In a previous post I defined Arminianism as a term which often refers to a Protestant Christian soteriological stance that primarily underscores God’s grace in enabling depraved individuals to respond positively or negatively to the offer of salvation.
I also mentioned that an Arminian does not have to be committed to one particular view of God or to one particular denomination. Thus, quite controversially, I stated that an Arminian could be a Christian Classical theist, or a Christian Neo-Classical theist, or even a Christian Open Theist. I even said that an Arminian could be Baptist, Wesleyan, Reformed, etc.
Of course, some may think my inclusion of Open Theism makes my definition way too broad. Even the Society of Evangelical Arminians (of which I am a member of) excludes Open Theism in their Statement of Faith.
“We believe in one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who possesses perfect and exhaustive knowledge of the past, present, and future…”
But this is not Arminianism unqualified. This is “Evangelical Arminianism.” — thus, back to my point: you could be an Open Arminian, or a Baptist Arminian, or a Reformed Arminian…. Etc… and maintain the Arminian title.
Now, some may think that this is sidestepping the issue. And thus they may still ask: So why the inclusion of Open Theism, then, within my definition of Arminianism— especially if I don’t adhere to it??? Well I could ask the opposite. Why the exclusion?
You see I just don’t take Open Theism to be that egregious to God’s omniscience, nor to the title of Arminianism itself. From what I understand it seems to me that Open Theism is a debate that focuses more about which facts there are for God to know, rather than about God’s ability to know— thus it doesn’t have to hinder God’s perfection at all, and therefore it remains a viable Christian option. In other words, I don’t think messing up God’s knowledge (if Open Theism is wrong- and I am no Open Theist) is damnable. Nor, for this reason, is it excludable from Arminianism, especially when Arminianism boasts a wide variety of beliefs amongst a wide variety of scholars. Therefore, to account for the diversity surrounding the title, I believe I’ve made an adequate enough definition for this site.
In fact, when coming up with a definition of Arminianism, I believe that grace-enabled human free choice, so as not to make God the author of sin, is way more important to the title of Arminianism rather than about which facts there are for an Omniscient God to know. Hence, its inclusion. In some sense, then, I guess I would say I share De Corcelles’s sentiment, as described by Stanglin and McCall:
"De Courcelles then raises the issue of foreknowledge of future contingents, noting that some deny foreknowledge of future contingents, saying that they are not knowable because they have no being. Others deny contingency and say that things are decreed. De Courcelles, however, seeks to acknowledge and harmonize both foreknowledge and contingency. Of the two extremes, he posits that those who deny foreknowledge do not err as egregiously as those who deny contingency. The likely reason that De Courcelles preferred those who deny foreknowledge over those who deny genuine freedom of choice is that, with the former option, one can still affirm divine omniscience. As he puts it, according to this opinion, nothing at all is removed from the perfection of divine knowledge, if it is agreed that future contingents, as they stand, "are not knowable (non esse scribilia)." For just as there is no injury to divine omnipotence if it does not extend to contradictory things, so neither does it undermine omniscience if God's knowledge does not extend to things that cannot be certainly known because of their incertitude. De Courcelles's argument follows Episcopius closely. God is omniscient simply because he knows everything that is knowable. All of our Remonstrant authors, including De Courcelles, have defined omniscience as to know everything knowable. If God does not know something unknowable, then it does not count against omniscience. The denial of human free choice, however, has disastrous implications, including ultimately making God the author of sin."
In all… I guess… who really cares what I think. I’ve already made it plain that I am no ‘legit’ scholar. So, it really doesn’t bother me if no one agrees with my definition or not. I think it rocks, but…. meh… it’s not a hill I am willing to die on. We’re all just trying to explore, learn, and grow in our faith. I think that is most precious of all.
If you have come to this point in the blog, thank-you. You reading this means a lot and I hope I can keep on providing you with more content in the future. Right now I am working on reading several books and gathering material in order to start a podcast on Arminianism. My goal is to begin recording by midsummer, so as to release episodes in the fall.
Let me know if you think my definition of Arminianism is too broad, or if you have a topic you’d like me to write on. My email is: aisforarminianism@gmail.com
If you want to pursue this topic more, I’ve gathered some definitions below from trusted scholars.
Thomas McCall and Keith Stanglin
After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology
“Thus, on one extreme, Arminianism could be defined merely in the eye of the beholder. Such ambiguity is not helpful. On the other extreme, one could claim that a genuine Arminian is one who adheres to Arminius’s thought as closely and thoroughly as possible. This option is also not helpful, for no Arminian has occupied the same social, political, ecclesiastical, and theological context as Arminius; there has likely never been such an authentic Arminian apart from Arminius himself. For our present purposes, we suggest a description of Arminianism that balances the broad and narrow in a way that is meaningful. As to theological characteristics, we may begin by noting several major doctrinal themes that are common throughout the various iterations of what is commonly held to be Arminian theology. The first is divine goodness…A second major doctrinal theme that is common to Arminians concerns the relationship of divine grace to human agency. What is held in common is an understanding that divine grace and human freedom are consistent with one another…many Arminians are simultaneously committed to an account of grace that stresses prevenience and adequacy… The third common theme concerns sanctification and good works… A fourth common theme is an emphasis on toleration and ecumenism… we further define Arminianism in view of the following social reality: Arminianism exists as a response to and rejection of distinctive aspects of Reformed theology, also known as Calvinism.” (5-7)
Millard Erickson
Christian Theology, 3rd Edition
“Arminianism” is a term that covers a large number of sub-positions. It may range all the way from the evangelical views of Arminius himself to left-wing liberalism. Arminius maintained that humans are sinful and unable to do good in their own strength. Extreme liberalism, however, discounts the human tendency to sin and, consequently, denies that humans need to be regenerated.” (851)
Roger Olson
Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
“When Arminianism is used, it will connote that form of Protestant theology that rejects unconditional election (and especially unconditional reprobation), limited atonement, and irresistible grace because it affirms the character of God as compassionate, having universal love for the whole world and everyone in it, and extending grace-restored free will to accept or resist the grace of God, which leads to either eternal life or spiritual destruction. The Arminianism under consideration is an Arminianism of the heart… Arminianism of the heart is the original Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley and their evangelical heirs. Arminians of the heart emphatically do not deny total depravity… or the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for even the first exercise of good will toward God. Arminians of the heart are the true Arminians because they are faithful to the basic impulses of Arminius and his first followers as opposed to the later Remonstrants (who wandered away from Arminius’s teachings into early liberal theology) and modern Arminians of the head who glorify reason and freedom over divine revelation and supernatural grace.” (16-17)
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984)
Arminianism. The theological stance of James Arminius and the movement which stemmed from him. It views Christian doctrine much as the pre-Augustinian fathers did and as did the later John Wesley. In several basic ways it differs from the Augustine-Luther-Calvin tradition. (79).
John Wesley
The Question, “What is an Arminian?” Answered by a Lover of Free Grace.
[...]
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!
תגובות