I hope that the discussion so far has helped you get a handle on Arminianism, whether you agree with my conclusions or not. While there are different emphases between Classical Arminianism[1] and Traditional Arminianism,[2] I believe both can be considered acceptable interpretations of Scripture. I have my differences and my disagreements, but I believe both arise from a well-intentioned study of Scripture. Traditional Arminianism is a bit more philosophical than Classical, less tightly bound to the text of Scripture. Even Classical Arminianism has its quirks, but I believe Arminius did well at harmonizing some of the perplexing biblical tensions without compromising its central truths. Classical and Traditional Arminianism differ from each other, but they are within the spectrum of responsible biblicism concerning God’s saving of sinners.
Unfortunately, not everything that calls itself Arminian accords with these approaches. I believe much of what hides behind the label “Arminianism” today actually disregards core Scriptural truths. Since Arminianism is generally accepted as a viable framework, Arminian-sounding beliefs are accepted as true, even if they are disharmonious with God’s revelation. I will attempt to paint several warning signs that we can use to determine when someone is beginning to go off the rails of biblical Christianity. These are things I believe are line-in-the-sand issues, lines that when crossed put us in dangerous territory, if not entirely outside the biblical gospel. I will be referring to this off-the-rails system as Modern Arminianism.
As the other treatments have been somewhat generalized, so will this one be. I cannot deal with all the necessary complexities in a short-form column such as this one. If you are sympathetic to positions I here disagree with, I ask your forgiveness for any misrepresentations. On the other hand, if the critique is valid, I beg you consider what I have said.
I know Mennonites well enough to know that some of you will disagree with my conclusions. I welcome personal interaction, but even more-so, I encourage wrestling with God’s Word on this issues. I am not seeking controversy. Yet I am concerned that our failure to reckon with certain biblical truths often leaves us with a partial gospel, and I am willing to raise those issues even if it makes you uncomfortable. I have attempted to bore down to the essential issues, those which I believe are so clear in Scripture that we simply cannot dismiss them. My question for you is, are you concerned about biblical truth? We need to constantly return to the Bible and submit ourselves to it, even on issues where the Bible differs from our traditions, our preconceptions, or our convictions. Are we Biblicists or not? If so, we must build our beliefs on Scripture alone.
Issue One: Sin Nature
A key distinction between Classical/Traditional Arminianism and Modern Arminianism is how each answers the question of man’s ability to choose good. Classical/Traditional Arminianism holds that man is incapable of producing good (that is, good according to God’s standard). Man is by nature “dead in [his] trespasses and the uncircumcision of [his] flesh” (Col. 2:13, cf. Eph 2:1). He died in Adam (Rom. 5:12) and must be illuminated (1 Cor. 2:14) and born again (John 3:3) in order to understand the things of God. According to Romans 3, his nature is corrupt (v10), his mind is corrupt (v11), his desires are corrupt (v11-12), his capacity for good is corrupt (v12), his speech is corrupt (v13-14), his body is corrupt (v15), his way of life is corrupt (v16), his relationships are corrupt (v17) and his reverence for the divine is corrupt (v18). Thus, he cannot desire God apart from God’s grace.
The distinction between this and Calvinism is that the Calvinist believes God only extends this grace to those He has elected for salvation, while the Classical/Traditional Arminian extends God’s grace beyond that circle. The Classical Arminian believes God’s grace is necessary and that He has given it to many, even to some who won’t receive it. The Traditional Arminian believes God’s grace is necessary and that He has given it to all, such that all people are now able to receive or reject God’s grace. However, the Modern Arminian displaces our need for grace in this sense. God’s grace is primarily defined as His making salvation available, but not as making it personal, at least not in any potent sense. The Modern Arminian may point to God’s grace as the reason salvation is available (through Christ’s substitutionary death) but he stops short of saying that God’s grace works on a personal level too. In effect, the Modern denies man’s total inability to think, will, or do anything truly good. He may think that we are sick, broken, etc., but not that we are spiritually dead. According to this approach, we have a “spark of goodness” that God fans into a flame. But this is not found within the pages of Scripture.
This may seem like a fine distinction, but it is crucial. The Classical and Traditional Arminians accord with the biblical teaching on man’s sin nature. Rather than downplaying our innate sinfulness, they own it yet point to God’s grace as superabounding so that all men have experienced sufficient grace such that they are now able to choose to receive the gospel or reject it. Grace superabounding over our sinfulness is fundamentally distinct from a denial of sinfulness, the Modern’s preference. Modern Arminianism shakes hands with Pelagianism, saying that we are capable of choosing God without His enabling grace. This is difficult to square with the biblical teachings.
The 20th century Arminian theologian H. Orton Wiley provides a masterful argument for inbred sin in his second volume of Christian Theology, in which he argues that “All men…are born with a depraved nature…which is generally termed inbred sin or inherited depravity. This is defined…as ‘that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam, by reason of which every one is very far gone from original righteousness.’”[3] Roger Olson says, “Classical Arminianism agrees with Protestant orthodoxy in general that the unity of the human race in sin results in all being born ‘children of wrath.’”[4] Arminius would agree too, as already discussed at length in previous articles.
That theologians have espoused man’s utter sinfulness is not proof positive that the doctrine is indeed true. What is clear, however, is that Arminian theologians have not shied away from poignant descriptions of man’s sin nature. The current trend of disregarding depravity as a “Calvinist” doctrine is erroneous. Both Arminians and Calvinists affirm the biblical theme of man’s slavery to sin. Both Classical and Traditional Arminians affirm the same. Modern’s neglect this truth, shifting the emphasis of the gospel away from God’s grace and onto a person’s inherent goodness. But “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). If faith our contribution, if goodness is our contrivance, we indeed have another gospel.
Issue Two: Grace Essential
Partnered to the previous issue is Modern Arminianism’s downplaying of God’s enabling grace. If (as the Modern says) we are not utter slaves of sin, then grace is not necessary prior to our reception of the gospel. Grace operates in response to our faith but is not necessary for us to produce faith. A man has within himself the capacity to choose God, therefore he needs no grace aside from saving grace. He is not dead, but only sick, and needs no help to see his own condition nor to accept the cure.
Biblically, God’s grace operates not only in providing the basis for salvation but also in applying the gospel to a sinner’s heart. And that application is not one that merely follows an individual’s production of faith but is indeed necessary for a person to produce faith at all. The real question here is, does a man need grace in order to produce faith, or does grace come only as a result of a man’s faith? Do we receive grace on condition of our faith, or is grace part and parcel in our production of faith? I believe Scripture teaches that grace is a necessary prerequisite to our faith. Without God’s enabling grace, we cannot see our own sin, recognize our need, see His provision, and come to Him.
Again, this is consistent with Classical and Traditional Arminian thought. Olson says, “Without prevenient grace, people will inevitably and inexorably resist God’s will because of their slavery to sin.”[5] The biblically-responsible approach is to understand God’s grace as abundant, extended to all, and thus countering the effects of sin for all. This is key, since this puts the emphasis on God’s extension of grace to us and not on our production of faith in order to reach Him. The gospel is not about us meeting God halfway; it is about what He has done to meet us on our level. Altering the gospel to make it about what we do to earn God’s blessings is a move away from the biblical gospel.
[1] According to Arminius himself.
[2] According to those followed Arminius and developed his beliefs.
[3] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 2, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1958), 98.
[4] Olson, Roger E., Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Intervarsity Press, 2006), 33.
[5] Olson, Roger E., Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Intervarsity Press, 2006), 35.
As I read, I questioned if your goal here was to show what Arminius actually taught about salvation or to fit him into a Calvinistic framework. It seems that you continued to try to press the Arminian view into alignment with Calvinism…as though Calvinism is your framework for reading the scripture ♂️
I can’t own that I’m free from bias. None of us are. But my attempt was to present an honest summary of what Arminius himself believed. This series is not a comprehensive Arminian theology.
If you read his writings (which are readily available), you will discover that a large part of his writings deal with faith, predestination, and election, the topics I’ve focused on in this series. Anabaptists are quick to assume certain beliefs are “Calvinistic” without understanding what Calvinists believe, nor understanding what non-Calvinists such as Arminius have historically taught. No offense intended, but I would encourage you to read Arminius’ own writings before critiquing what I’ve written. I am not saying this is standard Arminian theology, nor am I saying that everything he taught is biblical. I’m saying this is what Arminius believed. Take it up with him.