The teaching of Jacobus Arminius came about as a result of his belief that the teachings of John
Calvin, with respect to the role of God in salvation, were not correct. Although he had previously
been a supporter of Calvin and had accepted the Dutch Reformed doctrines of the absolute
sovereignty of God in salvation, predestination and foreordination, he changed his mind and
taught against those beliefs. Chief among his beliefs was the idea that man chooses God of his
own free will. He believed that man was affected by original sin and could not choose God in
that condition, but that God grants to the individual a special grace that removes the effect of the
fall and allows the person to make a choice of their own free will.
Arminian theology is a continuation or refinement of Pelagianism,
the doctrine of the 5th century English Catholic monk. Jacobus Arminius would deny that he
was a proponent of Pelagian heresy, because he did not teach against the concept of original sin
as did Pelagius, but the fact remains that the two schools of belief are very similar and ultimately
lead to the same actions by believers. The doctrinal error in Arminianism is that it substitutes an
act of man that is of greater authority than the sovereignty of God and makes God subservient to
the actions of man rather than man subservient to the actions of God.
Many denominations and sects have adopted the Arminian position, including John and
Charles Wesley who founded the Methodist church, most Pentecostal and charismatic churches,
Assembly of God, Nazarene, Mennonite, Christian & Missionary Alliance and many Baptist
groups. It would be safe to say that Arminian theology is the predominant element in most
Christian churches today, and the Calvinistic view has been rejected or ignored. There is a battle
going on within the church over the issue, that has intensified recently, as the emphasis and belief
in the centrality of man over the absolute sovereignty of God has become more prevalent in the
theology of the church.
DOCTRINES and TEACHINGS of CURRENT ARMINIAN THEOLOGY
- Chapter 7 of Paul's Epistle to the Romans refers to the unbeliever and not the believer.
- Man has the capability to choose or reject God even while unregenerate.
- God provides a "common grace" that is given to all men, that enables them to overcome the
effects of the fall and gives sufficient power to exercise their "free will" in order to choose or
reject God.
- God "predestines" to salvation only those people who He "foreknows" that in the future will
choose Him through their own free will. God's action is dependent on the choice that a person
makes.
- As a result of the ability to exercise "free will", even after becoming a Christian or
becoming regenerate, a person can reject the faith, fall away, lose their salvation and be
condemned to hell.
- Assurance of salvation cannot be known and people can lose and regain their salvation as
they will, sometimes many times.
PROBLEMS IN THE DOCTRINES and TEACHINGS of CURRENT ARMINIAN
THEOLOGY
- The belief that Chapter 7 of Romans does not refer to the believer is to deny the logical
organization of the book and the argument by Paul.
If, in verse 15, Paul states that, "... I am doing the very thing I hate" (NAS), then how is it
possible for Paul to hate sin and love God prior to being saved or regenerated? This would
contradict Paul's own conversion experience, in which he was on a mission to persecute
Christians, rather than seeking after God.
cf. Romans Verse By Verse, William R. Newell, Chapter 7, pp.250-
285
- The belief that man has the capability to choose or reject God, even while unregenerate,
denies the depravity of man. It is precisely man's inability to choose right or choose God that
places him in the predicament in which he is found. It is man's nature that places him in a fallen
condition, unable to respond to spiritual affairs, because his own personal sin is more
comfortable than a relationship with God. Also, the Bible states that unregenerate men are
spiritually "dead", incapable of responding. Just as a physically dead body is unable to respond to
external or internal stimuli, the spiritually dead soul is unable to respond to spiritual stimuli.
Because all men are in the same condition, unable to choose other than what is sinful and wrong,
it must be, of a necessity, that God is the One to act on behalf of man bring him to Himself. That
is the whole point of the Biblical record and the message of the gospel. Men cannot bring
themselves to God or save themselves. It is the purpose of every other religion in the world, to
teach that man can attain to goodness, be acceptable to God or attain to godhood, through
actions of works or by reformation of character.
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the
course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now
working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our
flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath,
even as the rest.
The Holy Bible, Ephesians 2:1-3 (NAS)
The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are,
"There is no God."
The Holy Bible, Proverbs 10:4 (NAS)
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who
understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good, not even one.
The Holy Bible, Psalm 14:2-3 (NAS)
- If God provides a "common grace" that is given to all men, that enables them to overcome
the effects of the fall and gives sufficient power to exercise their "free will" in order to choose or
reject God, then that doctrine must be taught in the Bible, and it is not. It is a doctrine devised in
order to support the Arminian belief.
There is a doctrine of "common grace" that teaches a form of beneficence from God to all
humanity, in that He provides a world in which mankind can survive and benefits such as
animals and plants for food, heat and light from the sun and rain to provide water for life.
However, this is not the type of "common grace" that is postulated by the Arminian.
cf. Psalm 65:9-13; Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:15-17
The Biblical teaching is that God draws men to Himself; not to a point of decision for or against
God, but draws men all the way to Himself.
cf. John 6:44
- If God "predestines" to salvation only those people who He "foreknows" that in the future
will choose Him through their own free will, then why does He provide a "common grace" to all
men, so that they have the ability to choose God, when He knows all of those people who will
not choose Him? Why not just "predestine" those who will choose God, instead of providing the
"common grace" to everyone in the first place?
By providing this "common grace" to all men, God must then subject His own action and
response to the choice or decision that a person makes. Men are then made the determining
factor in the proceedings and activities of God, rather than God being the determining factor in
the proceedings and activities of men. Man becomes a master or authority over the future history
of God, rather than God being the Creator of man and the Lord of the future history of man.
Arminian theology places God in a backward position; salvation beginning with the choice of
man, granted by God in reaction to that choice and maintained by the will and choice of man,
rather than salvation beginning with God, being granted by the sovereign grace and choice of
God and maintained by the pleasure and will of God.
cf. John 15:16; Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:3-6
- If, as a result of the ability to exercise "free will", even after becoming a Christian or
becoming regenerate, a person can reject the faith, fall away, lose their salvation and be
condemned to hell, the actions of God in relation to that person are more inexplicable than those
in the granting of "common grace" even to those who would reject God.
It is difficult to understand why would God grant salvation to an individual, when He would
know that at a specific time in the future, that person would then choose to reject that salvation
and be condemned to hell. That would certainly be a profanation of salvation and a blasphemous
treatment of the death of Christ by God Himself.
cf. Romans 16:25; Jude
24
- If the assurance of salvation cannot be known and people can lose their salvation as a result
of some sinful action or deliberate rejection of the faith, and then again regain their salvation as
they will or choose, sometimes many times, then "salvation" is an improper term to use in
relation to the process. For the individual who adopts Arminian theology and claims to be a
Christian, it is difficult for them to know when they are a Christian, and even more inexplicable,
how do they know when they have "lost" their salvation so that they may choose to regain it back
again? What does this belief do to the Arminian charge against the Calvinist, that Calvinistic
belief leads to license because one is saved forever regardless of conduct? The Arminian view is
worse than their charge against the Calvinist, because the Arminian can choose or reject salvation
at will.
It is the inability of Arminian theology to provide a foundation, concerning the assurance of
salvation, that has lead to the many religious organizations that deal with the insecurity of the
believer, thus fostering the many charismatic teachings in which people try to find their
assurance through their experiences and feelings. Out of this mentality comes the baptism of the
Holy Spirit through tongues, healings, miracles and other charismatic "signs" that are considered
to be the
confirmation that a person is saved, at least for the time of the manifestation. The uncertainty of
salvation within these groups brings about a continual search for a "sign" rather than a process of
sanctification in order to be conformed to the image of Christ. Seeking after a "sign" leads many
into the most bizarre of situations, such as the "Toronto Blessing", in the attempt to find some
mythical feeling of satisfaction that guarantees their possession of salvation. Those who never
go beyond the search for a "sign" will never attain to the level or spirituality commanded in the
Scripture, and may, through their own self-fulfilling prophecy of the inability to be sure of
salvation, miss that salvation at the beginning.
It might be that John Calvin went too far in his theology, ignoring the Scriptures which teach
that somehow men have the ability to choose. But what John Calvin taught was not
"hyper-Calvinism" of the type that Arminians charge that all Calvinists believe. However, the error
of Calvinism is not of the same type as that of Arminianism, because Calvinism preserves the
sovereignty of God, while Arminianism substitutes the choice of man in place of the sovereignty
of God. Arminians go too far in the opposite direction, by assuming that God is sovereign in all
things, but not sovereign in salvation and that man makes choices solely by his own volition and
rational action.
It is not sure if Arminius understood the ultimate conclusion of what he proposed, in that he
stripped God of His sovereignty, making Him subservient to His creation rather than His creation
subservient to Him.
The Arminian is faced with a serious dilemma when approaching Isaiah 45:9-13, Jeremiah 18:1-6
and Romans 9. In those chapters, the subservience of man to the sovereignty of God is clearly
taught. In the same manner, the Calvinist is faced with a similar predicament when faced with
John 3:14-21 and John 7:17, in regards to the ability of man to choose or reject and his
responsibility in relation to salvation.
One must read the Scripture, realizing that both positions are taught in the Scripture. The
absolute sovereignty of God in the affairs of man is taught, and man's failure to seek God,
through his own choice, is also taught. The Arminian may not substitute man's will in place of
God's sovereignty, but neither can the Calvinist claim that there is no element of choice attributed
to man in the element of salvation. The position one takes should not be an either/or belief, but an
acceptance of the fact that the teachings are irreconcilable in the mind of man. The actions of
God in relation to His created beings are absolute, whether men wish to accept that or not; that is
the point of Romans Chapter 9. It is not the responsibility of men to reconcile those actions in
relation to explanations provided by men themselves. God does not need to resolve any apparent
differences, because He is the author of the process and rules under which He conducts His own
affairs. God has already noted the nature of His responsibility and has guaranteed His promise
that He will act in accordance with His character and the Holiness of His being.
I the Lord Search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve."
The Holy Bible, Jeremiah 17:10 (NIV)
END OF ARTICLE
by Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine
ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES
On This Website:
"Arminianism: The Golden Idol Of Freewill" by
Augustus Toplady
"Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism & Augustinianism" or
Socinianism, Arminianism & Calvinism by A.A. Hodge
"The
Sovereignty Of God In Salvation by John F. MacArthur
|
COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved