Society of Evangelical Arminians: What is Arminianism?
The following is by Dan Chapa of the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA). Since theologically serious alternatives to Calvinism seem to be in short supply these days, SharperIron contacted SEA recently about the possibility of representing classical Arminianism for the SI audience. To learn more about the SEA, see their About Us page.
Arminianism is a summary of our understanding of the Scripture’s teaching on salvation. The name comes from Jacob Arminius, who led 17th century opposition to Calvinism, but the idea stems from Scripture and has deep roots in the early church fathers. Many non-Arminians have mistaken notions about Arminianism—as do many Arminians. This post will define and defend the essential aspects of Arminianism (total depravity, resistible grace, unlimited atonement and conditional election), without critiquing Calvinism.
Total Depravity
Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in total depravity—the idea that fallen man requires God’s grace through the beginning, middle and end of the salvation process. Adam’s fall left us unable, of our own strength, to repent and believe or live a life pleasing to God. But total depravity is not utter depravity; the lost don’t commit the worst sins possible on every occasion. Still without God’s grace, sin impacts every aspect of life and we cannot seek God on our own. Rather, He seeks us and enables us to believe.
Resistible Grace
Arminians may vary on exactly how God’s grace works; but all Arminians hold to the necessity of prevenient grace (grace that comes before conversion that enables us to believe). When God’s grace starts drawing us to conversion, we can choose to say no and reject Christ. God hasn’t predetermined repentance and faith; nothing causes these such that rejection is impossible and we cannot choose otherwise. But believing does not earn or cause salvation; God chooses to have mercy on believers.
Arminians find resistible grace in passages speaking of God’s grace and man’s rejection of it. God is seeking, drawing and inviting mankind to Himself (John 1:9, 4:23, 7:17, 12:32, 16:8; Rom. 2:4, Titus 2:11, Rev. 22:17). In Isaiah 5:4, God asks what more He could have done (showing the sufficiency of His grace) and He invites Israel to judge itself (showing the reasonableness of His requirements). The reasonableness of God’s commands and invitations shows that God treats us as if we can obey Him, which implies that we can, and this harmonizes with our moral intuitions.
In Matthew 11:21, Christ says Tyre and Sidon would have repented if the same works He had done in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done there. Tyre and Sidon were bywords for sinfulness, so they were neither elect nor regenerate. Yet the same divine works would have brought about repentance in them, showing the fitness of God’s works to bring about repentance and placing the difference in man’s response.
Also, the divine lament passages strongly affirm the resistibility of grace (Ps. 81:13; Luke 13:33-34, 19:41). Some passages plainly say people reject and resist God’s efforts to bring them to Him (Gen. 6:3, Jer. 13:11, Ezek. 24:13, Luke 7:30, Acts 7:51). God hardens hearts by turning over people to their own sinful lusts (Rom. 1:18-28). This implies that God’s grace was softening their hearts and restraining their wickedness. Additionally, the highly controversial Hebrews warning passages (however interpreted) indicate that God’s grace is resistible (Heb. 2:1-3, 3:6-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-29, 12:15). (Most self-identified “Arminians” have held that true believers can forsake Christ and perish as unbelievers, but the earliest formal statement of Arminian theology—the 5 points of the Remonstrants—expressed uncertainty about the point and, conceptually, it is not an essential tenet of Arminian theology.)
Resistible grace often leads to the controversial question of whether faith or regeneration comes first. Some disagreement stems from defining regeneration. Does regeneration include God’s imparting eternal life to us? Does regeneration include God’s enabling belief? Arminians typically answer yes to the first question and no to the second, so naturally we see faith as preceding regeneration. Ephesians 1:13, John 1:12-13, John 5:24-28, Romans 6:2-6, Galatians 3:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18 support this order. Notice the issue is which grace enables man to believe (prevenient grace or regeneration) not the depth of man’s depravity without grace.
Scriptures say we have wills and choose (Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 1 Cor. 7:37). “Choose” is normally defined as “to select from a number of possible alternatives” and we reject imposing on Scripture definitions of “choose” that either remove essential elements or are stipulated philosophical definitions. God tests us—whether we will obey or not—which implies that at least sometimes obedience is up to us (Exod. 16:4). God promises that we will not be tempted beyond our abilities (1 Cor. 10:13), which implies that we can choose to obey or not. God’s desire to have a relationship with free creatures magnifies His love, and His ability to providentially govern and rule a world with free creatures magnifies His sovereignty.
Unlimited Atonement
Christ died for everyone. This is not universalism; the benefits of Christ’s death are conditionally applied, not automatically or necessarily applied. Just as the Passover Lamb was slain and the blood applied, so also we distinguish between Christ’s death and the application of His blood to believers. Christ’s death makes salvation possible for all, and God desires all to believe and be saved through His blood, but only believers are actually cleansed by Christ’s blood.
We see conditionality in the application of Christ’s blood because justification is by faith (Rom. 3:21-26) and because Christ died for some who ultimately perish. Christ said to all the apostles, including Judas, my blood is “shed for you” (Luke 22:21-22). The apostates in Hebrews 10:26-29 were sanctified by Christ’s blood. The false prophets in 2 Peter 2:1 denied the Lord that bought them. 1 John 1:7 and Colossians 1:22-23 plainly teach conditionality in the application of Christ’s blood.
The many passages saying Christ died for the world or all men ground our belief that Christ died for everyone (John 1:29, 3:16-17, 4:42, 6:33, 6:51, 12:47; 1 John 2:1-2, 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:14-19; Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:10). While “world” has a broad range of meanings, that range does not include any definition that would avoid the conclusion that Christ died for everyone, nor do we see validity in inventing a specially plead definition of world to avoid unlimited atonement. We see Christ’s sacrifice for all as the foundation of the sincere offer of the gospel to all in that everyone can be saved through what Christ accomplished on the cross.
Conditional Election
God gave pre-fallen Adam the ability to obey Him—He wanted Adam to be free to have a relationship with Him. God did not causally determine Adam’s sin such that he couldn’t obey and necessarily fell—such would be inconsistent with God’s holiness and hatred of sin (James 1:13, Jer. 7:31, Ps. 45:7). Thus, Arminians insist that God is not the author of sin, and free will is essential to Arminian theodicy. Our freedom lies between God and sin; otherwise God is ultimately responsible for sin.
In election, God considered man as fallen sinners. God chooses to have mercy (Rom. 9:16). Scripture calls the non-elect vessels of wrath, or appointed to wrath (Rom. 9:22, 1 Thess. 5:9). Now mercy on the one hand, and wrath on the other, presuppose sin. So Arminians view election as fixing the sin problem, rather than seeing the fall as something God planned in order to accomplish His goal of sending His chosen to heaven and the rest to hell.
Election automatically excluded unbelievers. So we see symmetry in some essential respects between election and non-election. Hellfire is a punishment for sins, so rejection is conditional on unbelief and impenitence.
Freely fallen sinners is one starting point in explaining election—God’s amazing love is another. He does not desire the death of the wicked, nor is He willing that any should perish, but rather He wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (Ezek. 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4-6). God’s love of the world moved Him to send His Son so that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:16-17). Given man’s fall, the Father chose His Son as the basis and foundation for salvation, and our election is in Him (Matt. 12:18; 1 Pet. 1:20, 2:4; Eph. 1:4).
Just as rejection is conditional, based on sin and impenitence, election to salvation is likewise conditional, not based on works or merit, but based on God’s choice to have mercy on believers. Scripture describes predestination as God’s choosing to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21, 2:7); election is said to be in sanctification and in belief in the truth (1 Pet. 1:2, 2 Thess. 2:13). Conditional election includes God’s plan from before time to save through the gospel. Before the foundation of the world, God, in Christ, chose to glorify Himself by saving believers out of fallen mankind.
While all Arminians agree that election is Christocentric and conditional, Arminians may disagree on whether election is primarily corporate (election of the Church as a group with individuals sharing in the group’s election by faith) or primarily based on God’s foreknowledge of each individual’s faith.
Closing Thoughts
When I was first challenged by a Calvinist friend regarding Romans 9, I couldn’t explain the passage. And since his explanation made sense, I reluctantly accepted Calvinism. Then one night, I was shocked by the warning in Hebrews 10 and decided to devote time to digging into Scripture on the issues. I studied for years and came out of that process an Arminian. It was difficult; Arminian resources were scarce and Arminians scarcer still. SEA fixes all of that, giving us resources and a community in which to build each other up. Space hasn’t permitted a detailed exegesis of each of the passages cited, but much more detail is available on the SEA website.
danchapa Bio
Dan Chapa was saved at an early age and Christ is the most important part of his life. He has attended independent or Southern Baptists Churches his entire life. His main ministries have been evangelism and teaching Sunday school, but he has also enjoyed discussing Calvinism/Arminianism over the years. He is a member of SEA and blogs at arminianchronicles.com. He lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and two boys.
- 424 views
[Ed Vasicek] martin, I agree that one accepts unconditional election or one does not. I writes as one who does. But I would argue that the Scriptures themselves come at these matters from both directions. We know, for example, that we cannot save ourselves. Yet Acts 2:40 exhorts us to do just that…I am saying that the Scriptures describe salvation in both Sovereign Grace terms and Arminian terms.Just for clarification, are you suggesting that Scripture “describes salvation” in both terms of a grace that can be resisted and, simultaneously, of that same grace that cannot be resisted?
Thanks.
When you say you believe election is God’s choice to save the group of people He knew would believe, do you mean God chose each member of that group individually, or only that He chose to save the group? Whoever places themselves into that group by believing becomes, thereby, the elect of God?Closer to the former, I think. But it’s all the members collectively rather than each individually. So not like, Bob, yes. Tim, yes. Sue, yes. But rather the list or Bob, Tim, Sue, yes.
Arminians will have different views on this issue, no doubt.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan, that is exactly what I am saying!Glad to hear it Ed!
God be with you,
Dan
Martin, I agree that one accepts unconditional election or one does not. I writes as one who does. But I would argue that the Scriptures themselves come at these matters from both directions. We know, for example, that we cannot save ourselves. Yet Acts 2:40 exhorts us to do just that:But this demonstrates my point in so many ways. As an Arminian, I necessarily believe in Sovereign Grace. I believe that we cannot save ourselves. I believe God’s hand is over all of history and humanity. If I didn’t believe such things, I wouldn’t be Arminian. I find that when people try to hold to Calvinist concepts and Arminian concepts at the same time, the Calvinist concepts they are talking about already exist within the Arminian system. The two belief systems are actually extremely close together.
Quote:
And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
I am saying that the Scriptures describe salvation in both Sovereign Grace terms and Arminian terms.
your brother in Christ, Martin Alpha and omega forever
[Martin_G]…the Calvinist concepts they are talking about already exist within the Arminian system. The two belief systems are actually extremely close together.It seems to me that when concepts are defined, both theological systems are widely divergent and cannot be reconciled. Their being “extremely close together”, therefore, is merely superficial. No?
It seems to me that when concepts are defined, both theological systems are widely divergent and cannot be reconciled. Their being “extremely close together”, therefore, is merely superficial. No?I don’t think their being close together is superficial, no. On the other hand, i do think that what differentiates them makes them irreconcilable. Like I said before, it is like the difference between the hallway and the living room: they are right next to each other, but there is a clear line of demarcation between them.
If you go back to the Augustine/Pelagius debate, there were four belief systems that emerged: Augustinianism, Semi-augustinianism, Semi-pelagianism, and Pelagianism. Calvinism is very similar to Augustinianism, and Arminianism is very similar to Semi-augustinianism. Both C and A are founded on Reformed theology, and have the 5 solas as their theological starting places. Thus, i would argue against it being a superficial similarity.
your brother in Christ, Martin Alpha and omega forever
[Martin_G] If you go back to the Augustine/Pelagius debate, there were four belief systems that emerged: Augustinianism, Semi-augustinianism, Semi-pelagianism, and Pelagianism. Calvinism is very similar to Augustinianism, and Arminianism is very similar to Semi-augustinianism. Both C and A are founded on Reformed theology, and have the 5 solas as their theological starting places. Thus, i would argue against it being a superficial similarity.http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Church-8-vols/dp/156563196X] Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), 1996.
Vol. 3. Ch. 9, Sec. 146-160, p. 783ff
or http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch09.htm online text here
or http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/HISTORY_OF_THE_CHRISTIAN_CHURCH_03…] FREE PDF download here - p.464ff
Section 160 is titled Victory of Semi-Augustinianism. Council of Orange, AD 529.
[Schaff (p.870 book); (p.514 PDF)] At the close of this period Gregory the Great represents the moderated Augustinian system, with the gratia praeveniens, but without the gratia irresistibilis and without a particularistic decretum absolutum. Through him this milder Augustinianism exerted great influence upon the mediaeeval theology.It appears that the idea of Prevenient Grace came from http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html the canons of the Council of Orange .
The conclusion reads:
The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.It also shows that baptism was the means by which that grace was bestowed.
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.Additional source: Chris Bounds blog article http://cbounds.blogspot.com/2006/10/four-major-views-of-christian.html The Four Major Views of Christian Salvation: Part Two.
…unlike the Semi-Pelagian view, which sees original sin or human depravity as partial or incomplete, leaving humanity with some internal resources to contribute to the work of salvation, the Semi-Augustinian view sees original sin as complete or humanity as totally depraved.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Dan gave an illustration of a football team choosing a tackle, as if the fact that the football player, in choosing to become a tackle rather than a linebacker, placed him in the group that Dallas had already determined to choose. But the illustration does not work, precisely because the doctrinal viewpoint does not work.
For the illustration to work, Dallas would have to “choose” every player who chose to become a tackle, not just one. Dallas didn’t choose a group, they chose an individual. God doesn’t choose a group, He chooses individuals and makes them members of a group, the church. When Dan’s illustration is examined carefully, he illustrates individual Divine election. Dallas chose one tackle and passed over others. God chooses one individual and passes over others.
The doctrine of election is not warmly welcomed by either sinner or many saints. But an honest dealing with Scripture requires that we accept Unconditional Election. That is what God does because He is Sovereign. That is what the Bible teaches so that we may know that His sovereignty extends to every detail of salvation, not just to a general rule of most parts of His universe. When the Biblical doctrine of election is understood and embraced, our understanding of God grows larger, as well as our understanding of the meaning of grace. Grace is truly unmerited favor in every way.
Again, thanks for a good discussion.
Warm regards,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] It seems that the similarities become smaller, and the differences greater as we define issues more carefully. I have tried to stay focused on one doctrine, election, in order to define clearly what Dan believes. Dan believes that election is of groups, not individuals. The Bible speaks of individuals. “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” (Romans 8:29 NASB)Hey Greg-
Quite a few of the other translations for Romans 8:29 make that a plural, not a singular; if I remember my greek correctly, this is a legitimate translation. Furthermore, in the overall context of Romans 8, I do not see how you can make that one verse particular.
Here are a few of the other translations:
HCSB - 29 For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.The NAS, KJV, and NKJV to render it as a singular in that one particular verse.
ESV - 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
AMP - For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was aware and loved beforehand] , He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness] , that He might become the firstborn among many brethren.
NIV - For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
As for the context (in the NAS, since that’s what you used):
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.et cetera. I think my point is clear :)
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?…
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Just one thought on paradox. I doubt anybody is saying that Arminianism and Calvinism can be held simultaneously “as paradox” in their entirety. That is, in my experience, what people usually mean is that they like to hold to parts of one and the other at the same time and call it paradox or mystery etc.
I prefer to say that there are details of the whole working of God in salvation that are, while truly important, still mysterious to me and I expect to remain uncertain for some time… maybe until 1Cor.13.12.
So rather than say I’m “both” or “neither,” I prefer to say that in some particulars I’m “as yet undecided.”
But I’m not keen on the Arminian idea of comprehensive prevenient grace. Though I respect the idea as a viable solution to the problem of total depravity + responsibility to repent and believe, I’m not inclined to see it as the right solution.
Still, I’m not for dismissing the problem as one with an obvious (ie. Calvinist) answer. I think the answer is a difficult one any way you slice it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I would also like to add that Baptism being the mode of dispensing grace was as much an Augustinian position as it was a Semi-augustinian position. Indeed, Augustine was the father of Protestant soteriology and Catholic sacramentology. The principle difference between those two views and their Protestant counterparts is sacramentology.
your brother in Christ, Martin Alpha and omega forever
It’s true the illustration has its limitations – it was intended to deal with ratification and to show a conditional choice is still a choice and I think it does that. Perhaps it could be fixed by supposing that instead of selecting individual players, groups of players were chosen or something like that.
Well in any case, I am not sure I understand your concern. Are you saying selecting a group is illogical or rather unbiblical?
I agree with Jay’s point about Romans 8.
Again, thanks for a good discussion.Likewise. I certainly appreciate your approach.
God be with you,
Dan
[G. N. Barkman] It seems that the similarities become smaller, and the differences greater as we define issues more carefully. I have tried to stay focused on one doctrine, election, in order to define clearly what Dan believes. Dan believes that election is of groups, not indiiduals. The Bible speaks of individuals. “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” (Romans 8:29 NASB)If I remember correctly, Dan only uses that metaphor to explain the relationship between conditionality and election. He doesn’t use it as an allegory for how election works. Dan himself can clarify more if he cares to.
Dan gave an illustration of a football team choosing a tackle, as if the fact that the football player, in choosing to become a tackle rather than a linebacker, placed him in the group that Dallas had already determined to choose. But the illustration does not work, precisely because the doctrinal viewpoint does not work.
For the illustration to work, Dallas would have to “choose” every player who chose to become a tackle, not just one. Dallas didn’t choose a group, they chose an individual. God doesn’t choose a group, He chooses individuals and makes them members of a group, the church. When Dan’s illustration is examined carefully, he illustrates individual Divine election. Dallas chose one tackle and passed over others. God chooses one individual and passes over others.
The doctrine of election is not warmly welcomed by either sinner or many saints. But an honest dealing with Scripture requires that we accept Unconditional Election. That is what God does because He is Sovereign. That is what the Bible teaches so that we may know that His sovereignty extends to every detail of salvation, not just to a general rule of most parts of His universe. When the Biblical doctrine of election is understood and embraced, our understanding of God grows larger, as well as our understanding of the meaning of grace. Grace is truly unmerited favor in every way.
Again, thanks for a good discussion.
Warm regards,
Greg
your brother in Christ, Martin Alpha and omega forever
[Aaron Blumer] Thanks to everybody for the tone of the discussion here. I haven’t been able to keep up, but what I’m seeing has been interesting.What do you mean by “comprehensive”? Do you mean that it expands the whole human race? Or do you mean that it deals with the totality of depravity? I only ask because I would not find the latter to be accurate.
Just one thought on paradox. I doubt anybody is saying that Arminianism and Calvinism can be held simultaneously “as paradox” in their entirety. That is, in my experience, what people usually mean is that they like to hold to parts of one and the other at the same time and call it paradox or mystery etc.
I prefer to say that there are details of the whole working of God in salvation that are, while truly important, still mysterious to me and I expect to remain uncertain for some time… maybe until 1Cor.13.12.
So rather than say I’m “both” or “neither,” I prefer to say that in some particulars I’m “as yet undecided.”
But I’m not keen on the Arminian idea of comprehensive prevenient grace. Though I respect the idea as a viable solution to the problem of total depravity + responsibility to repent and believe, I’m not inclined to see it as the right solution.
Still, I’m not for dismissing the problem as one with an obvious (ie. Calvinist) answer. I think the answer is a difficult one any way you slice it.
your brother in Christ, Martin Alpha and omega forever
[Jay C.] Hi A.M. -Jay,
I saw this:Of course, this is the Classical or Reformed Arminian perspective. Others might disagree with elements of this but I believe most would agree that the central theme of election is the salvation of believers who persevere to the trump of the LORD.My understanding of Arminianism is that all true believers are saved and that the salvation is permanent (John 10:22-30, Romans 8:26-39), but the real problem is discerning between the unsaved who think that they are believers and the true believers who are in fact saved. I would disagree strongly with the idea that believers can be lost or fall away from God’s grace.
There are many passages that I’m thinking of, including many of Christ’s parables, but especially Matthew 25 (the parables of the Ten Virgins, Talents, and the teaching on the final judgment.)
Arminius himself did not clearly subscribe to the notion that believers could fall away into apostasy although he acknowledged that there is a scriptural case that deserves consideration. He also emphasized the distinction of “true believers” as being the Elect. I do not believe that “true” is used in an empirical manner as opposed to “false” but instead represents faithfulness e.g. I am true to my wife. True believers will persevere. Those who believe for a season thinking they are “true believers fall away. Now, keep in mind the question what distinction is there really to any believer in his own mind? Both the true and temporal hold to similar truths with only the former faithful and obedient in persevering. Place them side by side and I suggest there is no difference to be found in the eyes of men until one or the other moves his eye to something other than the person and work of Jesus Christ. Hence, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling and only through faith in that same person and work.
Discussion