What Is Arminianism? The History, Beliefs & Myths

Arminianism is controversial. Some devout and scholarly Protestant Christians firmly oppose it. Many have misunderstood it and even misrepresented it.

John Wesley (1703–1791), founder of Methodism, found himself debating his friends about Arminianism. Some of them claimed he could not be Christian because he was Arminian, that is, not Calvinist. In response he wrote, “Let no man bawl against Arminians, till he knows what the term means.”¹

It is imperative that people know the truth about Arminianism before deciding whether or not to embrace it. And yet, that truth is not easy to know. Defining Arminianism is not simple.

What is Arminianism?

Arminianism is not a movement or tradition. It is a belief system shared by Protestant Christians across denominational lines.

Two approaches to defining Arminianism appear in the literature. One is the most simple and partial definition. The other is the more complete if complex definition. No simple definition is adequate, and yet one is to begin somewhere.

Arminianism is the theology of Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) and his faithful followers, known as the Remonstrants. That is not very informative. More fully and correctly, Arminianism is the belief that God does not foreordain who will and who will not be saved, but provides salvation for all people, and yet only people who accept God’s grace through Jesus Christ freely by faith are saved.

Arminianism is the belief that God does not foreordain who will and who will not be saved, but provides salvation for all people.

The best and most scholarly way to define and describe any movement or “-ism” is by means of its prototypes. A prototype, in this sense, is a founding or very influential person generally agreed by scholars to represent the movement or -ism. A document, such as a creed or manifesto, can also be a prototype. Sometimes it is an organization. In the case of Arminianism, the prototypes include Arminius himself, the Remonstrants—especially Simon Episcopius (1583–1643)—The Remonstrance (1610), and the Arminian Confession (1621). It would not be wrong to add later Arminians, such as Wesley, Philip Watson (1781–1833), and John Miley (1813–1895).

About what did they all agree? Simply put, that Calvinism is wrong in that it is unbiblical and illogical and that the election of God to salvation is not unconditional but conditional, Christ’s saving death on the cross is not limited to “the elect” but is universal, and that God’s grace is resistible not irresistible. The most basic impulse of Arminianism, however, is belief in God’s goodness, God’s love, and God’s desire that all people be saved. Arminius himself described his theology this way: Predestination

is an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers, and impenitent persons; … But such a decree as I have described is not that by which God resolves to save some particular persons, and, that He may do this, resolves to endow them with faith, but to condemn others and not to endow them with faith.²

So what is Arminianism? There is no one-sentence definition that does it justice. It is a Protestant belief system that exists trans-denominationally that opposes belief that God is in any sense the author of sin or evil, or that God predestines people to heaven or hell. It holds that God is absolutely and unchangeably good, loves all people, and wants all to be saved. It also believes and teaches that Christ, by his death on the cross, provided salvation for all without exception, but that to be saved a person must freely accept Christ’s saving work by faith.

What are the origins of Arminianism?

The term “Arminianism” can be misleading if anyone thinks Arminius was the first person in history to believe as he did. Many Christian theologians believed much the same as Arminius before him and apart from him. For example, the first-generation Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) wrote a lengthy treatise on free will in opposition to what he considered the novel teachings of the followers of Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), a prototype of Reformed theology, even of what later came to be called Calvinism. Another precursor of Arminianism was Catholic Reformer and theologian Erasmus (1484–1531).

Unknown is how these proto-Arminians influenced Arminius, but it is well known that many Anabaptist Mennonites lived and worshiped in the United Provinces (later called the Netherlands) during Arminius’s ministry and teaching career.

Nonetheless, there is a sense in which classical Arminianism, as opposed to proto-Arminian theologies (such as that of the Anabaptists), is dependent on Calvinism. It arose by Arminius’s public disputations against Dutch Calvinists, such as his main opponent Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641), who accused him of heresy. The two theologians taught together at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands. Numerous Dutch and other Protestant pastors divided, lining up with either Gomarus or Arminius.

Arminius wrote numerous tracts, sermons, and articles explaining his beliefs and criticizing Gomarus’s. Most of them are included in the three-volume Works of James Arminius. (James is the old Anglicized version of Jacob.) Among the most notable ones are “A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius,” included in the first volume, and “A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus A. Collibus,” included in the second.

At the height of the controversy, Arminius died and his followers, the Remonstrants, continued to promote and defend his theology. The Reformed Synod of Dort (1618–1619) condemned Arminianism, but it lived on and thrived in the Remonstrant Brotherhood, a Dutch denomination, and the Remonstrant Seminary that still exists in Amsterdam.

Use Logos’s Factbook to study theological topics like Arminianism. Start your free trial!

What is the history of Arminianism?

Arminius’s original name was Jacob Harmensz (or Harmenszoon).³ His family was killed by Spanish invaders while he was away studying in Marburg, Germany. He was adopted by a wealthy family in Amsterdam and eventually studied theology under Theodore Beza (1519–1605), John Calvin’s successor as chief pastor and primary theologian in Geneva, Switzerland.

Arminius began to be disillusioned with the theology of Calvin and especially Beza. He returned to Amsterdam as pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church. After becoming professor of theology at the University of Leiden, he was accused of heresy, if not treason, by staunch defenders of Calvin’s and Beza’s theologies, such as Gomarus. Arminius responded to numerous published accusations. Some Dutch Reformed pastors, and others in Europe and England, rallied to his support.

Arminius died at the height of the controversy, which was becoming extremely heated. His followers, the Remonstrants, attempted to further his cause but were condemned and excommunicated from the Dutch Reformed Church in 1619. Some were exiled. A few were imprisoned and even killed.

In the mid-1620s, many of them filtered back into the Netherlands and established churches and a seminary. Arminian/Remonstrant theology was embraced by many Protestants in England. A century and more after Arminius died, English evangelist John Wesley adopted Arminianism, as did the majority of Methodists.

Arminianism among Protestant denominations

The divide between the Reformed and Lutheran branches of Protestantism on the one hand, and Arminians on the other hand, grew to become the main division among Protestants, especially in Great Britain and America.

Even during the first stages of the controversy, the Baptist movement divided into two branches—the Particular Baptists who were Calvinists and the General Baptists who were Arminians (without using that label). The English General Baptists produced the Orthodox Creed in 1679 in response to the Calvinist (Baptist) Second London Confession of Faith.⁴

During the nineteenth century especially, most Methodist theologians adopted Arminianism. Throughout that century and into the next, several groups broke away from the Methodist Episcopal Church and its successor, the Methodist Church. In America, those offshoots of Methodism included the Free Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church, and the Church of the Nazarene. All of them were and are Arminian in flavor.

The Pentecostal movement was born in the first decade of the twentieth century and all but a few Pentecostals adopted Arminian theology. The Assemblies of God, the Church of the Foursquare Gospel, and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) are all Arminian, even if not all are Wesleyan.⁵

Arminianism of the heart vs. head

During the late-seventeenth century, a division began to appear among the Remonstrants. A leading Arminian theologian named Philip Limborch (1633–1712) taught at the Remonstrant seminary in Amsterdam. Limborch was a friend of English Enlightenment thinker John Locke (1632–1704), author of The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), a proto-deist treatise. He was much influenced by the rationalism and humanism of the Enlightenment, which led him to deny (or reinterpret) the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, doctrines Arminius embraced.⁶

Limborch is a controversial figure among Arminians, and he is often used as an example of its doctrinal decadence by Calvinists and other critics. He introduced into the stream of the Arminian tradition a rationalist and humanist element, such that Reformed scholar Alan P. F. Sell (1935–2016) in The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Salvation (1983) described two distinct streams of Arminian thought—Arminianism of the heart and Arminianism of the head.⁷ Arminianism of the heart is that of Arminius himself and of Wesley, whereas Arminianism of the head is represented by Limborch and later liberal Arminians.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and into the twenty-first century, Methodists in the United Kingdom and United States divided over the role of modern thought in theology with so-called “modernism” (liberal theology) causing the divisions. For the most part, liberal Methodists dropped the label Arminian while conservative Methodists and others held to it. Undeniably, however, the label itself shrank in usage except in seminaries.

The Remonstrant Brotherhood of the Netherlands and its Amsterdam seminary have existed since their founding by Episcopius in 1625. They are small in size and influence, perhaps because of their adoption of Sell’s Arminianism of the head. That is, their theological posture is liberal rather than conservative. Interestingly, the Remonstrant Brotherhood is a charter member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches, which is ironic given that many Reformed theologians consider Arminianism anathema.

Modern Arminian theologians

The accusation made by many conservative Calvinist critics that Arminianism leads to liberal theology led to many evangelical Arminians distancing themselves from the label “Arminian.” Many began to call their theology “moderately Reformed” as Reformed became a dominant perspective, especially among American evangelicals, at least in their power centers.

An example is Methodist theologian Thomas Oden (1931–2016), who wrote what is perhaps the best summary and recommendation of Arminian theology, entitled The Transforming Power of Grace (1993). There Oden barely mentioned Arminius or Arminianism and did not apply the label to himself or his theology. A careful reading, however, reveals that his theology was totally consistent with Arminianism (of the heart).

Evangelical Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz (1950–2005) admitted to being Arminian privately, but would not profess the label publicly.⁸

Evangelical Baptist theologian Clark Pinnock (1937–2010) publicly affirmed Arminianism and expounded it in two books, entitled Grace Unlimited (1999) and The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1995).

Another evangelical Baptist theologian, Roger E. Olson (b. 1952), published an exposition and defense of Arminian theology in 2006, entitled Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, which is a response to articles in the initial edition of the magazine Modern Reformation. These helped give rise to the founding of the Society of Evangelical Arminians in 2010.

What do Arminians believe?

In 1621, the Remonstrants published the twenty-five part Arminian Confession. Each part, or chapter, is divided into several statements. The confession covers all the main doctrines of the Christian faith from Scripture through councils. It reflects the beliefs and teachings of Arminius, but lays them out in a systematic fashion. Anyone who reads the confession knows it to express orthodox Protestant doctrines on the authority of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace alone.

The key Arminian distinctives are expressed in the chapters about salvation, especially 17 and 18. Chapter 17 is titled: “On the Benefits and Promises of God, Principally of Election to Grace, or Calling to Faith.”⁹ Chapter 18 is titled: “On the Promises of God that Are Performed in this Life to Those Who Are Converted and Are Believers, that Is, Election to Glory, Adoption, Justification, Sanctification and Sealing.”

Arminianism’s beliefs about election, predestination, calling, the atonement, grace, and faith rely on a vision of God’s goodness drawn from the Bible.

Underlying the Arminian doctrines in those chapters, however, is an emphasis in the chapters on God’s goodness, justice, and love. Because that is most basic to Arminianism, we will begin with that. It is also a strong theme in Arminius’s own writings, as well as Wesley’s. Arminianism’s beliefs about election, predestination, calling, the atonement, grace, and faith rely on a vision of God’s goodness drawn from the Bible.

Providence, evil & the character of God

Arminius, and all Arminians, believed and believe that the typical Calvinist emphasis on God’s foreordination of everything, including sin and evil, and God’s rendering certain all that happens, makes God the author of sin and evil and harms the reputation of God’s character. Arminius wrote in his “A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus A. Collibus” that “I most solicitously avoid two causes of offence,—that God be not proposed as the author of sin,—and that its liberty be not taken away from the human will.”¹⁰ Also,

That teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to Divine Grace; provided he so pleads the cause of Grace, as not to inflict an injury on the Justice of God, and not to take away the free will to that which is evil.¹¹

Throughout his writings, Arminius defended the character and sovereignty of God, assuming a kind of self-limitation of God by which he permits evil but does not foreordain or cause it. He argued, and all Arminians agree, that meticulous providence, the doctrine that everything, including sin and evil, are foreordained and rendered certain by God, injures God’s glory: “From these premises we deduce, as a further conclusion, that God really sins … that God is the only sinner… that sin is not sin.”¹²

That sounds very strong, especially to Calvinist ears, but Wesley echoed it in two sermons: “On Free Grace” and “Predestination Calmly Considered.” Arminians are concerned that the classical doctrines of God’s sovereignty and providence, going back to Augustine, leads inexorably to besmirching the character of God.

The most basic belief of Arminianism, then, is God’s goodness, including God’s love for all of his human creatures without exception, and including God’s justice. These terms “goodness,” “love,” and “justice” must, Arminians believe, mean something that humans can comprehend. It simply cannot be the case that whatever God does is right just because God does it. God does all things in accordance with his eternal and unchanging and good nature. Arminians refer to Scripture passages such as John 3:16–17, 1 John 4:8, and Psalm 36:7. Numerous Scripture passages say that God is love.

Conditional election

What, then, of election and predestination? Contrary to so-called “unconditional election,” a doctrine of classical Calvinism, Arminius taught, and Arminians believe, that predestination is conditional. God determines to save all who believe, and he knows beforehand who will believe unto salvation.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called. (Rom 8:29 NIV)

Arminius wrote that the decree of God’s predestination “is not that by which God resolves to save some particular persons, and, that He may do this, resolves to endow them with faith, but to condemn others and not endow them with faith.”¹³

It is simply not true that Arminius denied or that any Arminians deny foreordination or predestination, as some critics claim.

Original sin, total depravity & prevenient grace

Arminius believed, and all Arminians believe, that human persons are too sinful, too broken, too spiritually helpless even to initiate their own salvation.

I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins.¹⁴

In this, Arminians agree with Protestants of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions on the basis of Scriptures such as Ephesians 2:1: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins” (NIV). Contrary to many critics, Arminius believed in original sin and total depravity, as have all faithful Arminians since him.

Some critics have accused Arminius and Arminians of being semi-Pelagian, that is, of believing that the sinful human person can initiate his or her own salvation, but that is not a belief of classical Arminianism. Arminius wrote of “prevenient grace,” grace that goes before the sinner’s conversion, that:

Free Will is unable to begin or perfect any true and spiritual good, without Grace. … This grace [therefore] … is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the will; … This grace commences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it.¹⁵

Arminians based belief in prevenient grace on passages such as John 12:32, where Jesus said that he would draw all men to himself.¹⁶

Salvation by grace through faith alone

Arminius believed that salvation is all of God’s grace and not of works (Eph 2:8–9). He also attributed the work of saving grace in a person’s life to faith and faith alone:

Faith, and faith only, (though there is no faith alone without works), is imputed for righteousness. By this alone we are justified before God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declared RIGHTEOUS by God, who delivers his judgment from the throne of grace.¹⁷

With strong statements like these, Arminius placed himself in total agreement with the Protestant tradition stemming from the Apostle Paul through Martin Luther and John Calvin. All Protestants affirm that true faith results in good works.

Critics who argue that Arminius and Arminians do not believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, apart from works, have simply not read the primary literature. The Arminian Confession of 1621 says,

Justification is a merciful, gracious and indeed full remission of all guilt before God to truly repenting and believing sinners, through and because of Jesus Christ, apprehended by true faith, indeed, even more, the liberal and bountiful imputation of faith for righteousness. For indeed in the judgment of God we cannot obtain to it except by the pure grace of God and only by faith in Jesus Christ (but nevertheless a living one, operating through love) without any merit of our own works.¹⁸

Christ’s atoning death for all

According to Arminian theology, Christ’s atoning death is for all people, even though it is only effectual for those who receive its benefit of God’s forgiveness by faith. This is in contrast to belief in “limited atonement” among some Calvinists:

Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men, and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.¹⁹

That belief is based on 1 Corinthians 5:15: “And he [Jesus] died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again” (NIV).

Two biblical passages stand out as especially supportive of Arminian theology:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9 NIV)

And:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1–4 NIV)

Logos’s Study Assistant providing answers and citations from Logos resources on the question of unlimited vs. limited atonement.

What differences exist between Arminians?

Those Arminians “of the heart,” conservative and evangelical, agree about the beliefs described above. However, they do not agree with each other about everything.

Governmental or penal atonement

For instance, they differ in their interpretations of the atonement.

While all believe in substitutionary atonement, some follow early Remonstrant theologian Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) in embracing the so-called “governmental theory”—that Christ did not suffer the deserved punishment of everyone, but suffered an equivalent punishment in order to justify God’s forgiveness of sinners. God’s holiness required a sacrifice of blood for the forgiveness of sins, but it did not require that the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, suffer each and every person’s punishment. The main purpose of the atonement, according to this view, was to confirm that God’s forgiveness of sinners is righteous, not permissive or indulgent.

Many nineteenth and twentieth century Methodist theologians adopted this view. Arminius himself, and John Wesley, however, held to the more traditional penal substitution view in which Christ took on the punishment of everyone.

Molinism & middle knowledge

Some Arminians attempt to solve the problem of God’s foreknowledge of future free decisions of faith (or of no faith) by appeal to what is called “middle knowledge.” This view is called “Molinism.”

Arminians Keith Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, for example, argue in Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (2012) that Arminius himself relied on Molinism in which God is believed to know what any and every creature would do in any possible circumstances.²⁰ There is at least one place in Arminius’s voluminous writings where he seems to have appealed to middle knowledge.²¹

Many Arminians, however, believe Molinism to be foreign to the basic impulses of Arminianism, which include that God does not in any way cause persons to sin.

Conclusion

Arminianism, then, is a Christian system of belief about God’s sovereignty with special focus on providence and soteriology. It is especially different from Calvinism and yet can be considered a form of Reformed theology. Not all Arminians are Wesleyans; most Wesleyans are Arminians. Arminianism continues to reap criticism as heterodox from some Calvinists and Lutherans. And yet, it affirms the basic tenets of Protestant Christianity: sola christus, sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura.

Roger Olson’s suggested resources on Arminianism

• Bangs, Carl. Arminius: A Study in the Reformation. Abingdon, 1971.
• Stanglin, Keith H., and Thomas H. McCall. Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Study Arminian & Wesleyan theology with Logos’s curated libraries

Related content

• The Rich History & Practices of Methodist & Wesleyan Bible Study
• Key Writings for Understanding the Methodist & Wesleyan Tradition
• Why Do Good People Do Bad Things? The Problem of Free Will
• What Is Calvinism—and What Is It Not? A Simple Explanation
• What Is Predestination? A Biblical, Historical & Theological Overview