Arminian Theology E-Book

Roger E. Olson

• Herausgeber: IVP Academic
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 507

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2009

Beschreibung

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

Leseprobe

Arminian Theology

Myths and Realities

Roger E. Olson

www.IVPress.com/academic

Contents

Preface

Introduction: A Primer on Arminianism

Myth 1: Arminian Theology Is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology

Myth 2: A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism Is Possible

Myth 3: Arminianism Is Not an Orthodox Evangelical Option

Myth 4: The Heart of Arminianism Is Belief in Free Will

Myth 5: Arminian Theology Denies the Sovreignty of God

Myth 6: Arminianism Is a Human-Centered Theology

Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace

Myth 8: Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination

Myth 9: Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone

Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

Conclusion: Rules of Engagement for Evangelical Calvinists and Arminians

Name Index

Subject Index

About the Author

Praise for Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

More Titles from InterVarsity Press

Preface

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AN ARMINIAN. I WAS raised in a Pentecostal preacher’s home, and my family was most definitely and proudly Arminian. I don’t remember when I first heard the term. But it first sunk into my consciousness when a well-known charismatic leader of Armenian background rose to prominence. My parents and some of my aunts and uncles (missionaries, pastors and denominational leaders) distinguished between Armenian and Arminian. I probably heard it even before that, however, as some of my relatives were faithful members of Christian Reformed Churches, and behind their backs my parents and other relations discussed their Calvinism and contrasted it with our Arminianism. I recall sitting in a college theology class and the professor reminded us that we are Arminians, to which one student muttered loudly, “Who would want to be from Armenia?” In one class we read Arminian theologian Robert Shank’s books Life in the Son and Elect in the Son (both from Bethany House, 1989). I had trouble understanding them, partly, I think, because of the author’s Church of Christ theology. So I got my hands on a couple other books on Arminian theology in an attempt to figure out “our” theology. One was Nazarene theologian Mildred Bangs-Wynkoop’s Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology (Beacon Hill Press, 2000). Another was Nazarene theologian H. Orton Wiley’s one-volume summary of Christian doctrine titled Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Beacon Hill Press, 1946). Eventually I felt I had a fairly good grasp on the subject and laid it aside. After all, everyone around me was Arminian (whether they knew it or not), and there was no particular need to defend that point of view.

Things changed when I enrolled in an evangelical Baptist seminary and began to hear Arminian used in a pejorative sense. In my studies there my own theology was equated with the heresy of semi-Pelagianism. Now I had to find out what that was! One of my professors was eminent evangelical Calvinist James Montgomery Boice, who was then pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. We sparred a little over Calvinism and Arminianism, but I perceived he had already made up his mind that my church’s theology was heretical. Boice stimulated me to study the matter further and also to subscribe to Eternity magazine, which was the leading evangelical alternative to Christianity Today in the 1970s. I was an avid reader of both publications. There, in both of these evangelical magazines, I found a fascinating irony. Their unofficial editorial policies were clearly guided by Reformed theology; most of the theologians who wrote for them were Calvinists. Both also, however, included Arminian voices from time to time and tried to be irenic about the theological differences among evangelicals. I felt affirmed—and somewhat marginalized.

Only after Clark Pinnock, one of my theological mentors from a distance (we later became friends), very publicly switched from Calvinist theology to Arminianism did a new round in the old Calvinism versus Arminianism battle flare up within evangelical ranks. By then I was an aspiring evangelical theologian and realized that my options were somewhat limited by my Arminianism. The reaction to Pinnock’s change of mind by evangelical Calvinists was swift and sharp, and increased as he edited two volumes of essays defending classical Arminian theology. I read them with great interest without finding there or anywhere else a straightforward, one-volume exposition of classical Arminian theology in all its dimensions and aspects. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s as my own career evolved I discovered that my evangelical world was being affected by what one Reformed friend called “the revenge of the Calvinists.” Several evangelical authors and publications began to attack Arminian theology very caustically, and with mis-information and misrepresentation. I heard and read my own form of evangelicalism called “humanistic” and “more Catholic than Protestant.” My family and church always considered ourselves Protestants!

The idea for this book was formulated when I read the May-June 1992 issue of an exciting new magazine titled Modern Reformation. It was entirely dedicated to the critique of Arminianism from a Reformed perspective. In it I found what I considered to be serious misrepresentations and most ungenerous portrayals of my own theological heritage.

Around that time a student made an appointment to talk with me. In my office he announced most sincerely, “Professor Olson, I’m sorry to say this, but you’re not a Christian.” This was in the context of an evangelical liberal arts college that did not have an official confessional position on Arminianism or Calvinism. In fact, the denomination that controlled the college and seminary had always included Calvinists and Arminians within its ranks. I asked the student why, and he responded, “Because my pastor says Arminians aren’t Christians.” His pastor was a well-known Calvinist who later distanced himself from that statement. Similar events within my evangelical world made clear to me that something was afoot; what my Reformed friend sarcastically called “the revenge of the Calvinists” was leading to a widespread impression among evangelicals that Arminianism is at best subevangelical and at worst outright heresy. I determined not to wilt under the pressure but to speak out on behalf of an evangelical heritage nearly as old as Calvinism itself and just as much a part of the historical evangelical movement as Calvinism. I wrote an article for Christianity Today, which was given the unfortunate title “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian.” I felt the title falsely portrayed the article and myself as overly defensive. I never thought that critics of Arminianism hate us! But I was finding that some evangelical leaders were increasingly misunderstanding classical Arminianism. One labeled himself a “recovering Arminian,” as he moved from his own Holiness (Wesleyan) background toward Reformed theology under the influence of a leading evangelical Calvinist theologian. One of the authors I had read with great appreciation in Eternity magazine labeled Arminians “barely Christian” in one of his books in the 1990s. A pastor in my own Baptist denomination began to teach that Arminianism is “on the precipice of heresy” and “profoundly mistaken.” A colleague who attended that pastor’s church asked me if I had ever considered the possibility that my Arminianism was evidence of latent humanism in my thinking. I noticed that many of my Arminian friends were dropping the label in favor of “Calminian” or “moderately Reformed” in order to avoid conflict and suspicion that might hinder their careers in teaching and publishing.

This book was born out of a burning desire to clear the good Arminian name of false accusations and charges of heresy or heterodoxy. Much of what is said about Arminianism within evangelical theological circles, including local congregations with strong Calvinist voices, is simply false. That is worth pointing out. My hope is that this book will not come across to readers as overly defensive; it is not my wish to be defensive, let alone offensive. I want to clear up confusion about Arminian theology and respond to the main myths and misconceptions about it that are widespread in evangelicalism today. I believe that even if most people who call themselves Arminian are really semi-Pelagian (which will be explained in the introduction), that does not make Arminianism itself semi-Pelagian. (Would Calvinists like Calvinism to be defined and understood by the ill-informed beliefs of some Reformed laypeople?) I believe in turning to history for correct definitions and not allowing popular usage to redefine good theological terms. I will turn to leading Arminian theologians past and present to define true Arminianism. My hope and prayer is that readers will approach this project with an open mind and be guided in their opinions of Arminianism by the evidence. I hope even the most diehard Calvinist opponents of Arminian theology will at least be willing to reconsider what true Arminians believe in light of the evidence marshaled here.

The Nature of This Book

Some chapters in this book repeat some information and arguments found in earlier chapters because I expect that not every reader will read straight through the book from beginning to end. If this occasional repetition annoys those of you who read the whole book, I apologize to you in advance. My goal is to make this book as reader friendly as possible in spite of the fact that the subject matter can be quite complex at times. Some scholarly reviewers may be put off by this. My aim, however, is to reach as wide an audience as possible, so the book is not written primarily for specialists (although I hope they will benefit from and enjoy reading it). I have purposely held back from following tangents too far away from the main arguments of the book. Readers who expect more discussion of, for example, middle knowledge or open theism (see chap. 8) will no doubt be disappointed. But this book has one main purpose: to explain classical Arminian theology as it really is. And I have intentionally kept it relatively brief in order to make it accessible to a larger audience.

This project came to fruition with the help of many friends and acquaintances. I want to thank my many Calvinist friends for their contributions via e-mail-based discussions and face-to-face conversations. I also thank my Arminian friends for their help. Over the past decade I have participated in many lively and sometimes heated discussions and debates with proponents of both camps within the evangelical movement. They have pointed me to good sources and provided me with their scholarly insights and opinions. I especially thank William G. Witt, who graciously corresponded with me about his Ph.D. research at the University of Notre Dame; his dissertation was for me an invaluable resource. He is innocent of any errors I have made. I also thank the administration and regents of Baylor University and Dean Paul Powell and Associate Dean David Garland of George W. Truett Theological Seminary (Baylor’s seminary) for providing me with summer sabbaticals and a research leave. In addition, I thank Keith Johnson and Kyle Steinhauser for creating the name and subject indexes.

This book is dedicated to three theologians who died while I was researching and writing it. Each one contributed in a very material way to it by offering insights and criticisms. They are my colleague in theology A. J. (Chip) Conyers; my first theology teacher, Ronald G. Krantz; and my dear friend and collaborator Stanley J. Grenz. They died within months of each other and left me impoverished by their absences. But they left me enriched by their presence in my life, and to them I most gratefully dedicate this volume.

Introduction

A Primer on Arminianism

THIS BOOK IS FOR TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE: (1) those who do not know Arminian theology but want to, and (2) those who think they know about Arminianism but really don’t. Many people are included in those two categories. Every student of theology—lay, pastoral and professional—should know about Arminian theology because it has a tremendous influence on the theology of many Protestant denominations. Some of you who are deciding whether to read this book are Arminians, but you don’t know it. The term Arminian is not all that commonly used in the twenty-first century.

The recent surge of interest in Calvinism has produced a great deal of confusion about Arminianism; many myths and misconceptions swirl around it because both its critics (mostly Reformed Christians) and many of its supporters misunderstand it. Because of the surge of interest in Calvinism and Reformed theology, Christians on both sides of the issue want to know more about the controversy between those who embrace belief in absolute, unconditional predestination and those who don’t. Arminians affirm predestination of another kind; they affirm free will and conditional predestination.

This book attempts to fill a gap in current theological literature. To the best of my knowledge no book currently in print in English is devoted solely to explaining Arminianism as a system of theology. Some of Arminianism’s harsher critics (who are numerous among evangelical Calvinists) no doubt regard this gap as a good thing. However, after my article “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m An Arminian” appeared in Christianity Today in 1999, I received numerous communications asking for more information about Arminianism and Arminian theology.1 Many inquirers wanted to read an entire book about the subject. Unfortunately none are in print, and those that exist in libraries are generally old volumes that go into much more depth than the average student of theology desires. Arminians, or those who suspect they might be Arminians, want the gap filled. Many Calvinists also want to know about Arminianism from the proverbial horse’s mouth. Of course they have read individual chapters about Arminianism in books of Calvinist theology (which is the only source many Calvinists have on the topic), but out of fair-mindedness they would like to read a full-blown Arminian self-description. That is all to the good. Every theology student should read books by proponents of the various theologies rather than merely read about those theologies by their critics.

A Brief Overview of This Book

First we need to clear up one important point. Arminianism has nothing to do with the country of Armenia. Most people mispronounce the word as if it were somehow associated with the central Asian country Armenia. The confusion is understandable because of the purely accidental similarity between the theological label and the geographical one. Arminians are not from Armenia. Arminianism derives from the name Jacob (or James) Arminius (1560-1609). Arminius (whose birth name was Jacob Harmensz or Jacob Harmenszoon) was a Dutch theologian who had no ancestral lineage in Armenia. Arminius is simply the Latinized form of Harmensz; many scholars of that time Latinized their names, and members of the Harmensz family looked back with reverence to a Germanic chieftain named Arminius who resisted the Romans when they invaded central Europe.

Second, Jacob Arminius is remembered in the annals of church history as a controversial Dutch pastor and theologian who wrote numerous works, filling three large volumes, defending an evangelical form of synergism (belief in divine-human cooperation in salvation) against monergism (belief that God is the all-determining reality in salvation, which excludes free human participation). Arminius was certainly not the first synergist in Christian history; all of the Greek church fathers of the first Christian centuries and many of the medieval Catholic theologians were synergists of some kind. Furthermore, as Arminius and his earliest followers, known as the “Remonstrants,” loved to point out, many Protestants before him were synergists in some sense of the word. (Like most theological terms, synergism has multiple shades of meaning, not all of which are positive; here it merely means any belief in human responsibility and the ability to freely accept or reject the grace of salvation.) Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), Martin Luther’s lieutenant in the German Reformation, was a synergist, but Luther wasn’t. Because of Melanchthon’s influence on post-Luther Lutheranism, many Lutherans throughout Europe adopted a synergistic outlook on salvation, eschewing unconditional predestination and affirming that grace is resistible. Arminian theology was at first suppressed in the United Provinces (known today as the Netherlands) but caught on there later and spread to England and the American colonies, largely through the influence of John Wesley and the Methodists. Many early Baptists (General Baptists) were Arminians, just as many are today. Numerous denominations are devoted to Arminian theology, even where the label is not used. These include all Pentecostals, Restorationists (Churches of Christ and other denominations rooted in the revivals of Alexander Campbell), Methodists (and all offshoots of Methodism, including the large Holiness movement) and many if not most Baptists. The influence of Arminius and Arminian theology is deep and broad in Protestant theology. This book is not about Arminius per se but about the theology that stems from his theological work in Holland.

Finally, the context of this book is the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. While both are forms of Protestantism (even if some Calvinists deny that Arminianism is authentically Protestant), they take very different approaches to the doctrines of salvation (soteriology). Both believe in salvation by grace through faith alone (sola gratia et fides) as opposed to salvation by grace through faith and good works. Both deny that any part of salvation can be based on human merit. Both affirm the sole supreme authority of Scripture (sola sciptura) and the priesthood of all believers. Arminius and all of his followers were and are Protestants to the core. However, Arminians have always opposed belief in unconditional reprobation—God’s selection of some persons to spend eternity in hell. Because they oppose that, they also oppose unconditional election—the selection of some persons out of the mass of sinners to be saved apart from anything God sees in them. According to Arminians the two are inextricably linked; it is impossible to affirm unconditional selection of some to salvation without at the same time affirming unconditional selection of some to reprobation, which, Arminians believe, impugns the character of God.

The controversy that raged around Arminius in his day continues into the twenty-first century, especially among evangelical Protestant Christians throughout the world. The thesis of this book is that Arminianism is at a disadvantage in this controversy because it is so rarely understood and so commonly misrepresented both by its critics and by its supposed defenders.

The widespread misrepresentation of Arminianism in the context of the continuing evangelical debate over predestination and free will is a travesty. People of good will involved in it ought to get both sides straight. Misrepresentation is what most often happens in the lively and sometimes vitriolic debates about Arminianism that take place on the Internet, in small groups and in evangelical publications. Arminianism is treated as a straw man all too easily chopped down or burned up because it is not fairly described. This book is centered around the most common myths surrounding and the corresponding truths about Arminian theology. Lovers of truth will want to be correctly informed about Arminianism before they engage in or are persuaded by polemical arguments for or against it.

Some Important Words About Words

The most common root of confusion in theology is misunderstanding terms. Theological discourse is fraught with such confusion. To avoid adding to it, some clarification of terminology is needed. Because some discussion of theological viewpoints and movements other than Arminianism is inevitable, and because self-description is usually preferred over descriptions by adherents of other theologies, I will make clear how theological terms are used when describing both Arminian and non-Arminian theologies. I hope that adherents of those theologies find their own viewpoints fairly represented.

Calvinism is used to denote the shared soteriological beliefs of persons who regard John Calvin (1509-1564) of Geneva as the greatest organizer and purveyor of biblical truth during the Protestant Reformation. Calvinism is that theology which emphasizes God’s absolute sovereignty as the all-determining reality, especially with regard to salvation. Most classical or high Calvinists agree that human beings are totally depraved (helpless to do anything spiritually good, including exercising a good will toward God), unconditionally elected (predestined) to either salvation or damnation (although many Calvinists reject Calvin’s “horrible decree” of reprobation), that Christ’s atoning death on the cross was meant only for the elect (some Calvinists disagree), God’s saving grace is irresistible (many Calvinists prefer the term effectual), and saved persons will persevere to final salvation (eternal security). Calvinism is the soteriological system stemming from Calvin, which is generally known under the rubric of TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints).2Reformed theology will be used to designate something broader than Calvinism even though the two are often equated. Reformed theology stems not only from Calvin but also from a host of his contemporaries, including Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Bucer. It has broadened to include many thinkers and denominations represented by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, not all of which are Calvinists in the high or classical sense.3

Throughout this book Arminianism will be used synonymously with Arminian theology. It describes not so much a movement as an outlook on salvation (and other theological subjects) shared by people who differ on other matters. Arminianism has no headquarters; it is not especially associated with any organization. In that it is similar to Calvinism. Both are theological points of view or even systems stemming from the writings of a seminal thinker. Neither is a movement or organization.

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 as opposed to Arminianism of the head—a distinction introduced by Reformed theologian Alan Sell in The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Salvation.4 Arminianism of the head is an Enlightenment-based emphasis on free will that it is most often found in liberal Protestant circles (even among liberalized Reformed people).5 Its hallmark is an optimistic anthropology that denies total depravity and the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation. It is optimistic about the ability of autonomous human beings to exercise a good will toward God and their fellow creatures without supernatural prevenient (enabling, assisting) grace; that is, it is Pelagian or at least semi-Pelagian

Arminianism of the heart—the subject of this book—is the original Arminianism of Arminius, Wesley and their evangelical heirs. Arminians of the heart emphatically do not deny total depravity (even if they prefer another term to denote human spiritual helplessness) or the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for even the first exercise of a 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.

Synergism and monergism are terms with many shades of meaning. Both are essential theological concepts in this discussion, but both apply to wider spheres than Arminianism and Calvinism. Synergism is any theological belief in free human participation in salvation. Its heretical forms in Christian theology are Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. The former denies original sin and elevates natural and moral human ability to live spiritually fulfilled lives. The latter embraces a modified version of original sin but believes that humans have the ability, even in their natural or fallen state, to initiate salvation by exercising a good will toward God.6 When conservative theologians declare that synergism is a heresy, they are usually referring to these two Pelagian forms of synergism. Classical Arminians agree. This is a major theme of this book. Contrary to confused critics, classical Arminianism is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian! But it is synergistic. Arminianism is evangelical synergism as opposed to heretical, humanistic synergism. The term synergism will be used throughout this book, and the context will make clear what type of synergism is meant. When Arminian synergism is referred to, I am referring to evangelical synergism, which affirms the prevenience of grace to every human exercise of a good will toward God, including simple nonresistance to the saving work of Christ.

Monergism is also a broad and sometimes confusing term. Its broadest sense points to God as the all-determining reality, which means that everything in nature and history is under the direct control of God. It does not necessarily imply that God causes all things directly, but it does necessarily imply that nothing can happen that is contrary to the will of God, and that God is intimately involved (even if working through secondary causes) in everything, so all of nature and history reflect God’s primary will. Thus, monergism is often taken to mean that even the Fall of humanity in the primeval garden was planned and directed by God.7 (Synergism of all varieties generally rejects this and traces the Fall to a risk God took in creation that resulted in the misuse of humanity’s free will.) Monergism especially means that God is the sole determining agency in salvation. There is no cooperation between God and the person being saved that is not already determined by God working in the person through, for example, regenerating grace. Monergism is larger than Calvinism; Martin Luther was a monergist (even if inconsistently). So was Augustine, in his later writings. Some Catholic thinkers have been monergists, although Catholic theology tends to favor a form of synergism. In this book I use monergism to denote God’s all-determining will and power to the exclusion of free human cooperation or resistance.

The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is often said to be based on a disagreement about predestination and free will. That is the common, almost folkloric myth about this entire subject. At a more polemical level, some say the disagreement is more about grace (Calvinism) and good works (Arminianism). Arminians take umbrage at that! They affirm grace just as emphatically as any other branch of Christianity, and more so than some. But Arminians also affirm predestination, just as many Calvinists affirm free will in some sense. Throughout this book an attempt will be made to straighten out some of the misuses of concepts and terms that plague the conversations between Calvinists and Arminians. People who say that Calvinists teach predestination and deny free will, and that Arminians deny predestination and teach free will are simply wrong. Both teach both! They interpret them differently. Arminians believe in election and predestination—because the Bible teaches them. These are good biblical truths that cannot be discarded. And Calvinists generally teach free will (although some are less comfortable with the term than others).

What Arminians deny is not predestination but unconditional predestination; they embrace conditional predestination based on God’s foreknowledge of who will freely respond positively to God’s gracious offer of salvation and the prevenient enablement to accept it. Calvinists deny that free will entails the ability of a person to do other than what he or she in fact does. Insofar as they use the term free will positively, Calvinists mean what philosophers call compatibilist free will—free will that is compatible with determination. Free will is simply doing what someone wants to do even if that is determined by some force internal or external to the person willing. Of course, Calvinists do not think the Arminian account of predestination is adequate, and Arminians do not think Calvinists’ account of free will is adequate. But it is simply wrong to say that either group denies either concept! Here, then, when free will is used, it will be modified by either compatibilist or noncompatibilist (or incompatibilist), depending on the context. (Noncompatibilist free will is the free agency that allows persons to do otherwise than they do; it may also be called libertarian free will. For example, a person may choose freely between pizza or spaghetti for dinner [assuming both are available]. If he or she chooses spaghetti, the choice is free in the noncompatibilist sense that pizza could just as well have been chosen. Nothing determined the choice for spaghetti except the decision of the person. Arminians believe such libertarian free will in spiritual matters is a gift of God through prevenient grace—grace that precedes and enables the first stirrings of a good will toward God.) When predestination is used, it will be modified by either conditional (Arminian form) or unconditional (Calvinists form), depending on the context.

The Story of Arminian Theology

I will begin the story of Arminian theology with Arminius and his earliest followers, known as the Remonstrants, and continue with John Wesley and the leading evangelical Methodist theologians of the nineteenth century, and then survey a variety of conservative, classical Arminian Protestants of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

First, a reminder and an explanation. Because Arminianism has become such a term of reproach in evangelical theological circles, many Arminians do not use that label. I once informed a leading evangelical theologian that his newly published systematic theology is thoroughly Arminian even though he never uses the term. His response was, “Yes, but don’t tell anyone!” Several (possibly many) twentieth- and twenty-first-century theological books are completely compatible with classical Arminianism, and some are even informed by Arminius’s own theology without ever mentioning Arminianism. Two very influential evangelical Methodist theologians quite vehemently deny that they are Arminians even though historically it is widely said that all Methodists are Arminians! Why? Because they do not want to be thought of as somehow less than fully biblical and evangelical. Some critics have managed to convince some Arminians that Arminianism is heterodox—less than fully orthodox or biblical. They have so successfully equated it with semi-Pelagianism (if not outright Pelagianism) that even many Methodist, Holiness and Pentecostal evangelicals do not want to wear the Arminian label.

The point is that especially in the last half century, since the rise of postfundamentalist evangelicalism (whose theology is largely dominated by Calvinism), Arminians have struggled for respectability within the wider evangelical scholarly and theological world, and some have simply given up on the term itself. It is not uncommon to hear Arminians describe themselves as “moderately Reformed” in order to ingratiate themselves to the movers and shakers of the evangelical movement. To declare oneself Arminian is to invite a barrage of questions (or merely quiet suspicions) about heresy. Many uninformed evangelical leaders simply take it for granted that Arminians do not believe in the absolute necessity of supernatural grace for salvation. Some evangelicals have openly declared that if evangelical Arminians are not already in heresy, they are headed there. One leading evangelical apologist publicly stated that Arminians are Christians, but “just barely.” An influential evangelical theologian suggested that satanic deception may lie at the root of Arminianism. Therefore, even though some of my sources lack the explicit Arminian label, all are indeed Arminian.

Arminius. The root source of all Arminian theology is Jacob Arminius himself. The three volumes of his collected works have been in almost continuous publication in English for over a century.8 They contain occasional speeches, commentaries and letters. These writings are not a systematic theology, although some of Arminius’s lengthier treatises cover a great deal of theological ground. Almost all of his writings were composed in the heat of controversy; he often was under attack by critics and leaders of the Dutch state and church, who demanded that he explain himself. His famous debate with his Calvinist colleague Franciscus Gomarus at the University of Leiden lies at the root of much of this controversy. Arminius was accused of all kinds of heresies, but charges of heresy never stuck to him at any official inquiry. Ludicrous charges of being a secret agent of the pope and the Spanish Jesuits, and even the Spanish government (the United Provinces had recently liberated themselves from Spanish Catholic domination), swirled around him. None were true. Arminius died at the height of the controversy in 1609, and his followers, the Remonstrants, picked up where he left off, attempting to broaden the theological norms of the state church of the United Provinces to allow for evangelical synergism.9

Arminius did not believe he was introducing anything new to Christian theology. Whether he in fact did is debatable. He explicitly appealed to the early church fathers, used medieval theological methods and conclusions, and pointed to Protestant synergists before himself. His followers made clear that Melanchthon, an orthodox Lutheran leader, and other Lutherans held similar if not identical views. Although he did not mention the Catholic reformer Erasmus by name, it is clear that Arminius’s theology was similar to his. Also the sixteenth-century Anabaptist leaders Balthasar Hubmaier and Menno Simons presented synergistic theologies that foreshadowed Arminius’s. Arminius’s most important theological works include his “Declaration of Sentiments,” “Modest Examination of Dr. Perkins’s Pamphlet,” “Examination of the Theses of Dr. F. Gomarus Respecting Predestination,” “A Letter to Hippolytus A Collibus,” and “Certain Articles to Be Diligently Examined and Weighed.”

Arminius’s relationship to Arminianism should be treated much as is Calvin’s relationship to Calvinism. Not every Calvinist agrees entirely with everything found in Calvin, and Calvinists often debate Calvin’s meaning. After Calvin’s death, Calvinism broadened and now includes real diversity. Among Calvin’s followers we find supralapsarians and infralapsarians (debating the order of the divine decrees in relation to predestination), and disagreements about the atonement and other weighty matters related to salvation. Nevertheless, all look back to Calvin as their common root and strive to be faithful to him in spirit if not every detail. So it is with Arminians and Arminius. He is the root, and they are the branches.

The Remonstrants. After Arminius’s untimely death in 1609 at the age of forty-nine and at the height of his career, about forty-five ministers and theologians of the United Provinces formed a front that has come to be called “the Remonstrants.” They were given this name after the title of their theological statement known as the Remonstrance, which summarized in a few basic points what Arminius and they believed about salvation, including election and predestination. Among the leaders of this movement was Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), who became the acknowledged leader of the Arminians before and after they were exiled from the United Provinces from 1619 to 1625. Episcopius is probably the author of the main documents of the Remonstrants, and he eventually became the first professor of theology of the Remonstrant seminary founded after they were allowed to return from exile. (That seminary, known as the Remonstrants Seminarium, exists to this day in Holland.) Another important Remonstrant leader was Europe’s most influential political scientist and statesman Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), who was imprisoned by the Dutch government after the Synod of Dort, which condemned Arminianism, but he escaped. A later Remonstrant named Philip Limborch (1633-1712) took Arminianism closer to the liberalism of later “Arminianism of the head.” Unfortunately, many eighteenth-century critics of Arminianism knew only of Limborch’s Arminianism, which was closer to semi-Pelagianism than to the teachings of Arminius himself.

The eighteenth century. From the time of Limborch many Arminians, especially those in the Church of England and in the Congregational churches, blended Arminianism with the new natural religion of the Enlightenment; they became early liberals within Protestantism. In New England John Taylor (1694-1761) and Charles Chauncy (1705-1787) of Boston represented the Arminianism of the head that often leaned perilously close to Pelagianism, universalism and even Arianism (denial of Christ’s full deity). The great Puritan preacher and Calvinist theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) vehemently opposed these men and contributed to the habit of American Calvinists to equate Arminianism with this type of liberalizing modern theology. Without doubt many English and American Arminians (mainly Congregationalists and Baptists) converted to liberal theology and even unitarianism. Whether classical Arminianism is responsible for this is doubtful; these people made a radical departure from Arminius and the early Remonstrants, just as Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of German liberal theology, departed from Calvin without ever coming under the influence of Arminianism. To his dying day Schleiermacher, who is credited with liberalizing Protestant theology on the European continent, remained a Calvinist of a different order. It is no fairer to blame Arminius or Arminianism for the later Remonstrants’ defection than to blame Calvin or Calvinism for Schleiermacher’s departure from orthodoxy.

One clear proof that not all Arminians became liberals is John Wesley (1703-1791), who called himself an Arminian and defended Arminianism against accusations that it led to heterodoxy if not outright heresy. He was stung by Calvinists’ treatment of Arminianism, and his own response to Calvinism was often too harsh. Because he felt that most critics of Arminianism had little knowledge of it, he wrote in 1778: “Let no man bawl against Arminians til he knows what the term means.”10 In “The Question, ‘What Is an Arminian?’ Answered by a Lover of Free Grace,” Wesley noted that “to say, ‘This man is an Arminian,’ has the same effect on many hearers, as to say ‘This is a mad dog.’ ”11 He continued to lay out the essentials of Arminianism and contradicted the popular notion that it is tantamount to Arianism or other heresies. In this and other writings Wesley defended evangelical synergism by emphasizing that the prevenient grace of God is absolutely necessary for salvation. Wesley is a major source of Arminianism of the heart; he never defected from classical, orthodox Protestant belief; in spite of rejecting Calvinism, he affirmed passionately and wholeheartedly justification by grace alone through faith alone because of what Christ has done on the cross. Calvinists often accuse Wesley of defecting from true Protestantism because he underscored sanctification, but even that, according to Wesley, is a work of God within a person that is received by faith alone.12

After Wesley’s death, most of the leading Arminian theologians were his followers. The entire Methodist movement and its offshoots (e.g., the multiform Holiness movement) adopted Wesley’s version of Arminian theology, which differed hardly at all from Arminius himself.13 The first real systematic theologian of Methodism was Wesley’s younger contemporary John Fletcher (1729-1785), whose written works fill nine volumes. He produced carefully crafted polemics against Calvinism and for Arminian theology. One of the most influential Arminian theologians of the nineteenth century was British Methodist Richard Watson (1781-1833), whose Christian Institutes (1823) provided Methodism with its first authoritative systematic theology text. Watson quoted Arminius freely and clearly considered himself and all Wesleyan Methodists Arminians. He carefully demonstrated the defection of later Remonstrants, such as Limborch, from the true Arminian heritage. Watson’s Arminianism provides something of a gold standard for evangelical Arminians even though it is for the most part unavailable today.

The nineteenth century. Other important Methodist and Arminian theologians of the nineteenth century include Thomas Summers (1812-1882) and William Burton Pope (1822-1903). Summers produced Systematic Theology: A Complete Body of Wesleyan Arminian Divinity, which became a standard textbook for Arminians in the latter part of the nineteenth century; he was to that era what Watson was to the first half of the century. Like Watson he shows the departures of Limborch and other late Remonstrants from Arminius (and the early Remonstrants) into semi-Pelagianism and liberal theology. He was filled with indignation at evangelical Calvinist theologians of his time who misrepresented Arminianism as if it were heretical: “What ignorance or impudence have those men who charge Arminius with Pelagianism, or any leaning thereto!”14 Pope contributed the three-volume system of theology A Compendium of Christian Theology (1874). He presents a thoroughly Protestant account of Arminian theology that leaves no doubt about his commitment to Reformation theology, including salvation by grace alone through faith alone. He explores the nature of prevenient grace more fully and deeply than any other Arminian theologian before him or during his lifetime.

One of the more controversial Arminian theologians of the nineteenth century was Methodist systematician John Miley (1813-1895), whose Systematic Theology (1893) provoked Princeton Calvinist theologian B. B. Warfield into publishing a lengthy attack. Miley introduced a somewhat liberalizing tendency into Wesleyan Arminian theology, although it is extremely mild by comparison with the Arminians of the head who often fell headlong into deism, unitarianism and outright liberal theology. Though he modified some traditional Arminian positions in a more modern direction, Miley remained an evangelical Arminian. In some ways he represents a bridge between conservative, evangelical Arminianism (Arminius, Wesley, Watson, Pope and Summers) and later mainline, liberalized Methodist theology in the twentieth century (L. Harold DeWolf). But Miley firmly held onto the supremacy of Scripture and always argued from the Bible in staking out his theological positions. He affirmed original sin, including “native depravity” (helplessness in spiritual matters), while rejecting “native demerit” (inherited guilt). He argued for the governmental theory of the atonement, harking back to Hugo Grotius (not all Arminians adopted this view). And Miley defined justification simply as forgiveness rather than as imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience (righteousness). Some of Warfield’s criticisms of Miley were valid, but they were stated in such an extreme way as to raise questions about War-field’s own generosity of interpretation and treatment of fellow Christians. Many twentieth-century Calvinists know little about Arminianism except what they read in nineteenth-century Calvinist theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Both were vitriolic critics who could not bring themselves to see any good in Arminianism. And they blamed it for every possible evil consequence they could see it possibly having.

Before leaving the nineteenth century behind in this telling of Arminianism’s story, it is essential to stop and briefly discuss the theology of revivalist, theologian and college president Charles Finney (1792-1875). Finney’s career is one of the most fascinating in all of modern church history. He was an attorney who converted to evangelical Christianity, only to become the foremost revivalist of the so-called Second Great Awakening.15 Finney became president of Oberlin College in Ohio in 1835 and published a series of influential lectures on revival and on systematic theology. His Lectures on Systematic Theology was published first in 1846 with later enlarged editions following. Finney rejected high Calvinism in favor of a vulgarized version of Arminianism that is closer to semi-Pelagianism. His legacy in American popular religion is profound. He denied original sin, except as a misery that has fallen on the majority of humanity and is passed on through bad examples (“aggravated temptation”). He believed that every person has the ability and responsibility, apart from any special assistance of divine grace (prevenient grace) other than enlightenment and persuasion, to freely accepting the forgiving grace of God through repentance and obedience to the revealed moral government of God. He wrote that “There is no degree of spiritual attainment required of us, that may not be reached directly or indirectly by right willing,” and “The moral government of God everywhere assumes and implies the liberty of the human will, and the natural ability of men to obey God.”16

Finney vulgarized Arminian theology by denying something Arminius, Wesley and all the faithful Arminians before him had affirmed and protected as precious to the gospel itself—human moral inability in spiritual matters, and the absolute necessity of supernatural prevenient grace for any right response to God, including the first stirrings of a good will toward God. According to Finney, in distinction to classical Arminianism (but similar to Limborch’s later Remonstrantism), the only work of God necessary for the exercise of a good will toward God and obedience to God’s will is the Holy Spirit’s illumination of human reason, which is clouded by self-interest and is in a state of misery due to the common selfishness of humanity: “The Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them to the soul. The truth is employed, or it is truth which must be employed, as an instrument to induce a change of choice.”17 Arminius, Wesley and classical Arminians in general affirmed inherited total depravity as utter helplessness apart from a supernatural awakening called prevenient grace. But Finney denied the need for prevenient grace. For him, reason, developed by the Holy Spirit, turns the heart toward God. He labeled the classical Arminian doctrine of gracious ability (ability to exercise a good will toward God bestowed by the Holy Spirit through prevenient grace) an “absurdity.”18

Unfortunately, Calvinists tend to look to Finney as either the model of a true Arminian or the end point of the Arminian theological trajectory. Both are wrong. Classical Arminians adore Finney for his revivalistic passion while deploring him for his bad theology. Finney himself said of Jonathan Edwards, “Edwards I revere; his blunders I deplore.”19 An evangelical classical Arminian might say “Finney I revere; his blunders I deplore.”20

The twentieth century. The twentieth century witnessed the demise of evangelical synergism among the mainline denominations, including Methodism, as they fell into liberal theology. That Arminianism does not inexorably lead there, however, is proven by the rise of conservative forms of Arminianism among Nazarenes (an evangelical offshoot of Methodism), Pentecostals, Baptists, Churches of Christ and other evangelical groups. However, many of these twentieth-century Arminians neglect or even reject the label Arminian for a variety of reasons, not least of which is Calvinists’ success in tarring it with the colors of Finney and Arminians of the head, such as the later Remonstrants. One twentieth-century theologian who held onto the label was Church of the Nazarene leader H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961), who produced the three-volume Christian Theology and a one-volume summary of Christian doctrine. Wiley’s is a particularly pure form of classical Arminianism with the addition of Wesleyan perfectionism (which not all Arminians accept). Every good, including the first inclinations of the heart toward God, is attributed to God’s grace alone. Like Watson, Summers, Pope and Miley, Wiley insists on a distinction between semi-Pelagianism and true Arminianism, and demonstrates the difference in his own doctrinal statements. Wiley’s theology became the gold standard for theological education in the Church of the Nazarene and other Holiness denominations during the twentieth century.

Another twentieth-century Arminian theologian whose work powerfully demonstrates the orthodoxy of classical Arminianism is evangelical Methodist Thomas Oden. Oden does not accept the label Arminian for himself or his theology because he prefers his own appellation paleo-orthodoxy. He appeals to the consensus of the early church fathers. But so did Arminius and Wesley! Oden’s The Transforming Power of Grace (1993) is a gem of Arminian soteriology; it is the first book I recommend to those wanting a systematic account of true Arminian theology. Unfortunately, Oden does not regard it as such! However, Oden’s classical Arminianism is manifest in his enthusiastic endorsement of Arminius’s theology as a restoration of the early Christian consensus about salvation and in such statements as this:

If God absolutely and pretemporally decrees that particular persons shall be saved and others damned, apart from any cooperation of human freedom, then God cannot in any sense intend that all shall be saved, as 1 Timothy 4:10 declares. The promise of glory is conditional on grace being received by faith active in love.21

Oden has also produced the massive three-volume Systematic Theology, which reconstructs the early Christian doctrinal consensus and is completely consistent with Arminius’s own theology. Oden’s debt to Arminius and Wesley is beyond question.

Other twentieth-century Arminian theologians (some of whom do not wish to be called Arminian) include Baptists Dale Moody, Stanley Grenz, Clark Pinnock and H. Leroy Forlines; Church of Christ theologian Jack Cottrell; and Methodists I. Howard Marshall and Jerry Walls. I consider it a great tragedy and travesty that a historical heritage such as Arminianism is routinely being denied by its own adherents out of political necessity. I have no doubt that some administrators of evangelical organizations not specifically committed to Calvinism tend to look down on Arminianism and on Arminians as “theologically shallow” and on a heretical trajectory. Under the influence of a leading evangelical Calvinist statesman, an evangelical college president of the Holiness heritage declared himself a “recovering Arminian!” An influential evangelical Calvinist publication denied the very existence of “evangelical” Arminians and labeled that an oxymoron. Under this kind of blistering if ignorant calumny it is no wonder that the term Arminianism is not used even by its most passionate proponents! Nevertheless, Arminianism lives on, and Arminian theology continues to be done in a variety of denominational circles.

A Brief Overview of Arminian Theology

One of the most prevalent myths spread by some Calvinists about Arminianism is that it is the most popular type of theology in evangelical pulpits and pews. My experience contradicts this belief. Much depends on how we regard Arminian theology. The Calvinist critics would be correct if Arminianism were semi-Pelagianism. But it is not, as I hope to show. The gospel preached and the doctrine of salvation taught in most evangelical pulpits and lecterns, and believed in most evangelical pews, is not classical Arminianism but semi-Pelagianism if not outright Pelagianism. What’s the difference? Nazarene theologian Wiley correctly defines semi-Pelagianism by saying, “It held that there was sufficient power remaining in the depraved will to initiate or set in motion the beginnings of salvation but not enough to bring it to completion. This must be done by divine grace.”22 This ancient heresy stems from the teachings of the so-called Massilians, led especially by John Cassian (d. A.D. 433), who tried to build a bridge between Pelagianism, which denied original sin, and Augustine, who argued for unconditional election on the ground that all of Adam’s descendants are born spiritually dead and guilty of Adam’s sin. Cassian believed that people are capable of exercising a good will toward God even apart from any infusion of supernatural grace. This was condemned by the Second Council of Orange in 529 (without endorsement of Augustine’s strong doctrine of predestination).

Semi-Pelagianism became the popular theology of the Roman Catholic church in the centuries leading up to the Protestant Reformation; it was roundly rejected by all the Reformers except the so-called rationalists or antitrinitarians, such as Faustus Socinus. Some Calvinists adopted the practice of referring to every theology that fell short of high Calvinism (TULIP) as semi-Pelagian. This, however, is incorrect. Today, semi-Pelagianism is the default theology of most American evangelical Christians.23 This is revealed in the popularity of clichés such as “If you’ll take one step toward God, he’ll come the rest of the way toward you,” and “God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and you get the deciding vote,” coupled with the almost total neglect of human depravity and helplessness in spiritual matters.

Arminianism is almost totally unknown, let alone believed, in popular evangelical Christianity. One purpose of this book is to overcome this deficit. One overriding myth about Arminianism is that Arminian theology is tantamount to semi-Pelagianism. This will be refuted in the process of refuting several other myths that deal with the human condition and salvation. Here only the briefest overview of the Arminian point of view will be provided as a foretaste of what is to come.

First, it is important to understand that Arminianism does not have a distinctive doctrine or point of view about everything in Christianity. There is no special Arminian doctrine of Scripture. Arminians of the heart—evangelical Arminians—believe in Scripture and have the same range of opinions about its details as Calvinists do. Some Arminians believe in biblical inerrancy and some do not. All evangelical Arminians are committed to the Bible’s supernatural inspiration and authority over all matters of faith and practice. Likewise, there is no distinctive Arminian ecclesiology or eschatology; Arminians reflect the same spectrum of interpretations as do other Christians. A popular myth promoted by some Calvinists is that all Arminian theologians accept the governmental theory of the atonement and reject the penal-substitution theory. That is simply false. Arminians believe in the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the depravity of humanity due to the primeval Fall, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and all other essential Protestant beliefs. Justification as imputed righteousness is affirmed by classical Arminians following Arminius himself. The distinctive doctrines of Arminianism have to do with God’s sovereignty over history and salvation; providence and predestination are the two key doctrines where Arminians part company with classical Calvinists

There’s no better starting place to examine the issues of providence and predestination than the Remonstrance itself. It is the foundational document of classical Arminianism (beyond Arminius’s writings). The Remonstrance was prepared by forty-three or so (the exact number is debated) Dutch Reformed pastors and theologians after Arminius’s death in 1609. It was presented in 1610 to a conference of church and state leaders at Gouda, Holland, to explain Arminian doctrine. It focuses mainly on issues of salvation and especially predestination. Various versions of the Remonstrance (from which the Remonstrants got their name) exist. We will use an English translation of the Latin original provided in somewhat condensed form by English scholar of Arminianism A. W. Harrison:

1. That God, by an eternal and unchangeable decree in Christ before the world was, determined to elect from the fallen and sinning race to everlasting life those who through His grace believe in Jesus Christ and persevere in faith and obedience; and, on the contrary, had resolved to reject the unconverted and unbelievers to everlasting damnation (John iii, 36).

2. That, in consequence of this, Christ the Saviour of the world died for all and every man, so that He obtained, by the death on the cross, reconciliation and pardon for sin for all men; in such manner, however, that none but the faithful actually enjoyed the same (John iii, 16 ; I John ii, 2).

3. That man could not obtain saving faith of himself or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace through Christ to be renewed in thought and will (John xv, 5).

4. That this grace was the cause of the beginning, progress and completion of man’s salvation; insomuch that none could believe nor persevere in faith without this co-operating grace, and consequently that all good works must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. As to the manner of the operation of that grace, however, it is not irresistible (Acts vii, 51).

5. That true believers had sufficient strength through the Divine grace to fight against Satan, sin, the world, their own flesh, and get the victory over them; but whether by negligence they might not apostatize from the true Faith, lose the happiness of a good conscience and forfeit that grace needed to be more fully inquired into according to Holy Writ.24

Notice that the Remonstrants, like Arminius before, did not take any stand on the question of the eternal security of believers. That is, they left open the question of whether a truly saved person could fall from grace or not. They also did not follow the pattern of TULIP. Though the fivefold pattern of expressing Calvinist belief was developed later, the denial of the three middle points is quite clear in the Remonstrance. However, contrary to popular thought about Arminianism (especially among Calvinists), neither Arminius nor the Remonstrants denied total depravity; they affirmed it. Of course the Remonstrance is not a complete statement of Arminian doctrine, but it addresses its essence well. Beyond what it says lies a realm of interpretation where Arminians sometimes disagree among themselves. Nevertheless, a general Arminian consensus exists, and that is what this brief overview will explain, drawing heavily on Nazarene theologian Wiley, who drew heavily on Arminius, Wesley and the leading nineteenth-century Methodist theologians mentioned earlier.

Arminianism teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritual depraved, and helpless to do anything good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the affects of original sin. “Not only are all men born under the penalty of death, as a consequence of sin, but they are born with a depraved nature also, which in contradistinction to the legal aspect of penalty, is generally termed inbred sin or inherited depravity.”25 Classical Arminianism agrees with Protestant orthodoxy in general that the unity of the human race in sin results in all being born “children of wrath.” However, Arminians believe that Christ’s death on the cross provides a universal remedy for the guilt of inherited sin so that it is not imputed to infants for Christ’s sake. This is how Arminians, in agreement with Anabaptists, such as Mennonites, interpret the universalistic passages of the New Testament such as Romans 5, where all are said to be included under sin just as all are included in redemption through Christ. It is also the Arminian interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10, which indicates two salvations through Christ: one universal for all people and one especially for all who believe. Arminian belief in general redemption is not universal salvation; it is universal redemption from Adam’s sin. Thus, in Arminian theology all children who die before reaching the age of awakening of conscience and falling into actual sin (as opposed to inbred sin) are considered innocent by God and are taken to paradise. Among those who commit actual sins only those who repent and believe have Christ as Savior.

Arminianism regards original sin primarily as a moral depravity that results from deprivation of the image of God; it is the loss of power to avoid actual sin. “Depravity is total in that it affects the entire being of man.”26 This means that all people are born with alienated affections, darkened intellect and perverted will.27 There is both a universal cure and a more particular remedy for this condition; Christ’s atoning death on the cross removed the penalty of original sin and released into humanity a new impulse that begins to reverse the depravity with which they all come into the world. Christ is the new Adam (Rom 5) who is a new head of the race; he came not only to save some but to provide a new start for all. A measure of prevenient grace extends through Christ to every person born (Jn 1).

Thus the true Arminian position admits the full penalty of sin, and consequently neither minifies [sic] the exceeding sinfulness of sin, nor holds lightly the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ. It does so, however, not by denying the full force of the penalty, as do the semi-Pelagians, but by magnifying the sufficiency of the atonement, and the consequent communication of prevenient grace to all men through the headship of the last Adam.28

Christ’s headship is coextensive with Adam’s, but people must accept (by not resisting) this grace of Christ in order fully to benefit from it.

Man is condemned solely for his own transgressions. The free gift removed the original condemnation and abounds unto many offenses. Man becomes amenable for the depravity of his own heart, only when rejecting the remedy for it, he consciously ratifies it as his own, with all its penal consequences.29

Inherited depravity includes bondage of the will to sin, which is only overcome by supernatural, prevenient grace. This grace begins to work in everyone through Christ’s sacrifice (and the Holy Spirit sent into the world by Christ), but it comes in special power through the proclamation of the gospel. Wiley, following Pope and other Arminian theologians, calls the human condition—because of inherited sin—“impotence to the good,” and he rejects any possibility of spiritual goodness apart from the special grace of Christ prevening.

Because God is love (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:8) and does not want anyone to perish but all to come to repentance (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9), the atoning death of Christ is universal; some of its benefits are automatically extended to all (e.g., release from the condemnation of Adam’s sin) and all of its benefits are for everyone who accepts them (e.g., forgiveness of actual sins and imputation of righteousness).

The atonement is universal. This does not mean that all mankind will be unconditionally saved, but that the sacrificial offering of Christ so far satisfied the claims of the divine law as to make salvation a possibility for all. Redemption is therefore universal or general in the provisional sense, but special or conditional in its application to the individual.30

Only those will be saved, however, who are predestined by God to eternal salvation. They are the elect. Who is included in the elect? All who God foresees will accept his offer of salvation through Christ by not resisting the grace that extends to them through the cross and the gospel. Thus, predestination is conditional rather than unconditional; God’s electing foreknowledge is caused by the faith of the elect.

In opposition to this [Calvinist scheme] Arminianism holds that predestination is the gracious purpose of God to save mankind from utter ruin. It is not an arbitrary, indiscriminate act of God intended to secure the salvation of so many and no more. It includes provisionally, all men