What is an Arminian

The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace by John Wesley

1. To say, "This man is an Arminian," has the same effect on many hearers, as to say, "This is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright at once: They run away from him with all speed and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.

2. The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose. Those on whom it is fixed know not what to do: Not understanding what it means, they cannot tell what defence to make, or how to clear themselves from the charge. And it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know no more of it, than that it is "something very bad," if not "all that is bad!"

3. To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be of use to many: To those who so freely pin this name upon others, that they may not say what they do not understand; to those that hear them, that they may be no longer abused by men saying they know not what; and to those upon whom the name is fixed, that they may know how to answer for themselves.

4. It may be necessary to observe, First, that many confound Arminians with Arians. But this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to the other. An Arian is one who denies the Godhead of Christ; we scarce need say, the supreme, eternal Godhead; because there can be no God but the supreme, eternal God, unless we will make two Gods, a great God and a little one. Now, none have ever more firmly believed, or more strongly asserted, the Godhead of Christ, than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; yea, and do at this day. Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally different from Arianism.

5. The rise of the word was this: JAMES HARMENS, in Latin, Jacobes Arminius, was first one of the Ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor of Divinity at Leyden. He was educated at Geneva; but in the year 1591 began to doubt of the principles which he had till then received. And being more and more convinced that they were wrong, when he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly taught what he believed the truth, till, in the year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after his death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all that held what were called his opinions; and having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent,) some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in Church or State.

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.

With regard to the two first of these charges, they plead, Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin, or justification by faith, in more strong, more clear and express terms, than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question: In these both parties agree. In this respect, there is not a hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.

7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians, with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe absolute, the latter only conditional, predestination. The Calvinists hold, (1.) God has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to save such and such persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these, and none else. The Arminians hold, God has decreed, from all eternity, touching all that have the written word, "He that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth not, shall be condemned:" And in order to this, "Christ died for all, all that were dead in trespasses and sins;" that is, for every child of Adam, since "in Adam all died."

8. The Calvinists hold, Secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no man is any more able to resist it, than to resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians hold, that although there may be some moments wherein the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet, in general, any man may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will of God he should have been eternally saved.

9. The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. The Arminians hold, that a true believer may "make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;" that he may fall, not only foully, but finally, so as to perish for ever.

10. Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance, are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree. For if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows, both that they cannot resist his saving grace, (else they might miss of salvation,) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they cannot resist. So that, in effect, the three questions come into one, "Is predestination absolute or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.

11. Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause! Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not understand. And how can any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means; and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

12. One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

Thank you for the link. I think the Romanists were a little to quick to count out the Protestants,since the 18th and 19th centuries were its greatest centuries.

Regarding the great Jesuit plot to destroy the Reformation with Arminianism, why wouldn't they attempt to destroy a rival to their own tyrannical system?

Calvinism breeds Popes and they did not want a rival popery to contend with! After all, killing christians should be only the right of the Roman Church.

Calvin felt otherwise

Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blahsphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down in human authority, it is of God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule of the Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their natures in order that nothing hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a serverity exacted that we may know that God is defrauded of his honor, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted,humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories (Calvins defense of his execution of Servetus, cited in Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol.8,p.791

Can we get some heel clicking? How about praise to Allah? Schaff goes on to note that the 'defense needed to be written because

Not only dissener and personal enemies, but also, as Beza admits, some orthodox and pious people and friends of Calvin were dissatisfied with the severity of the punishment. amd feared, not without reason, that it would justify and encourage the Romanists in their cruel persecution of Protestants in France and elsewhere (emphasis mine) (Ibid,p.790)

I wonder if Calvin ever read the verse,Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.For the Son of man is not to come to destroy men's lives but to save them (Lk.9:55-56)

No, Calvin was to busy bringing in the Kingdom,

Calvin's plea for the right and duty of the Christian magistrate to punish heresy by death, stands or falls with his theoratic theory and the binding authority of the Mosaic code (Ibid,p.792)

His spirit lived on in Mass. and lives even today as noted in the rabid defense of his philosophical system on these threads!

Remember that Calvin and associates ratted on Servetus to the Catholic Church when he lived in France.

And I may as well throw a huge amount of fuel on the fire here, as well. Of course, the closest theologically to Calvin in his doctrine of theocratic determinism at the time (and of greatest relevance intellectually since many classical Greek works came in as banned books from Moorish Spain) was Islam.

You know, it's interesting that people are so quick to point to Darwin as the root from which the various plants of modernism, communism, behaviorism, etc.. grew. However, the determinism that lies at the heart materialistic determinism stems from much further back. On a cosmological scale, the idea of a clockwork universe, wound up and left by its creator to run according to its inherent rules put into place at its origin (and the smallest step to a clockwork universe running according to its own rules) has as its intellectual predecessor someone much farther back than Chuck Darwin.

That predecessor was John Calvin, and to a less extreme extent Martin Luther, both of whom dominated (or otherwise influenced) religious and intellectual life of northern Europe in the succeeding centuries. The modern idea of "man" as a ghost in the biological machine, his will and freedom of choice mere illusions of his origin, have their highest and most deliberate exposition in the theology of John Calvin. It's almost funny to see people talk about the wonder and glory of materialistic determinism in the way it has produced life and humanity while ignoring or otherwise treating as irrelevant the implications for what it means to be a choosing human able to know truth. The parallel to Calvin bloviating about G-d's having ordained Adam and Eve (and everyone else) to sin and to be either saved or cast into hell based not on what he foresaw they would willingly do but on what he had foreordained they should do and all for his glory (whatever that's supposed to mean) is unmistakable.

None of the proponents of either seems to be too worried that his system removes any basis for being able to know truth (even the "truth" of the system in question) and, knowing it, choose it over error. Why? Because each system absolves them of all ultimate responsibility for their actions? Because each system gives them an Explanation of All that is somehow comforting in spite of the way either eliminates the basis of what each knows in his own heart what it means to be a choosing human being with a sense of right and wrong? Because each system in its totalist outlook gives them a way of being on the Winning Team (well, only maybe in the case of Calvinists) and no one likes being alone? Because people want to be right and either gives them a way of feeling right (note that neither really gives them a way of knowing that they are, indeed, right) without having to offer too much of an explanation except for "That's the way X made it; that's the way it's supposed to be"?

St. Carlos Sagan's "The Cosmos, all there is, was, and ever shall be" and Calvin's theological determinism* of are just two sides of the same ontological coin.

*"God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born, who are from the womb devoted to inevitable damnation. If any man pretend that God's foreknowledge lays them under no necessity of being damned, but rather that he decreed their damnation because he foreknew their wickedness, I grant that God's foreknowledge alone lays no cecessity of the creature: but eternal life and death depend on the will rather than the foreknowledge of God. If God only foreknew all things that relate to all men, and did not decree and ordain them also, then it might be inquired whether or no his foreknowledge necessites the thing foreknown. But seeing he therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass, because he has decreed they shall come to pass, it is vain to contend about foreknowledge, since it is so plain all things come to pass by God's positive decree." (Calvin's Institutes, c. 23, s. 6) (emphasis added)

St. Carlos Sagan's "The Cosmos, all there is, was, and ever shall be" and Calvin's theological determinism* of are just two sides of the same ontological coin.

That is just to much truth for the Calvinistic 'brethren', you would have to be able to think to figure that out. Calvin wanted all of his followers to be docile.

If God asked mankind to do something and he knew when he asked them that they could not do it and he told them he would damn them if they didn't do it, it would make God out a demon and a wretch, and I will not allow you or any other man to stand up and insult my God. (Billy Sunday)

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost.

JOHN CALVIN

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.