Arminius' beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.[1] Before the Reformation, groups like the Waldensians similarly affirmed individual freedom over any predeterminedpredestination.[2]Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) also promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.[1] The soteriological doctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.[3][4] In particular, Mennonites have been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinistsoteriology.[5]Anabaptist theology seems to have influenced Jacobus Arminius.[3] At least, he was "sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view, and Anabaptists were commonly in attendance on his preaching."[4] Similarly, Arminius mentions DanishLutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (1513–1600) as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.[6] Another key figure, Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563), who opposed Calvin's views on predestination and religious intolerance, is known to have influenced both the Mennonites and certain theologians within Arminius’s circle.[7] Early critics of Arminians even cited Castellio as a primary inspiration behind the Arminian movement.[8]
Emergence of Arminianism
Eyk, Abraham van der. (1721). Disputes between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants in 1618.
In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius presented his theology to magistrates of the States General of the Netherlands in The Hague.[11] After his death, Arminius's followers continued to advance his theological vision, crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance (1610), in which they express their points of divergence from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession.[10] This is how Arminius's followers were called Remonstrants, and following a Counter Remonstrance in 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.[12]
After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau to deal with the situation.[9] Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This Synod of Dort was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (102 people), while the Arminians were excluded (13 people banned from voting), with Calvinist representatives from other countries (28 people), and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. The Canons of Dort responded, among other topics, to Arminian doctrines, anticipating their later articulation as the Five points of Calvinism.[10]
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.[9] Most of the early Remonstrants followed a classical version of Arminianism. However, some of them such as Philipp van Limborch, moved in the direction of semi-Pelagianism and rationalism.[13]
In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrines[14] were held, in substance, before and in parallel with those of Arminius.[15] The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.[15] Arminianism in the Church of England was fundamentally an expression of negation of Calvinism, and only some theologians held to classical Arminianism, but for the rest they were either semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.[9][15][16] In this specific context, contemporary historians prefer to use the term "proto-Arminians" rather than "Arminians" to designate the leanings of those divines who generally didn't follow classical Arminianism.[17] English Arminianism was represented by Arminian Puritans such as John Goodwin or High Anglican Arminians such as Jeremy Taylor and Henry Hammond.[15] Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such as William Laud fought Calvinist Puritans.[15] They actually saw Arminianism in terms of a state church, an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.[9] This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) of Charles I of England.[15] Following the English Civil War (1642–1651) Charles II of England, who tolerated the Presbyterians, re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.[18] It was dominant there after the Restoration (1660)[19] for some fifty years.[15]
Baptists
The Baptist movement emerged in 17th-century in England. The first Baptists—called "General Baptists" because of their confession of a "general" or unlimited atonement—were Arminians.[20] 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 defended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected the Arminianism of Arminius. 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 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. 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.[21]
In the Methodist-Calvinist controversy of the early 1770s involving Anglican ministers John Wesley and George Whitefield, Wesley responded to accusations of semi-Pelagianism by embracing an Arminian identity.[22] Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs of Arminius and largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius' teachings.[23] Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and by some Remonstrant spokesmen.[24] However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius' beliefs.[25] Wesley defended his soteriology through the publication of a periodical titled The Arminian (1778) and in articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered.[26] To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief in total depravity while clarifying other doctrines notably prevenient grace.[27][28] At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.[29] He typically preached the notion of Christian perfection (fully mature, not "sinlessness").[9] His system of thought has become known as Wesleyan Arminianism, the foundations of which were laid by him and his fellow preacher John William Fletcher.[30][31] Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.[32][33] In the 1830s, during the Second Great Awakening, traces of Pelagian influence surfaced in the American Holiness Movement. Consequently, critics of Wesleyan theology have occasionally unfairly perceived or labeled its broader thought.[34] However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.[28][33]
Pentecostals
Pentecostalism has its background in the activity of Charles Parham (1873–1929). Its origin as a movement was in the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906. This revival was led by William J. Seymour (1870–1922).[35] Due to the Methodist and Holiness background of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.[36] During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.[37] Today, Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God hold to Arminian views such as resistible grace, conditional election, and conditional security of the believer.[38][39][40]
The Pelagian-Augustinian framework can serve as a key paradigm for understanding the theological and historical legacy of Arminianism.[74] Before Augustine (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.[75]Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.[76] The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as "humanistic monergism".[77][78] This view was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431).[79] In response, Augustine proposed a view in which God is the ultimate cause of all human actions, a stance that aligns with soft determinism.[80] The Augustinian view is therefore referred to as "divine monergism".[81] However, Augustinian soteriology implied double predestination,[82] which was condemned by the Council of Arles (475).[83]
During this period, a moderate form of Pelagianism emerged, later termed Semi-Pelagianism. This view asserted that human will initiates salvation, rather than divine grace.[84] The Semi-Pelagian view is therefore described as "human-initiated synergism".[85] In 529, the Second Council of Orange addressed Semi-Pelagianism and declared that even the inception of faith is a result of God’s grace.[86][87][88] This highlights the role of prevenient grace enabling human belief.[89][90] This view, often referred to as "Semi-Augustinian," is therefore described as "God-initiated synergism".[91][92][93][94] The Council also rejected predestination to evil.[95] As Arminianism aligns with key aspects of this view,[91] it is seen by some as a return to early church theological consensus.[96] Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism[97] or more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.[98]
Arminian theology generally divides into two main variations: Classical Arminianism, based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, a closely related variation shaped primarily by John Wesley.[99]
Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of covenant theology.[105][106] Its core teachings are summarized in the Five Articles of Remonstrance, reflecting Arminius’s views, with some sections directly from his Declaration of Sentiments.[107] Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".[108][109] Others prefer "Reformation Arminianism"[110] or "Reformed Arminianism",[111] as Arminius upheld the principles of Reformation such as Sola fide and Sola gratia.[112]
God's providence and human free will
Arminianism accepts classical theism, which states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.[113] In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.
Besides, Arminianism view on God's sovereignty is based on postulates stemming from God's character. On the first hand, divine election must be defined in such a way that God is not in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of evil. It would not correspond to the character of God,[114] especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.[115] On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.[116] Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures.
On one hand, it requires for God to operate according to a limited mode of providence. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires for God's election to be a "predestination by foreknowledge".[117] Therefore, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, aligning his certainty with human freedom of action.[118]
Philosophical view on free will
Arminianism is aligned with classical free-will theism, adopting an incompatibilist position. It asserts that the free will essential for moral responsibility is inherently incompatible with determinism.[119] In Arminian theology, human beings possess libertarian free will, making them the ultimate source of their choices and granting them the ability to choose otherwise.[120] This philosophical framework upholds the concept of divine providence, allowing God's influence and supervision over creation.[121] However, it permits the idea of God's absolute control over human actions, as long as such control does not involve human responsibility.[122][123]
Spiritual view on free will
Arminianism holds that without the assistance of divine grace, human free will is incapable of choosing the spiritual good.[124][125] Humans are therefore in a state of total depravity, possessing a corrupted spiritual nature inherited from original sin.[126] Like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, Arminius agreed that human free will is spiritually captive and enslaved.[127][128] However, through the action of prevenient grace, human free will can be "freed",[129] meaning it can be restored with the ability to choose the spiritual good, particularly the capacity to accept God's call to salvation.[130]
Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the crucifixion of Christ. Thus Christ's death atones for the sins of 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."[132]Justification, therefore, is seen through mercy by the imputation of righteousness.[133] While not rigidly defined, this view suggests that the righteousness of Christ is attributed to believers, emphasizing that union with Christ (conditioned on faith) transfers his righteousness to them.[134][135]
Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by penal substitution.[136] Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied governmentally.[137] Historical and contemporary Arminians have held to one of these views.[138]
Conversion of man
In Arminianism, God initiates the process of salvation by extending his grace, commonly referred to as prevenient grace, to all people. This grace works within each individual, drawing them toward the Gospel and enabling sincere faith, leading to regeneration.[139] It functions through a dynamic influence-and-response relationship, allowing individuals to freely accept or reject it.[140][129] Thus, conversion is described as a "God-initiated synergism."[91]
Election of man
Election is 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."[141] 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."[141]
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.[142]
Preservation is 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.[145] 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."[146] 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."[147][148]
Arminius believed in the possibility of apostasy. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,[149] he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.[150][151] In 1599, he stated that the question required more scriptural examination.[152] In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), Arminius said, "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."[153]
However, elsewhere Arminius expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: In c. 1602, he noted that a person integrated into the church might resist God's work and that a believer's security rested solely in their choice not to abandon their faith.[154][155] He argued that God's covenant did not eliminate the possibility of falling away but provided a gift of fear to keep individuals from defecting, as long as it thrived in their hearts.[156] He then taught that had David died in sin, he would have been lost.[157][134] In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".[158]
For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.[134][159] In 1605 Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore, he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".[160] Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".[161][134] He suggested that, strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.[162][151][163]
After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a Remonstrance (1610) based quite literally on his Declaration of Sentiments (1607) which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.[161] In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.[164] 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.[165] They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618) which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.[166] They later expressed this same view in the Remonstrant Confession (1621).[167]
Forgivability of apostasy
Arminius maintained that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, then it was forgivable.[134][168] If it came from "rejection" it was not.[169] Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.[170] However, other classical Arminians, including the Free Will Baptists, have taught that apostasy is irremediable.[171][172]
Wesley’s view of atonement is either understood as a hybrid of penal substitution and the governmental theory,[175] or it is viewed solely as penal substitution.[176][177][178] Historically, Wesleyan Arminians adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.[138]
Justification and sanctification
In Wesleyan theology, justification is understood as the forgiveness of sins rather than being made inherently righteous. Righteousness is achieved through sanctification, which involves the pursuit of holiness in one's life.[179] Wesley taught that imputed righteousness, which refers to the righteousness credited to a believer through faith, must transform into imparted righteousness, where this righteousness becomes evident in the believer’s life.[180]
Christian perfection
Wesley taught that through the Holy Spirit, Christians can achieve a state of practical perfection, or "entire sanctification", characterized by a lack of voluntary sin.[181] This state involves embodying the love of God and neighbor.[182] It does not mean freedom from all mistakes or temptations, as perfected Christians still need to seek forgiveness and strive for holiness. Ultimately, perfection in this context is about love, not absolute perfection.[183]
Preservation and apostasy of man
Wesley believed that genuine Christians could apostatize. He emphasized that sin alone does not lead to this loss; instead, prolonged unconfessed sin and deliberate apostasy can result in a permanent fall from grace.[184] However, he believed that such apostasy was not irremediable.[185]
The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. In the corporate election view, God chose the believing church collectively for salvation, rather than selecting individuals.[186] Jesus is seen as the only person elected, and individuals join the elect through faith "in Christ".[187][188] This view is supported by Old Testament and Jewish concepts, where identity is rooted more in group membership than individuality.[189]
Pelagianism is a doctrine denying original sin and total depravity. No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;[190] both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.[191] 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]."[192] This association is considered as libelous when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine,[193] and Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.[194][195]
Divergence with Semi-Pelagianism
Semi-Pelagianism holds that faith begins with human will, while its continuation and fulfillment depend on God's grace,[84] giving it the label "human-initiated synergism".[85] In contrast, both Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism affirm that prevenient grace from God initiates the process of salvation,[196][197] a view sometimes referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", or "God-initiated synergism".[91][92] Following the Reformation, Reformed theologians often categorized both "human-initiated synergism" and "God-initiated synergism" as "Semi-Pelagianism",[198] often leading to mistaken belief that Arminianism aligned with Semi-Pelagianism.[199][200]
Divergence with Calvinism
Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharing historical roots and many theological doctrines, diverge notably on the concepts of divine predestination and election. While some perceive these differences as fundamental, others regard them as relatively minor distinctions within the broader spectrum of Christian theology.[201]
Similarities
Human spiritual condition – Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, but differ in their understanding of how God remedies this human condition.[202]
Nature of grace – Arminians believe that, through prevenient grace, God universally restores the individual spiritual ability to choose and that subsequent justifying grace is resistible.[206] Calvinists however, assert that God's effectual call is given only to the elect and that subsequent grace is irresistible.[207]
Extent of the atonement – Arminians, along with four-point Calvinists, advocate for a universal atonement, contrary to the Calvinist doctrine that atonement is limited to the elect.[208] Both sides, excluding hyper-Calvinists, believe the Gospel invitation is universal and should be presented to everyone without distinction.[209]
Perseverance in faith – Arminians believe preservation to final salvation is conditional on faith and can be lost through apostasy. They contend for a present security in Christ, relying on His protection from all external forces.[145] Calvinists, on the other hand, hold to the perseverance of the saints, asserting that the elect will persevere in faith until the end of their lives.[210] However, a believer cannot know with certainty if they are elect until they reach the end.[211] This leads to different interpretations on the assurance of final salvation within Calvinist circles.[212][213]
Divergence with 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).[214] Some Arminians, reject open theism, viewing it as a distortion of traditional Arminianism.[215] They believe it shifts away from classical Arminianism toward process theology.[216] Others view it as a valid alternative perspective within Christianity, despite not aligning it with Arminian doctrine.[217]
^Bender 1953: "Mennonites have been historically Arminian in their theology whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not. They never accepted Calvinism either in the Swiss-South German branch or in the Dutch-North German wing. Nor did any Mennonite confession of faith in any country teach any of the five points of Calvinism. However, in the 20th century, particularly in North America, some Mennonites, having come under the influence of certain Bible institutes and the literature produced by this movement and its schools, have adopted the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or "once in grace always in grace." In doing so, they have departed from the historic Arminianism of the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement."
^Olson 2013b: "I am using 'Arminianism' as a handy [...] synonym for 'evangelical synergism' (a term I borrow from Donald Bloesch). [...] It's simply a Protestant perspective on salvation, God's role and ours, that is similar to, if not identical with, what was assumed by the Greek church fathers and taught by Hubmaier, Menno Simons, and even Philipp Melanchthon (after Luther died). It was also taught by Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (d. 1600)—independently of Arminius. (Arminius mentions Hemmingsen as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.)"
^Tyacke 1990, p. 245: "Of the various terms which can be used to describe the thrust of religions change at the time Arminian is the least misleading. It does not mean that the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius was normally the source of the ideas so labelled. Rather Arminian denotes a coherent body of anti-Calvinist religious thought, which was gaining ground in various regions of early seventeenth-century Europe."
^MacCulloch 1990, p. 94: "If we use the label 'Arminian' for English Churchmen, it must be with these important qualification in mind [of been related to the theology of Arminius]; 'proto-Arminian' would be a more accurate term."
^Wallace (2011), p. 233: "According to Edwards, it was only after the Restoration that non-Calvinist views come to be adopted by many of the clergy of the Church of England. Foremost among those who rejected Calvinism had been the Arminians, and Edwards appeared on the scene as a defender of Calvinism against Arminianism at a time when it was more often the Dissenters who were battling it and calling attention to the triumph of Arminianism in the Church of England."
^Keefer 1987, p. 89: "What Wesley knew of Arminius came to him through two basic sources. First, he knew something of Arminius through Remonstrant spokesmen. [...] Wesley's second source of Arminian theology was the English Church in general, particularly the writers of the seventeenth century. This was by far his predominant source [...]."
^Bounds 2011, p. 50: "The American Holiness movement, influenced heavily by the revivalism of Charles Finney, inculcated some of his Soft Semi-Pelagian tendencies among their preachers and teachers [...]. This has provided critics of Wesleyan theology with fodder by which they pigeonhole inaccurately larger Wesleyan thought."
^Studebaker 2008, p. 54. "Pentecostal theology, generally adopts an Arminian/Wesleyan structure of the ordos salutis [...]."
^Stanglin & McCall 2021, p. 240: "[T]he specifically Pentecostal denominations —such as the Assemblies of God, founded in 1914— have remained broadly Arminian when it comes to the matters of free, resistible grace and choice in salvation [...]."
^Olson 2014, pp. 2–3: "Methodism, in all its forms (including ones that do not bear that name), tends to be Arminian. (Calvinist Methodist churches once existed. They were founded by followers of Wesley's co-evangelist George Whitefield. But, so far as I am able to tell, they have all died out or merged with traditionally Reformed-Calvinist denominations.) Officially Arminian denominations include ones in the so-called 'Holiness' tradition (e.g., Church of the Nazarene) and in the Pentecostal tradition (e.g., Assemblies of God). Arminianism is also the common belief of Free Will Baptists (also known as General Baptists). Many Brethren [anabaptists-pietist] churches are Arminian as well. But one can find Arminians in many denominations that are not historically officially Arminian, such as many Baptist conventions/conferences."
^Akin 1993: "In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches."
^Dorner 2004, p. 419: "Through its opposition to Predestinarianism, Arminianism possesses a certain similarity to the Lutheran doctrine, in the shape which the latter in the seventeenth century more and more assumed, but the similarity is rather a superficial one."
^Sutton 2012, p. 56: "Interestingly, Anabaptism and Arminianism are similar is some respects. Underwood wrote that the Anabaptist movement anticipated Arminius by about a century with respect to its reaction against Calvinism."
^Gause 2007: "Pentecostals are almost universally Wesleyan-Arminian rather than Calvinist/Reformed, with rare exceptions among denominational Charismatic."
^Barrett 2013, p. xxvii, . "[D]ivine monergism is the view of Augustine and the Augustinians."
^James 1998, p. 103. "If one asks, whether double predestination is a logical implication or development of Augustine's doctrine, the answer must be in the affirmative."
^Denzinger 1954, ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 199. "We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil."
^Episcopius & Ellis 2005, p. 8: "Episcopius was singularly responsible for the survival of the Remonstrant movement after the Synod of Dort. We may rightly regard him as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers."
^Stanglin & McCall 2012, p. 190 "These points [of Remonstrance] are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his Declaration of Sentiments.
^Olson 2013a: "Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not sovereignty but God's character. If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell. [...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is not providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is God's character."
^Olson 2010: "Classical Arminianism does not say God never interferes with free will. It says God never foreordains or renders certain evil. [...] An Arminian could believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs. [...] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will – as if that were central in and of itself. Classical Arminians have gone out of our way (beginning with Arminius himself) to make clear that our sole reasons for believe in free will as Arminians [...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."
^Olson 2018: "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without 'prevenient grace' (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. 'A' is called 'limited providence,' 'B' is called 'predestination by foreknowledge.'"
^Olson 2008, p. 149. "Classical free will theism is that form of this model found implicitly if not explicitly in the ancient Greek church fathers, most of the medieval Christian and theologians […] Classical free will theism describes free will as incompatible with determinism".
^Olson 2008, p. 151. "Occasionally God suspends free will with a dramatic intervention that virtually forces a person to decide or act in some way".
^Olson 2014, p. 8. "Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.".
^Arminius 1853a, p. 526. "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."
^Pinson 2002, p. 140. "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."
^Arminius 1853b, pp. 465, 466: "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'."
^Arminius 1853c, pp. 412, 413: "[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".
^ abGrider 1982, pp. 55–56, . "Arminius used an ingenious device to teach [the possibility of Apostasy], so as not to seem to oppose Calvinism's eternal security doctrine head on and recklessly He admitted that believers cannot lose saving grace; but then he would add, quickly, that Christians can freely cease to believe, and that then they will lose saving grace. So, in a sense, believers cannot backslide; but Christians can cease to believe, and then, as unbelievers (but only as unbelievers), they lose their salvation"
^Arminius 1853b, "A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans", pp. 219–220, [1599]
^Arminius 1853a, p. 665: "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'".
^Oropeza 2000, p. 16: "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 [c. 1602] 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.'"
^Arminius 1853c, p. 455, "Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination", [c. 1602]
^Arminius 1853c, p. 458, "Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination", [c. 1602] "[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."
^Arminius 1853c, pp. 463–464, "Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination", [c. 1602]
^Arminius 1853a, p. 667, Disputation 25, on Magistracy, [1602]
^Picirilli 2002, p. 198. "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."
^De Jong 1968, pp. 220 ff., art. 5, points 3–4: "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."
^De Jong 1968, pp. 220 ff., ch. 5.5: "Nevertheless, we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen."
^Sayer 2006, ch. "Wesleyan-Arminian theology": "Evangelical Wesleyan-Arminianism has as its center the merger of both Wesley's concept of holiness and Arminianism's emphasis on synergistic soteriology."
^Pinson 2002, pp. 227 ff.: "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."
^Olson 2009, p. 224: "Arminius did not believe [in the governmental theory of atonement], neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians."
^Elwell 2001, p. 1268. "[Wesley] states what justification is not. It is not being made actually just and righteous (that is sanctification). It is not being cleared of the accusations of Satan, nor of the law, nor even of God. We have sinned, so the accusation stands. Justification implies pardon, the forgiveness of sins. [...] Ultimately for the true Wesleyan salvation is completed by our return to original righteousness. This is done by the work of the Holy Spirit."
^Wesley 1827, p. 66, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection." "[Entire sanctification is] purity of intention."
^Wesley 1827, p. 66, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection." "[Entire sanctification is] loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves."
^Wesley 1827, p. 45, "Of Christian Perfection". "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."
^Pinson 2002, pp. 239–240. "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."
^Wesley & Emory 1835, p. 247, "A Call to Backsliders". "[N]ot one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands [...] innumerable are the instances [...] of those who had fallen but now stand upright."
^Ridderbos 1997, p. 351: "[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."
^Walls & Dongell 2004, p. 76: "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."
^Barth 1974, p. 108: "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."
^Marko 2020, p. 772. "Those who did not think a prevenient grace was necessary for initial human response or that it was resistible came to be called semi-Pelagians by Protestants in the post Reformation period."
^Calvin 1845, 3.21.7: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."
^Alexander & Johnson 2016, p. 204: "It should be conceded at the outset, and without any embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God."
^Grudem 1994, p. 970: "The Perseverance of the Saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again."
^Grudem 1994, p. 860: "[T]his doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, if rightly understood, should cause genuine worry, and even fear, in the hearts of any who are 'backsliding' or straying away from Christ. Such persons must clearly be warned that only those who persevere to the end have been truly born again."
^Keathley 2010, p. 171: "John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress has blessed multitudes of Christians, but his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, is disturbing. He recounts how, in his seemingly endless search for assurance of salvation, he was haunted by the question, 'How can I tell if I am elected?'"
^Davis 1991, p. 217: "Calvin, however, has greater confidence than Luther and the Catholic tradition before him that the believer can also have great assurance of his election and final perseverance."
^Picirilli 2002, pp. 40, 59 ff.. Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections.
^Walls & Dongell 2004, p. 45. "[O]pen theism actually moves beyond classical Arminianism towards process theology."
Delumeau, Jean; Wanegffelen, Thierry; Cottret, Bernard (2012). "Chapitre XII: Les conflits internes du protestantisme". Naissance et affirmation de la Réforme (in French). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: IVP.
Guggisberg, Hans R.; Gordon, Bruce (2017). Sebastian Castellio, 1515-1563: Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a Confessional Age. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
Harmon, Richard W. (1984). Baptists and Other Denominations. Nashville, Tennessee: Convention Press.
Heron, Alasdair I. C. (1999). "Arminianism". In Fahlbusch, Erwin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 128–129.
James, Frank A. (1998). Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination: The Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer. Oxford: Clarendon.
Marberry, Thomas (1998). ""Matthew" in the IVP New Testament Commentary Series By Craig S. Keener". Contact: Official Publication of the National Association of Free Will Baptists. Vol. 45. The Association.
Marko, Jonathan S. (2020). "Grace, Early Modern Discussion of". In Jalobeanu, Dana; Wolfe, Charles T. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences. Cham: Springer International Publishing. ISBN978-3-319-20791-9.
McClintock, John; Strong, James (1880). "Arminianism". The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Mcgonigle, Herbert (2001). Sufficient Saving Grace. Carlisle: Paternoster. ISBN1-84227-045-1.
Oakley, Francis (1988). The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Oden, Thomas (2012). John Wesley's Teachings. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.
Olson, Roger E. (2008). "The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God". In Ware, Bruce (ed.). Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.
Olson, Roger E. (2009). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Olson, Roger E. (2013a). "What's Wrong with Calvinism?". Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings. Patheos. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
Olson, Roger E. (2018). "Calvinism and Arminianism Compared". Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings. Patheos. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
Oropeza, B. J. (2000). Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck..
Osborne, Grant R.; Trueman, Carl R.; Hammett, John S. (2015). Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 views. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic. ISBN9781433669712. OCLC881665298.
Pawson, David (1996). Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance. London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN0-340-61066-2.
Peterson, Robert A.; Williams, Michael D. (2004). Why I am not an Arminian. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. ISBN0-8308-3248-3.
Picirilli, Robert (2002). Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation. Nashville, Tennessee: Randall House. ISBN0-89265-648-4.
Pickar, C. H. (1981) [1967]. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill.
Pinson, J. Matthew (2002). Four Views on Eternal Security. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Harper Collins.
Puchniak, Robert (2008). "Pelagius: Kierkegaard's use of Pelagius and Pelagianism". Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN978-0-7546-6391-1.
Schwartz, William Andrew; Bechtold, John M. (2015). Embracing the Past—Forging the Future: A New Generation of Wesleyan Theology. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock.
Smith, Damian J. (2010). Crusade, Heresy and Inquisition in the Lands of the Crown of Aragon: (c. 1167 - 1276). Leiden: Brill.
Stanglin, Keith D. (2007). Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation. Boston, Massachusetts: Brill.
Stanglin, Keith D.; Muller, Richard A. (2009). "Bibliographia Arminiana: A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography of the Works of Arminius". Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe. Boston, Massachusetts: Brill. pp. 263–290.
Stanglin, Keith D.; McCall, Thomas H. (2021). After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stegall, Thomas Lewis (2009). The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith. Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press.
Studebaker, Steven M. (2008). Defining Issues in Pentecostalism: Classical and Emergent. Euguene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Teselle, Eugene (2014). "The Background: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy". In Hwang, Alexander Y.; Matz, Brian J.; Casiday, Augustine (eds.). Grace for Grace: The Debates after Augustine and Pelagius. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. pp. 1–13. ISBN978-0-8132-2601-9.
Thorsen, Don (2007). An Exploration of Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
