Arminian Theology

Myths and Realities

Roger E. Olson

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780830874439
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

In this book, Roger Olson sets forth classical Arminian theology and addresses the myriad misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it through the ages. Irenic yet incisive, Olson argues that classical Arminian theology has a rightful place in the evangelical church because it maintains deep roots within Reformational theology, even though it maintains important differences from Calvinism.Myths addressed include: Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed TheologyMyth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is PossibleMyth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical OptionMyth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free WillMyth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of GodMyth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered TheologyMyth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of GraceMyth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in PredestinationMyth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith AloneMyth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

Myth 1

Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology

Jacob Arminius and most of his faithful followers fall into the broad understanding of the Reformed tradition; the common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism is significant.

LIKE ARMINIANISM, REFORMED IS A CONTESTED TERM. An extremely narrow definition limits Reformed to persons and movements that swear allegiance to the three “symbols of unity”—the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of the Synod of Dort. That would exclude, however, the many Presbyterians throughout the world who believe they too are Reformed! It would also exclude Congregationalists, Baptists and many other churches and organizations that claim to be and generally have been thought of as Reformed in their theology. The broadest definition of Reformed theology includes everyone who claims to be Reformed and can demonstrate some historical connection with the Swiss and French wing of the Protestant Reformation—even if his or her theology is a radical revision of Calvin’s, Zwingli’s and Bucer’s theology. The World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) includes many such revisionist groups, including the Remonstrant Brotherhood of the Netherlands (the original Arminian denomination)! Between the narrowest and broadest definitions lie a variety of descriptions of Reformed theology, including any Protestant theologies that stress God’s sovereignty, that emphasize Word and Spirit as the twin sources and norms of theology, and that appreciate Calvin as the purest Reformer of the sixteenth century. Lutheran church historians and historical theologians tend to lump virtually all Protestants outside of the Lutheran tradition into the Reformed category. To many Lutherans even the Church of England (Episcopal churches in the United States) and Methodist churches are Reformed. Surely this is stretching the term uncomfortably thin.

Defining categories such as this is notoriously difficult, and there is no central headquarters or agency with the power to make any definition stick for everyone. One example of the problem is the difficulty of locating Arminianism in relation to the Reformed tradition. As should be obvious from this book’s introduction, most conservative Calvinists (who tend to view the Reformed tradition as their own to define), tend to reject Arminianism from their heritage. To them Arminianism is to Reformed theology and tradition much as Protestantism is to Roman Catholicism—a departure rather than a branch. This is the approach taken by Reformed historical theologian Richard A. Muller, who is considered an expert on post-Reformation Protestant orthodoxy. In his magisterial work God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius, he distances Arminianism from Reformed theology while acknowledging Arminius’s education at Geneva under Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, and Arminius’s intention of merely broadening the Reformed faith to allow for inclusion of evangelical synergism. Muller’s description of Arminius’s theology emphasizes its “paradigm shift” from standard Reformed thought to something more akin to Catholic theology.1 According to Muller, “Arminius’s system . . . can only be interpreted as a full-scale alternative to Reformed theology.”2 Muller’s reasons will be given and discussed more fully in chapter two, which points to the relative incommensurability of Arminianism and high Calvinism. Suffice it to say here that Muller represents many Reformed scholars who regard God’s all-determining and controlling power over history (to the exclusion of any divine self-limitation) as crucial to Reformed thought.

However, I think it is a myth or misconception that Arminianism and Reformed theology, including moderate if not high Calvinism, are at opposite poles from each other on the Christian theological spectrum. Even if Arminianism should not be included under the rubric “Reformed” in the taxonomy of Protestant types, it is not totally incommensurate with the Reformed tradition. Common roots and themes abound; shared emphases are more numerous than most people think. It is unfortunate that so many people, including pastors and theologians, pit Arminianism and Reformed theology against each other as if they are necessarily at war, portraying them in such a way that only one can be orthodox. One popular Reformed apologist remarked to an audience that in his opinion only one of the two can “honor scripture.” I am not implying that both are true at every point. In fact, I reject any hybrid of Arminianism and Calvinism on crucial points of soteriology. Nevertheless, to say that only one honors Scripture is wrong. Neither tradition is the gospel itself; both are fallible attempts to interpret the gospel and Scripture, and both can honor them even if one or the other is wrong at certain points.

Many moderate Reformed theologians now acknowledge Arminianism and Reformed theology as closely related, though not partners. Some Arminian theologians share this perspective even as they disagree with high Calvinism. One example of a Reformed theologian who nods to Arminianism’s validity vis-à-vis Reformed faith is Alasdair Heron, who teaches Reformed theology at the University of Erlangen in Germany. In his article “Arminianism” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity (1999) Heron concludes that

the concern of Arminius to look afresh at a doctrine of predestination that had become much too abstract, viewing it in light of Christ and faith, was less well represented by such movements [as the Remonstrants] than by modern Reformed theology itself, though with considerable course corrections.3

Reformed theologians to whom Heron is referring (as adjusting the doctrine of predestination along the lines pointed by Arminius) are Karl Barth, whom Heron explicitly mentions, Hendrikus Berkhof and Adrio König. Because they belong to Dutch Reformed denominations, the latter two are most definitely members of the worldwide fraternity of Reformed thinkers. However they have adopted stances with regard to God’s sovereignty and human free will that are more consistent with Arminianism than with high Calvinism. The same can be said of Alan P. F. Sell, former theological secretary of the WARC, and the late Lewis B. Smedes of Fuller Theological Seminary. All of these men appeal to God’s self-limitation in relation to creation—and especially to human free agency—to explain the covenant relationship between God and his people, and the rise of sin and evil in the world. This certainly represents a different account of Reformed theology than given by Muller. So much depends on how we define Reformed theology! Overall it seems valid to include Arminianism within the broad category of the Reformed family of faith.

Arminius and Reformed Theology

Certainly some Calvinists consider Arminianism a heresy. The Internet is replete with them. All we need do to confirm this is to type Arminianism into any search engine and observe all the Calvinist websites that condemn Arminianism as heretical. However, many moderate Calvinists or Reformed thinkers and leaders have opened up to Arminianism and embraced it as a valid expression of Reformed theology. Where do Arminians stand on this issue? Do Arminians consider their theology Reformed? Did Arminius himself consider his theology Reformed? Here we wade into a quagmire of diverse opinions. One famous televangelist declared Calvinism the worst heresy in the history of Christianity. That opinion can certainly be found among some Arminians. Others simply wish to put distance between themselves and all varieties of Calvinism. Others call themselves “moderately Reformed” or even “Calminians”—pointing to a mythical hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism!

One of the most reliable twentieth-century scholars of Arminianism was Methodist Carl Bangs, who wrote a magisterial theological biography of Arminius titled Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1985). Bangs grew up in the thick of the Holiness movement. (His sister wrote books on Arminian theology for the Nazarenes.) Nevertheless, in Arminius Bangs departed from the popular belief that the Dutch theologian was opposed to everything of Calvinism or Reformed theology, and pointed out his repeated attempts to underscore their common ground. One popular story about Arminius is that he was a committed high Calvinist until he was asked to examine and refute the teachings of a radical Reformer who rejected Calvinist teachings about predestination. According to this account Arminius became persuaded of the truth of Dirk Coornhert’s synergistic theology and shook the Calvinist dust off his feet. Bangs dispels that legend as myth or at least as unproven and unprovable. Rather, Arminius never did fully adopt Beza’s or Calvin’s monergism: “All [the] evidence points to one conclusion: namely, that Arminius was not in agreement with Beza’s doctrine of predestination when he undertook his ministry at Amsterdam; indeed, he probably never had agreed with it.”4 Nevertheless, according to Bangs, Arminius always considered himself Reformed and in the line of the great Swiss and French Reformers Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer. He studied under Calvin’s successor Beza in Geneva and was given a letter of recommendation by him to the Reformed church of Amsterdam. It seems highly unlikely that the chief pastor of Geneva and principle of its Reformed academy would not know the theological inclinations of one of his star pupils.

What is the explanation for all this? According to Bangs and some other historians, the Reformed churches of the United Provinces in Arminius’s time were generically Protestant rather than rigidly Calvinistic.5 While they accepted the Heidelberg Catechism as their primary statement of faith, they did not require ministers or theologians to adhere to the tenets of the high Calvinism being developed in Geneva under Beza. Arminius genuinely seems to have been shocked and surprised by the opposition mounted by Calvinists against his evangelical synergism; he was used to a type of Reformed theology that allowed for diverse opinions with regard to the details of salvation. According to Bangs the “older reformers” of the United Provinces were not Calvinists any more than they were Lutherans. Their theology was a generic and perhaps unique blend of the two main wings of Protestantism, and they allowed people to lean one direction (including Melanchthon’s synergistic flavor of Lutheranism) or the other (including Beza’s fairly extreme Calvinism, known as supralapsarianism). But Franciscus Gomarus, Arminius’s colleague at the University of Leiden, claimed that high Calvinism was implied by the doctrinal standards of the Dutch churches and universities, so he launched an attack on the moderates, including Arminius.

At first this campaign to impose high Calvinism was unsuccessful; church and state conferences inquiring into Arminius’s theology routinely exonerated him of heterodoxy, until politics began to intrude. Somehow or other Gomarus and other high Calvinists managed to convince the rulers of the United Provinces, and especially the prince Maurice of Nassau, that only their theology provided sure protection against the encroachments of Spanish Catholic influence. (The United Provinces were still involved in a protracted war of liberation against Spain and Catholic domination during Arminius’s lifetime.)6 After Arminius’s death the government began to interfere more and more in the theological controversy over predestination in the United Provinces and eventually Prince Maurice purged Arminians from governmental positions; one was executed and others were imprisoned. When the national church synod was held at Dort in 1618-1619, the high Calvinist party had the backing of the government. The Remonstrants were excluded from participating, except as defendants; they were condemned as heretics and expelled from their positions; their property was taken away, and they were exiled from the country. As soon as Prince Maurice died in 1625, the high Calvinist party lost its iron grip and the Remonstrants found their way back into the country, where they founded churches and a seminary. The point is that the earlier Dutch Protestant church contained theological diversity; both monergists and synergists were represented in it. Only the power of the prince allowed the monergist party to control the church, and with the power of the state to persecute synergists.

Arminius always thought of himself as Reformed in a broad sense. To his way of thinking high Calvinism was just one branch of Reformed theology; he belonged to another. That did not make him less Reformed. Bangs disagrees with Richard Muller, who argues that Arminius and his theology represent a radical departure from Reformed thought. For Bangs, Arminius and his theology represent a variety of Reformed thought, even if it is outside the mainstream. Arminianism is a correction of Reformed theology rather than a departure from it. “Arminius stands firmly in the tradition of Reformed theology in insisting that salvation is by grace alone and that human ability or merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. It is faith in Christ alone that places a sinner in the company of the elect.”7 The correction lies in Arminius’s rejection of strict monergism, which many have come to equate with Reformed theology itself. In Arminius’s mind monergism was not necessary to Reformed theology; he preferred to focus on the common ground he shared with other Reformed thinkers rather than on their points of disagreement. (Although, he was often forced to state his dissenting opinions from the more extreme versions of Calvinism.)

The opinion that Arminius and classical Arminianism are part of the greater Reformed tradition and not opposite of Calvinism is shared by many scholars. Dutch theologian Gerrit Jan Hoenderdal says, “Much Calvinism can be found in the theology of Arminius; but he tried to be a Calvinist in a rather independent way.”8 He confirms Bangs’s assertion that this was commonly accepted in the Dutch churches and universities before Arminius’s time, but that a certain rigidity had set in to Calvinism during Arminius’s career at the University of Leiden.9 James Luther Adams concurs. According to him, Arminius retained fundamental features of Calvinism.10 These include emphasis on the sovereignty of grace as necessary for even the first stirrings of the heart toward God and stress on salvation as a free gift that cannot be earned or merited. Donald Lake agrees and says that Arminius was “in most points a mild Calvinist.”11 Howard Slaatte also agrees. According to him Arminius brought adjustments into Reformed theology; he did not break away from it. Later Remonstrants, which Slaatte calls “quasi-Arminians” (almost certainly Philip Limborch), departed from true Arminianism, that held by Arminius and his first generation of followers (Episcopius and the other early Remonstrants). He calls Arminius a “left wing Calvinist” and asserts that whereas Pelagius was a moralist, Arminius was a confirmed product of the Protestant reformation.12 Arminius, Slaatte rightly avers, only sought to modify the stream of Calvinism:

True Arminian theology [that is faithful to Arminius] always shows a profound respect for the primacy of the faith-related grace of God and the doctrine of the sinfulness of man, while at the same time pleading for man’s consistent responsibility in the saving relationship.13

Slaatte puts his finger on the concrete point at which Arminius remained faithful to the Reformed cause:

Hence, the responsive factor [in the human person according to Arminius] may be described as a grace-qualified, grace-inspired and grace-guided freedom. The sinner may sin freely in capitulating to temptations and evil constraints within his existence, but he can respond to grace freely only as grace touches him through the Spirit-illuminated Word.14

Even such a conservative and venerable Arminian theologian as H. Orton Wiley regarded Arminius and Arminianism as a correction of Reformed theology rather than a total departure from it: “In its purest and best forms, Arminianism preserves the truth found in the Reformed teachings without accepting its errors.”15

Two Links Between Arminius’s Theology and Reformed Theology

Two areas where Arminius’s theology stayed close to Reformed theolo...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction: A Primer on Arminianism
• Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
• Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible
• Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option
• Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will
• Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovreignty of God
• Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology
• Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace
• Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination
• Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
• Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement
• Conclusion: Rules of Engagement for Evangelical Calvinists and Arminians
• Name Index
• Subject Index
• Notes
• About the Author
• Praise for Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
• More Titles from InterVarsity Press
• Copyright