I have often wondered why so little has been said about Jacobus (or James) Arminius being listed along with other Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Zwingli, Huss, Tyndale, or others. In fact, a list posted on Wikipedia does not even list James Arminius. Most standard Christian history books that I have read barely mentions Arminius and usually more as a polemic figure who criticized Calvin, which led to the infamous Synod of Dort, where Calvinism triumphed over Arminianism (in some minds once and for all).

Roger Olson’s article: Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian explains the importance of Arminians and Calvinists accepting each other and working together despite their theological differences. Olson shares several personal anecdotes while explaining why classic Arminians are evangelical and neither humanist nor liberal. Olson also shares that even though he remained Arminian, learning about Calvinism provided him some balance on the issues of God’s sovereignty and man’s need for grace. He sees the cooperation of Wesley and Whitefield as a good example of how Calvinists and Arminians need each other, and despite important irreconcilable differences, can work together harmoniously for the cause of Christ.

Charles Cameron’s article, “Arminius―Hero or Heretic?” explains that James Arminius comes as a bit of a surprise to both Calvinists and Arminians today, as he is closer to Calvinism than people expect. Cameron starts with some preliminaries about Arminius (his affinity for Calvin’s commentaries, his approach to reconciling differences and his commitment to scripture) and then dives into the 5 points of Calvinism. On Total Depravity, Cameron notes Arminius’ focus on grace, not freewill. On Election, Arminius teaches a Christocentric, evangelical, eternal, decree whereby God chooses to save believers. Cameron questions the “from eternity” and “based on foreknowledge” aspect of Arminius’ explanation of election. On the Atonement, Arminius avoids universalism, but advocates God’s universal love and the availability of forgiveness for all.

The charge of heresy sometimes gets made in the Arminianism/Calvinism debate. So we thought it might be helpful to include this article that considers the nature of heresy from a more exegetical point of view than usual, even though it is not specifically concerned about the Arminianism/Calvinism debate.

Please click on the attachment to view Craig L. Blomberg, "THE NEW TESTAMENT DEFINITION OF HERESY (OR WHEN DO JESUS AND THE APOSTLES REALLY GET MAD?)", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/1 (March 2002) 59–72.

Background - LFW and responsibility

Under LFW, we are the causal source of our choices (i.e. nothing causally predetermines our choices); we are responsible for our choices. There’s nowhere else to go to. We can’t back track to something else - we are responsible. Under CFW, since our actions are causally predetermined, we can trace back the cause of our actions to something outside of us. Thus, we keep searching for the source of our actions to find out what’s ultimately responsible. When Calvinists say God is the ultimate source, we say they make God ultimately responsible for sin. Even if God establishes a system in which only secondary causes get punished and the primary cause does not (as Calvinists suppose), that doesn’t change the fact that God is ultimately responsible for sin. The issue isn’t one of God’s power or sovereignty, it’s a matter of His goodness and holiness.

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I

1. Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible.
2. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices
3. If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible.

My Response
Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leaves us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose.

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part V.II

1. Arminians say that without self-determining power, we have no power of action, acts are not our own, and we must be passive.
2. This isn’t the way people use “action” in common speech.
3. Used this way action is either causeless or an infinite regression of causes.
4. When we speak of a first cause, if nothing causes something, nothing could prevent it, so therefore it is necessary.
5. The common notion of action is the effects of the will.
6. Arminians think of action as self-determination, because the motion of our bodies is caused by our wills – so they assume the same applies to the motion of our wills.

Edwards’ arguments in part V.III and part V.IV

Edwards splits necessity into two categories: natural and moral. Natural necessity relates to our actions, moral necessity relates to our wills. If an act is naturally necessary, it is either against or without our will, and whether we will or not the result is the same. Edwards says that natural necessity is the common meaning of necessity and moral necessity is philosophical. Natural necessity (common necessity) is a sense wholly different than that used in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Most people go through their whole lives without thinking about moral necessity (philosophical necessity) and its relationship with responsibility.

Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God.

Outline of Edwards' Arguments About the Necessity of the God's Will - Part IV.VII

The "invitation" or "altar call" is a common tradition in many "low church" bodies. Invitations to accept Christ are not new, however, the specific form of invitation known as an "altar call" is a relatively new practice. It started with the evangelist Charles Finney, back in the 1830's. Other evangelists who have popularized the practice include D.L Moody, Billy Sunday, Corrie ten Boom, and Billy Graham.

The 400th anniversary of Arminius' "Declaration of Sentiments" occurred last week. We missed the opportunity to mark the anniversary on its exact day here at our site. But it is still worth drawing attention to the anniversary, and more importantly, the declaration it marks. (See below for a link to the document itself.)

Here are some comments from Dr. Keith Stanglin about this important treatise:

"On Oct. 30, 1608, Jacobus Arminius delivered his now famous
Declaration of Sentiments. On Oct. 20, he was summoned to the Hague to present his views to the States of Holland on the controversial doctrines of the day. He spent most of the speech deconstructing the Calvinist view of predestination later known as supralapsarianism. He then presented his positive view of predestination, and briefly addressed other important topics.

I'm taking a brief break today from the Arminian/Calvinist debate to say a few words about All Saints Day. I'll post the weekly devotional tomorrow. As many might know, Halloween was originally All Hallows Eve. This was the day before All Hallows Day, a.k.a. All Saints Day.

Originally, this was a day that was set aside to celebrate the day of death for all the martyrs of the church, because celebrating each individually became too cumbersome. Eventually it was expanded to celebrate all of the Saints of the church when persecution died down. It became a day devoted to acknowledging the faithful in the church, and remembering the great heroes of the faith. It is a wonderful holiday to recognize what the power of the Spirit can truly do in us.

Today, 449 years ago, on October 10, 1559, Jacobus Arminius was born. At least, this is the date given by most critical scholars. Donald M. Lake wrote an excellent article entitled, "Jacob Arminius' Contribution to a Theology of Grace," in the book Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock. The following is a small excerpt from that article, in honor of Arminius' birthday.

"Few leaders in the Christian Church have been more neglected than this 16th century theologian and pastor . . . In the light of two recent studies on Arminius and his contribution to theology and after a reexamination of his major writings, I want to suggest that his importance for Christians living in the last half of the 20th century lies in three major areas.