|
Publications
What
is an Arminian?
The
Question, "What is an Arminian?"
Answered. By a Lover of Free Grace
[First published anonymously, in London (and at
Bristol, printed by Pine) in 1770, by John Wesley]
1.
To say, "This man is an Arminian," has
the same effect on many hearers, as to say, "This
is a mad dog." It puts them into a fright
at once: They run away from him with all speed
and diligence; and will hardly stop, unless it
be to throw a stone at the dreadful and mischievous
animal.
2.
The more unintelligible the word is, the better
it answers the purpose. Those on whom it is fixed
know not what to do: Not understanding what it
means, they cannot tell what defence to make,
or how to clear themselves from the charge. And
it is not easy to remove the prejudice which others
have imbibed, who know no more of it, than that
it is "something very bad," if not "all
that is bad!"
3.
To clear the meaning, therefore, of this ambiguous
term, may be of use to many: To those who so freely
pin this name upon others, that they may not say
what they do not understand; to those that hear
them, that they may be no longer abused by men
saying they know not what; and to those upon whom
the name is fixed, that they may know how to answer
for themselves.
4.
It may be necessary to observe, First, that many
confound Arminians with Arians. But this is entirely
a different thing; the one has no resemblance
to the other. An Arian is one who denies the Godhead
of Christ; we scarce need say, the supreme, eternal
Godhead; because there can be no God but the supreme,
eternal God, unless we will make two Gods, a great
God and a little one. Now, none have ever more
firmly believed, or more strongly asserted, the
Godhead of Christ, than many of the (so called)
Arminians have done; yea, and do at this day.
Arminianism therefore (whatever it be) is totally
different from Arianism.
5.
The rise of the word was this: JAMES HARMENS,
in Latin, Jacobes Arminius, was first one of the
Ministers of Amsterdam, and afterwards Professor
of Divinity at Leyden. He was educated at Geneva;
but in the year 1591 began to doubt of the principles
which he had till then received. And being more
and more convinced that they were wrong, when
he was vested with the Professorship, he publicly
taught what he believed the truth, till, in the
year 1609, he died in peace. But a few years after
his death, some zealous men with the Prince of
Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all
that held what were called his opinions; and having
procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the
famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned,
but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod
of Trent,) some were put to death, some banished,
some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their
employments, and made incapable of holding any
office, either in Church or State.
6.
The errors charged upon these (usually termed
Arminians) by their opponents, are five: (1.)
That they deny original sin; (2.) That they deny
justification by faith; (3.) That they deny absolute
predestination; (4.) That they deny the grace
of God to be irresistible; and, (5.) That they
affirm, a believer may fall from grace. With regard
to the two first of these charges, they plead,
Not Guilty. They are entirely false. No man that
ever lived, not John Calvin himself, ever asserted
either original sin, or justification by faith,
in more strong, more clear and express terms,
than Arminius has done. These two points, therefore,
are to be set out of the question: In these both
parties agree. In this respect, there is not a
hair's breadth difference between Mr. Wesley and
Mr. Whitefield.
7.
But there is an undeniable difference between
the Calvinists and Arminians, with regard to the
three other questions. Here they divide; the former
believe absolute, the latter only conditional,
predestination. The Calvinists hold, (1.) God
has absolutely decreed, from all eternity, to
save such and such persons, and no others; and
that Christ died for these, and none else. The
Arminians hold, God has decreed, from all eternity,
touching all that have the written word, "He
that believeth shall be saved: He that believeth
not, shall be condemned:" And in order to
this, "Christ died for all, all that were
dead in trespasses and sins;" that is, for
every child of Adam, since "in Adam all died."
8.
The Calvinists hold, Secondly, that the saving
grace of God is absolutely irresistible; that
no man is any more able to resist it, than to
resist the stroke of lightning. The Arminians
hold, that although there may be some moments
wherein the grace of God acts irresistibly, yet,
in general, any man may resist, and that to his
eternal ruin, the grace whereby it was the will
of God he should have been eternally saved.
9.
The Calvinists hold, Thirdly, that a true believer
in Christ cannot possibly fall from grace. The
Arminians hold, that a true believer may "make
shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;"
that he may fall, not only foully, but finally,
so as to perish for ever.
10.
Indeed, the two latter points, irresistible grace
and infallible perseverance, are the natural consequence
of the former, of the unconditional decree. For
if God has eternally and absolutely decreed to
save such and such persons, it follows, both that
they cannot resist his saving grace, (else they
might miss of salvation,) and that they cannot
finally fall from that grace which they cannot
resist. So that, in effect, the three questions
come into one, "Is predestination absolute
or conditional?" The Arminians believe, it
is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute.
11.
Away, then, with all ambiguity! Away with all
expressions which only puzzle the cause! Let honest
men speak out, and not play with hard words which
they do not understand. And how can any man know
what Arminius held, who has never read one page
of his writings? Let no man bawl against Arminians,
till he knows what the term means; and then he
will know that Arminians and Calvinists are just
upon a level. And Arminians have as much right
to be angry at Calvinists, as Calvinists have
to be angry at Arminians. John Calvin was a pious,
learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens.
Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men;
and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold
absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.
12.
One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian
Preacher, First, never, in public or in private,
to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach;
seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling
names? -- a practice no more consistent with good
sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity.
Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent
his hearers from doing it, by showing them the
sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the
duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never
in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation,
to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach?
Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent
his hearers from doing it, by showing them the
sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly
and diligently, if they have been accustomed so
to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!
[Taken from The Works of John Wesley:, edited
by Thomas Jackson, Third Edition, 14 vols. London,
1872, Vol. X, Chapter XXIII, pp 358-361.]
top
|
|