|
|
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | These points, are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his ''Declaration of Sentiments''. Those who signed this remonstrance and others who supported its theology have since been known as [[Remonstrants]].<sup>[3]</sup> | | These points, are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his ''Declaration of Sentiments''. Those who signed this remonstrance and others who supported its theology have since been known as [[Remonstrants]].<sup>[3]</sup> |
| | | | |
| - | Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the [[Baptists]] in the 16th century,<sup>[4]</sup> the [[Methodists]] in the 18th century and the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] in the 19th century. Some falsely assert that [[Universalists]] and [[Unitarianism|Unitarians]] in the 18th and 19th centuries were theologically linked with Arminianism. Denominations such as the [[Anabaptists]] (beginning in 1525), [[Waldensians]] (pre-Reformation),<ref>"The Waldensian Way to God", Joseph Visconti, page 253 and following</ref> and other groups prior to the Reformation have also affirmed that each person may choose the contingent response of either resisting God's grace or yielding to it. | + | Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the [[Baptists]] in the 16th century,<sup>[4]</sup> the [[Methodists]] in the 18th century and the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] in the 19th century. Some falsely assert that [[Universalists]] and [[Unitarianism|Unitarians]] in the 18th and 19th centuries were theologically linked with Arminianism. Denominations such as the [[Anabaptists]] (beginning in 1525), [[Waldensians]] (pre-Reformation),<sup>[5]</sup> and other groups prior to the Reformation have also affirmed that each person may choose the contingent response of either resisting God's grace or yielding to it. |
| - | | + | |
| - | The original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius himself are commonly defined as Arminianism, but more broadly, the term may embrace the teachings of [[Hugo Grotius]], [[John Wesley]], and others as well. [[Arminianism#Classical Arminianism|Classical Arminianism]], to which Arminius is the main contributor, and [[Arminianism#Wesleyan Arminianism|Wesleyan Arminianism]], to which John Wesley is the main contributor, are the two main schools of thought. Wesleyan Arminianism is often identical with Methodism. Some schools of thought, notably [[Semipelagianism]]—which teaches that the first step of salvation is by human will,<ref>Stanglin and McCall, 160.</ref>—are confused as being Arminian in nature. But classical Arminianism holds that the first step of salvation is solely the grace of God.<ref>F. Leroy Forlines, ''Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation'', ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2011), 20-24.</ref> Historically, the [[Council of Orange (529)]] condemned semi-Pelagian thought (as well as [[Supralapsarian]] Calvinism), and is accepted by some as a document which can be understood as teaching a doctrine between [[Augustinian]] thought and semi-Pelagian thought, relegating Arminianism to the orthodoxy of the early Church fathers.<ref>Keathley, 703.</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | The two systems of Calvinism and Arminianism share both history and many doctrines, and the [[History of Christianity|history of Christian theology]]. Arminianism is related to [[Calvinism]] historically. However, because of their differences over the doctrines of divine [[predestination]] and election, many people view these schools of thought as opposed to each other. In short, the difference can be seen ultimately by whether God allows His desire to save all to be resisted by an individual's will (in the Arminian doctrine) or if God's grace is irresistible and limited to only some (in Calvinism). Put another way, is God's sovereignty shown, in part, through His allowance of free decisions? Some Calvinists assert that the Arminian perspective presents a synergistic system of Salvation and therefore is not only by grace, while Arminians firmly reject this conclusion. Many consider the theological differences to be crucial differences in doctrine, while others find them to be relatively minor.<ref>Gonzalez, Justo L. ''The Story of Christianity, Vol. Two: The Reformation to the Present Day'' (New York: Harpercollins Publishers, 1985; reprint – Peabody: Prince Press, 2008) 180</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ==History==
| + | |
| - | {{Main article|History of Calvinist–Arminian debate|Free will in theology}}
| + | |
| - | [[File:Jacobus Arminius 02 IV 13 2 0026 01 0309 a Seite 1 Bild 0001.jpg|thumb|right|Portrait of [[Jacobus Arminius]], from ''Kupferstich aus Theatrum Europaeum'' by Matthaeus Merian in 1662]]
| + | |
| - | Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor and theologian in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was taught by [[Theodore Beza]], [[John Calvin|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. Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was ''of believers'', thereby making it [[Conditional election|conditional on faith]]. Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially [[Franciscus Gomarus]], but Arminius died before a national synod could occur.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}}
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Arminius's followers, not wanting to adopt their leader's name, called themselves the [[Remonstrants]]. When Arminius died before he could satisfy Holland's State General's request for a 14-page paper outlining his views, the Remonstrants replied in his stead crafting the [[Five articles of Remonstrance]]. After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince [[Maurice de Nassau|Prince Maurice of Nassau]] to deal with the situation. Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This [[Synod of Dort]] was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (Arminians were excluded) with Calvinist representatives from other countries, and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. Part of this publication was the famous [[Five points of Calvinism]] in response to the five articles of Remonstrance.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | 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.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | The debate between Calvin's followers and Arminius's followers is distinctive of post-Reformation church history. The emerging Baptist movement in 17th-century England, for example, was a microcosm of the historic debate between Calvinists and Arminians. The first Baptists–called "[[General Baptists]]" because of their confession of a "general" or unlimited atonement, were Arminians.<ref>Gonzalez, Justo L. ''The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2: The Reformation to the Present Day'' (HarperCollins Publishers, 1985; reprint – Peabody: Prince Press, 2008) 225–226</ref> 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 (Baptist)|Thomas Grantham]] defended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected more the Arminianism of Arminius than that of the later Remonstrants or the English Arminianism of Arminian [[Puritans]] like John Goodwin or Anglican Arminians such as [[Jeremy Taylor]] and [[Henry Hammond]]. 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 strongly 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. Interestingly, 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]].
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | This same dynamic between Arminianism and [[Calvinism]] can be seen in the heated discussions between friends and fellow [[Methodist]] ministers [[John Wesley]] and [[George Whitefield]]. Wesley was a champion of Arminian teachings, defending his [[soteriology]] in a periodical titled ''The Arminian'' and writing articles such as ''Predestination Calmly Considered''. He defended Arminianism against charges of [[semi-Pelagianism]], holding strongly to beliefs in [[original sin]] and total depravity. At the same time, Wesley attacked the [[determinism]] that he claimed characterized unconditional election and maintained a belief in the [[Conditional Preservation of the Saints|ability to lose salvation]]. Wesley also clarified the doctrine of [[prevenient grace]] and preached the ability of Christians to attain to [[Christian perfection|perfection]] (fully mature, not "sinlessness"). While Wesley freely made use of the term "Arminian," he did not self-consciously root his soteriology in the theology of Arminius but was highly influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and thinkers such as [[John Goodwin (preacher)|John Goodwin]], [[Jeremy Taylor]] and [[Henry Hammond]] of the Anglican "Holy Living" school, and the Remonstrant [[Hugo Grotius]].
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Current landscape ==
| + | |
| - | {{Infobox religious group |name=Arminianism |religions={{hlist|[[Arminianism in the Church of England|Church of England]]|[[Methodism]]|[[General Baptists]]|[[Holiness movement]]|[[Charismatic movement]]|[[Pentecostalism]]}}}}
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Advocates of both Arminianism and Calvinism find a home in many Protestant denominations, and sometimes both exist within the same denomination. Faiths leaning at least in part in the Arminian direction include [[Methodism|Methodists]], [[Free Will Baptist]]s, [[Christian Churches and Churches of Christ]], [[General Baptist]]s, the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]], [[Church of the Nazarene]], [[The Wesleyan Church]], [[The Salvation Army]], [[Conservative Mennonites]], [[Old Order Mennonites]], [[Amish]] and [[Charismatic Christianity|Charismatics]]. Denominations leaning in the Calvinist direction are grouped as the [[Reformed churches]] and include [[Particular Baptist]]s, [[Reformed Baptist]]s, [[Presbyterian]]s, and [[Congregational church|Congregationalists]]. The majority of [[Southern Baptists]], including [[Billy Graham (evangelist)|Billy Graham]], accept Arminianism with an exception allowing for a doctrine of [[perseverance of the saints]] ("eternal security").<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv|title=Southern Baptist Convention > SBC Search|publisher=|accessdate=16 October 2016}}</ref><ref>Harmon, Richard W. ''Baptists and Other Denominations'' (Nashville: Convention Press, 1984) 17–18, 45–46</ref><ref>Dongell, Joseph and Walls, Jerry ''Why I Am Not a Calvinist'' (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004) 12–13, 16–17</ref> Many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance,<ref>Dongell 7–20</ref> and some prominent Reformed Baptists, such as [[Albert Mohler]] and [[Mark Dever]], have been pushing for the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] to adopt a more Calvinistic orientation (it should be noted, however, that no Baptist church is bound by any resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention). [[Lutheranism|Lutherans]] espouse a view of salvation and election distinct from both the Calvinist and Arminian schools of [[soteriology]].
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | The current scholarly support for Arminianism is wide and varied. One particular thrust is a return to the teachings of Arminius. F. Leroy Forlines, Robert Picirilli, Stephen Ashby and Matthew Pinson (see citations) are four of the more prominent supporters. Forlines has referred to this type of Arminianism as "Classical Arminianism," while Picirilli, Pinson, and Ashby have termed it "Reformation Arminianism" or "Reformed Arminianism." Through [[Methodism]], Wesley's teachings also inspire a large scholarly following, with vocal proponents including [[J. Kenneth Grider]], [[Stanley Hauerwas]], [[Thomas Oden]], [[Thomas Jay Oord]], and [[William Willimon]].
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Recent influence of the [[New Perspective on Paul]] movement has also reached Arminianism — primarily through a view of corporate election. The New Perspective scholars propose that the 1st-century [[Second Temple Judaism]] understood election primarily as national ([[Israelites]]) and racial ([[Jews]]), not as individual. Their conclusion is thus that Paul's writings on election should be interpreted in a similar corporate light.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ==Theology==
| + | |
| - | {{Five Articles}}
| + | |
| - | Arminian theology usually falls into one of two groups — Classical Arminianism, drawn from the teaching of Jacobus Arminius — and Wesleyan Arminian, drawing primarily from Wesley. Both groups overlap substantially.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Classical Arminianism===
| + | |
| - | Classical Arminianism is the theological system that was presented by [[Jacobus Arminius]] and maintained by some of the [[Remonstrants]];<ref>Ashby, Stephen "Reformed Arminianism" ''Four Views on Eternal Security'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 137</ref> its influence serves as the foundation for all Arminian systems. A list of beliefs is given below:
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | *'''Depravity is [[Total depravity|total]]''': Arminius states "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."<ref>Arminius, James ''The Writings of James Arminius'' (three vols.), tr. [[James Nichols (printer)|James Nichols]] and William R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), I:252</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Atonement is intended [[Unlimited atonement|for all]]''': Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.<ref>Arminius I:316</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Jesus's death [[Atonement (Satisfaction view)|satisfies]] God's justice''': The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus's work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for 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."<ref>Arminius III:454</ref> Stephen Ashby clarifies: "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."<ref>Ashby ''Four Views'', 140</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Grace is resistible''': God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace (often called ''[[Prevenient Grace|prevenient]]'' or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted."<ref>Picirilli, Robert ''Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism'' (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 154ff</ref> The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.<ref>Forlines, Leroy F., Pinson, Matthew J. and Ashby, Stephen M. ''The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions'' (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2001), 313–321</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Man has a freed will to respond or resist''': Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.
| + | |
| - | *'''Election is [[Conditional election|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."<ref name="Arminius III:311">Arminius ''Writings'', III:311</ref> 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."<ref name="Arminius III:311" />
| + | |
| - | *'''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.<ref>Pawson, David ''Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance'' (London: Hodder & Staughton, 1996), 109ff</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer''': Justification is sola fide (by faith alone). When individuals repent and believe in Christ (saving faith), they are regenerated and brought into union with Christ, whereby the death and righteousness of Christ are imputed to them for their justification before God.<ref>Forlines, F. Leroy, ''Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation'', ch. 6</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Eternal security is also [[Conditional Preservation of the Saints|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.<ref>Picirilli ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'' 203</ref> Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renunciation of saving faith. Such apostasy is irremediable.<ref>Picirilli 204ff</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | On whether a believer could commit apostasy (i.e., desert Christ by cleaving again to this evil world, losing a good conscience, or by failing to hold on to sound doctrine), Arminius declared that this matter required further study in the Scriptures.<ref name="Works of Arminius, 2:219-220">''Works of Arminius,'' 2:219-220.</ref> Nevertheless, 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."<ref name="Works of Arminius, 2:219-220"/> 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."<ref>''Works of Arminius,'' 2:219-220. 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" (''Works of Arminius'', 2:465; cf. 2:466). In another place he writes: "[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" (''Works of Arminius'', 3:412; cf. 3:413).</ref> Arminius goes on to say, "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; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding."<ref>''Works of Arminius,'' 2:219-220. 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" (''Works of Arminius'', 1:665). B.J. Oropeza says, "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'' 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.' [''Works of Arminius'', 3:455, cf. 1:667] A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member. [''Works of Arminius'', 3:458] 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.' If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away" (''Paul and Apostasy'', 16).</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | After the death of Arminius in 1609, the Remonstrants maintained their leader's view on conditional security and his uncertainty regarding the possibility of believers committing apostasy. This is evidenced in the fifth article drafted by its leaders in 1610.<ref>The Article reads: That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by not craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ's hand, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: 'Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.' But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with full persuasion of our minds. (Philip Schaff, editor. ''The Creeds of Christendom Volume III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds'', "The Articles of the Remonstrants," 3:548-549)</ref> However, 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. They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618).<ref>Points three and four in the fifth article read: 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. (Peter Y. DeJong, ''Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt'', 1618-1619, 220ff). For more on the Remonstrant view regarding apostasy see the External Link articles: The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618); and The Arminian Confession of 1621 and Apostasy.</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Picirilli remarks: "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."<ref>''Grace, Faith, Free Will'', 198.</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | The core beliefs of Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrants are summarized as such by theologian Stephen Ashby:
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | #Prior to being ''drawn and enabled'', one is ''unable to believe… able only to resist.''
| + | |
| - | #Having been ''drawn and enabled'', but prior to regeneration, one is ''able to believe… able also to resist.''
| + | |
| - | #After one ''believes'', God then regenerates; one is ''able to continue believing… able also to resist.''
| + | |
| - | #Upon ''resisting'' to the point of ''unbelief'', one is ''unable again to believe… able only to resist.''<ref>Ashby ''Four Views'', 159</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Wesleyan Arminianism===
| + | |
| - | {{Methodism |background}}
| + | |
| - | {{further information|Wesleyanism|Methodism}}
| + | |
| - | John Wesley has historically been the most influential advocate for the teachings of Arminian soteriology. Wesley thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught, maintaining strong doctrines of original sin, total depravity, conditional election, prevenient grace, unlimited atonement, and possibly of apostasy.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Wesley departs from Classical Arminianism primarily on three issues:
| + | |
| - | ; Atonement
| + | |
| - | : Wesley's atonement is a hybrid of the [[penal substitution]] theory and the [[Atonement (Governmental view)|governmental]] theory of [[Hugo Grotius]], a lawyer and one of the Remonstrants. Steven Harper states, "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."<ref>Harper, Steven "Wesleyan Arminianism" ''Four Views on Eternal Security'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 227ff</ref>
| + | |
| - | ; Possibility of apostasy
| + | |
| - | : Wesley fully accepted the Arminian view that genuine Christians could apostatize and lose their salvation, as his famous sermon "A Call to Backsliders" clearly demonstrates. Harper summarizes as follows: "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."<ref>Harper 239–240</ref> Wesley disagrees with Arminius, however, in maintaining that such apostasy was not final. When talking about those who have made "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim 1:19), Wesley claims that "not one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands...innumerable are the instances...of those who had fallen but now stand upright."<ref>Wesley, John, "A Call to Backsliders" in ''The Works of John Wesley'', ed. Thomas Jackson, 14 vols. (London: Wesley Methodist Book Room, 1872; repr, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 3:211ff</ref>
| + | |
| - | ; [[Christian perfection]]
| + | |
| - | : According to Wesley's teaching, Christians could attain a state of practical perfection, meaning a lack of all voluntary sin by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, in this life. Christian perfection (or ''entire sanctification''), according to Wesley, is "purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God" and "the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked." It is "loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves".<ref name="xqpwlw">Wesley, John "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection", ''Works''</ref> It is "a restoration not only to the favour, but likewise to the image of God," our "being filled with the fullness of God".<ref>Wesley, John "The End of Christ’s Coming", ''Works''</ref> Wesley was clear that Christian perfection did not imply perfection of bodily health or an infallibility of judgment. It also does not mean we no longer violate the will of God, for involuntary transgressions remain. Perfected Christians remain subject to temptation, and have continued need to pray for forgiveness and holiness. It is not an absolute perfection but a perfection in love. Furthermore, Wesley did not teach a salvation by perfection, but rather says that, "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."<ref name="xqpwlw"/>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Other variations===
| + | |
| - | Since the time of Arminius, his name has come to represent a very large variety of beliefs. Some of these beliefs, such as Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (see [[Arminianism#Pelagianism|below]]) are not considered to be within Arminian orthodoxy and are dealt with elsewhere. Some doctrines, however, do adhere to the Arminian foundation and, while minority views, are highlighted below.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ====Open theism====
| + | |
| - | {{Main article|Open theism}}
| + | |
| - | 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). As such, open theists resolve the issue of human [[free will]] and God's sovereignty by claiming that God is sovereign because he does not ordain each human choice, but rather works in cooperation with his creation to bring about his will. This notion of sovereignty and freedom is foundational to their understanding of [[love]] since open theists believe that love is not genuine unless it is freely chosen. The power of choice under this definition has the potential for as much harm as it does good, and open theists see free will as the best answer to the [[problem of evil]]. Well-known proponents of this theology are [[Gregory A. Boyd|Greg Boyd]], [[Clark Pinnock]], [[Thomas Jay Oord]], [[William Hasker]], and [[John E. Sanders]].
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Some Arminians, such as professor and theologian Robert Picirilli, reject the doctrine of open theism as a "deformed Arminianism".<ref>Picirilli, ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'', 40 – Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and Open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections. See 59ff.</ref> Joseph Dongell stated that "open theism actually moves beyond classical Arminianism towards [[process theology]]."<ref>Dongell, Joseph and Walls, Jerry ''Why I Am Not a Calvinist'', 45</ref> There are also some Arminians, like Roger Olson, who believe Open theism to be an alternative view that a Christian can have. The majority Arminian view accepts [[Classical Theism|classical theism]] – the belief that God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature. Most Arminians reconcile human free will with God's sovereignty and foreknowledge by holding three points:
| + | |
| - | *Human free will is limited by original sin, though God's [[prevenient grace]] restores to humanity the ability to accept God's call of salvation.<ref>Picirilli, ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'', 42–43, 59ff</ref><ref>Ashby, ''Four Views on Eternal Security'', 146–147</ref>
| + | |
| - | *God purposely exercises his sovereignty in ways that do not illustrate its extent – in other words, He has the power and authority to predetermine salvation but he chooses to apply it through different means.
| + | |
| - | *God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, and therefore the future is certain and not contingent on human action. God does not determine the future, but He does know it. God's certainty and human contingency are compatible.<ref>Picirilli, ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'', 40</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ====Corporate view of election====
| + | |
| - | {{further information|Conditional election|Corporate election}}
| + | |
| - | The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith, but a second perspective deserves mention. These Arminians reject the concept of individual election entirely, preferring to understand the doctrine in corporate terms. According to this corporate election, God never chose individuals to elect to salvation, but rather He chose to elect the believing church to salvation. Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Ridderbos says "[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."<ref>Ridderbos, Herman ''Paul: An Outline of His Theology'' trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 350–351</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Corporate election draws support from a similar concept of corporate election found in the Old Testament and Jewish law. Indeed most biblical scholarship is in agreement that Judeo-Greco-Roman thought in the 1st century was opposite of the Western world's "individual first" mantra – it was very collectivist or communitarian in nature.<ref name=Abasciano>Abasciano, Brian ''Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis'' (T&T Clark Publishers, 2006), {{ISBN|0-567-03073-3}}</ref> Identity stemmed from membership in a group more than individuality.<ref name=Abasciano /> According to Romans 9–11, supporters claim, Jewish election as the chosen people ceased with their national rejection of Jesus as Messiah. As a result of the new covenant, God's chosen people are now the corporate body of Christ, the church (sometimes called ''spiritual Israel'' – see also [[Covenant theology]]). Pastor and theologian Dr. Brian Abasciano claims "What Paul says about Jews, Gentiles, and Christians, whether of their place in God’s plan, or their election, or their salvation, or how they should think or behave, he says from a corporate perspective which views the group as primary and those he speaks about as embedded in the group. These individuals act as members of the group to which they belong, and what happens to them happens by virtue of their membership in the group."<ref name=Abasciano />
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | These scholars also maintain that Jesus was the only human ever elected and that individuals must be "in Christ" (Eph 1:3–4) through faith to be part of the elect. This was, in fact, Swiss Reformed theologian, [[Karl Barth]]'s, understanding of the doctrine of election. Joseph Dongell, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, states "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."<ref>Dongell, Joseph and Walls, Jerry ''Why I am Not a Calvinist'', 76</ref> Markus Barth illustrates the inter-connectedness: "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."<ref>Barth, Markus ''Ephesians'' (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 108</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ==Arminianism and other views==
| + | |
| - | Understanding Arminianism is aided by understanding the theological alternatives: [[Pelagianism]], [[Semi-Pelagianism]], [[Lutheranism]], and [[Calvinism]]. Arminianism, like any major belief system, is frequently misunderstood both by critics and would-be supporters.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | === Comparison among Protestants ===
| + | |
| - | Arminian beliefs compared to other Protestants.<ref>Table adapted from Lange, Lyle W. ''God So Loved the World: A Study of Christian Doctrine'' (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 2006), 448, with the addition of specific citations.</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | {{Comparison among Protestants}}
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Common misconceptions===
| + | |
| - | [[File:Allegory of theological dispute-Abraham van der Eyk-MBA Lyon H1151-IMG 0428.jpg|thumb|Allegory of the theological dispute between the Arminianists and their opponents]]
| + | |
| - | {{further information|Pelagianism|Semi-Pelagianism|History of Calvinist–Arminian debate}}
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | *'''Arminianism supports works-based salvation''' – No well-known system of Arminianism denies salvation "by faith alone" and "by faith first to last". This misconception is often directed at the Arminian possibility of apostasy, which critics maintain requires continual good works to achieve final salvation. To Arminians, however, both initial salvation ''and'' eternal security are "by faith alone"; hence "by faith first ''to last''". Belief through faith is the condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God; unbelief is the condition for exit from the Kingdom of God – not a lack of good works.<ref>Pawson ''Once Saved, Always Saved?'' 121–124</ref><ref>Picirilli ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'' 160ff</ref><ref>Ashby ''Four Views on Eternal Security'' 142ff</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Arminianism is Pelagian (or Semi-Pelagian), denying original sin and total depravity''' – No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;<ref>Ashby 138–139</ref> both Arminius and Wesley ''strongly'' affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.<ref>Arminius, ''Writings'' 2:192</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Many Calvinist critics of Arminianism, both historically and currently, claim that Arminianism condones, accepts, or even explicitly supports Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. 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]."<ref>Arminius ''Writings'', II:219ff (the entire treatise occupies pages 196–452)</ref> David Pawson, a British pastor, decries this association as "libelous" when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine.<ref>Pawson ''Once Saved, Always Saved?'', 106</ref> Indeed, most Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism; nonetheless, primarily due to Calvinist opponents,<ref>Pawson 97–98, 106</ref><ref>Picirilli ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'', 6ff</ref> the two terms remain intertwined in popular usage.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | *'''Arminianism denies Jesus' substitutionary payment for sins''' – Both Arminius and Wesley believed in the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's atonement through [[penal substitution]].<ref>Picirilli ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'' 104–105, 132ff</ref> Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied [[Atonement (Satisfaction view)|individually]],<ref>Ashby ''Four Views on Eternal Security'' 140ff</ref> while Hugo Grotius and many of Wesley's followers taught that it was satisfied [[Atonement (Governmental view)|governmentally]].<ref>Picirilli ''Grace, Faith, Free Will'' 132</ref>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ===Comparison with Calvinism===
| + | |
| - | {{Main article|History of Calvinist–Arminian debate}}
| + | |
| - | Ever since Arminius and his followers revolted against Calvinism in the early 17th century, Protestant soteriology has been largely divided between Calvinism and Arminianism. The extreme of Calvinism is [[hyper-Calvinism]], which insists that signs of election must be sought before evangelization of the unregenerate takes place and that the eternally damned have no obligation to repent and believe, and on the extreme of Arminianism is [[Pelagianism]], which rejects the doctrine of original sin on grounds of moral accountability; but the overwhelming majority of [[Protestantism|Protestant]], [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ====Similarities====
| + | |
| - | *'''[[Total depravity]]''' – Arminians agree with Calvinists over the doctrine of [[total depravity]]. The differences come in the understanding of how God remedies this human depravity.
| + | |
| - | *'''[[Substitutionary atonement|Substitutionary effect of atonement]]''' – Arminians also affirm with Calvinists the substitutionary effect of Christ's [[Atonement in Christianity|atonement]] and that this effect is limited only to the elect. Classical Arminians would agree with Calvinists that this substitution was [[Atonement (Satisfaction view)|penal satisfaction]] for all of the elect, while most Wesleyan Arminians would maintain that the substitution was [[Atonement (Governmental view)|governmental]] in nature.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ====Differences====
| + | |
| - | *'''Nature of election''' – Arminians hold that election to eternal salvation has the [[Conditional election|condition of faith]] attached. The Calvinist doctrine of [[unconditional election]] states that salvation cannot be earned or achieved and is therefore not conditional upon any human effort, so faith is not a condition of salvation but the divinely apportioned means to it. In other words, Arminians believe that they owe their election to their faith, whereas Calvinists believe that they owe their faith to their election.
| + | |
| - | *'''Nature of grace''' – Arminians believe that, through [[prevenient grace|grace]], God restores free will concerning salvation to all humanity, and each individual, therefore, is able either to accept the Gospel call through faith or resist it through unbelief. Calvinists hold that God's grace to enable salvation is given only to the elect and [[irresistible grace|irresistibly]] leads to salvation.
| + | |
| - | *'''Extent of the atonement''' – Arminians, along with four-point Calvinists or [[Amyraldian]]s, hold to a universal drawing and [[Unlimited atonement|universal extent of atonement]] instead of the Calvinist doctrine that the drawing and atonement is [[limited atonement|limited in extent]] to the elect only, which many Calvinists prefer to call '[[limited atonement|particular redemption]]'.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/19970226215554/http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm ]</ref> Both sides (with the exception of hyper-Calvinists) believe the invitation of the gospel is universal and "must be presented to everyone [they] can reach without any distinction."<ref>Nicole, Roger, [http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerUniversalCallDefiniteAtonement.htm "Covenant, Universal Call And Definite Atonement"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060215012632/http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerUniversalCallDefiniteAtonement.htm |date=15 February 2006 }} ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' 38:3 (September 1995)</ref>
| + | |
| - | *'''Perseverance in faith''' – Arminians believe that future salvation and eternal life is secured in Christ and protected from all external forces but is [[conditional preservation of the saints|conditional on remaining in Christ]] and can be lost through [[apostasy]]. Traditional Calvinists believe in the doctrine of the [[perseverance of the saints]], which says that because God chose some unto salvation and actually paid for their particular sins, he keeps them from apostasy and that those who do apostatize were never truly regenerated (that is, [[Born again Christianity|born again]]) or saved. Non-traditional Calvinists and other evangelicals advocate the similar but distinct doctrine of eternal security that teaches if a person was once saved, his or her salvation can never be in jeopardy, even if the person completely apostatizes.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |
| - | {{portal|Arminianism|Calvinism|Christianity}}
| |
| - | {{columns |colwidth=17.0em
| |
| - | | col1 =
| |
| | ; Arminian doctrines | | ; Arminian doctrines |
| | *[[Total depravity]] | | *[[Total depravity]] |
| Line 154: |
Line 29: |
| | **[[Corporate election]] | | **[[Corporate election]] |
| | *[[Conditional preservation of the saints]] | | *[[Conditional preservation of the saints]] |
| - | | col2width=18.5em
| + | |
| - | | col2 =
| + | |
| | ; People, history, denominations | | ; People, history, denominations |
| | *[[Jacobus Arminius]] | | *[[Jacobus Arminius]] |
| Line 177: |
Line 51: |
| | *[[Arminianism in the Church of England]] | | *[[Arminianism in the Church of England]] |
| | *[[History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate|Calvinist–Arminian debate]] | | *[[History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate|Calvinist–Arminian debate]] |
| - | | col3 =
| + | |
| | ; Opposing views | | ; Opposing views |
| | *[[Calvinism]] | | *[[Calvinism]] |
| Line 196: |
Line 70: |
| | *[[Christian Universalism]] | | *[[Christian Universalism]] |
| | *[[Open theism]] | | *[[Open theism]] |
| - | }}
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Notes== | | ==Notes== |
| Line 206: |
Line 79: |
| | | | |
| | ==Further reading== | | ==Further reading== |
| - |
| |
| - |
| |
| - |
| |
| - | *{{cite book | editor1-last= Pinson | editor1-first= J. Matthew | title = Four Views on Eternal Security | publisher = Zondervan | location = Grand Rapids | year = 2002 | isbn = 0-310-23439-5 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Forlines | first = F. Leroy | title = Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation | publisher = [[Randall House Publications|Randall House]] | location = Nashville | year = 2011 | isbn = 0-89265-607-7 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Forlines | first = F. Leroy | title = The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions | publisher = [[Randall House Publications|Randall House]] | location = Nashville | year = 2001 | isbn = 0-89265-864-9 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = [[Roger T Forster|Forster]] | first = Roger | title = God's Strategy in Human History | publisher = Wipf & Stock Publishers | location = | year = 2000 | isbn = 1-57910-273-5 }}
| |
| - | * {{Citation|last=Heron|first=Alasdair I. C.|contribution=Arminianism|year=1999|title=Encyclopedia of Christianity|editor-last=Fahlbusch|editor-first=Erwin|volume=1|pages=128–129|place=Grand Rapids|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans|isbn = 0802824137}}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Klein| first = William W.| title = The New Chosen People. A Corporate View of Election | publisher = Zondervan | location = Grand Rapids | year = 1990| isbn = 0-310-51251-4 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Mcgonigle | first = Herbert | title = Sufficient Saving Grace | publisher = Paternoster | location = Carlisle | year = 2001 | isbn = 1-84227-045-1 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Olson | first = Roger | title = Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities | publisher = IVP Academic | location = Downers Grove | year = 2006 | isbn = 0-8308-2841-9 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Pawson | first = David | title = Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance | publisher = Hodder & Stoughton | location = London | year = 1996 | isbn = 0-340-61066-2 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Picirilli | first = Robert | title = Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation | publisher = Randall House | location = Nashville | year = 2002 | isbn = 0-89265-648-4 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite journal |last=Pinson |first=J. Matthew |year=2003 |title=The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius |journal=[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]] |publisher= |volume=53 |issue= | url = http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_773-785_Pinson.pdf |pages=173–185}}
| |
| - | *{{cite journal | title = Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up? A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters | journal = Integrity: A Journal of Christian Thought | year = 2003 | first = J. Matthew | last = Pinson | volume = 2 | pages = 121–139| url = http://fwbhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2003IntegrityJournal.pdf }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last = Shank | first = Robert | title = Elect in the Son | publisher = Bethany House Publishers | location = Minneapolis | year = 1989 | isbn = 1-55661-092-0 }}
| |
| - | *{{cite book | last1 = Walls | first1 = Jerry L. | last2 = Dongell | first2 = Joseph R. | title = Why I Am Not a Calvinist | publisher = InterVarsity Press | location = Downers Grove | year = 2004 | isbn = 0-8308-3249-1 }}
| |
| - | *[[John Wesley|Wesley, John]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20060216034308/http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/wesley/arminian.stm "The Question, 'What Is an Arminian?' Answered by a Lover of Free Grace"]
| |
| - | *Witzki, Steve. [http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminian_mag/19_1_01.htm#free "Free Grace or Forced Grace?"] from ''The Arminian Magazine'', Spring 2001
| |
| - | *Satama, Mikko (2009). [https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/21669/aspectso.pdf "Aspects of Arminian Soteriology in Methodist-Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogues in 20th and 21st Century"] Master's Thesis, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Theology.
| |
| - | {{refend}}
| |
| - |
| |
| - | ==External links==
| |
| - | * [http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Opinions%20of%20the%20Remonstrants%20%281618%29.pdf The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618)]
| |
| - | * [http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Arminian%20Confession%20of%201621%20and%20Apostasy.pdf The Arminian Confession of 1621 and Apostasy]
| |
| - | * [http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/John%20Wesley%20%28Serious%20Thoughts%20on%20Perseverance%20of%20the%20Saints%29.pdf "Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints"] by [[John Wesley]]
| |
| - | *[http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/ The Works of Jacob Arminius]
| |
| - | *[https://web.archive.org/web/20081012005039/http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/index The Society of Evangelical Arminians]
| |
| - | *{{cite journal | title = Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up? A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters | journal = Integrity: A Journal of Christian Thought | year = 2003 |first = J. Matthew | last = Pinson | volume = 2 | pages = 121–139| url = http://fwbhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2003IntegrityJournal.pdf }}
| |
| - | *[http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/The-Wesleys-and-Their-Times/What-Is-an-Arminian What Is an Arminian?] by John Wesley
| |
| - | *[https://web.archive.org/web/20110522115110/http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/ Sermon #58: "On Predestination"] by John Wesley
| |
| - | *[https://web.archive.org/web/20080304131222/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200606/ai_n17176282/pg_1 "Corporate Election in Romans 9", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2006] by Brian Abasciano (Arminian perspective)
| |
| - | *[http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1982-wtj-17-2.pdf The Nature of Wesleyan Theology] by J. Kenneth Grider (Arminian perspective)
| |
| - | *[http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1987-wtj-22-1.pdf Characteristics of Wesley's Arminianism] by Luke L. Keefer, Jr. (Arminian perspective)
| |
| - | *[http://www.revneal.org/Writings/WesArmin.htm Wesleyan Theology: Arminianism] by Gregory S. Neal (from a Methodist perspective)
| |
| - | *[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01740c.htm Arminianism] from the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]]
| |
| - | *[http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=ARMINIANISM Christian Cyclopedia article on Arminianism] (Lutheran perspective)
| |
| - |
| |
| - | {{Authority control}}
| |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Christian theological movements]] | | [[Category:Christian theological movements]] |
These points, are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his Declaration of Sentiments. Those who signed this remonstrance and others who supported its theology have since been known as Remonstrants.[3]
Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the Baptists in the 16th century,[4] the Methodists in the 18th century and the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 19th century. Some falsely assert that Universalists and Unitarians in the 18th and 19th centuries were theologically linked with Arminianism. Denominations such as the Anabaptists (beginning in 1525), Waldensians (pre-Reformation),[5] and other groups prior to the Reformation have also affirmed that each person may choose the contingent response of either resisting God's grace or yielding to it.
