it not for this decree, we would all be damned. Yet God in His mercy chose to send Christ to die so we can be saved. Let all who profess confidence in themselves, their goodness, their attractiveness, or some other lie that they deserve salvation remember that God and God alone is responsible for the salvation of sinners. Apart from God’s mercy, we have no plea, no bargain, no hope of anything but righteous judgement, under God’s just wrath against our personal rebellion against Him. But God determined to save sinners.
Secondly, God decreed a means—faith. That is, though He chose to make salvation possible through Christ, He has limited the enjoyment of salvation to only those who believe in Christ. Though salvation is available to all, it is only experienced by those who believe. Again, this is a sweeping decree, not including any determination of which particular persons will be saved but merely determining that only those who believe can be saved. This clarified the teaching of his day which said that God saves people regardless of whether or not they receive Him or surrender to Him in faith. Arminius argued, on the basis of Scripture, that without faith it is impossible to please God.
[1] That is, a doctrine of salvation.
[2] Like it or not, it is a biblical word.
[3] The Works of James Arminius, Volume One (Lamp Post Inc., 2015), 188.
[4] Ibid., 185.