Critical Distinctions
I have recently been invited to debate the question, “Is Arminianism Heresy?” In speaking with others about this question, it has occurred to me that many of those who seem quick to answer this question may not in fact, understand Arminian theology. The purpose of this blog is to talk about the best way to define Arminian theology and then examine the distinctions between Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism as well as those nuances that distinguish Pelagianism from both Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. As believers, we should desire to accurately represent the views of those with whom we disagree. In addition, I think we should also strive to give others the benefit of the doubt and always interpret them in the most positive light possible. In summary, believers should be accurate, we should be fair, and we should be charitable when critiquing the beliefs of fellow believers with whom we disagree.
The issue that these three systems seem to turn on, is Christian praxis. That is the concern is a life that is consistent with and reflective of their overall understanding of Christian belief. Arminianism asserts that divine election is grounded in divine foreknowledge. The process is that divine foreknowledge precedes divine election. God sees who will respond positively to the gospel and then decrees to save them. But this foreknowledge is not causal in any way. Second, the atonement of Christ is not only infinitely valuable, it is also unlimited in its intent to save. The death of Christ is intended to save whoever freely decides to respond to the gospel. However, Christ did not actually atone for the sins of those who continue in their rebellion to the end. In this sense, Arminians deny that Christ has actually atoned for the sins of those who remain obstinate.
Oddly enough, both Arminius and the Remonstrants affirmed total depravity acknowledging the necessity of regeneration to move the human will to saving faith. The most controversial aspect of Arminian theology is its doctrine of prevenient grace. This is the view that through the work of Christ, men are at least enabled to accept the free offer of the gospel or to reject it. That is to say, efficacious grace is denied in preference for the view that grace is always resistible. It seems impossible to see how this is not a contradiction with the Arminian affirmation of total depravity. The final distinction of Arminian theology is its refusal to affirm perseverance. Many have wrongly believed that Arminianism denies the doctrine of perseverance. This is actually not the case. Both Arminius and the Remonstrants were unclear on the question and left it open to additional study.
Semi-Pelagianism is an intermediate position between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. While it admits that mankind was injured during the fall of Adam, and that this fall had consequences to man’s body and soul, it denies that man is left spiritually dead. Semi-Pelagianism overtly denies the doctrine of total depravity. As you can see, Arminianism did not quite push the consequences of sin this far, instead, affirming total depravity. In this sense, Arminianism cannot be equated with Semi-Pelagianism even though this rhetoric is employed often by those in my camp, which is the reformed or Calvinist camp. Semi-Pelagianism believes that the first movement of faith by which grace is grasped is the effort of man’s native capacity, unaided. Grace is not irresistible. And if that grace is resisted, man will remain unable to be or do good. That all men do not profit from God’s grace is solely due to their own free will. Finally, Semi-Pelagian grounds election in divine foreknowledge. The most obvious difference between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism is in the doctrine of total depravity. Arminianism affirms total depravity while Semi-Pelagianism denies it. The view that the initial movement of faith is unaided by the unregenerate is not an element of Arminian theology. The battle over Semi-Pelagianism was waged for over 100 years only to be settled at the Council of Orange in 529 where it was roundly condemned by the Christian Church.
Pelagianism outright rejects original sin. Adam’s sin injured himself only and did no harm to the human race. Children are born sinless just as Adam was created sinless. The human race does not die through Adam, nor does it rise with the resurrection of Christ. Even before Christ, there were men who lived without sin. Man can live perfectly without sin and is capable of keeping God’s commandments, even without grace. Man can get to the kingdom of heaven by keeping the law or by obeying the gospel. Pelagianism was condemned as heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
It should be obvious then to the most casual observer that Semi-Pelagianism is nothing like Pelagianism and Arminianism is nothing like Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. The differences between Arminianism and Pelagianism are profound. To confuse the two is unfair to both schools. While Semi-Pelagianism is an attempt to strike a chord somewhere between what it considers are the extremes of total depravity in Augustine and the freedom of the will in Pelagius, Arminianism is an attempt to seek the same sort of position between Augustine or better, Calvin, and men like Cassian and Faustus. At a minimum, one should be able to discern a far greater degree of care in Arminius’ theology. Whether this should be praised as a sign of humility or condemned as a miserable subtlety to deceive is an open question.
Arminianism is wrong to locate divine election in foreknowledge and to place the decree after God’s “look into the future.” To begin with, there is no possible future apart from the divine plan. Second, God does not learn. The implication is that at some point or state, God did not know things about temporal reality. As a reformed Christian, I find this view to be strongly objectionable. Most Arminians have not thought enough about this view. Arminianism is wrong to believe that the intent of the atonement is universal in scope. In the Arminian scheme, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection did not actually provide for the salvation of anyone and only made man savable. A potential atonement is not atonement any more than a potential loan can create actual debt. Arminian theology is also wrong in its refusal to settle the matter of perseverance. At the time of the Remonstrance, this was an issue. But today, many, if not most, Arminian theologians actually affirm eternal security. Finally, Arminian theology is wrong to deny that God’s grace is efficacious. This essentially means that God is not free to direct his grace upon those whom he has chosen. This limits God in an area where Scripture clearly reveals he has no limits.
While Arminianism is a system that espouses serious theological error, it is not one that earns for itself, necessarily, the accusation of damnable heresy. In other words, one could affirm the five articles in a way that does not end in damnable heresy and many evangelical Arminians do just that. On the other hand, an Arminian could embrace views that are damnable heresy and remain consistent with Arminian theology as a system. That is clearly true. But taken at face value, there is nothing in Arminius or the five articles of the Remonstrance that rise to the definition of damnable heresy. This is not the case for Semi-Pelagianism and especially Pelagianism. Both systems hold views that undercut the biblical view of man and sin and consequently, the need for the very gospel it claims to uphold and defend.
When an Arminian believer meets a Calvinist believer, the two should assume that the other is a disciple of Christ and lover of his church until proven otherwise. When I meet fellow believers, I do not assume up front that they are not believers. I assume just the opposite. I assume they are my brother. If I get a chance, I love to hear people’s testimony. Through conversations, and becoming better acquainted, I will learn sooner or later the state of my new brother’s faith. But I will see that in his behavior, his ethics, his love, his spirit, much more accurately than I will if I should subject him to a theological interrogation which is what some seem to be advocating.
Feel free to leave comments or ask questions.
Mr. Ed
No comments:
Post a Comment