THE RISE OF ARMINIANISM

LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY THE RISE OF ARMINIANISM A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DOUGLAS MANN, PhD IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCH HISTORY 525 DEPARTMENT OF CHURCH HISTORY BY JAMES W. FOGAL DECEMBER, 18 2009 Table of Contents I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………1 II. jacob arminius ………………………………………………...……………………….2 III. THE REMONSTRANTS………………………………………..…………………………….4 iv. aRMINIUS’ THEOLOGY …………………………………………………………………. 6 V. SUMMARY….……………………………………………………………………………….11 WORKS CITED............................................................................................................................13 INTRODUCTION Throughout the span of the Christian church, various schools of theological interpretation have emerged and have lasted over the test of time. Many theological systems have emerged over the two millennia since Christ’s birth, some have been orthodox while others have been heterodox. Even within orthodoxy, a variety of interpretations of Scripture have persisted to the modern day. The protestant reformation, emerging in the sixteenth century, altered the way Christians viewed Scripture and theology. With the birth of the principle of sola scriptura and sola fide, non-Catholic Christians no longer needed to look to the papacy for guidance in matters of ecclesiastical structure and personal faith. The downside of this is that orthodox (i.e., Nicene) protestants varied in their conception of God and in soteriology. Major protestant groups were Anabaptists, Arminians, Calvinists, Lutherans, and followers of Zwingli. While all of these protestant groups agreed on the essentials of orthodox Christianity and in the essentials tenants of Protestantism, they differed in other matters. In this paper, we will be discussing important factors of Arminianism and how it is similar to the other protestant expressions of faith yet how it differs in several crucial aspects. Early Arminians viewed themselves as part of the Reformed faith but they felt that the reformation had erred in several ways and that they were called to “reform the reformation” to bring it back to the Bible. Several church leaders had led the protestant movement into beliefs that were not in line with Scripture as a whole. These leaders (Martin Luther and John Calvin) and their successors were developing theological systems based upon interpretations of certain passages of Scripture that did not harmonize with the rest of the Bible. Jacob Arminius, a student of Calvin’s successor, rose to prominence in countering the errors of the protestant reformation by developing a theological system that was more consistent with the entire Bible and avoided the misinterpretations of certain passages of Scripture that started with Augustine of Hippo and later expanded by Luther and Calvin. JACOB ARMINIUS Jacobus Arminius (October 10, 1560 - October 19, 1609), also known by the anglicized names of Jacob Arminius or James Arminius, was born at Oudewater (city), Utrecht (province) in the Netherlands. While Jacob was still an infant, his father died leaving his mother to be a single-mother widow. His mother was slain during the Spanish massacre of Oudewater in 1575. After this, a leading Dutch minister took care of him and enabled him to study theology at the University of Leiden. He remained at Leiden from 1576 to 1582. His teachers in theology included Lambertus Danaeus, Johannes Drusius, Guillaume Feuguereius, and Johann Kolmann. Kolmann disagreed with Calvinism and claimed that this theological position led to God being both a tyrant and an executioner. It is possible that his study at Leiden planted seeds that would later grow and develop into his distinctive theology. The Reformed Church of Amsterdam saw in this young man the promise of being an excellent minister so they sent him to the “Mecca” of Reformed theology – the Genevan Academy. Olson, Roger E, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999) p. 461. Arminius went to Calvin’s school during 1582 in Geneva which was then being led by Theodore Beza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius#Theology, accessed on December 15, 2009. At this point, he was a committed Calvinist. Eventually, he felt called to become a preacher so he returned to Holland. In Amsterdam, he was ordained as a pastor in 1588. Because of his reputation as a respected pastor and a biblical and theological scholar, church leaders asked him to review the writings of a person (Dirck Koornhert) who was opposing the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, with the plan to refute Koornhert’s ideas. While studying these works and comparing it with Scripture, he had a “struggle of conscience” and eventually arrived at the conclusion that Koornhert was correct -- Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was not consistent with the Bible. Gonzalez, Justo, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Prince, 2008), p. 179. In 1603, Arminius accepted a position of professor at the University of Leiden. He carried the new convictions with him to the University, which became a matter of university debate. One of his colleagues, Francis Gomarus, was convinced in the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and challenged Arminius to debate on the true nature and definition of predestination. Since Arminius studied at Calvin’s school in Geneva, he considered himself to be a “true follower of Calvin.” Ibid., p. 180. These debates continued until Arminius’ death in 1609, when his successor to his chair at the University of Leiden continued the debate by defending Arminius’ position. THE REMONSTRANTS In 1610, a year after Arminius’ death at age forty-nine, forty-two Dutch ministers of his position gathered at The Hague on January 14, 1610 to create a systematic statement detailing the Arminian theological position. The group was led by Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) and it is likely that he drafted the statement at this meeting. These followers were upset with the 37-article Belgic Confession, a reformed confession of faith, and wanted to create an Arminian response. The document created from this group is called the Remonstrance and contains five articles that summarized the issues under debate. It was composed by Jan Uytenbogaert and after a few changes was endorsed and signed by the entire group in July 1610. The theological positions argued in the Remonstrance will be discussed below. The document was sent to the Dutch government requesting that their views be protected and not persecuted. Hill, Jonathan, Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) p. 269. The following is the text of the Remonstrance: Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also. Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing." Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places. Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds. Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996) pp. 545-9. In response to this document, Calvinist leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church held a Synod at Dordrecht (commonly known as the Synod of Dort) starting on November 13, 1618 and concluded on May 9, 1619. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort, accessed on December 15, 2009. The purpose of this meeting was to respond to the controversy that arose over the emergence of Arminian ideas. Calvinistic delegates came from a distance to help create this response – delegates came from not only Holland, but also Switzerland, Bremen, Hesse, the Palatinate, and England. Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A History of Christianity, Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Prince, 2007) p. 765. By the conclusion of the Synod, the Heidelberg Confession and the Belgic Confession were reaffirmed and five new articles (called the Canons of Dort) were created to respond to the five-article Remonstrance. ARMINIUS’ THEOLOGY Jacob Arminius was a reformed protestant in his theology. He was educated at Calvin’s school in Geneva under Theodore Beza (Calvin’s successor) and embraced most of Calvin’s theological positions. The primary issues he later dissented from would be unconditional predestination, unconditional election, irresistible grace and limited atonement. Olson, Story, p. 471. We will discuss his positions in this section. PELAGIAN? Let us begin with the accusation that he has often been accused of – that of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. He was neither of these and this paper should help reveal it. Roger Olson states on this issue: “…Jacob Arminius himself expressly denied being a Pelagian or having any sympathies with that heresy of salvation apart from assisting supernatural grace …. Arminius himself affirmed that the initiative in salvation is completely God’s and that all of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.” Ibid., p. 455. Olson states in another work that “for Arminius the human ability to cooperate with God’s grace is itself a gift of God; it is not a natural human ability, which was lost when Adam sinned, and all of his posterity inherit that ability …. He was optimistic about grace, not about human nature!” Olson, Roger E., Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006) p. 143. To defeat the charge of Pelagianism, he stated the following before the Dutch state officials one year before his death: 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. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine grace. Arminius, James, “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius,” The Works of James Arminius, Vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) p. 659-60. These quotations help to validate that he was not either a Pelagian or a Semi-Pelagian. In the sections below, further evidence will help to make this point stronger. TOTAL DEPRAVITY Arminians affirm the protestant doctrine of total depravity, ever since Arminius. It is a necessary doctrine due to the need for God’s grace, which avoids Pelagianism. Roger Olson states that “Arminianism teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritually depraved, and helpless to do anything good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the affects of original sin” …. And that original sin is “primarily as a moral depravity that results from deprivation of the image of God; it is the loss of power to avoid actual sin.” Olson, Arminian Theology, p. 33. Another Arminian scholar, H. Orton Wiley, agrees with Olson and states the following: “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 in contradistinction to the legal aspects of penalty, is generally termed inbred sin or inherited depravity.” Wiley, H. Orton, Christian Theology, Vol. 2 (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1941), p. 98. Later in this volume, Wiley states of Arminius’ thought: “Depravity is total in that it affects the entire being of man.” Ibid., p. 128. Therefore, everyone is born with “alienated affections, darkened intellect and perverted will.” Ibid., p. 129. GRACE Because Arminianism believes so strongly in total depravity of the human, a strong belief in grace is necessary for redemption. Arminius taught a concept of prevenient grace which is crucial to Arminian theology. Roger Olson defines prevenient grace as follows: “the convicting, calling, enlightening and enabling grace of God that goes before conversion and makes repentance and faith possible …. Arminians interpret it as resistible; people are always able to resist the grace of God, as Scripture warns (Acts 7:51).” Olson, Arminian Theology, p. 35. He goes on to state that “Arminianism holds that salvation is all of grace – every movement of the soul toward God is initiated by divine grace …. A special infusion of supernatural, regenerating or renovating grace is required for even the first exercise of a good will toward God.” Ibid., pp. 36 and 42. William Witt stated that Arminius has a very high theology of grace. He insists emphatically that grace is gratuitous because it is obtained through God’s redemption in Christ, not through human effort.” Witt, William Gene, Creation, Redemption and Grace in the Theology of Jacob Arminius (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1993), pp. 259-60. The one difference from Calvin that Arminius made in his belief of Grace is that God has permitted humans to resist God’s prevenient grace. While the Calvinist teaches irresistible grace, Arminius believed in a resistible grace. As Justo Gonzalez calls it, “it is possible to fall from grace.” Gonzalez, Justo L., A History of Christian Thought, Vol. III (Nashville: Abington, 1980), p. 257. Arminius referred to this concept as “it is certain that the regenerate sometimes lose the grace of the Holy Spirit.” Nichols, James and W.R. Bagnall, The Writings of James Arminius, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), pp. 216-7. So, the Arminian position is every bit as strong on grace as the other reformers taught. The only difference is whether God allows us to resist his grace or not. The Arminian would view the Calvinistic view of grace as spiritual rape in that God forces himself upon us without any choice of us. SOLA SCRIPTURA Arminius believed in this protestant doctrine as firmly as any other protestant has. To him, human writings (i.e., church tradition) were inferior to Scripture in all cases. He states the following: The rule of Theological Verity is not two-fold, one Primary and the other Secondary; but it is one and simple, the Sacred Scriptures …. The Scriptures are the rule of all Divine Verity, from themselves, in themselves, and through themselves …. No writing composed by men, -- by one man, by few men, or by many men, -- (with the exception of the Holy Scriptures,) … is … exempted from an examination to be instituted by means of the Scriptures …. It is tyrannical and Popish to bind the consciences of men by human writings, and to hinder them from being submitted to a legitimate examination, under what pretext soever such tyrannical conduct is adopted. Arminius, “Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed,” in Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1, p. 695. Arminius even believed the creeds and confessions of faith should likewise possess a secondary status to Scripture. Concerning this, he stated: The doctrine once received in the Church should be subjected to examination, however great the fear may be [for] this is one of God’s commands, “Search and try the spirits whether they be of God.” (1 John iv. 1) If cogitation … had operated as hindrances on the minds of Luther, Zwingli, and others, they would never have pried into the doctrine of the Papists, or have subjected it to a scrutinizing examination. Arminius, Works, Vol. 1, p. 722-3. PREDESTINATION Arminius believed in predestination because it is taught in the Bible. What he disagreed with was Calvin’s doctrine of foreordination. Arminius believed that God foreknows what each person will decide regarding accepting Jesus Christ into their life. It is on that basis that God “predestines” people. He stated that “Predestination, when thus explained, is the foundation of Christianity, and of salvation and its certainty.” Arminius, “The Declaration of Sentiments of James Arminius,” Works, Vol. 1, p. 654. But he wanted to make clear that he did not advocate the Calvinist interpretation of this doctrine because he stated, “But such a decree as I have there described is not that by which God resolves to save some particular persons, and , that He may do this, resolves to endow them with faith, but to condemn others and not to endow them with faith.” Arminius, “A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus A Collibus,” Works, Vol. 2, pp. 698-9. Olson describes his belief as follows: Arminians do not believe God predetermines or preselects people for either heaven or hell apart from their free acts of accepting or resisting the grace of God. Furthermore, Arminians interpret the biblical concept of unconditional election (predestination to salvation) as corporate. Thus, predestination has an individual meaning (foreknowledge of individual choices) and a collective meaning (election of a people). The former is conditional; the latter is unconditional. God’s predestination of individuals is conditioned by their faith; God’s election of a people for his glory is unconditional. The latter will comprise all those who believe. Olson, Arminian Theology, p. 180. Historical Theologian John Sanders states, that “Arminius decisively modified the Reformed thought in which he was educated, however, when it came to the will and knowledge of God. God’s foreknowledge of what will happen is caused by what the creatures freely decide to do and is not based on his immutable will. God uses his prevision of who will, through grace, come to Christ as the basis for divine predestination.” Sanders, John, “Historical Considerations” in The Openness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), p. 91. So, Arminius believed also in the Biblical doctrine of predestination which is a conditional predestination. Calvin (and Beza) believed in an unconditional predestination in which the monergistic God made the sole, arbitrary decision as to who is destined for heaven and who goes to hell. Arminius believed that conditional predestination is much more biblical and within God’s nature. SUMMARY As documented in this paper, Jacob Arminius was a firm believer in the Bible and based his theology upon it. He believed that the Calvinistic system, in which he was reared, was flawed and did not accurately reflect what the Bible teaches. Most of his theology is the same as the other reformers taught, but in unconditional predestination, unconditional election, irresistible grace and limited atonement he differed from the others. His influence on later Christianity, most notably in the teaching and writings of John Wesley, has had enormous impact. Most of evangelical Christianity adopts a majority of the teachings of Arminius. Will we ever determine who (Calvin or Arminius) interpreted the Bible more faithfully to what God intended? It is likely that we will only learn this once we arrive in heaven and can be instructed directly by God. WORKS CITED Arminius, James. The Works of James Arminius. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Bettenson, Henry and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University, 1999. Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought, Vol.3. Nashville: Abingdon, 1980. —. The Story of Christianity. Peabody: Prince Press, 2008. Hill, Jonathan. Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity, Vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Prince, 2007. Nichols, James and W.R. Bagnall. The Writings of James Arminius. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006. —. The Story of Christian Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Sanders, John. "Historical Considerations." In The Openness of God, by Clark Pinnock, 59-100. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994. Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1941. Witt, William Gene. Creation, Redemption and Grace in the Theology of Jacob Arminius. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Notre Dame, 1993.