Jacobus Arminius: On Predestination & Election
During the month of June 2014, the Helwys Society Forum (“HSF”) is emphasizing General Baptist writers, works, and ideas. Free Will Baptists who take their spiritual heritage seriously must embrace the privilege and responsibility to know who our leaders were (and are) and what they taught (and teach). Thus far, Forum contributors have considered Thomas Helwys’ A Short and Plaine Proof and A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity. In the following weeks, we’ll consider Thomas Grantham’s Christianismus Primitivus and Thomas Monck’s A Cure for the Cankering Error.
In this week’s posts, we’re considering Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and his views on the predestination of the elect. Although many believe that only Calvinists champion this doctrine, Arminius reminds us that this is decidedly not the case.[1] So important is this doctrine to Arminius that he refers to it as “the foundation of Christianity, of our salvation, and of the assurance of salvation.”[2] Over the next two posts, we’ll consider its definition, its basis in Christ, and its purpose unto righteousness. Throughout, I will refer frequently to supporting biblical passages; readers should note that Arminius himself supplies these throughout his writings.
Election Defined
Arminius defines election in this way:
[T]he decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which he resolved within himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of his own glorious grace, believers on whom he had decreed to bestow faith (Eph 1; Rom 9).[3]
In another place, Arminius defines it similarly: “[A]n eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which he determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal.”[4] As we consider Arminius’ view on election, we’ll refer frequently to these definitions. Arminius begins by describing election as a decree. More specifically, it is God’s decree, from all eternity, which He gives according to His good pleasure.
First, it is “the decree . . . of God.” Arminius writes, “God indeed is the cause, as possessing the right of determining as he wills both about men as his creatures, and especially as sinners, and about his blessings (Jer 18:6; Matt 20:14, 15).”[5] He goes on to explain the “efficient,” “inwardly-moving,” “disposing,” “external,” and “instrumental” causes of predestination as well, each of which he locates in God’s person and work.[6] Second, as God is the source, Arminius characterizes it as “from all eternity” and “eternal.” Arminius points to Ephesians 1:4, which states that God has elected believers in Christ “before the foundation of the world,” as well as Acts 15:18, to support this point.
Third, God gives this decree according to His “good pleasure”; that is, His purpose or will (cf. Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:5, 11). Arminius interprets God’s good pleasure to mean, according to John 6:40, that He wills that “everyone” who beholds and believes in Christ might be saved (cf. Rom. 10:9).[7] Thus he affirms a belief in general atonement.
In addition, this decree is not “legal,” but “evangelical.”[8] And as a result, it should not be a source of confusion or controversy, but of comfort and help in witnessing to unbelievers.[9] Having thus introduced election as God’s eternal decree according to His good pleasure, Arminius turns to the basis of election.
Election In Christ
Again, referring to the definition above, Arminius defines election as based “in Christ.” This is its foundation. “God acknowledges, as His own, no sinner,” writes Arminius, “and He chooses no one to eternal life except in Christ, and for the sake of Christ.”[10] He points to phrases such as “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:39), “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:19), and “in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6) to support this basis (cf. Mt. 3:17; Lk. 3:22; 2 Cor. 5:19).
Perhaps most emphatic is Paul’s statement that “He [God] chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; italics added). Significantly, Paul does not simply say that God chose us, but that God chose us in Christ. Though small, this phrase is significant.[11] “For him [Arminius],” remarks Robert Picirilli, “Christ should be the foundation and focus of election, as of salvation or Christianity itself.”[12] Thus we might say that Arminius’ theology of election is decidedly Christocentric.
Yet how is it that believers come to locate themselves in Christ? For this, Arminius turns to a discussion of grace, foreknowledge, and faith.
a. The Grace of the Trinity
For Arminius, the doctrine of election is tied inextricably to God’s grace in the Trinity. As noted in his definition, this decree is “gracious” in its very character, and has as its goal “the praise of his own glorious grace.” In addition, God’s grace is present through every step. Throughout his works, Arminius will refer to preceding, accompanying, and subsequent grace.[13]
By distinguishing among God’s grace in this manner (and like many Reformation-era theologians), Arminius shows his indebtedness to Augustine (354-430), who makes similar distinctions. This is something he does throughout his works. To illustrate further, Arminius “cites Augustine as teaching that ‘God has chosen to salvation those who he sees will afterwards believe by the aid of his preventing or preceding grace, and those will persevere by the aid of his subsequent or following grace.’”[14]
For Arminius, and for us, this is significant because it takes away whatever boast man may presume upon himself, and gives it instead to God. Again, quoting Augustine, and purposefully distinguishing himself from Pelagius,[15] Arminius writes, “Christ does not say, without me ye can do but little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any arduous thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing!”[16] Again, Arminius comments: “I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all.”[17] However, Arminius doesn’t simply explore this doctrine from a theological vantage point, but from a pastoral one as well.
“Great is the use of this doctrine,” he writes, as “it establishes the grace of God when it ascribes the whole praise of our vocation, justification, adoption, and glorification, to the mercy of God alone, and takes it entirely away from our own strengths, works and merits (Rom 8:29, 30; Eph 1:14).”[18] That is, the very reason that this doctrine is “great” is because it leaves no room for man to boast. Instead, it gives all the praise to God. Especially as we consider below what role man plays, this foundation is important.
In addition, Arminius is thoroughly Trinitarian in his consideration of God’s grace. When he refers to “the whole praise of our vocation” (above), he defines vocation to be the “gracious act of God in Christ, by which through his word and Spirit, He calls forth sinful men.”[19] In fact, Picirilli observes that Arminius was “quick to observe that this ‘assistance of the Holy Spirit’ is of such sufficiency ‘as to keep at the greatest possible distance from Pelagianism.’”[20]
Having examined grace, Arminius proceeds to discuss foreknowledge and faith, and how they interrelate. He will affirm that God elects believers in Christ, whom He foreknows, and to whom He gives the gift of faith.
b. The Foreknowledge of God
God elects according to foreknowledge. This is how, as Arminius puts it in the definition above, God is able to “resolve within Himself from all eternity” to whom this decree applies. And because this decree has as its source an omniscient God Who necessarily has perfect knowledge, it only follows that He has foreknowledge.
According to Arminius, God’s foreknowledge of an event speaks only to the fact, rather than the reason that it comes to pass. He writes, “For a thing does not come to pass because it has been foreknown or foretold; but it is foreknown and foretold because it is yet (futura) to come to pass.”[21] In itself then foreknowledge is simply knowledge beforehand, and does not speak to the causation of given events. Picirilli explains it this way in Grace, Faith, Free Will:
God foreknows everything future as certain. That certainty of future events does not lie in their necessity but in their simple factness. They will be the way they will be, and God knows what they will be because He has perfect awareness, in advance, of all facts. But that knowledge per se, even though it is foreknowledge, has no more causal effect on the facts than our knowledge of certain past facts has on them.[22]
With this foundation in place, we proceed to ask what it is that God foresees. In short, God foresees the faith that He will graciously give to those who believe in Christ. However, we’ll explore this further, as well as the purpose of election, in Part 2 on Thursday.
____________________
[1] In fact, Classical Arminians and Calvinists agree on far more than they disagree. For an introduction to this proposition, see “Arminius and Calvin: Partners in Reform,” by Christopher Talbot.
[2] James Arminius, “A Letter to Hippolytus A. Collibus,” in Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, John Wagner (ed.) (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 375; cf. “A Defense Against Several Theological Articles Extensively Distributed,” in Arminius Speaks, 311.
[3] Arminius, “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 8.
[4] Ibid., “A Letter to Hippolytus A. Collibus,” in Arminius Speaks, 374-5.
[5] Ibid., “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 8-9.
[6] Ibid., 24-25. These are technical terms, but in short apply to the following: (1) efficient cause: “God the Father in the Son . . . administered by the Spirit” (24); (2) inwardly-moving cause: “grace, mercy and (philanthropy) ‘love of God our Savior toward man’ (Titus 3:4-5)” (24); (3) disposing cause: “the wisdom and justice of God” (24); (4) external cause: “Jesus Christ by his obedience and intercession (2 Tim 1:9)” (25); and (5) instrumental cause: “the word of God” (25). Again, Arminius gives more careful explanation to each of these.
[7] Arminius, “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 8.
[8] Ibid.
[9] See Ibid., 10-12.
[10] Ibid., “An Examination of Predestination and Grace in Perkins’ Pamphlet: Part 1,” in Arminius Speaks, 116 (italics added).
[11]Ibid., “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 9; cf. “An Examination of Predestination and Grace in Perkins’ Pamphlet: Part 1,” in Arminius Speaks, 96.
[12] Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 49.
[13] See Arminius, “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 7; and “A Defense Against Several Theological Articles Extensively Distributed,” in Arminius Speaks, 313. At times, Arminius will use similar terms to refer to the same type of grace. For instance, instead of preceding, he may use preventing; or, instead of subsequent, he may use following or persevering grace. To read more about Arminius’ view of prevenient grace, readers may read “Arminius and the Doctrine of Prevenient Grace,” by Jesse Owens.
[14] James Arminius, The Writings of James Arminius (three vols.), tr. James Nichols and W.R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), I:385; cited in Picirilli, 55.
[15] Stereotypically, Arminians are pegged as either Pelagians or else semi-Pelagians. Pelagius (c. 390-418) was an early-church heretic, opposed by Augustine, who denied predestination and original sin, and affirmed Christian perfection. While some Arminians may fit different components of this mold, Classical Arminians, and Arminius himself, do not.
[16] Arminius, “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 3.
[17] Ibid., The Writings, I:253; cited in Picirilli, 161.
[18] Ibid., “Public Disputations,” in Arminius Speaks, 10-11.
[19] Ibid., 24.
[20] Ibid., The Writings, I:300; cited in Picirilli, 153. In reading Arminius, readers will find that he is very conscious to distance himself from Pelagius, over and over again. For example, he writes, “That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion in regard to the word ‘grace,’ I mean by it that which is the grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration” (Arminius, “A Letter to Hippolytus A. Collibus,” in Arminius Speaks, 376).
[21] Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols., Trans. James Nichols and William Nichols (Nashville: Randall House, 2007),2:368; cited in J. Matthew Pinson, “Jacobus Arminius: Reformed and Always Reforming,” in Clark Pinnock and John Wagner, eds., Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, forthcoming).
[22] Picirilli, 38.
June 16, 2014
Matthew, very good article. I appreciate your helping us to define our historical theology and to dispel some of the misunderstandings of it. The HSF is doing our denomination a good service. Thank you and the other contributors to this series this month. Maybe a printed compilation of them in the future would serve us well.
June 18, 2014
Frank: I thank you for your faithful readership and encouragement, and for your worthy recommendation. Perhaps the future will see this very thing come to pass!