What is an Arminian?, by John Wesley

The Question, “What is an Arminian?” Answered by a Lover of Free Grace

By John Wesley

1. To say, “This man is an Arminian,” has the same effect on many hearers as to say, “This is a mad dog.” It puts them into a fright at once.  They run away from him with all speed and diligence and will hardly stop, unless to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous animal.

2. The more unintelligible the word is, the better it answers the purpose.  Those on whom it is fixed do not know what to do.  Not understanding what it means, they cannot tell what defense to make or how to clear themselves from the charge. And it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others have imbibed, who know no more of it than that it is “something very bad,” if not “all that is bad!”

3. To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous term, may be useful to many.  To those who so freely pin this name on others, that they may not say what they do not understand; to those who hear them, that they may be no longer abused by men saying what they do not know; and to those on whom the name is fixed, that they may know how to answer for themselves.

4. It may be necessary to observe, first, that many confound Arminians with Arians.  But this is entirely a different thing; the one has no resemblance to the other.  An Arian is one who denies the Godhead of Christ – we scarcely need say the supreme, eternal Godhead because there can be no God but the supreme, eternal God, unless we would make two Gods, a great God and a little one.  Now, none have ever more firmly believed or more strongly asserted the Godhead of Christ than many of the (so called) Arminians have done; yes, and do at this day.  Arminianism therefore (whatever it is) is totally different from Arianism.

5. The rise of the word was this: James Harmens, in Latin: Jacobus Arminius, was first one of the ministers of Amsterdam and afterward Professor of Divinity at Leyden.  He was educated at Geneva, but in the year 1591 he began to doubt of the [Calvinist] principles which he had till then received.  And being more and more convinced that they were wrong, when he was vested with the professorship, he publicly taught what he believed the truth till, in the year 1609, he died in peace.  But a few years after his death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all those who held what were called his opinions.  And having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent), some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in Church or State.

6. The errors charged upon these (usually termed Arminians) by their opponents are five: (1.) That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they affirm, a believer may fall from grace.

With regard to the first two of these charges they plead, ‘Not Guilty.’  They are entirely false.  No man that ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted either original sin or justification by faith in more strong, more clear and express terms than Arminius has done.  These two points, therefore, are to be set out of the question. In these both parties agree.  In this respect, there is not a hair’s breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and Mr. Whitefield.

7. But there is an undeniable difference between the Calvinists and Arminians with regard to the three other questions. Here they divide; the former believe absolute, the latter only conditional, predestination.  The Calvinists hold: God has absolutely decreed from all eternity to save such and such persons, and no others; and that Christ died for these and none else.  The Arminians hold: God has decreed from all eternity touching all who have the written word, “One who believes will be saved; one who does not believe will be condemned.”  And in order to this: “Christ died for all, all who were dead in trespasses and sins”; that is, for every child of Adam, since “in Adam all died.”

8. The Calvinists hold, secondly, that the saving grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that no one is any more able to resist it than to resist the stroke of lightning.  The Arminians hold that, although there may be some moments in which the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet in general any one may resist, and that to his eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will of God he should have been eternally saved.

9. The Calvinists hold, thirdly, that a true believer in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace.  The Arminians hold that a true believer may make ‘shipwreck’ of faith and a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:19), so that he may fall not only foully but finally, so as to perish for ever.

10. Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace and infallible perseverance, are the natural consequence of the former, of the unconditional decree.  For if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to save such and such persons, it follows both that they cannot resist His saving grace (else they might miss salvation) and that they cannot finally fall from that grace which they cannot resist.  So that, in effect, the three questions come into one: “Is predestination absolute or conditional?”  The Arminians believe it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.

11. Away, then, with all ambiguity!  Away with all expressions which only puzzle the cause!  Let honest men speak out, and not play with hard words which they do not understand.  And how can any man who has never read one page of his writings know what Arminius held?  Let no man bawl against Arminians till he knows what the term means, and then he will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just upon a level. And Arminians have as much right to be angry at Calvinists as Calvinists have to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians.  Only, the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

12. One word more: is it not the duty of every Arminian preacher, first, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach, seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners than it is with Christianity.  Secondly, to do all that lies in him to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it?  And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist preacher, first, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly, to do all that lies in him to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it; and that the more earnestly and diligently if they have been accustomed to do so? perhaps encouraged in such by his own example!

– The Essential Works of John Wesley (2011: Barbour Publishing), pp. 1171-3

Robert Shank on Calvinism and the Warning Passages of Scripture

“Completely absurd is the assumption that men are to be sincerely persuaded that apostasy is impossible and, at the same time, sincerely alarmed by the warnings.  Equally absurd is any assumption that men are to oscillate between two contradictory persuasions like a pendulum and are not to view the whole testimony of the Scriptures with complete sincerity at one time, but are to be one day sincerely persuaded that the Bible warns us against apostasy, and another day sincerely persuaded that the Bible assures us that apostasy is impossible.

The fallacy of Calvinism’s absurd assumption, essential to the defense of its doctrine of perseverance, is constantly demonstrated in the tragic inconsistency in the personal ministry of pastors who entertain it. They profess to believe that, while all true believers will inevitably persevere, it is only within the context of the dynamic exercise of faith that the perseverance is unfolded.  They profess to believe that the warning passages are designed of God to effect this perseverance by motivating believers to continue in faith and to fear apostasy, and that the perseverance is realized only as believers take solemn heed to the warning passages.

These things they profess to believe (at least, when pressed to account for the presence of the warning passages).  But their preaching and teaching seem designed to prevent the warning passages and ‘alarming admonitions’ from accomplishing the purpose which they profess to believe God intends them to serve.  They never miss an opportunity to ‘explain’ the warning passages in such a way as to dispel any concern which their hearers might have for them, and they continually assure them that they are unconditionally secure for all time and eternity, with no contingency whatever.

They constantly do their utmost to destroy the concern of their hearers for the warnings and admonitions which they acknowledge to be God’s means of motivating believers to persevere. Those who do preach the warnings with earnestness and conviction they accuse of being ‘confused’ and ‘doctrinally unsound,’ and of not believing in salvation by grace. Wisdom is justified by her children; but only eternity will reveal the full measure of the tragedy of this popular fallacy and the inevitable inconsistency of all who embrace it.”

– Shank, R., Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance (1989: Bethany House Publishers), pp. 172-3