Editing Arminianism (section)

===Classical Arminianism===
==== Definition and terminology ====
[[File:James Arminius 2.jpg|thumb|259x259px|[[David Bailly|Bailly, David]] (1620). ''[[Jacobus Arminius]]''.]]
Classical Arminianism is a Protestant theological view, that asserts God's [[prevenient grace]] for [[Regeneration (theology)|regeneration]] is universal and that the grace allowing regeneration and ongoing [[sanctification in Christianity|sanctification]] is resistible.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2021|pp=6-7}}{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=16, 17, 200}}{{sfn|Wynkoop|1967|pp=61-69}} This theological system was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants, such as [[Simon Episcopius]]<ref>{{harvnb|Episcopius|Ellis|2005|p=8}}: "Episcopius was singularly responsible for the survival of the Remonstrant movement after the Synod of Dort. We may rightly regard him as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers."</ref> and [[Hugo Grotius]].{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=137}}

Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of [[covenant theology]].{{sfn|Vickers|2009|p=84}}{{sfn|Reasoner|2000|p=1}} Its core teachings are summarized in the ''[[Five Articles of Remonstrance]]'', reflecting Arminius's views, with some sections directly from his ''Declaration of Sentiments''.<ref>{{harvnb|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}} "These points [of Remonstrance] are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his ''Declaration of Sentiments''.</ref> Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".{{sfn|Forlines|2011}}{{sfn|Olson|2009}} Others prefer "Reformation Arminianism"{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=1}} or "Reformed Arminianism",{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=149–150}} as Arminius upheld the principles of [[Reformation]] such as ''[[Sola fide]]'' and ''[[Sola gratia]]''.{{sfn|Pinson|2003|pp=135, 139}}

====God's providence and human free will====
Arminianism accepts [[classical theism]], which states that God is [[Omnipresence|omnipresent]], [[Omnipotence|omnipotent]], and [[Omniscience|omniscient]].{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=90–91}} In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.

Besides, Arminianism's view of God's [[Sovereignty of God in Christianity|sovereignty]] is based on postulates stemming from God's character. On the first hand, divine election must be defined so that God is not, in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of [[evil]]. It would not correspond to the character of God,<ref>{{harvnb|Olson|2013a}}: "Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not {{em|sovereignty}} but {{em|God's character}}. {{em|If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell}}.&nbsp;[...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is {{em|not}} providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is {{em|God's character}}."</ref> especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=11}} On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.<ref>{{harvnb|Olson|2010}}: "Classical Arminianism does {{em|not}} say God never interferes with free will. It says God {{em|never}} foreordains or renders certain evil.&nbsp;[...] An Arminian {{em|could}} believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs.&nbsp;[...] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will&nbsp;– as if that were central in and of itself. Classical Arminians have gone out of our way (beginning with Arminius himself) to make clear that our sole reasons for believe in free will {{em|as Arminians}}&nbsp;[...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."</ref> Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures.

On one hand, it requires God to operate according to a limited mode of [[Divine providence|providence]]. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires God's [[Election in Christianity|election]] to be a "[[predestination]] by foreknowledge".<ref>{{harvnb|Olson|2018}}: "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without 'prevenient grace' (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. 'A' is called 'limited providence,' 'B' is called 'predestination by foreknowledge.'"</ref> Therefore, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, aligning his certainty with human freedom of action.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=40}}

==== Philosophical view on free will ====
Arminianism is aligned with classical free-will theism, adopting an [[Incompatibilism|incompatibilist]] position. It asserts that the [[free will]] essential for [[moral responsibility]] is inherently incompatible with [[determinism]].{{sfn|Olson|2008|p=149|ps=. "Classical free will theism is that form of this model found implicitly if not explicitly in the ancient Greek church fathers, most of the medieval Christian and theologians […] Classical free will theism describes free will as incompatible with determinism".}} In Arminian theology, human beings possess [[libertarian free will]], making them the ultimate source of their choices and granting them the ability to choose otherwise.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=20}} This philosophical framework upholds the concept of [[divine providence]], allowing God's influence and supervision over [[Creationism|creation]].{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=115-119}} However, it permits the idea of God's absolute control over human actions, as long as such control does not involve human responsibility.{{sfn|Olson|2008|p=151|ps=. "Occasionally God suspends free will with a dramatic intervention that virtually forces a person to decide or act in some way".}}{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=8|ps=. "Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.".}}

====Spiritual view on free will====
Arminianism holds that all human are initially deprived of the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] and, as a result, exist in a moral state of [[total depravity]].{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=55-56}}{{sfn|Wiley|1941|pp=123-124|ps=. "Original sin is to be considered as ''privatio'', or a privation of the image of God. [...] Arminius calls it “a privation of the image of God,” but explains this privation as (1) a forfeiture of the gift of the Holy Spirit; and (2) in consequence of this, the loss of original righteousness. Depravity is therefore “a depravation arising from deprivation.” Connected with this deprivation is a positive evil also, which arises as a consequence of the loss of the image of God."}} In this condition, human free will is incapable of choosing spiritual good without the aid of [[divine grace]].{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=42–43, 59-}}{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=146–147}} Arminius likely believed that every person is born in this depraved condition because [[Adam]], as humanity's representative, [[Original sin|sinned]] against God—a view later shared by several prominent Arminians.{{sfn|Grider|1994|loc=ch. 10, "The Representative Theory"}} Like [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]], [[Martin Luther|Luther]], and [[John Calvin|Calvin]], Arminius agreed that human free will is spiritually "captive" and "enslaved".{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=142-145}}{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=526|ps=. "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."}} However, through the action of [[prevenient grace]], human free will can be "freed",{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=142}} meaning it can be restored with the ability to choose the spiritual good, particularly the capacity to accept God's call to [[Salvation in Christianity|salvation]].{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=153}}

====Extent and nature of the atonement====
[[File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Hugo de Groot.jpg|left|thumb|234x234px|[[Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt]] (1631). ''[[Hugo de Groot]]'' (1583–1645).]]

[[Unlimited atonement|Atonement is intended universally]]: Jesus's death was for all people; Jesus draws all people to himself, with the opportunity for salvation through [[Faith in Christianity|faith]].{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=316}}

[[Atonement (satisfaction view)|Jesus's death satisfies God's justice]]: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the [[crucifixion of Jesus]]. Thus, Jesus's death atones for all sins but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy [...] or that man is justified before God [...] according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=454}} [[Justification (theology)|Justification]], therefore, is seen through mercy by the [[Imputed righteousness|imputation of righteousness]].{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=140|ps=. "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."}} While not rigidly defined, this view suggests that the righteousness of Christ is attributed to believers, emphasizing that [[union with Christ]] (conditioned on faith) transfers his righteousness to them.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Forlines|2011|p=403|ps=. "On the condition of faith, we are placed in [[union with Christ]]. Based on that union, we receive His death and righteousness".}}

Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect, which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by [[penal substitution]].{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=140 ''ff''}} Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied [[Governmental theory of atonement|governmentally]].{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=132}} Historical and contemporary Arminians have held one of these views.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=224}}

====Conversion of man====
In Arminianism, God initiates the process of salvation by extending his grace, commonly referred to as [[Prevenient grace|''prevenient'' grace]], to all people. This grace works within each individual, drawing them toward the Gospel and enabling sincere faith, leading to [[Regeneration (theology)|regeneration]].{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=154 ''ff''|ps=. "[I]ndeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to Regeneration unless finally resisted."}} It functions through a dynamic influence-and-response relationship, allowing individuals to accept or reject it freely.{{sfn|Forlines|2001|pp=313–321}}{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=142}} Thus, conversion is described as a "God-initiated [[synergism]]."{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}}

====Election of man====
[[Conditional election|Election is conditional]]: Arminius defined ''election'' as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=311}} God alone determines who will be saved, and he decides that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. Arminius states, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=311}}

[[Predestination|God predestines the elect]] to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through [[Adoption (theology)|adoption]], [[Glorification (theology)|glorification]], and [[Eternal life (Christianity)|eternal life]].{{sfn|Pawson| 1996|pp=109 ''ff''}}

====Preservation of man====
Related to [[Christian eschatology|eschatological]] considerations, Jacobus Arminius<ref>{{harvnb|Arminius|1853c|p=376}}: "First, you say, and truly, that hell-fire is the punishment ordained for sin and the transgression of the law."</ref> and the first Remonstrants, including [[Simon Episcopius]]{{sfn|Episcopius|Ellis|2005|loc=ch. 20, item 4}} believed in [[Lake of fire|everlasting fire]] where the [[Wickedness|wicked]] are thrown by God at [[judgment day]].

[[Conditional preservation of the saints|Preservation is conditional]]: All believers have full [[Assurance (theology)|assurance of salvation]] with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith; therefore, perseverance is also conditioned.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=203}} Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] "to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|pp=219–220}} Furthermore, Christ and the Spirit are ever present to aid and assist believers through various temptations. But this security was not unconditional but conditional—"provided they [believers] stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from [[Backsliding|falling]]."<ref>{{harvnb|Arminius|1853b|pp=465, 466}}: "This seems to fit with Arminius' other statements on the need for perseverance in faith. For example: 'God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ'."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Arminius|1853c|pp=412, 413}}: "[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation".</ref>

==== Possibility of apostasy ====
[[File:Simon_Episcopius,_by_Anonymous.jpg|thumb|Anonymous (1743). ''[[Simon Episcopius]]''.|237x237px]]

Arminius believed in the possibility of [[Apostasy in Christianity|apostasy]]. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,{{sfn|Stanglin|Muller|2009}} he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.{{sfn|Cameron|1992|p=226}}{{sfn|Grider|1982|loc={{zwnj}}|pp=55-56|ps=. "Arminius used an ingenious device to teach [the possibility of Apostasy], so as not to seem to oppose Calvinism's eternal security doctrine head on and recklessly He admitted that believers cannot lose saving grace; but then he would add, quickly, that Christians can freely cease to believe, and that then they will lose saving grace. So, in a sense, believers cannot backslide; but Christians can cease to believe, and then, as unbelievers (but only as unbelievers), they lose their salvation"}} In 1599, he stated that the question required more [[Religious text|scriptural]] examination.{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|loc="A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans", pp. 219–220|ps=, [1599]}} In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), Arminius said, "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect."<ref>{{harvnb|Arminius|1853a|p=665}}: "William Nichols notes: 'Arminius spoke nearly the same modest words when interrogated on this subject in the last Conference which he had with Gomarus [a Calvinist], before the states of Holland, on the 12th of Aug. 1609, only two months prior to his decease'".</ref>

However, Arminius elsewhere expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: In c. 1602, he noted that a person integrated into the church might resist God's work and that a believer's security rested solely on their choice not to abandon their faith.<ref>{{harvnb|Oropeza|2000|p=16}}: "Although Arminius denied having taught final apostasy in his ''Declaration of Sentiments'', in the ''Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination'' [c. 1602] he writes that 'a person who is being "built" into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process'. Concerning the believers, 'It may suffice to encourage them, if they know that no power or prudence can dislodge them from the rock, unless they of their own will forsake their position.'"</ref>{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=455|loc="Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination"|ps=, [c. 1602]}} He argued that God's covenant did not eliminate the possibility of falling away but provided a gift of fear to keep individuals from defecting as long as it thrived in their hearts.{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=458|loc="Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination"|ps=, [c. 1602] "[The covenant of God (Jeremiah 23)] does not contain in itself an impossibility of defection from God, but a promise of the gift of fear, whereby they shall be hindered from going away from God so long as that shall flourish in their hearts."}} He then taught that had [[David]] died in sin, he would have been lost.{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|pp=463–464|loc="Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination"|ps=, [c. 1602]}}{{sfn|Gann|2014}} In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=667|loc=Disputation 25, on Magistracy|ps=, [1602]}}

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Stanglin|2007|p=137}} In 1605, Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore, he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=388|loc=Letter to Wtenbogaert, trans. as "Remarks on the Preceding Questions, and on those opposed to them"|ps=, [1605]}} Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}}{{sfn|Gann|2014}} He suggested that strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.{{sfn|Bangs|1960|p=15}}{{sfn|Grider|1982|loc={{zwnj}}|pp=55-56|ps=. "Arminius used an ingenious device to teach [the possibility of Apostasy], so as not to seem to oppose Calvinism's eternal security doctrine head on and recklessly He admitted that believers cannot lose saving grace; but then he would add, quickly, that Christians can freely cease to believe, and that then they will lose saving grace. So, in a sense, believers cannot backslide; but Christians can cease to believe, and then, as unbelievers (but only as unbelievers), they lose their salvation"}}<ref>{{harvnb|Oropeza|2000|p=16}}: "If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away".</ref>

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a ''[[Five Articles of Remonstrance|Remonstrance]]'' (1610) based quite literally on his ''Declaration of Sentiments'' (1607), which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}} In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Schaff|2007}} Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the [[Synod of Dort]] (1618), the [[Remonstrants]] became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=198|ps=. "Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger."}} They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618), which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.<ref>{{harvnb|De Jong|1968|pp=220 ''ff.''|loc=art. 5, points 3–4}}: "True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish."</ref> They later expressed this same view in the ''[[Remonstrant Confession]]'' (1621).{{sfn|Witzki|2010}}

====Forgivability of apostasy====
Arminius maintained that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, it was forgivable.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=174}} If it came from "rejection," it was not.{{sfn|Stanglin|2007|p=139}} Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.<ref>{{harvnb|De Jong|1968|pp=220 ''ff.''|loc=ch. 5.5}}: "Nevertheless, we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen."</ref> However, other classical Arminians, including the [[Free Will Baptist]]s, have taught that apostasy is irremediable.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=204 ''ff''}}{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=159}}