Continued from part one. It will be helpful to read that article first for context.
Arminius proposed four absolute decrees of God regarding predestination (abridged for clarity):
- 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.[1]
Third, God decreed to provide the means to salvation. To properly understand Arminius’ meaning here, we must understand his beliefs regarding man’s sinful nature. He believed that man, in his fallen state, is incapable of producing anything truly good. Thus, for man to exhibit belief and thus be saved, he must be divinely vested with the ability to believe. Numerous citations could be given, but I will try to focus on those which are the clearest, such as this one:
In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his Creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him.…But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good.[2]
His comprehensive explanation leaves no room for misunderstanding. Arminius believed, based on his study of Scripture, that we in our sinful state cannot think, will, or do that which is really good. This most definitely includes the ultimate good of choosing Christ.
This poses a problem, then. How can a man with no ability to do good, no desire to do good, and indeed, no thought of good, accept the gospel in true faith? God must provide the means to faith. Thus God is the cause of salvation for every soul who believes. Arminius was not bashful about explicating this. He said, “[The] act of faith is not in the power of a natural, carnal, sensual, and sinful man, and no one can perform this act except through the grace of God.…Predestination is the eternal decree of God, by which he has wisely and justly resolved…to administer those means which are necessary and sufficient to produce faith in the hearts of sinful men.”[3] Also, “How can a man, without the assistance of Divine Grace, perform any thing which is acceptable to God, and which He will remunerate with the saving reward either of further grace or of life eternal?”[4] In even stronger words, he says, “Faith is the gift of God, which is conferred on those only whom He hath chosen to this, that they may hear the word of God, and be made partakers of the Holy Spirit.”[5] And in another place he says, “I acknowledge faith to be…the benefit and gift…of God.”[6]
At one point Arminius was falsely quoted as teaching that “Faith is not the pure gift of God but depends partly on the grace of God and partly on the powers of free will; that, if a man will, he may believe or not believe.” To that he said:
I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying of God’s grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner this desperate and confused. I simply affirm that this enunciation is false, “Faith is not the pure gift of God;” that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, “Faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of free will;” and that this is also false when thus enunciated, “If a man will, he can believe or not believe.”[7]
Lest you write this off as merely a milder Calvinism, I want to you understand some distinctions. (1) Arminius did not believe in irresistible grace. While he believed that God’s gift of faith is a necessary prerequisite to salvation, he did not require that the one who experiences God’s grace will always respond to the gospel. Yet he was clear that those who are saved have God alone to thank. Man, dead in his trespasses and sins, is unable to choose God unless assisted by God’s grace. (2) He did not allow that the elect were any other than those who had faith. Those called elect are those who have believed. Some extremes of Calvinism have reduced election to a mere lottery wherein the individual’s actions have no effect on his salvation. Arminius believed that only those who exercised faith could be saved. Yet preceding this he consistently pointed to the grace of God as the cause and means of any person’s faith, thus making faith itself the gift of God, not the product of the human will or any spark of life which may be thought to be present.
His understanding of the human sin nature was that, while an individual may not always be as bad as he could be, he is incapable of producing that which is good on his own. Yet not only are we impotent to produce right behaviors, we lack even the ability to think the right thoughts or desire the right things. He says man is not capable either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good. We are thoroughly bad—mind, body, spirit, and soul.
This idea of man’s sin nature is strongly resisted by many among us. More prevalent is the supposition that we are decent people who sometimes do bad things and need some help. A little training, a little discipline, a little work ethic, and all will be right. Not so. Apart from God’s grace we are entirely incapable of producing anything that could be considered good by God’s standard. Those who would disagree with this must confront a mound of historical and biblical evidence. Those willing to accept the clear teachings of Scripture must arrive at this conclusion at some level or else disregard many pertinent Scriptures.
To recap, Arminius taught that faith itself is God’s gift. He did so based on his understanding that sinners are not themselves capable of producing faith. The desire for good and the ability to do good can only be experienced by God’s grace. And since salvation through Christ can only be enjoyed by those who have faith, God is benevolently obliged to implant true faith in men so they can be saved.
Flowing out of these first three decrees is a fourth. The first three are broad principles God has predestined; the fourth is the application of the first three to individual souls. This is the decree that deals the most with those concepts we usually think of when we hear “predestination” or “election.”[8] God has not only determined how man will be saved, but He has decreed who will be saved. While this sounds Calvinistic, it seems to be what Arminius himself believed. Arminius’ disagreement with the Calvinists of his day was not over the truth of election but was over the delimitation of election. That is, Arminius believed that some people were elected to salvation while others were not. But he refused to allow that the elect could be any other than those of true belief who remained faithful to the end. God’s elect are those who receive the gospel in faith. Those who do not receive the gospel, or profess it without living it, are outside of God’s elect.
Yet he truly considered God to be the cause of salvation, both in a general sense and an individual sense. For salvation to be possible for anyone, God must make a way. But on an individual basis, if a sinner is saved, it is because God has chosen to save him. This choice, Arminius says, is based in God’s foreknowledge. He says “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.”[9]
Consider his explanation carefully. Yes, God’s election is based in His foreknowledge. But foreknowledge of what? Modern Arminians says that God foreknows those who will choose Him, and He chooses them. He loves us because we first loved Him. But that was not Arminius’ theology. Rather, he said that God’s choice is based on His foreknowledge of those who would believe by the power of His grace. The cause of their salvation is not anything in themselves but is God’s gift of faith. God knew those to whom He would give faith, therefore He knew those who would be saved. Arminius’ insistence that faith precedes election unto salvation was not his abrogation of God’s initiation in salvation but was rather the abrogation of any idea which holds that salvation can be experienced apart from faith. Faith is necessary; God gives that faith.
Did he think (as do many modern Arminians) that God chose certain ones for salvation because He knew they would, of their own volition, chose Him? Certainly not. Rather, God’s foreknowledge is simply His knowing those who would respond to His grace with genuine faith. Does that make those who are saved more noble than the unsaved? No. They are entirely indebted to God’s grace. God’s predestination is His decree that certain particular people would, through His grace, believe and persevere.
In Arminius’ further explanation of these decrees he says this view of predestination “represents God as the cause of all good and of our salvation, and man as the cause of sin and of his own damnation.”[10] That is, if anything good will happen, it must begin with God. If anything evil happens, it has begun with man. God cannot be the author of evil and man cannot be the author of good. Thus when we think of the grace we experience in the gospel, we must remember that God’s grace is the cause not only of grace made available through Christ but also of grace applied to our hearts through faith.
It does not seem that Arminius believed that God’s grace always produced true faith (irresistible), but he did believe that true faith could only result from God’s grace. To put it another way, God may give a measure of grace to some such that they are compelled to accept the gospel. Yet it is truly their choice to receive or reject it. Yet if they do receive it, they have no grounds for boasting in themselves. Their boast can only be in God who, by His grace, illuminated their minds and opened their hearts to receive the truth.
Drawing this together, Arminius believed that God predestined salvation in this order. “(1) It is my will to save believers. (2) On this man I will bestow faith and preserve him in it. (3) I will save this man.”[11] In this his views may be plainly discerned. He believed first that God desired to save those who believe. Second, he believed that God gives faith to certain individuals and preserves them in that faith. Third, he believed that God chooses to save particular people, appointing them to salvation based on His knowledge that He would give them faith so they could be saved, and that He would preserve them in that faith.
Arminius believed that if anything good will happen in our world, it must begin with God. The foremost good thing is the salvation of sinners, a work God both initiates and enables. Arminius allowed no merit or credit to go to man, describing even faith itself as God’s gift. As we think of our own salvation experiences, we are reminded that God alone gets the glory for saving sinners such as us.
[1] Summarized from The Works of James Arminius, Volume One (Lamp Post Inc., 2015), 185.
[2] Works, Volume One, 189. Emphasis mine.
[3] The Works of James Arminius, Volume Two (Lamp Post Inc., 2015), 73.
[4] Works, Volume One, 248.
[5] Ibid., 290.
[6] Ibid., 216.
[7] Ibid., 274.
[8] As “predestination, “election” is a biblical term. We have no latitude on whether we must believe in election, only on how we define it.
[9] Works, Volume One, 185.
[10] Ibid., 187.
[11] Ibid., 292.