Arminius and Calvin: Partners in Reform
It does not take long to sense the palpable tension between Calvinism and Arminianism. A brief overview of seminaries, blogs, and ministerial organizations shows that countless people divide along the lines drawn by these two theologies. Followers of both Calvin and Arminius have applauded them as heroes of biblical orthodoxy—and rightfully so. Unfortunately, adherents of each school constantly construct straw-men of the other.
Among our strong loyalties and dire convictions, we should ask, “Are these two reformers as different as we’ve often been led to believe?” In understanding these two individual reformers, we must first place them in their larger context: the Reformation.
Setting the Stage: The Reformation
Although the Protestant Reformation may be attributed to a number of issues and persons, it is often attributed to Martin Luther and the posting of his Ninety-five Theses on October 31, 1517 [1]. This paved the way for many other reformers, including John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. Who were these men?
The son of a clerical lawyer, Calvin (1509-1564) was born in France and received his education at Paris, Orleans, and Bourges [2]. Calvin is best known for his thousand-page Institutes of the Christian Religion and the five points concerning soteriology, identified at the Canons of Dort in the seventeenth century [3].
Born Jakob Hermanszoon, Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a distinguished Dutch pastor and professor. A portion of his theological training took place in Geneva, under the tutelage of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor [4]. Arminius later became a professor at the University of Leiden in 1603, while his theology became a matter of public debate [5]. Arminius is most well known for his refutation of Calvin’s “five points,” which helped birth the ongoing Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Regrettably, this debate often overshadows the countless similarities between the two reformers.
Arminius and Calvin: Similarities and Differences
Amidst such divided theological loyalties, it might come as a surprise at how similar Arminius and Calvin’s views are. Certainly, even a novice theological student would observe that these two are antithetical in their understanding of how one comes to the state of grace. Yet these two pivotal theologians agreed on a host of doctrines. J. Matthew Pinson states it well: “Those who bring their own presuppositions into the study of Arminius and read later Arminian themes into his thought fail to realize perhaps the most important thing about his theology: that it is distinctively Reformed. It is a development of Reformed theology rather than a departure from it” [6]. In the same tone, William Pauck writes, “The Arminians [and thus Arminius] belong as definitely to the Calvinistic tradition as the defenders of the decisions of the Synod of Dort” [7].
One of the clearest ways to see the similarities between Calvin and Arminius is in their agreements of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession of Faith [8]. Arminius himself wrote, “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with as the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent” [9]. This is pivotal in understanding the unity between these two Reformers.
As these are Arminius’ stated confessional beliefs, they show that Arminius and Calvin agreed on original sin, the five solas, and penal-substitutionary view of atonement—among a host of other aspects of Reformed theology. Pinson formulates:
In Arminius’s disputations on the priesthood of Christ, he plainly articulated a more Reformed understanding of atonement that accorded with the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism, to which he eagerly subscribed . . . Arminius presents an understanding of atonement, in the context of his view of the priestly office of Jesus Christ, that is consistent with the penal-substitution motifs regnant in sixteenth and early seventeenth-century Reformed theology [10].
Because interpreters often depict Arminius as Calvin’s main antagonist, very little light is shed on the explicit statements Arminius made of Calvin in his writings. Two especially are particularly fascinating. In this quote, Arminius considers Calvin’s commentaries:
So far from this, after the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other (as the whole university, indeed, the conscience of my colleagues will testify) I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read, whom I extol in higher terms than Helmichius . . . himself, as he owned to me, ever did. For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers—so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all. His Institutes, so far as respects Commonplaces, I give out to be read after the [Heidelberg] Catechism. . . . But here I add—with discrimination, as the writings of all men ought to be read [11].
The second quote is in reference to their mutual views of justification:
Whatever interpretation may be put upon these expressions, none of our divines blames Calvin or considers him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion is not so widely different from his as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject, in the third book of his Institutes; this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them my full approval [12].
These two statements don’t show Arminius as inimical towards Calvin, but rather in respect of and agreement with him.
By these examples, we begin to see the ways in which these two theologians partnered in the Reformation. More so, we see how Arminianism—that is, Arminius’ theology—is not so much a departure from Calvinism as a development within it. Robert E. Picirilli writes, “[Arminius] lived, ministered, and died a member of the Reformed church. And his theology is firmly rooted in the Reformation. With Luther and Calvin, Arminius believed and taught sola gratia, sola fide, and solo Christo—salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone” [13] This reinforces how these two men partnered in the Protestant Reformation. As we draw these similarities, it is also important to correct the ways in which Arminius has been misconceived and misinterpreted.
Arminius for the Record: Correcting Misconceptions of Arminius
It may come as a surprise to some that after studying Arminius they find that he is not as “Arminian” as they’d like—at least not in the way Arminianism is articulated more popularly today [14]. As a whole, Arminianism is often characterized as semi-Pelagian. While some followers’ interpretations rightfully deserve this label, Arminius himself espoused nothing of the sort.
Picirilli states, “Those who read him carefully know well that he did not make saving faith a work, that he affirmed that God’s grace is to be credited entirely with anyone’s salvation from beginning to end. He was no Pelagian, as he took pains to make clear” [15]. To illustrate this point, let’s consider Arminius himself: “The free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they are assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by grace” [16]. In reference to claims of semi-Pelagianism, Pinson observes,
Most Reformed critics have portrayed Arminius as a semi-Pelagian and a defector from Reformed theology. Most Arminians, both Wesleyans and Remonstrants, have cast him in Wesleyan or Remonstrant terms, failing to take seriously his theology itself and the context in which it was spawned. Both these perspectives have seriously misunderstood Arminius, using him for polemical purposes rather than simply trying to understand and benefit from his theology [17].
Another large misconception concerning Arminius’ theology is his view of the atonement. Some have wrongly attributed a governmental view of atonement to Arminius. As stated earlier, Arminius posited a penal-substitutionary view of the atonement. Instead, it was Arminius’ follower Hugo Grotius who espoused the governmental view of atonement. And since this view has gained “Arminian” adherents through the years (including Charles Finney, James H. Fairchild, John Miley, and H. Orton Miley), it has led many to believe that Arminius subscribed to this view [18]. However, Arminius himself in no way held this view.
Furthermore, within self-identified Arminianism are two competing schools: Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism [19]. As the name suggests, Wesleyan Arminianism is merely an adaptation of Arminius’ teachings by John Wesley. Hence, as careful students of history and theology, we mustn’t impose Wesley’s interpretation of Arminius upon the reformer himself. On the other hand, Classical Arminianism seeks to embody the actual teachings of Arminius himself—hence the term Classical or even Reformed [20].
Conclusion
Calvinism and Arminianism: the debate will likely continue. And throughout this month the Helwys Society Forum will consider other themes of Arminius’ theology including the Fall/human condition, prevenient grace, and sanctification.
Nevertheless, it is my hope that these truths have shed light on how two men, decided on Scripture’s sufficiency, partnered in the Protestant Reformation. While they did not agree with each other on all points of theology, they each sought to extol Scripture’s truths as the sufficient Word of God.
_______________________________________
[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: Vol. II, The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: HarperCollins, 1985), 22.
[2] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Touchstone, 1976), 286.
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), xvi.
[4] Gonzalez, 179.
[5] Ibid.
[6] J. Matthew Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?: A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters,” Integrity: A Journal of Christian Thought, Vol. II (Nashville: Randall House, 2003), 123.
[7] William Pauck; cited in Carl Bangs, “Arminius and Reformed Theology” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958), 25; cited in Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 123.
[8] Pinson, 127
[9] Arminius; cited in Carl Bangs, “Arminius As a Reformed Theologian,” The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. John H Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 216; cited in Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 123.
[10] J. Matthew Pinson, “Introduction,” F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism, A Theology of Salvation (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2011), v.
[11] Arminius; cited in Bangs, “Arminius As a Reformed Theologian,” 216; cited in Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 123.
[12] James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and William Nichols, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 1:700; cited in Matthew Pinson, “Will The Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 123.
[13] Robert E. Picirilli, “Forward,” James Arminius, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, ed. John D. Wagner (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2011), ix.
[14] Picirilli, ix.
[15] Ibid., x.
[16] Arminius; cited in Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 129
[17] Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 121.
[18] Forlines, 221.
[19] Free Will Baptist theologian F. Leroy Forlines coined the term Classical Arminianism. Similarly, Forlines’ colleague coined the term Reformed Arminianism. The terms are essentially interchangeable, both seeking to convey Arminius’ original teachings during the reformation, rather than Arminianism’s teachings as developed by some subsequent followers.
[20] For an extended understanding of Classical Arminianism, and Arminius’ theology, see F. Leroy Forlines’ book Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation.
_______________________________________
About the Author: Christopher Talbot is graduate of Welch College, where he studied theology and ministry. Originally a native of Tecumseh, Michigan, he now lives in Greenville, North Carolina. He works full-time as the Minister of Students at Unity Free Will Baptist Church. His academic interests include literature, ecclesiology, and hermeneutics.
August 22, 2012
Article 16: The Doctrine of Election
We believe that– all Adam’s descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man– God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just.
He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works.
He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.
In his public lectures, he adhered to his pledge; however, in private instruction to certain select students, he voiced his doubts and dissatisfaction. His influence on these students became apparent when they appeared before classes for entrance into the ministry. When his students came home from the Academy or departed to other academies, they took positions against the Reformed Churches, disputing, contradicting, and criticizing the doctrine.
Praamsma cites Roger Nicole’s verdict of Arminius:
His attitude toward confessional standards was open to question, for a theologian of his caliber must have realized that there was a substantial rift between his views and the system of teaching as well as the express utterances of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. Nevertheless, he paraded under the flag of allegiance and under the vows of conformity from the time of his ordination to his death. He repeatedly promised not to teach anything from the pulpit or the university chair which might be out of keeping with the standards. Obviously, if he had done just that, it is unlikely that he would have been the center of such storms and the rallying point of a whole group of uneasy spirits, whose heterodoxy was often more pronounced than his own. (Praamsma 28) [4]
“I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university” Notice the careful wording that he did not teach either in the church or in the university. This allows for him to teach in private how else did any of his students ever imply to him that Calvin and article 16 were incorrect.
If it was not Arminius that came up with the views then maybe we should then call them Uitenbogaard or Episcopius?
August 22, 2012
Mr. McClintock,
I greatly appreciate your patronage on this forum and your thoughtful engagement of this essay.
As you may be aware, scholars such as Carl Bangs have pointed out that amidst the reformation there was a large undercurrent of interpretation. Because of this, scholars, including Calvin and Arminius, could approach statements like the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession not unconditionally, but conditionally. In doing so, Arminius can wholeheartedly ascribe to these confessions, while denying Calvin’s soteriology of predestination. For example, Arminius would posit those whom God elected are His conditionally on their faith, not by their works. God thus reprobates those who fail to meet this condition, and would be just in doing so. As you can see, Arminius would have subscribed to the Belgic Confession of faith, while at the same time disagree with Calvin’s soteriology, and in doing so, not contradict his vows publicly or privately.
As stated in this essay, we have seen that the “followers” of Arminius have repeatedly taught things that are seemingly contradictory to Arminius’ public teachings. Unfortunately, claims that his “private” teachings differ from his public ones can only be read as speculation. The fact that Arminius challenged anyone in his Decleration of Sentiments to prove he had ever taught or said anything “in conflict with either the Word of God or the Confession of the Dutch Churches” speaks directly against this [1].
Hopefully this clears up any confusion on that specific topic. Again, I greatly appreciate your readership and thoughtful comments.
[1] Carl Bangs, “Arminius As a Reformed Theologian,” in The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. John H. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 217.; cited in J. Matthew Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?”