Replies

Here is an excerpt from chapter 6 of the R.C. Sproul book Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will to which the author refered (this is actually the full text of the first three of the chapter's six sections, the remaining sections dealing with the Remonstrance, Dordt, and "Modern Arminianism"). Nowhere here does Sproul "equate Pelagianism directly with Arminianism" as the author claims. Note also that Arminius himself is quoted extensively.

We Are Free to Believe:James Arminius

All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, . . . and of not opening to Him who knocks at the door of the heart; and these things they can actually do.
- James Arminius

James Arminius was emphatic in his rejection of Pelagianism, particularly with respect to the fall of Adam. The fall leaves man in a ruined state, under the dominion of sin. Arminius declares: “In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened [attenuatem]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], 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. . . .”¹

In the perennial debate between so-called Calvinism and Arminianism, the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures, not unlike collective Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Calvinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated. Arminius himself came from a Calvinistic framework and embraced many tenets of historic Calvinism. He frequently complained, in a mild spirit, of the manifold ways in which he was misrepresented. He loved the works of Augustine and in many respects earnestly sought to champion the Augustinian cause.

The above citation from one of Arminius’s works demonstrates how seriously he regards the depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that man’s will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that it was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.

Indeed, to show his agreement with Augustine, Arminius goes on to say: “For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ [John 15:5]. St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, “Without me ye can do but little”; neither does He say, “Without me ye cannot do any arduous thing,” nor “Without me ye can do it with difficulty”: But He says, “Without me ye can do nothing!” Nor does He say, “Without me ye cannot complete [perficere] any thing”; but “Without me ye can do nothing.”’”²

So far Arminius clearly seems to agree with Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. He affirms the ruination of the will, which is left in a state of captivity and can avail nothing apart from the grace of God. It would seem, then, that the debate between historic Calvinism and Arminianism is but a tempest in a teapot, resulting from a serious misunderstanding between the parties. The point at issue will appear later, however, as we consider the nature of grace and how it liberates man from his bondage to sin.

Effects of the Fall

Arminius distinguishes among three aspects of fallen man: his mind, his affections, and his life. Of the mind Arminius says:

The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God: For “the animal man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14); in which passage man is called “animal,” not from the animal body, but from anima, the soul itself, which is the most noble part of man, but which is so encompassed about with the clouds of ignorance, as to be distinguished by the epithets of “vain” and “foolish”; and men themselves, thus darkened in their minds, are denominated “mad” [amentes] or foolish, “fools,” and even “darkness” itself (Rom. 1:21–22; Eph. 4:17–18; Titus 3:3; Eph. 5:8).³

Events in the Life of Arminius:
1560 Born in Oudewater, The Netherlands
1582 Began theological studies in Geneva
1587 Began ministry in Amsterdam
1588 Ordained
1590 Married Lijsbet Reael
1603 Joined theological faculty in Leiden
1609 Died in Leiden

This dark state of the mind is exacerbated by the heart or affections, which further plunge human thinking into corruption: “To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil.”⁴

Arminius cites numerous biblical quotations in support of his view of the effects of sin. Together, the darkness of the mind and the perversity of the heart leave men morally impotent:

Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is the utter Weakness [impotentia] of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause. . . .
To these let the consideration of the whole of the Life of Man who is placed [constituti] under sin, be added, of which the Scriptures exhibit to us the most luminous descriptions; and it will be evident, that nothing can be spoken more truly concerning man in this state, than that he is altogether dead in sin (Rom. 3:10–19).⁵

Arminius not only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? Arminius then declares that the only remedy for man’s fallen condition is the gracious operation of God’s Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God. Arminius describes the Spirit’s operation in the following terms:

. . . a new light and knowledge of God and Christ, and of the Divine Will, have been kindled in his mind; and . . . new affections, inclinations and motions agreeing with the law of God, have been excited in his heart, and new powers have been produced [ingeneratae] in him. . . . [Then,] being liberated from the kingdom of darkness, and being now made “light in the Lord” (Eph. 5:8) he understands the true and saving Good; that, after the hardness of his stony heart has been changed into the softness of flesh, . . . he loves and embraces that which is good, just, and holy; and that, being made capable [potens] in Christ, co-operating now with God he prosecutes the Good which he knows and loves, and he begins himself to perform it in deed. But this, whatever it may be of knowledge, holiness and power, is all begotten within him by the Holy Spirit. . . .⁶

Again it seems that Arminius is merely echoing the teaching of Luther and Calvin. He affirms the absolute necessity of grace for man to turn to the good, and he even speaks of the Holy Spirit working “within” man to accomplish all of this.

Then Arminius makes an observation that sounds like a sudden departure from Reformation thought. He declares that “this work of regeneration and illumination is not completed in one moment; but . . . it is advanced and promoted, from time to time, by daily increase.”⁷ When Arminius expands on this point, he seems to mean that what is begun in regeneration is continued in the process of life-long sanctification. For example, the divine illumination that occurs at the onset of conversion is a work that continues through the Christian pilgrimage.

What is jarring here is Arminius’s reference to regeneration’s not being completed in one moment. Perhaps this is a mere slip of the pen, intended to convey the idea that the fruit of regeneration is ongoing. If he means that the work of regeneration itself is not instantaneous but gradual, then he sets himself in opposition to Reformation thought.

The beginning of the work of grace is called preventing grace or more popularly prevenient grace, referring to the grace that comes before conversion and on which conversion depends. Arminius first quotes Augustine, then Bernardus:

“Subsequent or following Grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing Grace. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by Grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without Grace, but is inspired by Him. . . .”
“‘What then,’ you ask, ‘does Free Will do?’ I reply with brevity, ‘It saves.’ Take away Free Will, and nothing will be left to be saved: Take away Grace, and nothing will be left as the source of salvation. This work [of salvation] cannot be effected without two parties: One, from whom it may come; The Other, to whom or in whom it may be [wrought.] God is the Author of salvation: Free Will is only capable [tantum capere] of being saved. No one, except God, is able to bestow salvation; and nothing, except Free Will, is capable of receiving it.”⁸

The term preventing grace is open to misunderstanding. To prevent in modern usage usually means “to keep something from happening.” This is not how Arminius uses the term. The word prevent derives from the Latin venio, which means simply “to come.” The prefix pre means “before.” Therefore, preventing grace does not keep salvation from happening but necessarily “comes before” salvation.

Later Arminius addresses the distinction commonly found in Reformed theology between the external and internal calls of God. The external or outward call usually refers to the preaching of the gospel that men hear with their ears. The internal call refers to the operation of the Spirit of God within man, whereby he calls them internally. It is not a mere outward wooing, enticing, pleading, or drawing.

The Point of Departure

Arminius declares that “internal vocation is granted [contingit] even to those who do not comply with the call.”⁹ Here, at last, we see the critical point of departure from the view of Luther and Calvin. For the Reformers, the internal call is effectual. That is, all whom God calls internally comply with his call. This sets the stage for the debate over the resistible or irresistible grace of regeneration. Arminius declares: “All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, and a capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of rejecting the proffered grace of God, of despising the counsel of God against themselves, of refusing to accept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening to Him who knocks at the door of the heart; and these things they can actually do, without any difference of the Elect and of the Reprobate.”¹⁰

Arminius makes it clear that prevenient grace is resistible. This grace is necessary for salvation, but does not insure that salvation will ensue. Grace is a necessary condition for salvation, but not a sufficient condition for salvation. Arminius distinguishes between sufficient and efficient grace: “Sufficient grace must necessarily be laid down; yet this sufficient grace, through the fault of him to whom it is granted [contingit], does not [always] obtain its effect. Were the fact otherwise, the justice of God could not be defended in his condemning those who do not believe.”¹¹

Prevenient grace is “sufficient” in that it provides everything the sinner needs in order to be saved. The sinner is unable to do the good without it. We can see here that Arminius’s chief concern is to defend the justice of God.

If only irresistible grace is given, then in the final analysis God determines who will and who will not be saved. The unspoken question is this: If the sinner cannot respond to the gospel without irresistible grace and if this grace is not given to all, then how can God justly condemn those to whom he has not given it? Arminius goes on to say: “The efficacy of saving grace is not consistent with that omnipotent act of God, by which He so inward- ly acts in the heart and mind of man, that he on whom that act is impressed cannot do any other than consent to God who calls him. Or, which is the same thing, grace is not an irresistible force.”¹²

Related Works by Arminius

Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed. In The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. 2:706–54.

The Public Disputations of James Arminius. In The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. 2:72–264. A bit earlier Arminius said that prevenient grace is sufficient but not efficient. It does not always obtain its effect. At this point he laid the fault with men rather than with God. The failure to acquiesce in this sufficient grace is a fault. Arminius does not say that the assent to prevenient grace is a virtue, but he strongly implies it. If failure to assent is a fault, then to assent is a virtue. If it is not virtue, it is at the very least decisive to the outcome. In the final analysis the good outcome is contingent or dependent on what the person does or does not do.

Is Arminius’s view of regeneration monergistic or synergistic? To answer this question we must first understand what is meant by regeneration. Is regeneration the same as prevenient grace? If prevenient grace always enables the sinner to assent to grace, then Arminius’s view is monergistic in this regard. For Arminius prevenient grace seems to be irresistible to the degree that it effectively liberates the sinner from his moral bondage or impotency. Prior to receiving prevenient grace, man is dead and utterly unable to choose the good. After receiving this grace, the sinner is able to do what he was previously unable to do. In this sense, prevenient grace is monergistic and irresistible.

But what Arminius calls the inward vocation or call of God is neither monergistic nor irresistible. He says: “Those who are obedient to the vocation or call of God, freely yield their assent to grace; yet they are previously excited, impelled, drawn and assisted by grace. And in the very moment in which they actually assent, they possess the capability of not assenting.”¹³

Prevenient grace, then, makes man able to assent to Christ but not necessarily willing. The sinner is now able to will, but he is not yet willing to do so. The ability to will is the result of a monergistic, irresistible work of the Holy Spirit, but the actual willing is the synergistic work of the sinner cooperating with God’s prevenient grace. Giving grace is the work of God alone; assenting to it is the work of man, who now has the power to cooperate or not cooperate with it.

Arminius’s view differs sharply from the Augustinian and Reformed view, which insists that the monergistic work of regeneration makes the sinner not only able to will but also willing. To be sure, it is still the sinner who wills, but he wills because God has changed the disposition of his heart. Arminius says: “In the very commencement of his conversion, man conducts himself in a purely passive manner; that is, though, by a vital act, that is, by feeling [sensu], he has a perception of the grace which calls him, yet he can do no other than receive it and feel it. But, when he feels grace affecting or inclining his mind and heart, he freely assents to it, so that he is able at the same time to with-hold his assent.”¹⁴

Arminius makes it clear that, at the commencement of the work of salvation, man is passive. The exciting of grace on the soul is monergistic. The response to this exciting is synergistic, in that one can freely assent to it or withhold assent. Francis Turretin notes this distinction in Arminius:

The question is not whether grace is resistible in respect of the intellect or affections; for the Arminians confess that the intellect of man is irresistibly enlightened and his affections irresistibly excited and affected with the sense of grace. But it is treated of the will alone, which they maintain is always moved resistibly, so that its assent remains always free. There is granted indeed irresistibly the power to believe and convert itself, but the very act of believing and converting itself can be put forth or hindered by the human will because they hold that there is in it an essential indifference (adiaphorian) as to admitting or rejecting grace. . . . Thus we strenuously deny that efficacious grace is resistible in this sense. . . .
. . . Nay, we maintain that efficacious grace so works in man that although he cannot help resisting from the beginning, still he can never resist it so far as to finally overcome it and hinder the work of conversion.¹⁵

The Rich Man and the Beggar

In answering a list of theological articles written against his views, Arminius complains at several points that he has been misunderstood or misrepresented. He was accused of teaching that faith is not the pure gift of God but depends partly on grace and partly on free will. He answered that he never said faith was not the pure gift of God, and he offered in response what he calls a simile:

A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that “the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver,” though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that “he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?” If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine Grace are required!¹⁶

In Arminius’s simile it is hard to imagine a destitute beggar not assenting to such a gracious gift. But the fact remains that, to receive the alms, the beggar, while still destitute, must stretch out his hand. At the same time, he stretches out his hand because he wants to do so. To receive the gift of faith, according to Calvinism, the sinner also must stretch out his hand. But he does so only because God has so changed the disposition of his heart that he will most certainly stretch out his hand. By the irresistible work of grace, he will do nothing else except stretch out his hand. Not that he cannot not stretch out his hand even if he does not want to, but that he cannot not want to stretch out his hand.

In Arminius’s simile, the beggar could conceivably be so obstreperous as to refuse the alms offered. In Augustinianism, this very obstinacy is effectively conquered by irresistible grace. For Calvin, the grace of God extends not only to the alms, but also to the very stretching out of the hand. For Arminius, the beggar possesses the natural power to stretch out his hand. One irony of history is that Arminius took this position in the midst of an effort initially designed to defend Calvinism. He held Calvin and his work in high regard. At one point Arminius said:

Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself [a Dutch divine, 1551–1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison (incomparabilem esse) in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy (spiritum aliquem prophetiae eximium). His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination (cum delectu), like the writings of all men.¹⁷

Arminius had been educated at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands from 1576 to 1582. After graduation he was sent to Geneva for further study. He took a pastorate in Amsterdam in 1588. In 1603 he was appointed professor of theology at Leiden.

In 1589 Arminius was asked to defend the doctrine of supralapsarianism against two ministers of Delft. As he prepared, he began to doubt not only supralapsarianism, but the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination. In this crucible his views on human freedom were forged. Soon a fierce controversy erupted between Arminius and his supra lapsarian colleague, Franciscus Gomarus, escalating into a national debate with political ramifications throughout Holland. After Arminius died in 1609, his views were systematized by his pupil and successor at Leiden, Simon Episcopius.¹⁸

¹James Arminius, The Public Disputations of James Arminius, D.D., in James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, trans. James and William Nichols, 3 vols. (1825–75; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 2:192 (11.7). Disputation 11 is titled “On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers.”
²Ibid.
³Ibid., 2:192–93 (11.8).
⁴Ibid., 2:193 (11.9).
⁵Ibid., 2:193–94 (11.10–11).
⁶Ibid., 2:194–95 (11.12).
⁷Ibid., 2:195 (11.13).
⁸Ibid., 2:196 (11). The first paragraph is a quotation of Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians; the second paragraph, of Bernardus, On Free Will and Grace.
⁹James Arminius, Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed: Because Some Controversy Has Arisen Concerning Them among Even Those Who Profess the Reformed Religion, in Arminius, The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 2:721 (17.4). Article 17 is titled “On the Vocation of Sinners to Communion with Christ, and to a Participation of His Benefits.”
¹⁰Ibid., 2:721 (17.5).
¹¹Ibid., 2:721–22 (17.12).
¹²Ibid., 2:722 (17.13).
¹³Ibid., 2:722 (17.16).
¹⁴Ibid., 2:722 (17.17).
¹⁵Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1992–97), 2:547–48 (15.6.6–7).
¹⁶James Arminius, The Apology or Defence of James Arminius, D.D., against Thirty-one Theological Articles, in Arminius, The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 2:52 (against article 27).
¹⁷Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (1907–10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952–53), 8:280.
¹⁸Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, rev. Cyril C. Richardson, Wilhelm Pauck, and Robert T. Handy (New York: Scribner’s, 1959), p. 399.