Reformed Arminianism & the Death of the Holiness Movement
Through a friend’s recommendation, I recently read a blog entitled, “The Death of the Holiness Movement and The Imminent Collapse of Arminianism” by Jeff Paton.[1] I know very little about the author, but the blog was intriguing for a couple of reasons. First, Paton rightly understands that various forms of Arminianism exist. For many, only one form of Arminianism exists, and it is Wesleyan Arminianism. Paton is aware that this is not the case. Second, he cites “Reformed Arminianism” as a slow-release poison that is partly responsible for killing the holiness movement. That is a fascinating claim.
I’m less interested in replying to Paton’s claims in this essay, and more concerned with highlighting some of the ways in which Reformed Arminianism and Wesleyanism differ on the doctrines of original sin and justification. I will focus primarily on the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer.
Rather than exploring what modern Wesleyan and Reformed Arminian theologians have to say on these matters, this essay will explore some earlier sources. For Wesleyan teachings on original sin and justification, I will consider the theology of John Goodwin and his theological heir John Wesley. And for Reformed Arminian teachings on original sin and justification, I will consider the theology of Thomas Helwys and Thomas Grantham. By examining the theology of these four men on original sin and justification, we’ll gain a better understanding of the historical theology of two Arminian traditions that persist to this day (which will helps us better analyze Paton’s claims).[2] Finally, we’ll briefly examine Arminius himself on the doctrine of justification.
John Goodwin & John Wesley on Original Sin & Justification
In his work Imputatio Fide, John Goodwin (1594–1665) rejected the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to his posterity in no uncertain terms. For Goodwin, although the corruption of Adam’s sin is applied to every man’s nature and future generations, the guilt of his sin is not. In other words, all of mankind does not stand guilty before God from birth because of Adam’s sin. Goodwin wrote, “[S]in of Adam is no where in Scripture said to be imputed to his posterity.”[3] And, “[T]he Scriptures wheresoever they speak of Adams sin, and the relation of it to his posterity, wholly abstain from the term of imputation, neither do they use any other word or phrase in this argument of like signification.”[4] In sum, although man is guilty before God from birth, it is not because Adam’s guilt has been imputed to him, but because man possesses a sinful nature through the corruption of Adam’s sin.
Some years later, John Wesley (1703–1791) reiterated Goodwin’s emphases on the doctrine of justification. And together with Goodwin, Wesley founded what we call “Wesleyan Arminianism.”[5] In regards to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for man’s justification, rather than holding that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to man through faith in Christ, he held that faith itself is reckoned unto believers for righteousness.
In other words, justification consists not in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but in the non-imputation of sins. For Wesley, Scripture taught that sins are forgiven on the basis of faith in Christ. Man is not righteous because Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him through faith, and God is not pretending that a man is righteous when in fact he remains a sinner. For Wesley, justification was the mere pardoning of sin through faith in Christ; imputation is not involved.
Wesley was actually quite militant against the idea that Christ’s righteousness was somehow imputed to man through faith. Wesley found this notion so repulsive for this reason: if Christ’s righteousness is imputed to man, then man is no longer in need of forgiveness from sin since he is righteous. Furthermore, if we possess Christ’s righteousness through faith, then what incentive do we have for righteous living? Surely this will only encourage all sorts of immoral living, Wesley reasoned.[6]
Thomas Helwys & Thomas Grantham on Original Sin & Justification
Thomas Helwys (c.1575–c.1616) and Thomas Grantham (1633/34–1692) differ quite drastically from Goodwin and Wesley on justification and original sin. Whereas Goodwin and Wesley denied the imputation of guilt to all of mankind through Adam’s sin, both Helwys and Grantham affirmed the imputation of guilt. In A Short and Plaine Proof, Helwys wrote, “[T]he apostle has shown (Romans 5:12–21) that by Adam’s sin the fault came upon all to condemnation.”[7] Here, Helwys infers that Adam’s sin not simply causes man to be sinful by nature, but that Adam’s sin actually renders mankind guilty before God. In another place, Helwys is even clearer on imputation: “Through whose [Adam’s] disobedience, all men sinned. His sin was imputed to all; and so death went over all men.”[8] Helwys is unmistakably clear on this point.
Grantham too makes similar statements about the imputation of man’s sin to Christ and the imputation Christ’s righteousness to the believer. For Grantham, the great exchange (the believer’s sin for Christ’s righteousness) is the clear logic of Scripture, particularly 1 Corinthians 5:21. In his longest and most prolific work, Grantham writes:
Now certain it is, Christ was made sin for us only by imputation, for he had no sin; and as he was made sin, so we are made the righteousness of God in him, which must needs be the free imputation of his righteousness to us; for there is otherwise none righteous, no not one.[9]
Grantham here advocates for what theologians refer to as “alien righteousness.” Quite simply this means that the sinner needs a righteousness that is not his own imputed to him through faith in order for him to be right with God. That alien righteousness is the righteousness of Christ. Contrary to Wesley and Goodwin, Grantham understands Scripture to teach that Christ’s righteousness must be given to man through faith, since there is no other righteousness in the world. Together, Helwys and Grantham represent what is often called “Reformed Arminianism.”
Arminius on Imputation
Back to “The Death of the Holiness Movement and the Imminent Collapse of Arminianism.” One of Paton’s most intriguing claims is that Reformed Arminianism does not properly represent Arminius’ actual theology. Accordingly, Reformed Arminians place the word reformed before the word Arminian as a “marketing ploy” in an attempt to claim the title of “the true Arminians.” Admittedly, Reformed Arminianism is not identical to Arminius’ theology on every jot and tittle, and Reformed Arminians are aware of this.[10]
But the doctrine of justification, and particularly imputation, is one example of how Reformed Arminianism is more akin to Arminius’ theology than Wesley’s. On justification and imputation Arminius writes,
The meritorious cause of justification is Christ through His obedience and righteousness, who may, therefore, be justly called the principal or outwardly moving cause. In His obedience and righteousness, Christ is also the material cause of our justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes His righteousness and obedience to us. In regard to this two-fold cause, that is, the meritorious and the material, we are said to be constituted righteous through the obedience of Christ.[11]
This is, Reformed Arminians believe, the theology of Scripture and the Reformation. Furthermore, it is the theology of Helwys, Grantham, and Reformed Arminians.
Conclusion: Why This Matters
These remarks matter for several reasons. First, concerning the imputation of Adam’s guilt to us, of our sin to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us through faith—these doctrines matter because they demonstrate some of the ways in which Reformed Arminianism is reformed. Unlike Wesleyan Arminianism and John Goodwin’s Arminianism, Reformed Arminianism affirms much of the Reformation’s theology.[12] Reformed Arminianism holds a robust view of the effects of Adam’s sin (imputed guilt) and its moral effects (total inability), the necessity of paying sin’s penalty (penal satisfaction), and the need for a righteousness that is not our own to be given through faith (imputed righteousness).
Second, when exploring doctrines such as justification, we are attempting to understand the depths of God’s grace towards man. We are attempting to make sense of the biblical data concerning our salvation through faith in Christ. While doctrines such as original sin and imputation may seem like ivory tower subjects at times, they are far from irrelevant. A deeper understanding of imputation leads us into a deeper understanding of God and His loving grace brought to us in Jesus Christ. And a deeper understanding of God’s love displayed in Christ inspires greater awe and love from us for Him.
____________________
[1] Jeff Paton, “The Death of the Holiness Movement and the Imminent Collapse of Arminianism,” Biblical Theology, accessed on December 19, 2014, http://www.biblical-theology.net/death_of_the_holiness_movement.htm.
[2] J. Matthew Pinson has helpfully highlighted some of these very same differences. See J. Matthew Pinson, “The Diversity of Arminian Soteriology: Thomas Grantham, John Goodwin, and Jacobus Arminius,” a paper presented at the national meeting of the American Society of Church History, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, Spring 1998.
[3] John Goodwin, Imputatio Fide. Or A Treatise of Justification (London, 1642), Part II, 13.
[4] Ibid.
[5] It is interesting to note that Wesley believed he had found a like-minded believer on the doctrine of Christian perfection in the fourth-century monk Macarius-Symeon.
[6] Wesley also did not believe that Scripture affirmed the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. We should also note that Wesley’s longest work on imputation was actually just a republishing of John Goodwin’s Imputatio Fide, thereby showing Wesley’s theological alliance with Goodwin on imputation.
[7] Thomas Helwys, A Short and Plaine Proof By the Word and Works of God That God’s Decree Is Not the Cause of Any Man’s Sins or Condemnation in Joe Early, Jr., The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 82.
[8] Ibid., 68.
[9] Thomas Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, Or, The Ancient Christian Religion (London: Printed for Francis Smith, 1678), Book II, Ch. 3, Sect. VII, 68. Today, most reformed theologians affirm that Christ’s righteousness consists of both His active and passive obedience. Grantham also affirms this understanding of Christ’s righteousness. Even more interesting is that Grantham wholly affirmed this doctrine, while the Westminster Assembly was divided over whether imputed righteousness consisted of both Christ’s active and passive obedience. See Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2009), 113-114, 253-264.
[10] One of the clearest examples of this is that Arminius affirmed paedobaptism, whereas most Reformed Arminians affirm credobaptism. Another such example is that Arminius never takes a definite stance on perseverance; most Reformed Arminians affirm the possibility of apostasy for genuine believers.
[11] Jacob Arminius, “Disputation XLVIII. On Justification,” in The Works of Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:406.
[12] I was very pleased last year to read a blog post from Tom Hicks agreeing with this assessment of Classical or Reformed Arminianism. See Tom Hicks, “Classical Arminianism: Imputed Sin and Total Depravity” http://theblog.founders.org/classical-arminianism-imputed-sin-and-total-inability/ .
December 25, 2014
Thank you Jesse, for defining and distinguishing well our historic theological position on imputed guilt and imputed righteousness. What a glorious reminder of the “good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.” (Luke 2:11)