Arminius and the Reformed Tradition: Grace and the Doctrine of Salvation

by J.V. Fesko

Some scholars argue that Jacob Arminius was a Reformed theologian and held to the basic tenets of Reformed soteriology. But is this the best way to understand Arminius? In this perceptive set of essays, J. V. Fesko reassesses the context and meaning of Arminius’s writings on topics such as predestination, effectual calling, union with Christ, justification, and perseverance. Granting that Arminius ministered within the Reformed church and held many theological points of continuity with Reformed orthodoxy, Fesko demonstrates that Arminius’s understanding of salvation differed significantly enough from confessional norms to conclude that he presented an alternative Protestant conception of soteriology. To view his soteriology as anything less is an effort to rewrite history and even to disrespect Arminius’s work.

Table of Contents: 

1.     Facientibus Quod in Se Est
2.     Predestination
3.     Effectual Calling
4.     Union with Christ
5.     Justification
6.     Perseverance

Genres: Theology

166 pages, Paperback

Published August 27, 2022

About the author

J. V. Fesko graduated from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, UK, with an earned Ph.D. in theology. Dr. Fesko's interests include systematic theology, applied soteriology (union with Christ, justification and sanctification, and the ordo salutis), sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed dogmatics, as well as the integration of biblical and systematic theology. He was the pastor of Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian church from 1998 to 2009. He is now presently the Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California. He is also an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Reviews

[Jonah Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. For those who have read Fesko’s books on Justification and Union with Christ, some sections will be familiar, but this is a great treatment of Arminius and the question of his (dis)continuity with the Reformed Tradition. His little section of the theological sources of Arminius was very helpful. Especially good was Fesko’s 3 impactful pages on the pastoral importance of Predestination on pages 48-50.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

WAS ARMINIUS A ‘REFORMED’ THEOLOGIAN? CAN HE BE RECONCILED WITH REFORMED?

Theology Professor J.V. Fesko wrote in the Preface to this 2022 book, “During my postgraduate studies in Scotland, I had long sessions with Arminius’s works, a labor that proved useful on two fronts. First, it was beneficial for my own academic research… Second, my reading came in handy during my ministerial ordination trials when a presbyter accused me of being an Arminian… I listed my differences with Arminius and persuaded the presbytery that my accuser was ill-informed. Years later… I once again delved into Arminius’s works. I discovered that Arminius had all requisite pieces for the Reformed doctrine of union with Christ, but he arranged them in a different manner in comparison with his Reformed peers… My goal is neither to reposition nor vilify Arminius but rather to let the early modern Reformed context, his own words, and the subsequent reception of his theology locate his place with respect to the early modern confessional Reformed tradition.”

He continues in the Introduction, “[A] pair of names that regularly surfaces is that of Calvin [1509-1564] versus Arminius [1560-1609]. The paid never met… theologians and historians have associated these figures with two major early modern theological movements… In recent decades … Scholars… rightly recognize that there is a breadth and diversity to the Reformed tradition that has no one theologian as its lodestar…. From within … this renewed effort to understand … there have been those who set aside the theological labels and rightly note the continuities between the Reformed tradition and Arminius… On the other hand, others have claimed that a theological position such as middle knowledge … is a potential via media between the Reformed and Arminian … traditions… the pressing question is, Is this true of Arminius? … this book does not evaluate Arminius’s theology against the bar of Scripture … Rather, this book’s thesis is that Arminius’s soteriology differs sufficiently from that of his Reformed contemporaries and Reformed confessional norms to warrant the conclusion that he was not Reformed. His soteriology is an alternative Protestant conception.” (Pg. 1-5)

He adds, “Such a reading is beneficial for two reasons. First, the church can know exactly what concerns sparked controversy that led to the Synod of Dort. Second … dissenting voices … place the common view in sharper relief.” (Pg. 10-11)

He asks, “From whom did Arminius glean these theological commitments, namely, the universality of supernatural prevenient grace thus enabling fallen humanity to embrace faith and salvation? The most likely answer comes from a number of medieval theologians, including Gabriel Biel, Thomas Aquinas, and Peter Lombard and the belief in the creational (or providential) dispensation of prevenient grace.” (Pg. 24)

He notes, “The presence of the ‘facientibus [‘Do’] in Arminius’s broader theology naturally affects his soteriology… it arguably colors his understanding of predestination, effectual calling, union with Christ, and perseverance, as subsequent chapters will demonstrate. Arminius is not Pelagian, as he argues for the necessity of divine grace in salvation, but his use of the facientibus manifests the characteristics of semi-Pelagianism. That is, God and fallen sinners cooperate in salvation.” (Pg. 29)

He explains, “The simple account of Arminius’s doctrine is that God bases his decree of election on foreseen human choices to believe in Jesus and accept the gospel. In broad brushstrokes this is an accurate description of his view. A more detailed description factors Arminius’s use of the concept of middle knowledge … a view promoted by early modern Roman Catholic theologians. Despite contemporary claims that middle knowledge represents a possible rapprochement between Arminius and the Reformed tradition, Arminius’s early modern Reformed contemporaries rejected his doctrine. They were aware of this use of middle knowledge and found it wanting… a national synod determined that his doctrine of predestination was out of step with Scripture and Reformed confessional norms.” (Pg. 31-32)

He continues, “Unlike common Reformed views, Arminius bases God’s predestination and rejection of individuals upon His foreknowledge---the foreseen belief and unbelief of different individuals. This … sheds light on the previous three decrees and reveals that Arminius begins with two absolute decrees and reveals that Arminius [proposes] the predestination of a class of people, not individuals… God decrees the necessary means for the class of repentant people but still has not, as of yet, determined, who specifically is elected or rejected. Only by God’s foreknowledge of foreseen unbelief and repentance, then, do the previous three decrees make sense.” (Pg. 35)

He clarifies, “Arminius advocated the doctrine of middle knowledge to undergird his doctrine of predestination… middle knowledge … supposedly sat in the middle of God’s necessary and visionary (or voluntary) knowledge. God’s middle knowledge is a conditional and consequent knowledge of future contingents by which God knows of events because of their occurrence. Middle knowledge is hence causally independent of and consequent to events in time. Arminius employed middle knowledge … to create an arena where human beings could presumably freely choose to believe in Christ. God did not cause but only observed human free choices to believe or not believe. Arminius chose this route because he believed it freed God from the potential accusation that He was the author of sin…” (Pg. 36-37)

He notes, “[Gilbert] Voetius offers a number of reasons why he rejects middle knowledge but four stand out. First, ‘the division of divine knowledge into knowledge of single intelligence and that of vision exhausts the entire nature of the knowable object’ … Second… ‘a conditioned future, one prior to any [act] of the divine will is not knowable. Therefore there is no knowledge of it with God.’ … Third… advocates of middle knowledge did not truly promote a doctrine of PREdestination… predestination was not truly God’s choice but merely the divine ratification of a foreseen human choice… Fourth and finally, Voetius believed that middle knowledge meant that God had to wait on the creature to act before He could decree events.” (Pg. 46-47)

He summarizes, “middle knowledge … and Arminius’s doctrine of predestination cannot represent a rapprochement between Arminius and the Reformed tradition… Arminius’s peers and the Synod of Dort rejected his views as being out of step with Scripture and the Reformed confessional standards of the church… Arminius’s peers believed Arminius was speculative because he posited undecreed future contingents, a position they could not justify from Scripture.” (Pg. 50)

He states, “The alpha point of Arminius’s synergistic conception of salvation is marked by his use of the facientibus---the sinner who is always ready to embrace the grace of God because of universal prevenient grace… that a redeemed sinner had to remain faithful to be justified at the final judgment rather than rest entirely on the imputed active obedience to Christ. Only those who persevered in Christ would be finally justified. This justification was not grounded solely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ but also upon the believer’s sanctification-driven perseverance… While Arminius maintained he was a confessional Reformed theologian, his soteriology stands outside the confessional boundaries of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.” (Pg 85-86)

He summarizes, “the reception of Arminius’s thought by both friend and foe alike, the best conclusion that fits the evidence is that his doctrine of justification is not Reformed. Arminius transgresses the confessional boundaries established in his own day. One may instead say that Arminius’s doctrine is Protestant. While all Reformed theology is Protestant, not all Protestant theology is Reformed.” (Pg. 106)

He concludes, “Despite the efforts of some to paint Arminius as a Reformed theologian, to present middle knowledge as a rapprochement between the Arminian and Reformed doctrines of predestination, and to show that Arminius agreed with Calvin’s doctrine of justification or that he believed in justification sola fide, the evidence clearly reveals that Arminius did not have a Reformed soteriology. Arminius was a part of the Dutch Reformed church, and thus… he was a Reformed minister. But his soteriology is a completely different soteriological alternative. There are simply too many points where Arminius specifically took issue with common early modern Reformed theology, whether the views of his peers or of the confessional norms.” (Pg. 129)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying Arminius and Reformed theology.

[Ian Clary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, this is a helpful book. Fesko contrasts Arminius with main elements of Reformed theology, arguing that though he was a Reformed minister, Arminius was not in line with the Three Forms of Unity -- given that he subscribed to the Belgic Confession, his differences are quite problematic. Fesko focuses on core soteriological issues like predestination, justification, and perseverance, as well as other themes like the late-medieval notion of the 'facientibus quod in se est' (God doesn't deny grace to those who do what is in them). I think that Fesko makes his case given the evidence that he presents.
At times, I found the book to be repetitive and some of the evidence Fesko put forth could have been given a deeper analysis. I would be curious to hear what scholars of Arminius like Stanglin or McCall think of Fesko's descriptions of Arminius' thought. As far as I could tell, he handled the primary sources well, but I'm not an expert on Arminius to know one way or another. I suspect that they might think he leans too far into one particular school of interpretation as represented by Muller, van Asselt, Goudriaan, etc.
I would recommend this for anyone who wants to see a clear juxtaposition between Reformed theology and Arminianism, whether that of Arminius, or of later Remonstrants like Episcopius.

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a short book, but it is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate between Reformed theology and Arminianism. Arminianism stands outside the Reformed tradition even though it arose within it. Some have posited that Arminius was Reformed and that his theology ought to be considered within the pale of the Reformed tradition. Fesko argues that though Arminius was taught by Reformed theologians (e.g. Theodore Beza), preached in Reformed churches, and taught in a Reformed institution alongside Reformed colleagues, he nevertheless departed from confessional Reformed doctrine and that his views were more in line with the teachings of late Medieval and Early Modern Roman Catholicism. While this should not be considered an introductory work on Arminius's theology, still it will give the reader a good overview of the main tenets of Arminius's theology that were at odds with the Reformed faith.

[Bruce Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found Mr. Fesko's work difficult to read which is how I viewed it when I purchased it. It is an interesting theological discussion concerning Arminius and his relationship with the Reformed arm of the Protestant faith. If you are not very interested in theological debate and Reformation history, I suggest you pass on this one. If you are convinced Arminius was within the Reformed tradition, you need to read the work.

My understanding of this relationship was confirmed throughout and summarized in the final pages of the last chapter.

"As a matter of history, to view Arminius's soteriology as Reformed is an effort to rewrite history, and it disrespects his work. ... Arminius had a Protestant, not Reformed, soteriology."

[Duffey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful historical assessment in light of recent claims that Arminius can be counted as part of the "Reformed" tradition of Protestant theology. Fesko shows this claim to be false.

[Joshua Molden · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fesko takes a look at Jacob Arminius and if his soteriology aligns with Reformed confessions of his day. The thing I appreciated most about this book is that Fesko goes directly to the primary sources. If you are learning about Arminianism and want to see how it stacks up to the confessional faith of its time, I would highly recommend this book.