Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  

Why Did Arminianism “Win”?

Recommended Posts


by R. Scott Clark


Sometime back Howard wrote to ask, “How and when did Arminianism become the predominate view?” That’s a good question. First, we should distinguish between Jacob Arminius (James Hermanzoon) and the Arminians (or the Remonstrants). Relative to the conclusions Arminian/Remonstrant theology later reached, Arminius was relatively conservative of Reformed theology. He was investigated by thoroughly orthodox Reformed theologians, who were justly suspicious of his theology and pedagogy, but they were not able to prove conclusively that he was teaching error.


Nevertheless, there was certainly an organic relation between Arminius and the Remonstrants who complained (hence their name) against the Reformed theology of the Belgic Confession. Many of the views that Arminius was alleged to have taught, which he denied teaching, were articulated in the Five Articles of the Remonstrance (to which the Synod of Dort replied several years later in their Five Canons) almost immediately after Arminius’ death. It seems reasonably sure that Arminius taught essentially what became the Five Points of the Remonstrants and one is almost forced to think that he dissembled during the interviews with Gomarus and others.


As Remonstrant theology developed, however, its basic nature became clearer and that basic nature was rationalism. Arminius was a rationalist in at least one sense of the word inasmuch as he denied the fundamental Reformed distinction between the intellect of the Creator and the intellect of the creature. For Arminius (as for some rebellious and rationalist Reformed theologians in the 20th century) if we could not know what God knows, the way he knows it, we cannot ultimately know anything. For more on this see “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine. See also Richard Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy.


What was at least implicit in Arminius’ theology became explicit in his followers, especially in the work of Simon Episcopius (Bisschop). The Remonstrant movement became increasingly unorthodox as it not only built on Arminius’ rationalism but as it adopted another form of rationalism from certain Renaissance scholars, as evident in the Socinian movement, that became predominant in the modern period, i.e. the notion that human rationality is the measure of all things. The authority of Scripture became displaced by the authority of human reason. As in the case of the Socinians, the doctrine of Trinity was abandoned and the Remonstrants became a seminary for the Enlightenment and for the Unitarian Universalism. For more on the nature of the Remonstrant movement after Arminius see John E. Platt, Reformed Thought and Scholasticism. The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology, 1575-1650 vol. 29, Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982).


How does this answer the question? There have two great modern schools of thought: rationalism and subjectivism. Presently subjectivism seems to be winning but for a long time the West was rationalist and Arminianism was a child of rationalism. Popularized Arminianism was more adaptable to the rugged individualist, frontier religion of the American westward expansion.


Versions of Arminianism became the predominant religion in American evangelicalism during the so-called Second Great Awakening in the 19th century and that movement became a tsunami that swamped orthodox Calvinism. To switch metaphors: between the right cross of the higher critical movement emerging from the Enlightenment and the uppercut from “evangelical” Arminian moralism and rationalism (they always go hand-in-hand) Reformed orthodoxy was on the canvas by the end of the 19th century and by the early century (warning: tortured metaphor approaching) Reformed Orthodoxy was KO’d.


Because they shared common presuppositions, “evangelical” rationalism was no threat to the Enlightenment but Reformed orthodoxy was a threat so the liberals spent their fury in the early part of the 20th century suing, ridiculing, attacking, and dismantling orthodox Reformed dissent. The “evangelical” rationalists became “fundamentalists” and alternately withdrew from the culture (further reducing their threat to the liberal, mainline establishment) in the first half of the 2oth century.


The other wing of the Enlightenment was subjectivism, i.e. the notion that what matters is internal, psychological or emotional, experience. By the early 18th century, a good bit of evangelicalism in the colonies became subjectivist, in reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. In Europe, this subjectivism became known as “pieitism.” The pietists believed the bible but they marginalized theology in favor of religious experience. The children and grandchildren of the pietists, however, when exposed to the withering critique of orthodoxy by the Enlightenment simply caved and made Christianity a matter of private experience of “the divine” rather than a historical faith grounded in objective reality.


The subjectivist wing of evangelicalism from the 18th century did not fair well either. One wing of Edwards’ followers adopted forms of liberalism and the other, generally orthodox Calvinists, gradually shed the Edwardsean subjectivism and became marginalized by the growing liberal mainstream establishment. The who remained generally orthodox and subjectivist became the backbone of the “evangelical” movement of the 20th century.


By 1950 the confessional Reformed remnant was either sequestered in relatively small ethnic denominations (e.g. RCUS, CRC) or in small Presbyterian denominations (e.g. the OPC) with no institutions, no buildings, no bodies, and no budgets.


There were branches of Arminianism, however, that remained “evangelical” in some (modern) sense. The Wesleys identified formally with the Reformation (even though their theology was in considerable tension with it!) and versions of Wesleyan methodism and of Charles Finney’s “new method” revivalism became the theology, piety, and practice of the westward expansion. In the 20th century, Arminianism became the theology of fundamentalism and revivalism and those two movements dwarfed the remnant of Reformed orthodoxy.


In short, by the mid-20th century, some version of Arminianism became the default theology of evangelicalism and fundamentalism because, in my view, they posed relatively little threat to the fundamental assumptions of human autonomy and rationalism (or subjectivism) that shaped the modern mind. Early Arminianism anticipated modernity and over the centuries forms of Arminianism adapted successfully to modernity and modernism. In contrast, orthodox Calvinism was antithetical to modernity and modernism from the beginning and remained so in the succeeding centuries. Reformed orthodoxy was neither rationalist nor subjectivist and was therefore unwilling and unable to compromise with it.

Share this post

Link to post

I believe the answer to that question will always lie with man's view of himself .. his power .. and why he feels the need to be in control. Arminians, although they might agree, and even shake their head (in assent) .. do NOT truly believe in the absolute SOVEREIGNTY of God. I am of the position that they do not know what it means to be sovereign (and all that the word entails).

Mind you .. this does not mean they are not Christian; it's just that much of their view of God is ill informed (in many ways).

Mostly this is taught under the leadership of a pastor (who is ill informed) and raised in a church where ''tradition'' circumvents the Bible.


If they believed in the sovereignty of God, they would not be putting themselves into their salvation .. other than ''repentance and belief.''


In the end .. the question needs to be: Did Arminians Win .. and if so, WHAT?

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post

Recently heard someone suggest Arminians are saved by their inconsistencies. Usually when confronted with Justification by faith alone arguments they will deny works which are inconsistent to an Arminian profession. Thus, they are saved by inconsistencies.


Reminds me of Spurgeon's Arminian Prayer:






  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • 10 Things You Should Know about James Arminius and Arminianism

      Today we turn our attention to James Arminius and a few brief observations about the theological system that bears his name.   (1) Jacob Harmenszoon, better known to history as James Arminius, was born in Holland in 1559. His father died within a year of his birth and his mother, his brothers and sisters, and virtually all his relatives, were massacred in a raid on his home town of Oudewater in 1575. Arminius enrolled as a student of liberal arts at the University of Leyden in 1576 and concluded his studies in 1581. He went to study in John Calvin’s Geneva and enrolled at the Academy on January 1, 1582 (Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor and Arminius’s primary instructor, was now 62). In 1583 he went to Basel, but returned to Geneva in 1584 and remained there until 1586.   (2) Arminius became pastor of a church in Amsterdam in 1587 and remained such until 1603. In 1588 be began preaching through Malachi and Romans. In 1591, when Arminius reached Romans 7, controversy erupted. During this period Arminius defended his view of Romans 7, contending that Paul spoke there as an unregenerate man. He believed that otherwise Christians would be encouraged to sin and would lack an incentive to holiness. When Arminius reached Romans 9 the controversy broke out in full force. He interpreted Jacob and Esau as types of classes of people, the former of those who seek righteousness by faith and the latter of those who seek it by works. Individual salvation through divine election is not in view.   (3) During the years 1598-1602 Arminius engaged in controversy with the English Puritan theologian, William Perkins (1558-1602), publishing a response to Perkins' treatise on predestination. He also taught at the University of Leyden for six years (1603-1609), during which he waged theological war with Francis Gomarus (1563-1641).   (4) Arminius argued for the notion of preventing, exciting, or prevenient grace, by which is meant a work of the Holy Spirit in all men (and not just the elect) by which faith is made possible (but not necessary). Thus the question becomes, “Is grace irresistible?” Arminius says no.   (5) Arminius did not, as some contend, embrace the Pelagian doctrine of perfection from sin in this life. However, he never wholly repudiated the possibility either: “But while I never asserted that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided” (I:256).   (6) As for the assurance of salvation, he affirmed that one may have present assurance of present salvation (I:255, 384-85). However, he denied that one can have present assurance of final salvation. If there is no present assurance of final salvation, it is because there is the possibility of falling from grace. In his work against Perkins he seems to say a believer could fall, but later spoke with more reserve. He argues that a person remains a living member of Christ unless he grows slothful and gives place to sin and little by little becomes half-dead. This, if not checked, results in spiritual death in which the individual ceases to be a member of Christ (III:282-525).   Yet in his Declaration of Sentiments he says that he never taught “that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish” (I:254). He tries to evade the issue by distinguishing between the elect and believers. One may be among the latter but not the former, since the elect always persevere.   (7) Arminius’s doctrine of divine election is somewhat complex. He divides the elective decree of God into four categories or kinds. There is first the election of Christ, in the sense that he is appointed to be the Savior of sinners. Second, there is the decree to save those who repent and believe and to leave the unrepentant and unbelieving in their sin. The third decree is that by which God determines to provide the sufficient means through which all are enabled to believe, if they will. The fourth decree is the most crucial one: “To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [i.e., prevenient] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere” (I:248). Therefore, according to Arminius, election is conditional, being based on God's foresight of faith, a faith which all are enabled to exercise through the bestowal of prevenient grace.   (8) On January 14, 1610 (Arminius died in 1609), more than forty of Arminius’s followers met in the city of Gouda under the leadership of Uytenbogaert. They subscribed to the Remonstrance, a petition to be sent to the political authorities setting forth their case. Aside from various political issues, the document articulated five points of theological conviction. In response to the declarations of the Arminians a group of Reformed men issued the Counter-Remonstrance in 1611, a point-by-point refutation of the Remonstrance of 1610 (actually there were seven doctrinal points in the Counter-Remonstrance).   (9) In the years that followed, there was a great deal of political activity. At one point the Arminians held power, but under the leadership of Maurice (son of William of Orange), the Calvinists gained the upper hand. They finally called a national synod which convened on Nov. 13, 1618, and lasted until May 9, 1619. For each of the five points of the Remonstrance the Calvinists affirmed five counter points. They comprise what we now know as the Canons of Dort which, along with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, became the basis for Dutch Calvinism.   (10) The Arminians were banished and persecuted until about 1625. They continued to have a major influence under the leadership of such men as Episcopius, Limborch, and Hugo Grotius (articulate advocate of the Governmental theory of the atonement). The theological assertions of Arminius and the Remonstrance have been adopted in part or in whole by such as John and Charles Wesley (and Methodism in general), Charles Finney, classical Pentecostal denominations (such as the Assemblies of God), the Nazarenes, and Free-Will Baptists among others.   Source: http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-james-arminius-and-arminianism

      in Arminianism

    • What's the Difference Between Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism?

      Tom Ascol   The late Martyn Lloyd-Jones was reported to have said that “the ignorant Arminian doesn’t know the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.” Based on the frequency with which the two are often confused I would suggest that the ignorance is not limited to our Arminian friends. While much more could be said, the following summary reveals the basic differences between Arminianism, Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism.   The Similarity of Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism   In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism undermines divine sovereignty, hyper-Calvinism undermines human responsibility. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition, namely that human ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.   Arminian Rationalism   The Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible holds all people responsible to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe, albeit such ability must be aided by grace.   Hyper-Calvinist Rationalism   The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible teaches that in and of themselves all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible].”   Biblical Calvinism   In contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, “Wrong! While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches. The Calvinist view may appear irrational but in reality is supra-rational—it is revealed.   Source: http://founders.org/2016/05/10/whats...per-calvinism/

      in Calvinism

    • The Bee Explains: Calvinism Vs. Arminianism

      Doing theology is hard. But we here at The Babylon Bee want to make it easier than the first world in Super Mario Bros 3! In this article, we’ll briefly explain key differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, so you’ll be smart enough to blast people on your Facebook feed the next time the discussion comes up.     DEFINITIONS     Calvinism: Theological framework that centers around God’s sovereign choice in salvation. The points of Calvinism include total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, and being a condescending jerk.   Arminianism: Theology that focuses on man’s free will to choose or reject God. The five points are kinda-sorta depravity, election but not really, errybody gets some atonement, grace that looks pretty cool but you can say no if you want to, and better hang onto that salvation pretty tightly.     ORIGINS     Calvinism: Originally discovered in a remote California forest by a pipe-smoking lumberjack, Calvinism was first codified in book form by John Piper in his 1986 classic Desiring God. Piper was said to have yelled “Eureka!” and hugged his Jonathan Edwards plush doll in joy upon discovering the beauty of the doctrines of grace.   Arminianism: Grew out of the backwoods of Appalachia in the 1950s, where the Holy Ghost is active, preachers wear suits, church signs are hand-painted, and snakes are handled.     FAMOUS ADHERENTS     Calvinism: Anyone named John, that really annoying guy on your Facebook feed, the Apostle Paul.   Arminianism: Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, Billy Graham, Satan.     PROMINENT WORKS     Calvinism: That long-winded Facebook rant your Calvinist friend goes on almost every week, Final Destination 3, the Book of Romans.   Arminianism: Back to the Future, The Matrix, Chick tracts.     HOW TO SPOT A FOLLOWER     Calvinism: Look for long, flowing beards, flannel T-shirts, and empty bottles of craft brew strewn around their location. The Calvinist can also be identified by that smug sense of superiority he carries about his person.   Arminianism: Look for an expression of concern on their face as they desperately try not to lose their salvation today. Calvary Chapel summer camp T-shirts, acoustic guitars, and Rainbow sandals are also key indicators.   So there you have it! We hope this helped you make an informed decision on which of these theological systems to choose—or is it “which of these theological systems chose you?”   Source: http://babylonbee.com/news/bee-expla...s-arminianism/

      in Christian Satire

    • The Inescapable Unfairness of Arminianism.

      The main charge against the doctrine of God's sovereignty in election is that it is "unfair". Opponents reason that if God saves some but not others, He is unjust. They propose an explanation for why some men are saved while others are not which they think resolves this "problem" when they speak of, "free will".   The Arminian and semi-Pelagian explain that Jesus died for all, and men simply accept to reject His gift of salvation. Of course the Arminian thinks that man needs a little help, nonetheless, he places the responsibility for one's eternal destiny completely on his own shoulders, in the final analysis.   The false assumption that those opposed to God's direct choosing of those with whom He will have mercy upon, is that all men have an equal opportunity to choose, completely ignoring the fact that billions have lived and died without ever hearing the gospel, and, even those who have heard it have not heard it in the same manner. Many have only heard the name of Christ from the charlatan prosperity false teachers, for example. Others have enjoy varieties of cultural hurdles which make both hearing and believing more difficult than others. In other words, there is no egalitarian delivery of the message or the level ground of the hearer (if they even have heard).   Nothing is "fair" about the non-Calvinistic view because a person born in small mountain village in China 1,000 years ago had no exposure to the gospel and God's Word, while someone born in Atlanta Georgia in 1980 had tons, and of those in Atlanta had some excellent preachers who might bring them God's truth, while many others could have only even seen a social/cultural "gospel".        

      in Soteriology and Reformation Theology


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.