ARMINIUS' DOCTRINE

 With the exception of a few points, Arminius was a strict Calvinist by the standards of his day. In refuting Coornhert, he believed he was giving a proper representation of Calvin's views. At that time the debate was not Calvin versus Arminius, but rather supralapsarian Calvinists verses Arminian (infralapsarian) Calvinists (Gonzalez 180). For this reason this paper will present the doctrine of Arminius as it relates to the five points at which the Synod of Dort (1618) determined Arminius to be in error.

 These points have become the standard by which Calvinism is measured, and they are represented by the acrostic TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints).
 Total depravity addresses the issue of original sin. The Synod of Dort concluded Arminius taught that although all men have the misfortune to partake in the effect of Adam's sin, they are not actually guilty of sin because of Adam. Shedd affirms this conclusion based on a statement Arminius made against "Absolute reprobation" (Doctrine 181). The statement Shedd mentions, however, is most likely arguing not against the fact that all are guilty, but against the view that all are as evil as they can possibly be. William Cunningham, a strict Calvinist by today's standards, and quite antagonistic toward Arminius, admits, "The statements of Arminius himself, in regard to natural depravity of man, so far as we have them upon record, are full and satisfactory." He goes on to say that in the year before his death Arminius, in a public declaration of sentiments, said something that led Gromarus to charge him with having some erroneous views on original sin. This and the fact that many Arminians would later deny original sin leads Cunningham to believe this is what Arminius taught (Theology 389). A second-hand observation of a single remark and later versions of his beliefs, however, are hardly enough evidence to overturn the many "Full and satisfactory" statements Arminius made.

 On the question of depravity's effect on human free will to do good Bangs quotes Arminius:
“In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, 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 whatsoever except such as are excited by divine grace. For Christ has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing'" (Arminius 341).
Although he admits differences on other issues, John Wesley said, "No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear, and more express terms, than Arminius has done" (Kerr 198). It is also interesting to note that Arminius considered himself a defender of Calvin on this point. Commenting on his refutation of Coornhert Arminius said, "Our opponents, who are numerous here, deny (original sin) altogether" (Bangs 139). Arminius is obviously not speaking here of Calvinists, but rather of the Calvinists' enemies, the libertines. 

 The second issue is unconditional election, the understanding that God chose the elect entirely on His own, without taking into account how men would respond. A basic difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, as mentioned earlier, is that between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Supralapsarianism is the belief that God's decree of the elect and their eternal bliss precedes the decree of the fall and salvation. Infralapsarianism reverses this. In both cases this “order” is merely a logical order and not a chronological one, since God always knew everything for all of eternity past and has never thought of anything new or arrived at any conclusions. All thoughts God has ever had have been simultaneous. Nevertheless, there is a debate over the logical order in which an infinite, omniscient God, who transcends time, thought things out. Supralapsarianism holds that God’s first purpose was for certain people to be saved and others damned, and so then He determined how to bring that about (the Fall and redemption). Infralapsarianism sees God as looking at man as fallen when He decides about who would be elect and who would not.

The idea of conditional election is taken primarily from an interpretation of Romans 8:29,30. When it says, "those He foreknew He also predestined..." conditional electionists understand it to mean God chose the elect based on His knowledge that they would eventually respond with faith. Hence, the election is conditional on the response. Unconditional electionists would say the elect respond only because God chose them.

Although some understand Arminius' understanding as a mere weakening of predestination (Lohse 218), most are agreed that Arminius held to a strict conditional election view. The question of what Arminius actually believed, however, is not as simple as the view stated above. His argument is that the word "foreknow" may mean "to bestow favor ahead of time," as unconditional election would assume, but God favors no one who is not in Christ (here is the importance of infralapsarianism), and no one is in Christ except by faith. Knowing this would appear to make God's decision contingent to man's, Arminius said that faith is given graciously to whomever God chooses. He even agreed that "God is not governed by second causes; much less does He depend on them. He justly ordains them." Arminius understood that God's decisions were not contingent on man's, and yet he rejected the view that man is totally passive in salvation. Many believe this way today, and among those people it is generally assumed that the a finite mind is simply unable to harmonize the two truths. Arminius tried to harmonize them, and the result was a very confusing work which appears to be a series of more and more complicated contradictory statements (Writings 281-525(!)). It is true that Arminius rejected strict determinism, but he also rejected simple conditional election.

In contrast to his confusing treatment of election, his beliefs on limited atonement are quite clear. Limited atonement is the view that Christ died only for the elect. Arminius rejected this. In his "Apology Against Thirty One Defamatory Articles" Arminius wrote, "The price of the death of Christ was given for all and for everyone" (Writings 1: 316).

This issue would prove to be quite an important one throughout church history. In the seventeenth century, for example, the Baptist church split over it. Those holding to limited atonement were known as the Particular Baptists, and those who believed unlimited atonement were the General Baptists (Gonzalez 225).

The "I" in TULIP Signifies “Irresistible” 

This is the doctrine that supposes that everyone God calls will respond, and His call cannot be resisted by anyone. The basis of this doctrine is in a process of logical reasoning from an understanding of total depravity. If man can do nothing to save himself he must be completely passive in the salvation process. If this is the case then the person getting saved does not even cooperate, and thus, failure to cooperate cannot stop the process. If it could, no one would be saved.

Arminius agrees with much of this statement. There is no question that he believed men are totally unable to do anything to save themselves. In a letter to Collibus, Arminius wrote:
“That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word `grace,' I mean by it that which...is simply necessary for the illuminating of the mind, the due ordering of the affections and the inclination of the will to that which is good...I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal men is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins" (Bangs 342).

The disagreement comes with the last Statement of the Calvinist's logical progression. Arminius would hold that it is a logical fallacy to assume that since man cannot do anything to gain salvation he therefore cannot resist it. And more importantly, Scripture seems to speak of God calling all men. This is related to the unlimited atonement view. Those who argue against a universal call do so on the basis of a belief in limited atonement (see Cunningham 394). Most theologians today who hold to irresistible grace acknowledge a universal call but then make a distinction between that and the individual efficacious call (Letham 119). It is this distinction to which Arminius objects. "Whomsoever God calls, he calls seriously, with a will desirous of their repentance and salvation. Neither is there any volition of God about or concerning those whom he calls as being uniformly considered, that is, either affirmatively or negatively contrary to his will" (Bangs 343).

The Calvinist argues that if men can resist grace, man is more powerful than God. Arminius' answer is that our relationship with God is "Not a power struggle or a contest of whose will is stronger. Rather, he sees grace not as a force at all, irresistible or otherwise. Our relationship with God is a person to person relationship that is not characterized by sheer overpowering of one by the other. Arminius still holds, however, that only those who do believe can believe - no one else (Bangs 343).

It is ironic to note that the primary purpose of the Synod of Dort centered on Arminius' view of resistible grace (Seeberg 421-22). The conclusion of the council was to define God's call as follows: "all those in whose hearts God operates in this wonderful way certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated and actually believe" (Schaff 590). The irony is that they also conceded Arminius' primary argument: "As many as are called through the Gospel are unfeignedly (serio) called," and if men fail to respond to that call "The fault lies within themselves" (Schaff 589).

The last of the five points is perseverance of the saints. This refers to the doctrine that a true believer cannot ultimately apostatize. On this issue Arminius appears unclear. Some hold that Arminius left it an open question. The uncertainty cones from the ambiguous nature of Arminius' argument. In his "Declaration of Sentiments" Arminius said, "I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from faith and perish..." (Writings, 54). In another context he said, "And at one time I certainly did say, with an explanation Subjoined to it, that it was impossible for believers finally to decline and fall away from faith and salvation" (Writings 1: 281).

Arminius' view is clarified in his "Nine Questions": "when rigidly and accurately examined, (the possibility of declining from salvation) can scarcely be admitted; it being impossible for believers, as long as they remain believers, to decline from salvation" (Bangs 349) (emphasis mine). Arminius held that a believer could not fall away as long as he was a believer, but if he became an unbeliever he could. Although this may seem a mere splitting of hairs, it is not. It is a necessary distinction. The idea that one can fall away by sinning, still being a believer denies what the Bible says about forgiveness. One does not get saved by ceasing sin, and so he cannot lose his salvation by sinning. On the other hand, one does gain salvation by having faith in God, and so he can fall away by ceasing to have faith.