Arminianism

Arminianism is a system of Protestant theology named after Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), a Dutch Reformed pastor and professor who challenged the strict predestinarian views of Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor in Geneva. The term covers a range of positions on salvation, human choice, and divine grace that developed from Arminius’s original writings through later interpreters—and these are frequently conflated (blended together as though they were the same thing), creating widespread confusion about what Arminianism actually teaches.

Historical Background

Arminius was trained as a Calvinist. Ironically, he was asked by Amsterdam officials to defend Calvinist theology against critics. While studying the book of Romans to prepare that defense, he concluded that Scripture did not support the supralapsarian position (the view that God decreed who would be saved and who would be damned before decreeing creation or the Fall). He never formally broke with the Reformed confessions and died in 1609 still in good standing with the Dutch Reformed Church.

After his death, forty-two of his followers drafted the Remonstrance of 1610—a formal theological protest outlining five points of disagreement with Calvinism. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) condemned these five articles and formulated the Calvinist response that eventually became the TULIP acronym (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints). Notably, the TULIP acronym itself was not coined until approximately 1930.

Key Positions

Total Depravity. Contrary to popular characterizations, Arminius fully affirmed that fallen humanity is incapable of choosing God without divine help. He wrote: “The free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” His solution was prevenient grace (grace that “comes before”)—God’s initiative in enabling a response of faith. The key distinction from Calvinism is whether this enabling grace is given to all people (Arminius) or only to the elect (Calvin).

Conditional Election. Arminius taught that God’s choice of who will be saved is based on His foreknowledge of who will respond to the gospel in faith. Calvin taught unconditional election—God chooses apart from any foreseen human response. Both sides agree God initiates; the dispute is whether foreseen faith is the basis of election or simply the content of God’s eternal knowledge.

Unlimited Atonement. Arminius held that Christ died for all people, though only believers receive its benefits. This directly opposes the Calvinist doctrine of limited (or definite) atonement—the view that Christ’s death was intended only for the elect. However, even within Calvinism this point is heavily disputed. The medieval scholastic formula—sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis (sufficient for all, efficient for the elect)—was accepted by Calvin himself, and the Canons of Dort affirm Christ’s death is “of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”

Resistible Grace. Arminius rejected the Calvinist teaching that God’s saving grace, once given, cannot be refused. He cited Acts 7:51—”you always resist the Holy Spirit”—and taught that while grace does the essential work of bending the will toward God, human beings retain the ability to reject it.

Perseverance. On whether believers can lose their salvation, Arminius himself was undecided. The Remonstrance of 1610 stated the matter required further study. It was later Arminians who formalized the doctrine that true believers could fall away permanently—a position Arminius never firmly adopted.

A Critical Distinction

The term “Arminianism” is applied to at least three distinct positions that are routinely confused. First, what Arminius himself taught—a carefully qualified position within Reformed theology that affirmed total depravity and the absolute necessity of divine grace. Second, what his followers (the Remonstrants) developed after his death, which went further on several points. Third, what is loosely called “Arminianism” in popular evangelical usage—often a form of semi-Pelagianism (the view that humans can take the first step toward God without grace) that Arminius explicitly and repeatedly rejected. As the Arminian scholar Roger Olson has noted, many self-identified Arminians do not actually understand the theology of Arminius—just as many Calvinists do not understand Calvin.