A misconception about Arminianism

I promised this post a while ago, and I am going to deliver it, even though what I have to say here will probably upset many of my Calvinist friends.

Is Arminianism heresy?

Nope. A lot of my Reformed friends like to refer to the Canons of Dort as proof that Arminianism has indeed been declared heresy. But, let's take a step back for a moment and realize exactly what the Canons of Dort were, they were a regional council within a specific church under a specific confession. This was not the sort of great, ecumenical council of the church that saw Arianism or Marcionism thrown aside, this was a regional group making a decision for those under their confession. (And, incidentally enough, it caused a split amongst Dutch Monergists as well, with Lutherans breaking away from the Reformed). 

For a modern comparison, the canons of Dort were similar to a modern denominational position paper. Occasionally, denominations will take the time to clarify their position on certain topics that become controversial either in their churches or in their nation/society. This may deal with abortion, women in ministry, homosexuality, or, I have even seen some try to nail down a confessional position on the exact nature of Divine Impassibility or the Regulative Principle of Worship. 

These types of papers declare where that group stands on that issue, and they serve as a notice to any that would consider joining or associating with them as to what is expected. This does not represent the same sort of ecumenical recognition of orthodoxy that one sees even in such documents as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy or the Danvers Statement. Because Dort falls into this lesser category, it is a mistake to try to declare Arminianism heresy on the basis of that document. 

Arminians do believe in Total Depravity

When I use the term 'Arminians', here, what I am referring to is the group specifically dealt with in the Canons of Dort. These were followers of Jacob Arminius who sought to defend his theological system, which was rooted in the Reformed Belgic Confession. Dort was actually written as a response to the Articles of Remonstrance. Article 3 of clearly says that man has no free will in and of himself, and that he needs the grace of God to have the ability to turn to God.

In this respect, Arminians are consistent with Augustine and reject Pelagianism.

Arminius himself sums it up nicely:

But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of any by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good, but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing, and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.(Works of Arminius, Vol 1 ccel.org)

Arminians do believe in Election

Now, please do not mistake me, the Arminian view of election is different than the Calvinist one, and I do believe that it is quite mistaken. But, it would also be a terrible misrepresentation of Arminianism to suggest they do not have a doctrine of election. 

As Arminius defined it:

Predestination therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the Decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He resolved within Himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of His own glorious grace, believers on whom He had decreed to bestow faith.(Ibid, above)

The difference between the Arminian view of election and the Calvinist view is metaphysical, it addresses the difference in how they view God's decree. In Arminianism, God decrees his grace on mankind, allowing them to have freedom, before he decrees who will be saved. In Calvinism, to decree those who will be saved is to decree who will receive his grace. The result is two different notions of freedom, and two different doctrines of election.

Arminius responds to caricatures of his position:

ARTICLE 27 (7.)
'Faith is not the pure gift of God, but depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of Free Will; that, if a man will, he may believe or not believe.'

I never said this, I never thought of saying it, and, relying on God’s grace, I never will enunciate my sentiments on matters of this description in a manner thus desperate and confused. I simply affirm, that this enunciation is false, “faith is not the pure gift of God;” that this is likewise false, if taken according to the rigor of the words, “faith depends partly on the grace of God, and partly on the powers of free will” and that this is also false when thus enunciated, “If a man will, he can believe or not believe.” If they suppose, that I hold some opinions from which these assertions may by good consequence be deduced, why do they not quote my words? It is aspecies of injustice to attach to any person those consequences, which one may frame out of his words as if they were his sentiments. But the injustice is still more flagrant, if these conclusions cannot by good consequence be deduced from what he has said. Let my brethren, therefore, make the experiment, whether they can deduce such consectaries as these, from the things which I teach; but let the experiment be made in my company, and not by themselves in their own circle. For that sport will be vain, equally void of profit or of victory; as boys sometimes feel, when they play alone with dice for what already belongs to them.

For the proper explanation of this matter, a discussion on the concurrence and agreement of Divine grace and of free will, or of the human will, would be required; but because this would be a labor much too prolix, I shall not now make the attempt. To explain the matter I will employ a simile, which yet, I confess, is very dissimilar; but its dissimilitude is greatly in favor of my sentiments. 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! This is the question which it will be requisite to discuss, “what acts of Divine grace are required to produce faith in man?” If I omit any act which is necessary, or which concurs, [in the production of faith,] let it be demonstrated from the Scriptures, and I will add it to the rest.

It is not our wish to do the least injury to Divine grace, by taking from it any thing that belongs to it. But let my brethren take care, that they themselves neither inflict an injury on Divine justice, by attributing that to it which it refuses; nor on Divine grace, by transforming it into something else, which cannot be called GRACE. That I may in one word intimate what they must prove, such a transformation they effect when they represent “the sufficient and efficacious grace, which is necessary to salvation, to be irresistible,” or as acting with such potency that it cannot be resisted by any free creature (Works of James Arminius Vol. 1, Wesleyan Heritage Collection, pp. 314, 315).

Now for the part that will REALLY make Calvinists mad

The most common complaint against Arminianism by Calvinists is that God is not sovereign in that model in the way that the Bible describes him to be sovereign. I completely agree with that. But, to say that God is not sovereign in any way in the Arminian system is simply incorrect. 

In fact, (and I can already feel the Calvinist fireballs flying my direction) God has more freedom in certain forms of Arminianism than he does in some forms of Calvinism. (Including the one that I hold.)

Before you stone me, let me explain. In his brilliant work Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards argues that Arminianism must be false because Libertarian Free Will is an incoherent concept. This means that no person has libertarian free will, and that includes God. For Edwards, God's will is more free than ours because the nature that dictates his will is uncaused and wholly good, whereas ours is contingent and evil. Ours interferes with our rational decisions, his does not.

The consequence of Edwards' position (which has been the position of the majority of Reformed thinkers) is that while God is free to create any world he wishes, the only world he would wish to create is the one he created. I.e, his nature, reason, will, etc. when combined to make a decision would only choose to create this world that we live in. 

In many forms of Arminianism, God is free to choose as he wills from a wide selection of possible worlds, and his choice between them is solely his good pleasure. Edwards, and I alongside him, would argue that this makes God's choice of how to create arbitrary and irrational, and that God does not make arbitrary and irrational decisions. However, in the sense of how many options he has God is 'more free' in the Arminian concept than he is in the Calvinist one.

So, we as Calvinists rate sovereignty based on control, and thus we see God as most sovereign in our model, but Arminianism seems to rate sovereignty based on freedom, and in that respect it can be argued that God is most sovereign under their notion. 

Conclusion

Anyone who has read my blog in the past knows that I think Arminianism is incorrect, and they should know that I think it has negative consequences (for a great summary on that, I suggest this article: http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-arminians-preach-a-sufficient-gospel). But, Arminians are not heretics, and many of them are in fact our brothers in Christ. As Spurgeon once said:

You know, brethren, that there is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But, my dear friends, far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none within her walls but Calvinistic Christians, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views.(The Man with the Measuring Line)

So, go out, be gracious, try to show our brothers in Christ the truths of God's Word, but do so as one brother to the next, and not as if they are a pagan savage in need of evangelism.