In a study such as this one, ideas inevitably mature. Such is the case with my delineation of Arminianism systems. I previously referenced two perspectives on Arminianism: Classical and Modern. As I dug into the issue, I discovered a third perspective, one held by those who followed after him and developed his ideas. It seems helpful to distinguish between this and Arminius himself, since many of the main ideas of this third perspective go beyond what he believed. In my study I have found that Arminius was quite unwilling to go beyond the clear teachings of Scripture. As such, he left a number of theological blanks, unwilling to fill them in if he believed Scripture gave no clear answer. Those who followed him gradually filled in those blanks, developing a system more logically cohesive but less biblical. Logic superseded biblicism and the resulting system, though not unbiblical, seems to me to exceed God’s revelation in Scripture.
For the sake of this discussion, I will refer to this third perspective as “Traditional Arminianism.” Those such as Roger Olson who hold this view call it “Classical Arminianism,”[1] but as I see it as distinct from what Arminius himself taught, I prefer to give it a distinct title. “Classical Arminianism,” then, will be used of that which Arminius himself believed and propagated (we could also call it “Original Arminianism”). “Traditional Arminianism” will be used of the theological system that was developed in the following centuries by those sympathetic to Arminius’ beliefs, those who embraced his teachings but overdeveloped his ideas. “Modern Arminianism” will be used of the on-the-ground Arminianism of our day. While this last perspective is thought to be based on Arminius’ teachings, it has strayed from them. It is both the most widespread and the least consistent with Arminius—and with the Bible itself.
Side note. This discussion will be more technical in nature than some. The distinctions between these systems, though nuanced, are important nonetheless. I am focusing on what I believe to be the most significant issues. I hope those who love the truth will find the journey worthwhile.
Comparison of Classical Arminianism and Traditional Arminianism
I appreciate Traditional Arminian theologians such as Roger Olson who have committed themselves to Scripture and have developed a system that magnifies God’s grace while emphasizing human freedom and responsibility. Olson is careful to defend biblical truths such as total depravity,[2] salvation by grace alone, the necessity of faith, etc. while emphasizing the availability of the gospel and God’s desire to save all who believe. As a system, there is much to be admired about Traditional Arminianism. Yet I do believe it goes beyond Scripture in some areas, espousing ideas not explicitly set forth in God’s word.
We have already examined Arminius’ own views on man’s sin nature. As previously quoted, he believed that man was not able to “think, will, or do anything really (truly) good.”[3] This is not an isolated idea. His belief in man’s inability to desire or do good is woven throughout his writings. In contrast with our common presumption, he was every bit as ardent about man’s sinfulness as the Reformers before him. As William Witt says, “Whatever may be true of successors to Arminius’ theology, he himself held to a doctrine of the bondage of the will which is every bit as trenchant as anything in Luther or Calvin.”[4] Rather than downplaying depravity in order to emphasize free will, he emphasized time and again that if we are left to ourselves we will not choose that which is good.
On this the Traditional Arminians agree. Olson says, “Without prevenient grace, people will inevitably and inexorably resist God’s will because of their slavery to sin.”[5] Also, “Arminians affirm inherited sinfulness and moral helplessness to exercise a good will toward God apart from prevenient grace.”[6] Another Arminian theologian, H. Orton Wiley, says, “Not only are all men born under the penalty of death, as a consequence of sin, but they are born with a depraved nature also, which…is generally termed inbred sin or inherited depravity.”[7] Though Arminius was stronger in his sentiments on man’s sinful nature, those who followed him consistently affirmed what he taught.
For the Traditional Arminian, nothing in man desires the gospel when he is presented with it. Prevenient grace, then, is necessary for anyone to be saved. “Prevenient grace is simply the convicting, calling, enlightening and enabling grace of God that goes before conversion and makes repentance and faith possible.”[8] Prevenient grace takes a man from being dead in trespasses and sins to being awake to the truth, able to understand and receive the gospel. It is the necessary first step for anyone’s salvation, and it begins with God. It is His gracious calling by the Spirit through the Word, drawing a sinner to himself. Left to ourselves, we will not desire the gospel, therefore we will not receive it. Prevenient grace is God’s provision of the means necessary for us to believe and receive the gospel.
As Olson points out, this belief is not unique to Arminian thought. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe in prevenient grace. The distinction is that the Calvinist believes this grace to be irresistible while the Arminian believes it can be resisted.[9] Yet both believe, based on clear biblical teaching, that the “natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
But the issue of prevenient grace is where Traditional Arminianism begins to stray from Classical (Original) Arminianism. It is clear that Arminius believed in prevenient grace (though his translators used the term “preventing grace”). It is also clear he believed God’s prevenient grace could be resisted, a belief shared by Traditional Arminians but rejected by Calvinists. A man’s will is not erased when God calls him. He must choose to receive or reject the gospel.
Arminius believed prevenient grace to be resistible, but it does not seem he believed it to be universal. Nothing I found in his writings indicates that he thought God gave this prevenient grace indiscriminately. Rather, he simply stated that prevenient grace was necessary for salvation. At times he even emphasized that God’s grace was given variously to different people such that some had a greater experience of God’s grace than others. He noted that the Scriptures make frequent mention of the differences between the persons to whom the gospel is preached, citing Matthew 11:25, 1 Corinthians 1-2, Matthew 10:11-13, Acts 17:11, and 2 Thessalonians 3:1-2 as examples.[10] He rejects the idea that God’s Spirit is wholly inactive in the preaching of the gospel or that He works equally in the hearts of all who hear the gospel.[11]
Traditional Arminians make much of a universal prevenient grace such that all have access to the gospel and all are equally able to receive or reject the gospel. Yet that idea is not found in Arminius himself. He expresses some uncertainty, saying that he did not know whether those who received the gospel did so by a common grace given both to them and to those who rejected it, or by a grace special to the one who believes.[12] Even in that, though, he distinguishes among those who have heard the gospel, not among all men. That is, prevenient grace operates within the confines of the proclamation of the gospel, not to all men equally but specially to those who hear the truth of God’s word. God’s prevenient grace operates in concert with His ordained means—the Spirit and the Word. Nowhere does he articulate that prevenient grace is distributed to everyone.[13]
Traditionalists, however, teach that prevenient grace is distributed in some measure to all men such that all are capable of receiving the gospel. Olson says, “The Holy Spirit works on the hearts and minds of all people to some extent, gives them an awareness of God’s expectations and provision, and calls them to repentance and faith.”[14] Also, “A measure of prevenient grace extends through Christ to every person born.” Though these ideas certainly are attractive, and portray God as equally disposed to all men, they are difficult to substantiate from Scripture. All are certainly accountable for their rejection of God, but whether God must equally dispense His grace to all men in order to fairly judge them for their sin is a matter for discussion.
To get a picture of the larger scene, prevenient grace is typically described in two ways. Either God, in supreme fairness, distributes His grace to all men such that it ultimately depends on the individual’s choice whether he is saved or damned (Traditional Arminianism), or God, in supreme grace, distributes His grace to the elect (effectually so) such that it ultimately depends on God’s choice whether the individual is saved or damned (Classical Calvinism). Yet it does not seem that Arminius would have been comfortable in either of these camps. In contrast to the Traditionalists, he did not emphasize a universal distribution of prevenient grace, allowing that God variously imparts grace according to His love and wisdom. In contrast to the Calvinists, he rejected irresistible grace, maintaining that God does not save those who are unwilling to receive the gospel. This means there are those who experience prevenient grace yet reject the gospel. Those who receive the gospel do so because they want it (and choose it). But prevenient grace is not experienced by all men. He believed God imparted grace alongside means—the preaching of the gospel and the illumination of His Spirit. Those means are experienced in different measures by different people, thus prevenient grace is experienced in different measures.
We may think this makes God unfair. It certainly seems unfair. Yet in a very real sense it is not our obligation to tell God what is and is not fair. It is our obligation to submit to God’s truth. We understand that God desires all men to come to repentance, and it follows that He would make it possible for all men to be saved. Yet we also should understand that God has not acted equally to all people at all times, and it is difficult to reduce that difference to merely a difference in those people’s actions. Some have heard the gospel; others have not. Some have been spared by God’s mercy; others have not. Some come to the gospel; others do not. A strict commitment to our definition of justice (equal opportunity) does not always square with God’s actions, done in accord with His justice. He is certainly free to give grace according to His will.
What is certainly clear in Arminius and in Traditional Arminianism is that we are dead in trespasses and sins and need to be made alive by God’s grace. The exact distribution of God’s prevenient grace is debatable. We could side with the Traditionalists, believing it is universal. We could side with the Calvinists, believing it is limited to the elect. I prefer to side with Arminius, believing it is somewhat limited in scope yet not restricted to the elect only. In any case, all are agreed that salvation cannot come by human effort, nor can it be received without God’s prevenient grace. Without God’s grace, none could be saved. We are debtors all to the mercy of God.
[1] Olson, Roger E., Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Intervarsity Press, 2006), 18.
[2] Total depravity, rightly understood, is not that we are entirely wicked or as wicked as we could be. Rather, it is the belief that we are totally unable to produce that which is truly good by God’s standard. Orthodox Christianity of all kinds embraces this truth, though with different shades of nuance.
[3] The Works of James Arminius, Volume One (Lamp Post Inc., 2015), 189. Parentheses mine.
[4] Witt, William Gene, Creation, Redemption and Grace in the Theology of Jacob Arminius (PH.D. Diss., University of Notre Dame, 1993), 479.
[5] Olson, Arminian Theology, 35.
[6] Ibid., 155.
[7] Wiley, H. Orton, Christian Theology, Volume 2 (Beacon Hill, 1941), 98.
[8] Olson, Arminian Theology, 35.
[9] Ibid., 35.
[10] Works, Volume One, 227.
[11] Ibid., 227.
[12] The Works of James Arminius, Volume Three (Lamp Post Inc., 2015), 359.
[13] At least, not in passages I read. I have read his works extensively, but there are over 1000 pages of original material, which makes it difficult to digest everything.
[14] Olson, Arminian Theology, 35.