By: Scott Armstrong
The following is the fourth in a series based on a Reformation lecture by theologian H. Ray Dunning and re-formatted for the Holiness Today podcast. The first article dealt with Martin Luther and his understanding of justification by faith alone.
Most of us are aware that we stand in a theological tradition known as Arminianism. And we probably are aware of the basic contours of that theological tradition. But what about the man who stands behind the tradition whose name it bears?
He was a Dutch theologian whose Latinized name is James Arminius. He came to the position which is called after him through an interesting set of circumstances. His early training was in a branch of the Reformed Church, which was a mild form of Calvinism. The notion of predestination was not of central concern.
In subsequent years, the ministers of this area were sent to Geneva, Switzerland for training, where they were taught a severe Calvinism by Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza. He had made the doctrine of the secret and absolute predestination of some to salvation and of others to damnation the center of Calvinism. The older clergymen along with Anabaptists, Lutherans, and humanists opposed these rigid ideas. One pious Christian in particular by the name of Koonhert voiced doubts about the claim that God specifically damned some men from all eternity. Arminius was called upon to refute Koonhert, but instead he became convinced that Koonhert was correct and that the traditional view must be rejected. This involved him in intrigues and persecution which doubtlessly shortened his life because he was a tolerant, peace-loving man who deplored controversy.
In 1609, he died at the young age of 49. In those days and for many, many years to come, high Calvinism was recognized as Orthodoxy. It was the epitome of conservatism. Arminianism, on the other hand, was seen as liberalism, and has, in fact, been mistakenly identified with such very liberal positions as Unitarianism. This was largely because of its broad-hearted tolerance rather than its theology, which has not always been properly understood.
As one would suspect, the central concern of Arminius was for the proclamation of the free, universal gift of salvation in Christ against the doctrine of a limited atonement. This did not lead him, however, to deny predestination itself. He recognized that the Bible speaks of election and predestination, and he saw that the problem must be handled biblically. Following this guideline, he avoided Calvinism on the one hand and humanism on the other.
His answer was really quite simple. He saw that the idea of the divine election present in both Old and New Testaments applies primarily and in its ultimate fulfillment to Jesus Christ, the beloved Son in whom God is well-pleased. Calvin and his disciples had used the biblical figures of election and predestination to express the truth of grace alone and to combat the Catholic doctrine of salvation by works. But Calvin’s interpreters of Arminius’ day were in danger of divorcing the doctrine from Christology and making Christ the mere instrument or means of carrying out a prior, abstract decree. In fact, the doctrine of the decrees, as Beza had interpreted them, made the work of Christ unnecessary.
Arminius, with sure-footed biblical insight, sought to bring salvation back into vital relation to the Savior. Jesus Christ, he said, is the foundation and content of election. That is, he is the elect man. But that election is extended to all who have faith in him. Since no one is in Christ except by faith, faith becomes the condition of election as it applies to individuals. This means that God has predestined the salvation of all who believe in Christ, but not that he had determined that certain persons only shall believe.
*Part II of Dunning’s lecture on Jacob Arminius will be continued in our next post.
Transform the Globe 