I was recently asked, “What is the difference between an ‘Arminian’ and a ‘Wesleyan Arminian’?” This article explains both terms, breaks down the differences, and urges Wesleyans to recover the best of their Arminian heritage.
“Arminian”
“Arminian” is a term used to refer to Christians who agree with the core teachings of Jacob Arminius (1560–1609), especially on grace, predestination, and the atonement. “Arm-i-nian” with an “i” should not be confused with “Arm-e-nian” with an “e” (that’s a term for people from the country of Armenia!).
Arminius was a pastor and theologian in the Dutch Reformed Church (the major Protestant church in the Netherlands). He subscribed to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism for his entire life. He loved John Calvin’s commentaries and called them the best since the church fathers. He strongly believed in total depravity and inability (that since the fall, every part of human nature is corrupt, and the will is not “free” to believe—it’s in bondage to sin). Arminius emphasized that salvation is completely the work of God’s grace from beginning to end—we can’t even begin to have faith or do any good without God’s empowerment. He never taught that a true believer, once born again, could backslide and be lost, though he wanted it to be discussed in the Dutch Reformed Church.
However, Jacob Arminius became famous for teaching some other views that were different from many of his Calvinist contemporaries, which led to a controversy in the Dutch Reformed Church (see “A Biographical Series on Jacob Arminius” for more of the history).
First, Arminius believed that when God’s saving grace came to an individual, it enabled them to willingly yield to his grace, but it was also still possible for them to resist it (Acts 7:51). He thus denied the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace. In Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius wrote, “This entire controversy can be reduced to answering this question, ‘Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’”
Arminius’s view of grace was closely related to his understanding of predestination (“predestination” means “to determine beforehand”). Arminius agreed with his Calvinist contemporaries (and all Protestants, for that matter) that God had determined before the foundation of the world which individuals would be saved and which would be condemned. However, he did not believe that this determination was random, arbitrary, or unconditional. He didn’t believe that God had chosen some to be irresistibly saved while leaving others without any possibility of salvation. Arminius believed, instead, that God’s predestination of individuals was based on his foreknowledge of whether they would yield to his grace and believe or resist his grace and remain in their unbelief (1 Peter 1:2; Romans 8:29).
To really understand Arminius’s doctrine of predestination, however, one must not start with the salvation of individuals. Arminius believed that predestination was most fundamentally about God’s eternal decision to send his Son to be the Savior of humanity (Acts 2:23), and to save in him all who believe by the grace of the Holy Spirit. That’s why Arminius said that predestination was “the heart of Christianity” (see the article “Yes, Wesleyan-Arminians Believe in Predestination!”). His doctrine is fundamentally Christ-centered (God’s decision to save by his Son) and corporate (God’s decision to save believers in Christ as a class).
Arminius believed that predestination was most fundamentally about God’s eternal decision to send his Son to be the Savior of humanity.
Consistent with his view of predestination and grace, Arminius believed that Christ had died for all people without exception—not just for the elect (1 John 2:2). His views can be summarized in relationship to the common Calvinist acronym TULIP:
- Total depravity — Arminius agreed with Calvinists that man is totally depraved and unable to believe in Christ or do any good work apart from grace. After the fall, man’s will is not “free” apart from grace—it’s in bondage to sin.
- Unconditional election — Arminius believed in the doctrine of election or “predestination,” but he rejected the “unconditional” part. God’s predestination is conditioned by his foreknowledge of whether individuals will resist or yield to his grace. More fundamentally, though, predestination is about God’s plan to send his Son Jesus to save whosoever would believe by his grace.
- Limited atonement — Arminius rejected the view that Christ only died for the elect. However, he did believe that only those who believe and persevere in faith to the end enjoy the full benefits of the atonement.
- Irresistible grace — Arminius emphasized the absolute necessity of God’s grace for man to believe, but he believed that it was ultimately resistible.
- Perseverance of the saints — Arminius emphasized the security of the believer in Christ, and he never taught that a believer, once regenerate, could fall away and be lost. However, he had some doubts about this doctrine, and wanted to discuss it with his fellow ministers.
Jacob Arminius’s views of grace, predestination, and the atonement were not new or unique to him.
It’s important to note that Jacob Arminius’s views of grace, predestination, and the atonement were not new or unique to him. They were taught by many before him. However, within Protestantism, they became associated with Arminius because he defended them against the prevailing views of his Calvinist contemporaries. When Arminius died prematurely of tuberculosis in 1609, his teachings were promoted by his followers, who became known as “Arminians” or “Remonstrants” (see the article “Five-Point Arminianism: The Five Arminian Articles of 1610”). The image in the header of this article depicts the depicts the disputes between the Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants in 1618. Sadly, some of the Remonstrants later veered off into theological liberalism. Arminianism eventually found its strongest orthodox representative in John Wesley.
“Wesleyan Arminian”
“Wesleyan Arminian” is a term used to refer to Christians who agree with the core teachings of Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) and with several additional teachings of John Wesley (1703–1791). Wesley was a lifelong priest in the Church of England who led the renewal movement called Methodism. In Wesley’s day, the Church of England had many strong Calvinists, going back to the Puritans. Wesley resisted Calvinism, looked back to Jacob Arminius for guidance, and developed Arminius’s doctrines of grace, predestination, and atonement. For example, Wesley is known for his particular way of explaining prevenient grace (the grace that goes before us). Wesley famously sparred with his fellow Anglican minister George Whitefield, a Calvinist, over these issues. In 1778, Wesley founded the “Arminian Magazine.” William Burt Pope later wrote that Methodist theology “is Arminian as opposed to Calvinism, but in no other sense” (in other words, Methodism doesn’t embrace everything that Arminius ever said, and it certainly doesn’t embrace all of the baggage of the later Remonstrants).
Wesley was important for the development of Arminianism because he showed that Jacob Arminius’s doctrines do not inherently lead to liberalism or a man-centered gospel.
Wesley was important for the development of Arminianism because he showed that Jacob Arminius’s doctrines do not inherently lead to liberalism or a man-centered gospel. No one was stronger than Wesley on total depravity and the bondage of the will (see the article “Do Wesleyan Arminians Believe in Total Depravity?”). While it’s commonly claimed that “Calvinists believe in predestination, Wesleyans/Arminians believe in free will,” this is an unhelpful caricature that is simplistic at best and dangerously misleading at worst. Wesley emphasized free grace, not free will, and the 1745 Methodist conference at Bristol made it clear that Wesleyan Arminians come to “the very edge of Calvinism … in denying all natural free will, and all power, antecedent to grace” (see the article “Original Sin, Free Will, and God’s Grace: A Wesleyan Affirmation of the Second Council of Orange”).
While Wesley agreed with Arminius in his basic teachings on grace, predestination, and the atonement, Wesley also became known for several other points of doctrine. First, Wesley had a strong doctrine of assurance, emphasizing that every believer could know with confidence that they were truly saved, especially because of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16). However, Wesley went further than Arminius in explicitly denying the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Wesley believed that once someone was born again, it was possible for them to become neglectful and careless, drift back into sin, resist God’s discipline, and eventually destroy their faith and be lost (1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Peter 2:20–22; Hebrews 6:4–6).
Wesley agreed with Arminius in his basic teachings on grace, predestination, and the atonement.
Furthermore, Wesley emphasized the transformative nature of grace. He believed that it was possible in this life, by God’s grace, to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39). He sometimes called this entire sanctification, drawing language from 1 Thessalonians 5:23, in which the word “entire” does not mean that the work of sanctification is finished, but that every part of human nature is set apart to God for cleansing and service. For example, Charles Wesley prayed, “Refining fire, go through my heart, illuminate my soul; scatter thy life through every part and sanctify the whole.” Wesley more commonly used the term “Christian perfection”—language that pervades church history and was drawn from numerous passages such as Matthew 5:48 and 19:21. It’s important to note that in this context, the word “perfection” does not mean that there is no room for growth, but that—in the older sense and usage of the word—growth in Christlikeness is perpetual and unimpeded. In A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Wesley explained that “it is nothing higher and nothing lower than this, the pure love of God and man—the loving God with all our heart and soul, and our neighbor as ourselves. It is love governing the heart and life, running through all our tempers, words, and actions.” He emphasizes that because of the controversy over the issue, “The more care should we take to keep the simple scriptural account continually in our eye: pure love reigning alone in the heart and life, this is the whole of scriptural perfection.”
Non-Wesleyan Arminians
Wesleyans continue to be the primary representatives of Arminianism today. However, there are some non-Wesleyan Arminians (sometimes called “Classical Arminians” or “Reformed Arminians”). For example, there are many Arminian Baptists who agree with Arminius on grace, predestination, and the atonement, but disagree with Wesley on eternal security and the nature of sanctification. Simply put, all Wesleyans are Arminians, but not all Arminians are Wesleyan.
A Call to Wesleyans
Wesleyans today may be tempted to shy away from any connection to Jacob Arminius because of the malicious myths that abound about his teaching. For the last half-century, popular Reformed Bible teachers such as R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur have spread these myths. While I respected and appreciated some things about both men, Sproul said that Arminians are “barely” Christians, and MacArthur recklessly claimed that “the sinner, unaided by the Holy Spirit, must make the first move—that’s essentially Arminian theology.” Due to their careless teaching, many think that Arminians are Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian (followers of the heretic Pelagius, who emphasized man’s inherent ability and denied the necessity of the grace of Christ for salvation). I’ve often wondered if these teachers ever took the time to read a single word of Jacob Arminius, let alone his Declaration of Sentiments, to see what he actually believed. (Of course, Arminians have often been guilty of doing the same with Calvin!)
Wesleyans today may be tempted to shy away from any connection to Jacob Arminius because of the malicious myths that abound about his teaching.
Wesleyans cannot escape the fact that Arminius is an important part of our story—and we shouldn’t want to escape it! Arminius was, in truth, a wonderful “theologian of grace”—the subtitle of an excellent biography on Arminius by Keith Stanglin and Thomas McCall. If you are a Wesleyan Christian, and especially if you are a pastor, put Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, as well as After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology, at the top of your reading list. Go and read Arminius in his own words, starting with his Declaration of Sentiments (see Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: An Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary by W. Stephen Gunter). Then, read some of his public disputations. Diving deep into Arminius will make you a better Wesleyan.
Even if you aren’t a Wesleyan or Arminian, reading Arminius will make you a better Christian—just as reading Calvin has made me a better Christian! Both Calvin and Arminius had wonderful insights on many matters of Protestant consensus, and they were driven by a shared passion for God’s glory and the wonderful grace of Christ in the gospel. I look forward to meeting them both in heaven. Tolle lege!
