Jump to content

Arminianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Arminianist)
"Arminism" and "Arminians" redirect here. Not to be confused with Armanism or Armenians.

Swanenburgh, W. (1625). Jacobus Arminius

Arminianism is a movement of Protestantism initiated in the early 17th century, based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination.

Classical Arminianism, to which Arminius is the main contributor, and Wesleyan Arminianism, to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Central Arminian beliefs are that God's prevenient grace, which prepares regeneration, is universal and that His grace, allowing regeneration and ongoing sanctification, is resistible.

Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views, notably the Baptists in the 17th century, the Methodists in the 18th century, and the Pentecostals in the 20th century.

History

[edit]
Further information: History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate

Precursor movements and theological influences

[edit]
Laurens, Jean Paul. (1892). Sébastien Castellion.

Arminius' beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.[1] Before the Reformation, groups like the Waldensians similarly affirmed individual freedom over any predetermined predestination.[2] Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) also promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.[1] The soteriological doctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.[3][4] In particular, Mennonites have been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinist soteriology.[5] Anabaptist theology seems to have influenced Jacobus Arminius.[3] At least, he was "sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view, and Anabaptists were commonly in attendance on his preaching."[4] Similarly, Arminius mentions Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (1513–1600) as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.[6] Another key figure, Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563), who opposed Calvin's views on predestination and religious intolerance, is known to have influenced both the Mennonites and certain theologians within Arminius’s circle.[7] Early critics of Arminians even cited Castellio as a primary inspiration behind the Arminian movement.[8]

Emergence of Arminianism

[edit]
Eyk, Abraham van der. (1721). Disputes between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants in 1618.

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.[9] He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, but after examination of the scriptures, he rejected his teacher's theology that it is God who unconditionally elects some for salvation.[9] Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith.[9] Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus.[10]

In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius presented his theology to magistrates of the States General of the Netherlands in The Hague.[11] After his death, Arminius's followers continued to advance his theological vision, crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance (1610), in which they express their points of divergence from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession.[10] This is how Arminius's followers were called Remonstrants, and following a Counter Remonstrance in 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.[12]

After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau to deal with the situation.[9] Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This Synod of Dort was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (102 people), while the Arminians were excluded (13 people banned from voting), with Calvinist representatives from other countries (28 people), and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. The Canons of Dort responded, among other topics, to Arminian doctrines, anticipating their later articulation as the Five points of Calvinism.[10]

Arminians across Holland were removed from office, imprisoned, banished, and sworn to silence. Twelve years later, Holland officially granted Arminianism protection as a religion, although animosity between Arminians and Calvinists continued.[9] Most of the early Remonstrants followed a classical version of Arminianism. However, some of them such as Philipp van Limborch, moved in the direction of semi-Pelagianism and rationalism.[13]

Arminianism in the Church of England

[edit]
Main article: Arminianism in the Church of England
Glover, George. (1641). John Goodwin.

In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrines[14] were held, in substance, before and in parallel with those of Arminius.[15] The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.[15] Arminianism in the Church of England was fundamentally an expression of negation of Calvinism, and only some theologians held to classical Arminianism, but for the rest they were either semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.[9][15][16] In this specific context, contemporary historians prefer to use the term "proto-Arminians" rather than "Arminians" to designate the leanings of those divines who generally didn't follow classical Arminianism.[17] English Arminianism was represented by Arminian Puritans such as John Goodwin or High Anglican Arminians such as Jeremy Taylor and Henry Hammond.[15] Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such as William Laud fought Calvinist Puritans.[15] They actually saw Arminianism in terms of a state church, an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.[9] This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) of Charles I of England.[15] Following the English Civil War (1642–1651) Charles II of England, who tolerated the Presbyterians, re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.[18] It was dominant there after the Restoration (1660)[19] for some fifty years.[15]


Baptists

[edit]

The Baptist movement emerged in 17th-century in England. The first Baptists—called "General Baptists" because of their confession of a "general" or unlimited atonement—were Arminians.[20] The Baptist movement originated with Thomas Helwys, who left his mentor John Smyth (who had moved into shared belief and other distinctives of the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites of Amsterdam) and returned to London to start the first English Baptist Church in 1611. Later General Baptists such as John Griffith, Samuel Loveday, and Thomas Grantham defended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected the Arminianism of Arminius. The General Baptists encapsulated their Arminian views in numerous confessions, the most influential of which was the Standard Confession of 1660. In the 1640s the Particular Baptists were formed, diverging from Arminian doctrine and embracing the strong Calvinism of the Presbyterians and Independents. Their robust Calvinism was publicized in such confessions as the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689. The London Confession of 1689 was later used by Calvinistic Baptists in America (called the Philadelphia Baptist Confession), whereas the Standard Confession of 1660 was used by the American heirs of the English General Baptists, who soon came to be known as Free Will Baptists.[21]

Methodists

[edit]
Milbert, Jacques Gérard. (c. 1819). Camp meeting of the Methodists in N. America

In the Methodist-Calvinist controversy of the early 1770s involving Anglican ministers John Wesley and George Whitefield, Wesley responded to accusations of semi-Pelagianism by embracing an Arminian identity.[22] Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs of Arminius and largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius' teachings.[23] Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and by some Remonstrant spokesmen.[24] However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius' beliefs.[25] Wesley defended his soteriology through the publication of a periodical titled The Arminian (1778) and in articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered.[26] To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief in total depravity while clarifying other doctrines notably prevenient grace.[27][28] At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.[29] He typically preached the notion of Christian perfection (fully mature, not "sinlessness").[9] His system of thought has become known as Wesleyan Arminianism, the foundations of which were laid by him and his fellow preacher John William Fletcher.[30][31] Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.[32][33] In the 1830s, during the Second Great Awakening, traces of Pelagian influence surfaced in the American Holiness Movement. Consequently, critics of Wesleyan theology have occasionally unfairly perceived or labeled its broader thought.[34] However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.[28][33]

Pentecostals

[edit]

Pentecostalism has its background in the activity of Charles Parham (1873–1929). Its origin as a movement was in the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906. This revival was led by William J. Seymour (1870–1922).[35] Due to the Methodist and Holiness background of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.[36] During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.[37] Today, Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God hold to Arminian views such as resistible grace, conditional election, and conditional security of the believer.[38][39][40]

Current landscape

[edit]

Protestant denominations

[edit]
Anonymous. (1915). Benjamin Randall (founder of the Free Baptist denomination).

Advocates of Arminianism find a home in many Protestant denominations,[41] and sometimes other beliefs such as Calvinism exist within the same denomination.[42] The Lutheran theological tradition bears certain similarities to Arminianism[43] and there may be some Lutheran churches that are open to it.[44] Newer Evangelical Anglican denominations also show a level of openness to Arminian theology.[44] Anabaptist denominations, such as the Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish and Schwarzenau Brethren, adhere to Anabaptist theology, which espouses a soteriology that is similar to Arminianism "in some respects".[45][46][44] Arminianism is found within the General Baptists,[46] including the subset of General Baptists known as Free Will Baptists.[47] The majority of Southern Baptists embrace a traditionalist form of Arminianism which includes a belief in eternal security,[48][49][50][44] though many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance.[51] Certain proponents of Arminianism may be found within the Restoration movement in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.[47] Additionally, it is found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[44] Arminianism (specifically Wesleyan–Arminian theology) is taught in the Methodist churches,[52] inclusive of those denominations aligned with the holiness movement such as the Evangelical Methodist Church, Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church,[47] and the Salvation Army.[53] It is also found in a part of the Charismatics, including the Pentecostals.[47][54][46][55]

Scholarly support

[edit]

Arminian theology has found support among theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists spanning various historical periods and theological circles. Noteworthy historical figures include Jacobus Arminius,[56] Simon Episcopius,[13] Hugo Grotius,[13] John Goodwin,[57] Thomas Grantham,[58] John Wesley,[59] Richard Watson,[60] Thomas Osmond Summers,[60] John Miley,[61] William Burt Pope[60] and Henry Orton Wiley.[62]

In contemporary Baptist traditions, advocates of Arminian theology include Roger E. Olson,[63] F. Leroy Forlines,[64] Robert Picirilli[65] and J. Matthew Pinson.[66] Within the Methodist tradition, prominent supporters encompass Thomas Oden,[64] Ben Witherington III,[67] David Pawson,[68] B. J. Oropeza,[69] Thomas H. McCall[63] and Fred Sanders.[70] The Holiness movement boasts theologians like Carl O. Bangs[71] and J. Kenneth Grider.[66] Furthermore, scholars such as Keith D. Stanglin,[63] Craig S. Keener[72] and Grant R. Osborne[73] also support Arminian perspectives.

Theology

[edit]

Theological legacy

[edit]
Master of Großgmain. (c. 1498). Augustinus.

The Pelagian-Augustinian framework can serve as a key paradigm for understanding the theological and historical legacy of Arminianism.[74] Before Augustine (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.[75] Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.[76] The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as "humanistic monergism".[77][78] This view was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431).[79] In response, Augustine proposed a view in which God is the ultimate cause of all human actions, a stance that aligns with soft determinism.[80] The Augustinian view is therefore referred to as "divine monergism".[81] However, Augustinian soteriology implied double predestination,[82] which was condemned by the Council of Arles (475).[83]

During this period, a moderate form of Pelagianism emerged, later termed Semi-Pelagianism. This view asserted that human will initiates salvation, rather than divine grace.[84] The Semi-Pelagian view is therefore described as "human-initiated synergism".[85] In 529, the Second Council of Orange addressed Semi-Pelagianism and declared that even the inception of faith is a result of God’s grace.[86][87][88] This highlights the role of prevenient grace enabling human belief.[89][90] This view, often referred to as "Semi-Augustinian," is therefore described as "God-initiated synergism".[91][92][93][94] The Council also rejected predestination to evil.[95] As Arminianism aligns with key aspects of this view,[91] it is seen by some as a return to early church theological consensus.[96] Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism[97] or more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.[98]

Arminian theology generally divides into two main variations: Classical Arminianism, based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, a closely related variation shaped primarily by John Wesley.[99]

Classical Arminianism

[edit]

Definition and terminology

[edit]
Bailly, David. (1620). Jacobus Arminius.

Classical Arminianism is a protestant theological view, that asserts God's prevenient grace for regeneration is universal and that the grace allowing regeneration and ongoing sanctification is resistible.[100][101][102] This theological system was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants, such as Simon Episcopius[103] and Hugo Grotius.[104]

Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of covenant theology.[105][106] Its core teachings are summarized in the Five Articles of Remonstrance, reflecting Arminius’s views, with some sections directly from his Declaration of Sentiments.[107] Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".[108][109] Others prefer "Reformation Arminianism"[110] or "Reformed Arminianism",[111] as Arminius upheld the principles of Reformation such as Sola fide and Sola gratia.[112]

God's providence and human free will

[edit]

Arminianism accepts classical theism, which states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.[113] In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.

Besides, Arminianism view on God's sovereignty is based on postulates stemming from God's character. On the first hand, divine election must be defined in such a way that God is not in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of evil. It would not correspond to the character of God,[114] especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.[115] On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.[116] Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures.

On one hand, it requires for God to operate according to a limited mode of providence. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires for God's election to be a "predestination by foreknowledge".[117] Therefore, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, aligning his certainty with human freedom of action.[118]

Philosophical view on free will

[edit]

Arminianism is aligned with classical free-will theism, adopting an incompatibilist position. It asserts that the free will essential for moral responsibility is inherently incompatible with determinism.[119] In Arminian theology, human beings possess libertarian free will, making them the ultimate source of their choices and granting them the ability to choose otherwise.[120] This philosophical framework upholds the concept of divine providence, allowing God's influence and supervision over creation.[121] However, it permits the idea of God's absolute control over human actions, as long as such control does not involve human responsibility.[122][123]

Spiritual view on free will

[edit]

Arminianism holds that without the assistance of divine grace, human free will is incapable of choosing the spiritual good.[124][125] Humans are therefore in a state of total depravity, possessing a corrupted spiritual nature inherited from original sin.[126] Like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, Arminius agreed that human free will is spiritually captive and enslaved.[127][128] However, through the action of prevenient grace, human free will can be "freed",[129] meaning it can be restored with the ability to choose the spiritual good, particularly the capacity to accept God's call to salvation.[130]

Extent and nature of the atonement

[edit]
Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt. (1631). Hugo de Groot (1583-1645).

Atonement is intended universally: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, with the opportunity for salvation through faith.[131]

Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the crucifixion of Christ. Thus Christ's death atones for the sins of all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy [...] or that man is justified before God [...] according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."[132] Justification, therefore, is seen through mercy by the imputation of righteousness.[133] While not rigidly defined, this view suggests that the righteousness of Christ is attributed to believers, emphasizing that union with Christ (conditioned on faith) transfers his righteousness to them.[134][135]

Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by penal substitution.[136] Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied governmentally.[137] Historical and contemporary Arminians have held to one of these views.[138]

Conversion of man

[edit]

In Arminianism, God initiates the process of salvation by extending his grace, commonly referred to as prevenient grace, to all people. This grace works within each individual, drawing them toward the Gospel and enabling sincere faith, leading to regeneration.[139] It functions through a dynamic influence-and-response relationship, allowing individuals to freely accept or reject it.[140][129] Thus, conversion is described as a "God-initiated synergism."[91]

Election of man

[edit]

Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."[141] God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."[141]

God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.[142]

Preservation of man

[edit]

Related to eschatological considerations, Jacobus Arminius[143] and the first Remonstrants, including Simon Episcopius[144] believed in everlasting fire where the wicked are thrown by God at judgment day.

Preservation is conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.[145] Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and the Holy Spirit "to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."[146] Furthermore, Christ and the Spirit are ever present to aid and assist believers through various temptations. But this security was not unconditional but conditional—"provided they [believers] stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling."[147][148]

Possibility of apostasy

[edit]
Anonymous. (1743). Simon Episcopius.

Arminius believed in the possibility of apostasy. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,[149] he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.[150][151] In 1599, he stated that the question required more scriptural examination.[152] In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), Arminius said, "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect."[153]

However, elsewhere Arminius expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: In c. 1602, he noted that a person integrated into the church might resist God's work and that a believer's security rested solely in their choice not to abandon their faith.[154][155] He argued that God's covenant did not eliminate the possibility of falling away but provided a gift of fear to keep individuals from defecting, as long as it thrived in their hearts.[156] He then taught that had David died in sin, he would have been lost.[157][134] In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".[158]

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.[134][159] In 1605 Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore, he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".[160] Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".[161][134] He suggested that, strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.[162][151][163]

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a Remonstrance (1610) based quite literally on his Declaration of Sentiments (1607) which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.[161] In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.[164] Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever.[165] They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618) which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.[166] They later expressed this same view in the Remonstrant Confession (1621).[167]

Forgivability of apostasy

[edit]

Arminius maintained that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, then it was forgivable.[134][168] If it came from "rejection" it was not.[169] Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.[170] However, other classical Arminians, including the Free Will Baptists, have taught that apostasy is irremediable.[171][172]

Wesleyan Arminianism

[edit]
Further information: Wesleyan theology

Distinctive aspect

[edit]
Rommey, George. (n.d.). John Wesley.

John Wesley thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught.[25] Wesleyan Arminianism is a merger of classical Arminianism and Wesleyan perfectionism.[173][174][9]

Nature of the atonement

[edit]

Wesley’s view of atonement is either understood as a hybrid of penal substitution and the governmental theory,[175] or it is viewed solely as penal substitution.[176][177][178] Historically, Wesleyan Arminians adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.[138]

Justification and sanctification

[edit]

In Wesleyan theology, justification is understood as the forgiveness of sins rather than being made inherently righteous. Righteousness is achieved through sanctification, which involves the pursuit of holiness in one's life.[179] Wesley taught that imputed righteousness, which refers to the righteousness credited to a believer through faith, must transform into imparted righteousness, where this righteousness becomes evident in the believer’s life.[180]

Christian perfection

[edit]

Wesley taught that through the Holy Spirit, Christians can achieve a state of practical perfection, or "entire sanctification", characterized by a lack of voluntary sin.[181] This state involves embodying the love of God and neighbor.[182] It does not mean freedom from all mistakes or temptations, as perfected Christians still need to seek forgiveness and strive for holiness. Ultimately, perfection in this context is about love, not absolute perfection.[183]

Preservation and apostasy of man

[edit]

Wesley believed that genuine Christians could apostatize. He emphasized that sin alone does not lead to this loss; instead, prolonged unconfessed sin and deliberate apostasy can result in a permanent fall from grace.[184] However, he believed that such apostasy was not irremediable.[185]

Corporate election variation

[edit]
Main article: Corporate election

The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. In the corporate election view, God chose the believing church collectively for salvation, rather than selecting individuals.[186] Jesus is seen as the only person elected, and individuals join the elect through faith "in Christ".[187][188] This view is supported by Old Testament and Jewish concepts, where identity is rooted more in group membership than individuality.[189]

Arminianism and other views

[edit]
Further information: Salvation in Christianity § Protestantism
Part of a series on
Protestantism
Latin version of the Christian cross which is used by virtually all Protestant denominations
Concepts
History
Branches
Movements
icon Christianity portal

Divergence with Pelagianism

[edit]

Pelagianism is a doctrine denying original sin and total depravity. No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;[190] both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.[191] Arminius referred to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."[192] This association is considered as libelous when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine,[193] and Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.[194][195]

Divergence with Semi-Pelagianism

[edit]

Semi-Pelagianism holds that faith begins with human will, while its continuation and fulfillment depend on God's grace,[84] giving it the label "human-initiated synergism".[85] In contrast, both Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism affirm that prevenient grace from God initiates the process of salvation,[196][197] a view sometimes referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", or "God-initiated synergism".[91][92] Following the Reformation, Reformed theologians often categorized both "human-initiated synergism" and "God-initiated synergism" as "Semi-Pelagianism",[198] often leading to mistaken belief that Arminianism aligned with Semi-Pelagianism.[199][200]

Divergence with Calvinism

[edit]

Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharing historical roots and many theological doctrines, diverge notably on the concepts of divine predestination and election. While some perceive these differences as fundamental, others regard them as relatively minor distinctions within the broader spectrum of Christian theology.[201]

Similarities

[edit]
  • Human spiritual condition – Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, but differ in their understanding of how God remedies this human condition.[202]

Differences

[edit]
  • Nature of election – Arminians believe election to final salvation is conditional on faith,[203] while Calvinists hold that unconditional election is based on God's predeterminism[204] making Him the ultimate cause of everything, including human faith.[205]
  • Nature of grace – Arminians believe that, through prevenient grace, God universally restores the individual spiritual ability to choose and that subsequent justifying grace is resistible.[206] Calvinists however, assert that God's effectual call is given only to the elect and that subsequent grace is irresistible.[207]
  • Extent of the atonement – Arminians, along with four-point Calvinists, advocate for a universal atonement, contrary to the Calvinist doctrine that atonement is limited to the elect.[208] Both sides, excluding hyper-Calvinists, believe the Gospel invitation is universal and should be presented to everyone without distinction.[209]
  • Perseverance in faith – Arminians believe preservation to final salvation is conditional on faith and can be lost through apostasy. They contend for a present security in Christ, relying on His protection from all external forces.[145] Calvinists, on the other hand, hold to the perseverance of the saints, asserting that the elect will persevere in faith until the end of their lives.[210] However, a believer cannot know with certainty if they are elect until they reach the end.[211] This leads to different interpretations on the assurance of final salvation within Calvinist circles.[212][213]

Divergence with open theism

[edit]

The doctrine of open theism states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely determined (or "settled") because people have not made their free decisions yet. God therefore knows the future partially in possibilities (human free actions) rather than solely certainties (divinely determined events).[214] Some Arminians, reject open theism, viewing it as a distortion of traditional Arminianism.[215] They believe it shifts away from classical Arminianism toward process theology.[216] Others view it as a valid alternative perspective within Christianity, despite not aligning it with Arminian doctrine.[217]

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Olson 2014, p. 1.
  2. ^ Smith 2010, p. 147.
  3. ^ a b Sutton 2012, p. 86.
  4. ^ a b Bangs 1985, p. 170.
  5. ^ Bender 1953: "Mennonites have been historically Arminian in their theology whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not. They never accepted Calvinism either in the Swiss-South German branch or in the Dutch-North German wing. Nor did any Mennonite confession of faith in any country teach any of the five points of Calvinism. However, in the 20th century, particularly in North America, some Mennonites, having come under the influence of certain Bible institutes and the literature produced by this movement and its schools, have adopted the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or "once in grace always in grace." In doing so, they have departed from the historic Arminianism of the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement."
  6. ^ Olson 2013b: "I am using 'Arminianism' as a handy [...] synonym for 'evangelical synergism' (a term I borrow from Donald Bloesch). [...] It's simply a Protestant perspective on salvation, God's role and ours, that is similar to, if not identical with, what was assumed by the Greek church fathers and taught by Hubmaier, Menno Simons, and even Philipp Melanchthon (after Luther died). It was also taught by Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (d. 1600)—independently of Arminius. (Arminius mentions Hemmingsen as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.)"
  7. ^ Guggisberg & Gordon 2017, p. 242.
  8. ^ Guggisberg & Gordon 2017, p. 242-244.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i Heron 1999, p. 128.
  10. ^ a b c Wynkoop 1967, ch. 3.
  11. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2021, p. 29.
  12. ^ Loughlin 1907.
  13. ^ a b c Olson 2009, p. 23.
  14. ^ Tyacke 1990, p. 24.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g McClintock & Strong 1880.
  16. ^ Tyacke 1990, p. 245: "Of the various terms which can be used to describe the thrust of religions change at the time Arminian is the least misleading. It does not mean that the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius was normally the source of the ideas so labelled. Rather Arminian denotes a coherent body of anti-Calvinist religious thought, which was gaining ground in various regions of early seventeenth-century Europe."
  17. ^ MacCulloch 1990, p. 94: "If we use the label 'Arminian' for English Churchmen, it must be with these important qualification in mind [of been related to the theology of Arminius]; 'proto-Arminian' would be a more accurate term."
  18. ^ Delumeau, Wanegffelen & Cottret 2012, pp. 65–66.
  19. ^ Wallace (2011), p. 233: "According to Edwards, it was only after the Restoration that non-Calvinist views come to be adopted by many of the clergy of the Church of England. Foremost among those who rejected Calvinism had been the Arminians, and Edwards appeared on the scene as a defender of Calvinism against Arminianism at a time when it was more often the Dissenters who were battling it and calling attention to the triumph of Arminianism in the Church of England."
  20. ^ Gonzalez 2014, pp. 225–226.
  21. ^ Torbet 1963, pp. 37, 145, 507.
  22. ^ Gunter 2007, p. 78.
  23. ^ Gunter 2007, pp. 66–68.
  24. ^ Keefer 1987, p. 89: "What Wesley knew of Arminius came to him through two basic sources. First, he knew something of Arminius through Remonstrant spokesmen. [...] Wesley's second source of Arminian theology was the English Church in general, particularly the writers of the seventeenth century. This was by far his predominant source [...]."
  25. ^ a b Gunter 2007, p. 82.
  26. ^ Gunter 2007, p. 77.
  27. ^ Gunter 2007, p. 81.
  28. ^ a b Grider 1982, p. 55.
  29. ^ Grider 1982, pp. 55–56.
  30. ^ Knight 2018, p. 115.
  31. ^ Grider 1982, p. 56.
  32. ^ Grider 1982, pp. 53–55.
  33. ^ a b Bounds 2011, p. 50.
  34. ^ Bounds 2011, p. 50: "The American Holiness movement, influenced heavily by the revivalism of Charles Finney, inculcated some of his Soft Semi-Pelagian tendencies among their preachers and teachers [...]. This has provided critics of Wesleyan theology with fodder by which they pigeonhole inaccurately larger Wesleyan thought."
  35. ^ Knight 2010, p. 201.
  36. ^ Knight 2010, p. 5.
  37. ^ Olson 2009, p. 93.
  38. ^ Studebaker 2008, p. 54. "Pentecostal theology, generally adopts an Arminian/Wesleyan structure of the ordos salutis [...]."
  39. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2021, p. 240: "[T]he specifically Pentecostal denominations —such as the Assemblies of God, founded in 1914— have remained broadly Arminian when it comes to the matters of free, resistible grace and choice in salvation [...]."
  40. ^ AG 2017.
  41. ^ Olson 2014, pp. 2–3: "Methodism, in all its forms (including ones that do not bear that name), tends to be Arminian. (Calvinist Methodist churches once existed. They were founded by followers of Wesley's co-evangelist George Whitefield. But, so far as I am able to tell, they have all died out or merged with traditionally Reformed-Calvinist denominations.) Officially Arminian denominations include ones in the so-called 'Holiness' tradition (e.g., Church of the Nazarene) and in the Pentecostal tradition (e.g., Assemblies of God). Arminianism is also the common belief of Free Will Baptists (also known as General Baptists). Many Brethren [anabaptists-pietist] churches are Arminian as well. But one can find Arminians in many denominations that are not historically officially Arminian, such as many Baptist conventions/conferences."
  42. ^ Akin 1993: "In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches."
  43. ^ Dorner 2004, p. 419: "Through its opposition to Predestinarianism, Arminianism possesses a certain similarity to the Lutheran doctrine, in the shape which the latter in the seventeenth century more and more assumed, but the similarity is rather a superficial one."
  44. ^ a b c d e Olson 2012.
  45. ^ Sutton 2012, p. 56: "Interestingly, Anabaptism and Arminianism are similar is some respects. Underwood wrote that the Anabaptist movement anticipated Arminius by about a century with respect to its reaction against Calvinism."
  46. ^ a b c Olson 2014, pp. 2–3.
  47. ^ a b c d Olson 2009, p. 87.
  48. ^ SBC 2000, ch. 5.
  49. ^ Harmon 1984, pp. 17–18, 45–46.
  50. ^ Walls & Dongell 2004, pp. 12–13, 16–17.
  51. ^ Walls & Dongell 2004, pp. 7–20.
  52. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2021, p. 139.
  53. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2021, p. 241.
  54. ^ Akin 1993.
  55. ^ Gause 2007: "Pentecostals are almost universally Wesleyan-Arminian rather than Calvinist/Reformed, with rare exceptions among denominational Charismatic."
  56. ^ Olson 2009, p. 21.
  57. ^ More 1982, p. 1.
  58. ^ Pinson 2011, p. 7.
  59. ^ Olson 2009, p. 24.
  60. ^ a b c Olson 2009, p. 25.
  61. ^ Olson 2009, p. 26.
  62. ^ Olson 2009, p. 28.
  63. ^ a b c Driscoll 2013, p. 299.
  64. ^ a b Olson 2009, p. 29.
  65. ^ Keathley 2014, p. 716.
  66. ^ a b Keathley 2014, p. 749.
  67. ^ Kirkpatrick 2018, p. 118.
  68. ^ Stegall 2009, p. 485, n. 8.
  69. ^ Wilson 2017, p. 10, n. 30.
  70. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 125.
  71. ^ Olson 2009, p. 47.
  72. ^ Marberry 1998, p. 30.
  73. ^ Osborne, Trueman & Hammett 2015, p. 134: "[...] Osborne Wesleyan-Arminian perspective".
  74. ^ Bounds 2011, pp. 32–33.
  75. ^ Schaff 1997, § 173. "In anthropology and soteriology [Lactantius] follows the synergism which, until Augustine, was almost universal."
  76. ^ Puchniak 2008, p. 124.
  77. ^ Barrett 2013, p. xxvii. "[H]umanistic monergism is the view of Pelagius and Pelagianism".
  78. ^ Peterson & Williams 2004, p. 36. "[T]he humanistic monergism of Pelagius."
  79. ^ Teselle 2014, p. 6.
  80. ^ Rogers 2004, p. 1.
  81. ^ Barrett 2013, p. xxvii, ‌. "[D]ivine monergism is the view of Augustine and the Augustinians."
  82. ^ James 1998, p. 103. "If one asks, whether double predestination is a logical implication or development of Augustine's doctrine, the answer must be in the affirmative."
  83. ^ Levering 2011, p. 37.
  84. ^ a b Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 160.
  85. ^ a b Barrett 2013, p. xxvii, ‌‌. "[H]uman-initiated synergism is the view of Semi-Pelagianism".
  86. ^ Denzinger 1954, ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 5-7.
  87. ^ Pickar 1981, p. 797.
  88. ^ Cross 2005, p. 701.
  89. ^ Olson 2009, p. 81.
  90. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 153.
  91. ^ a b c d Bounds 2011, pp. 39–43.
  92. ^ a b Barrett 2013, p. xxvii, ‌‌‌. "God-initiated synergism is the view of the Semi-Augustinians".
  93. ^ Oakley 1988, p. 64.
  94. ^ Thorsen 2007, ch. 20.3.4.
  95. ^ Denzinger 1954, ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 199. "We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil."
  96. ^ Keathley 2014, p. 703, ch. 12.
  97. ^ Magnusson 1995, p. 62.
  98. ^ Olson 2014, p. 6.
  99. ^ Forlines 2001, p. xvii.
  100. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2021, pp. 6–7.
  101. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 16, 17, 200.
  102. ^ Wynkoop 1967, pp. 61–69.
  103. ^ Episcopius & Ellis 2005, p. 8: "Episcopius was singularly responsible for the survival of the Remonstrant movement after the Synod of Dort. We may rightly regard him as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers."
  104. ^ Pinson 2002, p. 137.
  105. ^ Vickers 2009, p. 84.
  106. ^ Reasoner 2000, p. 1.
  107. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 190 "These points [of Remonstrance] are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his Declaration of Sentiments.
  108. ^ Forlines 2011.
  109. ^ Olson 2009.
  110. ^ Picirilli 2002, p. 1.
  111. ^ Pinson 2002, pp. 149–150.
  112. ^ Pinson 2003, pp. 135, 139.
  113. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 90–91.
  114. ^ Olson 2013a: "Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not sovereignty but God's character. If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell. [...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is not providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is God's character."
  115. ^ Olson 2014, p. 11.
  116. ^ Olson 2010: "Classical Arminianism does not say God never interferes with free will. It says God never foreordains or renders certain evil. [...] An Arminian could believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs. [...] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will – as if that were central in and of itself. Classical Arminians have gone out of our way (beginning with Arminius himself) to make clear that our sole reasons for believe in free will as Arminians [...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."
  117. ^ Olson 2018: "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without 'prevenient grace' (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. 'A' is called 'limited providence,' 'B' is called 'predestination by foreknowledge.'"
  118. ^ Picirilli 2002, p. 40.
  119. ^ Olson 2008, p. 149. "Classical free will theism is that form of this model found implicitly if not explicitly in the ancient Greek church fathers, most of the medieval Christian and theologians […] Classical free will theism describes free will as incompatible with determinism".
  120. ^ Olson 2009, p. 20.
  121. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 115–119.
  122. ^ Olson 2008, p. 151. "Occasionally God suspends free will with a dramatic intervention that virtually forces a person to decide or act in some way".
  123. ^ Olson 2014, p. 8. "Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.".
  124. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 42–43, 59-.
  125. ^ Pinson 2002, pp. 146–147.
  126. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 55–56.
  127. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 142–145.
  128. ^ Arminius 1853a, p. 526. "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."
  129. ^ a b Olson 2009, p. 142.
  130. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 153.
  131. ^ Arminius 1853a, p. 316.
  132. ^ Arminius 1853c, p. 454.
  133. ^ Pinson 2002, p. 140. "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."
  134. ^ a b c d e Gann 2014.
  135. ^ Forlines 2011, p. 403. "On the condition of faith, we are placed in union with Christ. Based on that union, we receive His death and righteousness".
  136. ^ Pinson 2002, pp. 140 ff.
  137. ^ Picirilli 2002, p. 132.
  138. ^ a b Olson 2009, p. 224.
  139. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 154 ff. "[I]ndeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to Regeneration unless finally resisted."
  140. ^ Forlines 2001, pp. 313–321.
  141. ^ a b Arminius 1853c, p. 311.
  142. ^ Pawson 1996, pp. 109 ff.
  143. ^ Arminius 1853c, p. 376: "First, you say, and truly, that hell-fire is the punishment ordained for sin and the transgression of the law."
  144. ^ Episcopius & Ellis 2005, ch. 20, item 4.
  145. ^ a b Picirilli 2002, p. 203.
  146. ^ Arminius 1853b, pp. 219–220.
  147. ^ Arminius 1853b, pp. 465, 466: "This seems to fit with Arminius' other statements on the need for perseverance in faith. For example: 'God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ'."
  148. ^ Arminius 1853c, pp. 412, 413: "[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation".
  149. ^ Stanglin & Muller 2009.
  150. ^ Cameron 1992, p. 226.
  151. ^ a b Grider 1982, pp. 55–56, ‌. "Arminius used an ingenious device to teach [the possibility of Apostasy], so as not to seem to oppose Calvinism's eternal security doctrine head on and recklessly He admitted that believers cannot lose saving grace; but then he would add, quickly, that Christians can freely cease to believe, and that then they will lose saving grace. So, in a sense, believers cannot backslide; but Christians can cease to believe, and then, as unbelievers (but only as unbelievers), they lose their salvation"
  152. ^ Arminius 1853b, "A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans", pp. 219–220, [1599]
  153. ^ Arminius 1853a, p. 665: "William Nichols notes: 'Arminius spoke nearly the same modest words when interrogated on this subject in the last Conference which he had with Gomarus [a Calvinist], before the states of Holland, on the 12th of Aug. 1609, only two months prior to his decease'".
  154. ^ Oropeza 2000, p. 16: "Although Arminius denied having taught final apostasy in his Declaration of Sentiments, in the Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination [c. 1602] he writes that 'a person who is being "built" into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process'. Concerning the believers, 'It may suffice to encourage them, if they know that no power or prudence can dislodge them from the rock, unless they of their own will forsake their position.'"
  155. ^ Arminius 1853c, p. 455, "Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination", [c. 1602]
  156. ^ Arminius 1853c, p. 458, "Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination", [c. 1602] "[The covenant of God (Jeremiah 23)] does not contain in itself an impossibility of defection from God, but a promise of the gift of fear, whereby they shall be hindered from going away from God so long as that shall flourish in their hearts."
  157. ^ Arminius 1853c, pp. 463–464, "Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination", [c. 1602]
  158. ^ Arminius 1853a, p. 667, Disputation 25, on Magistracy, [1602]
  159. ^ Stanglin 2007, p. 137.
  160. ^ Arminius 1853a, p. 388, Letter to Wtenbogaert, trans. as "Remarks on the Preceding Questions, and on those opposed to them", [1605]
  161. ^ a b Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 190.
  162. ^ Bangs 1960, p. 15.
  163. ^ Oropeza 2000, p. 16: "If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away".
  164. ^ Schaff 2007.
  165. ^ Picirilli 2002, p. 198. "Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger."
  166. ^ De Jong 1968, pp. 220 ff., art. 5, points 3–4: "True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish."
  167. ^ Witzki 2010.
  168. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 174.
  169. ^ Stanglin 2007, p. 139.
  170. ^ De Jong 1968, pp. 220 ff., ch. 5.5: "Nevertheless, we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen."
  171. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 204 ff.
  172. ^ Pinson 2002, p. 159.
  173. ^ Olson 2009, p. 189, note 20.
  174. ^ Sayer 2006, ch. "Wesleyan-Arminian theology": "Evangelical Wesleyan-Arminianism has as its center the merger of both Wesley's concept of holiness and Arminianism's emphasis on synergistic soteriology."
  175. ^ Pinson 2002, pp. 227 ff.: "Wesley does not place the substitionary element primarily within a legal framework [...]. Rather [his doctrine seeks] to bring into proper relationship the 'justice' between God's love for persons and God's hatred of sin [...] it is not the satisfaction of a legal demand for justice so much as it is an act of mediated reconciliation."
  176. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 104–105, 132 ff.
  177. ^ Olson 2009, p. 224: "Arminius did not believe [in the governmental theory of atonement], neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians."
  178. ^ Wood 2007, p. 67.
  179. ^ Elwell 2001, p. 1268. "[Wesley] states what justification is not. It is not being made actually just and righteous (that is sanctification). It is not being cleared of the accusations of Satan, nor of the law, nor even of God. We have sinned, so the accusation stands. Justification implies pardon, the forgiveness of sins. [...] Ultimately for the true Wesleyan salvation is completed by our return to original righteousness. This is done by the work of the Holy Spirit."
  180. ^ Oden 2012, pp. 88–89.
  181. ^ Wesley 1827, p. 66, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection." "[Entire sanctification is] purity of intention."
  182. ^ Wesley 1827, p. 66, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection."‌ "[Entire sanctification is] loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves."
  183. ^ Wesley 1827, p. 45, "Of Christian Perfection". "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."
  184. ^ Pinson 2002, pp. 239–240. "the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation [...] the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy."
  185. ^ Wesley & Emory 1835, p. 247, "A Call to Backsliders". "[N]ot one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands [...] innumerable are the instances [...] of those who had fallen but now stand upright."
  186. ^ Ridderbos 1997, p. 351: "[The certainty of salvation] does not rest on the fact that the church belongs to a certain 'number', but that it belongs to Christ, from before the foundation of the world. Fixity does not lie in a hidden decree, therefore, but in corporate unity of the Church with Christ, whom it has come to know in the gospel and has learned to embrace in faith."
  187. ^ Walls & Dongell 2004, p. 76: "The most conspicuous feature of Ephesians 1:3–2:10 is the phrase 'in Christ', which occurs twelve times in Ephesians 1:3–14 alone [...] this means that Jesus Christ himself is the chosen one, the predestined one. Whenever one is incorporated into him by grace through faith, one comes to share in Jesus' special status as chosen of God."
  188. ^ Barth 1974, p. 108: "Election in Christ must be understood as the election of God's people. Only as members of that community do individuals share in the benefits of God's gracious choice."
  189. ^ Abasciano 2005, pp. 42–43.
  190. ^ Pinson 2002, pp. 138–139.
  191. ^ Arminius 1853b, p. 192.
  192. ^ Arminius 1853b, p. 219. The entire treatise occupies pp. 196–452
  193. ^ Pawson 1996, p. 106.
  194. ^ Pawson 1996, pp. 97–98, 106.
  195. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 6 ff.
  196. ^ Schwartz & Bechtold 2015, p. 165.
  197. ^ Forlines 2011, pp. 20–24.
  198. ^ Marko 2020, p. 772. "Those who did not think a prevenient grace was necessary for initial human response or that it was resistible came to be called semi-Pelagians by Protestants in the post Reformation period."
  199. ^ Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 62.
  200. ^ Olson 2009, p. 30-31, 40-43, 79-81.
  201. ^ Gonzalez 2014, p. 180.
  202. ^ Olson 2009, pp. 31–34, 55–59.
  203. ^ Olson 2009, p. 68.
  204. ^ Calvin 1845, 3.21.7: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."
  205. ^ Alexander & Johnson 2016, p. 204: "It should be conceded at the outset, and without any embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God."
  206. ^ Olson 2009, p. 159.
  207. ^ Grudem 1994, p. 692.
  208. ^ Olson 2009, p. 221.
  209. ^ Nicole 1995, p. 400.
  210. ^ Grudem 1994, p. 970: "The Perseverance of the Saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again."
  211. ^ Grudem 1994, p. 860: "[T]his doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, if rightly understood, should cause genuine worry, and even fear, in the hearts of any who are 'backsliding' or straying away from Christ. Such persons must clearly be warned that only those who persevere to the end have been truly born again."
  212. ^ Keathley 2010, p. 171: "John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress has blessed multitudes of Christians, but his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, is disturbing. He recounts how, in his seemingly endless search for assurance of salvation, he was haunted by the question, 'How can I tell if I am elected?'"
  213. ^ Davis 1991, p. 217: "Calvin, however, has greater confidence than Luther and the Catholic tradition before him that the believer can also have great assurance of his election and final perseverance."
  214. ^ Sanders 2007, "Summary of Openness of God".
  215. ^ Picirilli 2002, pp. 40, 59 ff.. Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections.
  216. ^ Walls & Dongell 2004, p. 45. "[O]pen theism actually moves beyond classical Arminianism towards process theology."
  217. ^ Olson 2009, p. 199, note 67.

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arminianism&oldid=1263228853"