Heresy: Why Arminianism is Not Heresy

Since the Summer of 1619, most Calvinists have, in a most ridiculous mode, thought of Classical Arminianism as heresy. Alister McGrath, in his book Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth, remarks that Arminianism cannot be considered heresy since heresy is "ultimately a teaching judged unacceptable by the entire church."¹ The Synod of Dort of 1619, which condemned Arminianism as heresy, did not represent the entire church, but only Calvinistic-minded individuals from several provinces.

Arminianism has always been considered, even if anachronistically so, the teaching of the early Church fathers, as well as Eastern orthodoxy.² In order to defend Arminianism as orthodox, thereby acquitting the system of heresy charges, we must first examine the charges leveled against its core teachings.  

In the introduction to his book Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will, R.C. Sproul, Sr., when asked if he thinks Arminians are Christians, answers, "'Yes, barely.' They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency."³ He agrees with J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, who insist that Arminians, because they reject the (scripturally-unproven and eminently philosophical) theory that regeneration must precede faith, they "thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all."⁴

This is the reason, so the authors are convinced, that Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principal a return to Rome, because in effect it qualified faith as a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation itself, because it allegedly denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners.⁵ Calvinists such as Dr. Sproul and J.I. Packer (not to mention John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll and so many others) continue to prove me right: most Calvinists find objectively representing Classical Arminianism with accuracy an impossibility.

Calvinists rightly believe, in the Classical Arminian's opinion, that all sinners inherently lack any ability to know or understand "the depths of God" (1 Cor. 2:10 NRSV), to "receive the gifts of God's Spirit," and to "understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14 NRSV). The unregenerate do not "submit to God's law -- indeed [they] cannot" (Rom. 8:7 NRSV).

However, for the Calvinist, the only solution to the sinner's desperate plight is a strict, monergistic regeneration. Packer and Johnston explain:

The sovereignty of grace found expression in their [the Reformers'] thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration -- the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling.⁶

If a Christian does not hold to this theory, so some Calvinists suppose, then he or she is charged with advocating "self-reliance and self-effort."⁷ By posing these statements thusly, Calvinists have hedged themselves in their own convenient niche, declaring all other believers as unorthodox, heterodox, or as Packer, Johnston and Sproul have it, "un-Christian" or "anti-Christian."⁸ Either one holds to strict monergism (i.e., high-Calvinism), or one holds to heresy. Such an admission betrays both Scripture and Church history. 

First, evangelical faith, in Classical Arminianism, is championed as a gift of God, and cannot in any sense be considered a work of one's own doing. By definition, faith cannot be viewed as a work, for the apostle Paul argues that, "to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). Faith is not a work. Therefore, strict monergism (i.e., that regeneration must precede faith in order to not be considered a work) is a superfluous theory at best.

Arminius explicitly states, "Faith is a gracious and gratuitous gift of God, bestowed according to the administration of the means necessary to conduce to the end; that is, according to such an administration as the justice of God requires either towards the side of mercy or towards that of severity."⁹ What Calvinists cannot abide is his following statement:

It is a gift which is not bestowed according to an absolute will of saving some particular men: For it is a condition required in the object to be saved, and it is in fact a condition before it is the means for obtaining salvation.¹⁰ 

For the Calvinist, God cannot merely enable an individual to believe (which Scripture explicitly teaches: cf. John 6:44, 65; Phil. 1:29), but must cause a sinner to believe through regeneration and the "implanting" of faith. Thus a person is actually saved / regenerated to faith, not by faith, which is contrary to explicit biblical teaching (Eph. 2:8).

Second, Classical Arminianism advocates initial monergism. The Holy Spirit is sent out by Christ Jesus to "prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16:8 NRSV). No one asks to be convicted by the Spirit of God; this work is monergistic. The proactive power and grace and action of God is meant to lead the sinner to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Yet, nowhere in Scripture are we taught that God's intention or purpose is to monergistically regenerate His unconditionally elect, so that they can then believe in Christ Jesus. More to the point, we believe Scripture teaches the exact opposite.

Scripture teaches that all who first receive Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior are then given the right to become children of God (John 1:12). We are not children of God first and then possess faith in Christ. That is putting the cart before the horse. Faith, then, precedes regeneration, for the children of God are "born . . . of the will . . . of God" (John 1:13) only upon first receiving or believing in Jesus Christ.

We understand from Scripture that regeneration is the act of God which saves us (Titus 3:5): "he saved us . . . through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (NRSV). Salvation and regeneration are interconnected; there cannot be one without the other. Yet, Scripture also confesses that an individual is saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22, 25, 26, 27, 28; 4:1-5, 16; 5:1; Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:11; Eph. 2:8). If one is saved by grace through faith, then one is regenerated by God when one believes in Christ, which means that faith precedes regeneration (Eph. 2:8; Col. 2:13).

We are not permitted to define the word grace as regeneration. The apostle Paul explicitly states as much by informing the Colossian believers that God regenerated them after they had been forgiven of their sins (Col. 2:13). We know that people are only forgiven of their sins and are thus justified by faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1). Thus, again, faith precedes regeneration.

Though an individual must be enabled (John 6:44) and granted (John 6:65; Phil. 1:29) the power to believe, the actual believing is done by the individual, not by God (Matt. 9.22, 29; 15.28; Mk. 4.40; Luke 8.25; Acts 14.9; Rom. 1.8; 4.5; 1 Cor. 2.5; 15.14; 2 Cor. 1.24; Eph. 1.15; Phil. 2.17; Col. 1.4; 2.5; 1 Thes. 3.2, 5, 6, 7, 10; Philemon 1:6; Heb. 10.23; 12.2; James 1.3; 2.18; 1 Pet. 1.7, 9, 21; 2 Pet. 1.5; 1 Jn. 5.4; Jude 1:20). God does not believe for us, nor does He implant faith in our minds through regeneration. Scripture does not grant us warrant for such a belief in any passage whatsoever.

Ultimately, what Calvinists such as Sproul and Packer, among many others, have done is to make the Reformed teaching of Luther and Calvin infallible doctrine -- thereby excluding all others (the vast majority) who disagree with certain aspects of their doctrines -- and to exclude all others from any relation to the Reformation, declaring them "un-Christian" or "anti-Christian."¹¹

Sproul's comment, that Arminians are "barely" Christian, further divides Christ's body. Classical Arminians (and even semi-Pelagians), though redeemed by the same Savior as the Calvinist (and by the Calvinist's own admission, doctrinally, have been unconditionally elected by the same God), are conceived by some Calvinists as a deformity on the body of Christ -- a blemish which disgraces the Head, Jesus Christ.

Even in my great disdain for Calvinism, I do not recall ever stating that Calvinists are either un-Christian or anti-Christian. Historically, Calvinism is heterodox, for the early Church prior to St Augustine in the fifth century did not teach anything remotely related to the novel theories of unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, or the exhaustive and meticulous determinism of God. But the depths and lengths to which some Calvinists will tread in order to propagate Calvinism is utterly appalling.

One of the aspects which Calvinists disdain about Arminianism the most, and one reason why they deem Arminianism as heresy, is God's granting the sinner a grace to believe in Christ which can be resisted. Sproul complains, "Then why say that Arminianism 'in effect' makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation."¹² Sproul's complaint is essentially with Scripture, and the manner in which God has declared He works in the earth with humanity, not with Arminian theology proper.

Since faith in Christ is not, biblically stated, a work (Rom. 4:4-5), then neither can it be viewed as a work in Arminian theology. Trusting in Christ is not working for salvation, but a believing unto salvation. Paul settled that issue in his letter to the Romans. God is still the one who determines who will be saved (1 Cor. 1:21). If people can only believe in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit, then why would anyone imagine that the human being affords him- or herself any glory for God's salvation. The notion makes no sense from a biblical view. 

The "ultimate determining factor in salvation," as Sproul states, being the instrument of one's faith in Christ, still cannot be viewed as a work, strictly taken, or a "return to Rome," since trusting in Christ is not considered working for one's salvation (Rom. 4:4-5). If God has established a condition for saving a person, and He has -- by grace through one's faith in Jesus Christ -- then even the "ultimate determining factor in salvation" is still God, since He alone saves; faith in Christ does not save or cause one's regeneration. God causes or works one's regeneration or salvation when one's faith is placed in Christ Jesus His Son. Faith, as a grace-initiated response, is an instrumental means unto salvation, but not salvation or regeneration itself.

In order for Arminianism to be considered a false gospel, or damnable heresy, it would have to deny a core tenet of the Christian faith and, therefore, be condemned as such by the entire Church. But Arminianism affirms every core tenet of the Faith and has never been universally condemned. Hence it is not heresy. The same can also be said of Calvinism; it affirms every core tenet of the Christian faith and has never been condemned as such by the entire Church. Hence it is not heresy. 

That intellectual Calvinists such as Sproul and Packer (among a host of others) have not accurately engaged the doctrines of Classical Arminianism is an utter embarrassment. Arminians are not "barely" saved, even by "a felicitous inconsistency." Arminians, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, are saved, according to God's word, "to the uttermost" (Heb. 7:25 ESV). The charge of heresy just does not stick with Arminianism. 

__________

¹ Alister McGrath, Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 215.

² Kenneth D. Keathley, "The Work of God: Salvation," in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007), 703. 

³ R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 25.

⁴ Ibid., 24.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid., 22-23.

⁷ Ibid., 23.

⁸ Ibid., 24.

⁹ James Arminius, "Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed: XIX. On Faith," The Works of Arminius, three volumes, the London Edition, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:723.

¹⁰ Ibid., 2:723-24.

¹¹ Sproul, 24.

¹² Ibid., 26.