In an interview that appears in the March/April issue of Good News: The Magazine for United Methodist Renewal, North Alabama Conference Bishop William Willimon, the following exchange appears:
Interviewer George Mitrovich: “What is your view of Jacob Arminius?”
Bishop Willimon: “Don’t know much about him, except that I do know that Wesley has sure come across in my reading as much indebted to Luther or Calvin as to Arminius. I’m not much of a believer in the “free choice” business that many now ascribe to Arminius. It’s all God and God’s work in us in my book.”
I’m trying to decide whether Bishop Willimon was being cute or is deadly serious in dismissing Arminius. That would be puzzling, since the disagreement between George Whitefield and the Calvinist Methodists and John Wesley and the Arminian Methodists clearly centered around Wesley’s opposition to virtually all aspects of Calvinism, save their overlapping views on “total depravity.”
Although the Calvinist and Arminian theologies continued to develop after the deaths of John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, the theologies can generally be summarized as:
Calvinism - TULIP, or total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perseverance of the saints.
Arminianism (as practiced by Wesley) - Wesley taught that we are totally depraved except for the spark of grace that remains. He also taught, in opposition to unconditional election, that God elects believers, and in opposition to limited atonement, that salvation through Christ is available to all (not that all would be saved, but that anyone can be saved). Further, Wesley believed that man is capable of resisting God’s grace. Finally, in opposition to “perseverance of the saints” Wesley believed that one may fall from grace, though he did advocate the idea of “assurance” by which it is possible to be assured of one’s standing in relationship to God.
If there is one area where Wesley deviated from Arminian thought, it was in the area of Christian perfection. Many Calvinists feared that Wesley ventured too far into “works righteousness.” It is true that Wesley yoked faith and works, but so did James. Besides, for all the semantics about “works righteousness” Calvinists could just as easily be accused of being “work righteous.” Wesley’s writings on sanctification and perfection seem to give God’s grace the proper amount of credit for the “heavy lifting” involved in the sanctification and perfection processes.
What Wesley and Calvin clearly had in common was a strong understanding of the nature and ill results of evil and the need to be born again. They also both believed that salvation is entirely the work of God’s grace. However, I simply cannot see Wesley dismissing “free choice” the way Willimon seems to.
Indeed, starting on January 1, 1778, Wesley published the Arminian, which included a number of anti-Calvinist essays. In his book, John Wesley’s Life and Ethics, Ronald H. Stone writes that Wesley began the first few issues with a “long, continued biography of Jacob Arminius, whom Wesley credited with articulating universal salvation, free grace, and free will.”
So, who was Jacob Arminius? Arminius, a Dutch theologian, lived from 1560-1609. He particularly opposed Calvin’s view of predestination for elect. Arminius taught that Calvin’s view of predestination and unconditional election resulted in God being the author of evil. In Wesley’s sermon Free Grace, Wesley invoked Arminian thought in writing that if by God’s decree in advance, some are “infallibly saved and the rest infallibly damned” then all preaching is in vain because the elect don’t need it and the damned won’t be led to Christ by it.
Perhaps Willimon simply means that no one is beyond or is untouched by God’s grace — that is, that no one is beyond God’s grace and that whatever good we do or obedience we enact is not by our control but of God’s sovereignty. I can agree with that. However, the existence of people such as Stalin and Hitler, as well as evils that include slavery and the Holocaust lead me to believe that there is a measure of free will. It seems to me that while grace obviously touched Hitler’s life in some manner, no matter how little, the man nevertheless used his God-given ability to resist grace, and resist mightily and tragically he did. Does Willimon mean something different than “free will” when he uses the term “free choice”? If so, what? How does Willimon explain the Hitlers of the world, if not “free choice”? When I rebel and sin, isn’t that a choice I’ve made? On the other hand, I will acknowledge that repentance is not merely “free choice” but is sparked by God’s grace. Yet, I must still choose to accept that grace and become obedient. Thus, personal responsibility and God’s grace work hand-in-hand.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Richard 02.28.06 at 10:08 am
Amen to that last sentence, Joel.
I often feel that conversations that pursue the Calvinism/Arminianism-type questions fail to take account of the context in which those trains of thought arose. What lies behind them? For example, calvin’s doctrine of election was intended pastorally, to assure bleievers of the security of their salvation. Similarly, Wesley’s doctrine of perfection was essentially a statement of the efficacy of God’s grace for all, not merely a privileged few.
Kim 02.28.06 at 7:02 pm
Knowing Willimon - and his good buddy Stanley Hauerwas - I don’t for a moment think he was being “cute”; rather - as he flags by his dismissive reference to the neo-conconservative mantra of “free choice” - he was being evangelically countercultural.
Though exported from Holland, Arminianism is archetypal American kultur religion. It is the can-do faith of producers and achievers, the therapeutic religion of self-esteem and self-fulfillment, the kick-ass religion of “the crusade against evil”. As America’s greatest living theologian Robert Jenson observes in America’s Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards (1988) (still essential reading) - exegeting Bonhoeffer’s famous description of American religion as “Protestantism without Reformation”:
“‘Arminianism’ was Protestantism carried not by the Reformation’s demand for greater fidelity to the gospel’s radically upsetting promises, but by exactly the opposite concern, that the promises not upset bourgeois satisfaction. ‘Arminianism’ was and is the religion whose first question over against the gospel of God’s acts is, ‘But what is our part?’ . . . Specifically, what about me?” “The land of the free” indeed!
It is interesting, isn’t it, that a debate that used to be conducted in terms of free will is now couched in terms of free choice? The slippage is not accidental; it is (as it were!) inevitable! In more ways than he knew, Bill Clinton was right: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
But - briefly - to revisit the old debate: what is “free will”?
In ordinaty language, it means the ability to do as I wish or please, it is the power of choosing this and not that. It is not, however, some occult faculty. “For the will itself,” as Edwards himself pointed out, “is not an agent that has a will: the power of choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing”, otherwise we involve ourselves in an infinite regress. Strictly speaking, it is not the will that is free (or not), it is the person who wills that is free (or not) to do (or not) what he wills. It is all very well to say that I can do what I want, but can I will what I will? That is the question. And long before Marx historically and Freud psychologically disclosed the hubris in thinking that we can, that we are the captains of our ship, Augustine - and his master Paul - uncovered the demons in the hold.
Think about it - or rather look at us! When we make decisions, do we make them in an existential vacuum? When we act, do we do so on a level playing field? Isn’t the present what the past is doing now? Doesn’t common sense itself ascribe virtuous actions to a virtuous character from which they issue, a character which is not a creatio ex nihilo every moment but is shaped and formed over time, and is the product of accumulated decisions and actions? As Jesus put it: “Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, not can a bad tree bear good fruit” (Matthew 7:16b-18).
The question of freedom finally boils down to a question of power - and as Paul maintained against the scribes, Augustine against Pelagius, Luther against Erasmus, Edwards against Charles Chauncy, and Barth against Brunner, the power of sin trumps the power of self every time - and it can only be broken by the power of Christ alone.
Did I say “briefly”? Sorry!
dh 02.28.06 at 7:43 pm
I kind of enjoyed this post by Joel on this subject. As a Calviminian my self. He seems to address this in the last sentence “Thus, personal responsibility and God’s grace work hand-in-hand.” For me the personal responsibility to have Faith in Jesus alone to break the power of sin and self is wonderful. At the same time it is great to know that God knows before hand our choices to accept or reject Him, His omniscience, omnipotence and soveriegnty. Great post.
Joel 02.28.06 at 8:21 pm
I see “free will” as the freedom to act, but I agree that one cannot ultimately will against God’s design and purposes. Hitler got some of his wishes by his acts, but he failed to achieve what he sought.
As in phrases such as “blood atonement” Arminianism and Calvinism in the end are merely models for seeing what is partially hid. Both theologies fail at some level to fully explain God’s providence. Each theology can be exploited to serve one’s own ends. Many U.S. Southern Calvinists used “predestination” as a defense for the institution of slavery, claiming that God must have willed it, when in truth it was enacted by human sin in rebellion against God’s word.
Joel 02.28.06 at 8:43 pm
DH,
Even though Calvinism as theology doesn’t make sense to me, ultimately it is repentance and obedience to God that makes the difference. At the practical theology level, on any given issue, I may find myself in agreement with a body of Calvinists and in disagreement with a body of Arminians. During the Civil War, there were Calvinists who opposed slavery and Arminians who supported it. Same with the civil rights movement.
The central issue for me in the debate is whether or not God’s salvation is universally available; I believe it is and can’t identify with any interpretation of Scripture that claims God died for the elect only.
dh 02.28.06 at 10:29 pm
(humorous) Was you able to catch the “Calviminian” part Calvi- minian? Just wondering. HEHE
I really appreciated your response here. The first post seems to address “hypercalvinist” and the second refers to “Double predestiniation” both of which I do not adhere to in any way. I totally agree with Salvation made available to all. I will say in the sense that God knows ahead of time (predestiniation defined as God’s forknowledge within God’s diminsion without any other addition to that definition) our choices (free-will within our diminsion) to reject or accept Salvation by Faith in Christ alone and that particular part of forknowledge is the part and only part of Calvinism I agree with. Does that make sense? Many Arminians don’t believe God knows everything or He selectivly knows certain things. This is the part of Arminianism that I cannot adhere to. However, the concept to accept or reject I can within Arminianism. Calvinism I cannot adhere that God died only for certain people (I believe He died making Salvation available to all and that wee have free-will to accept or reject that Salvation) but I will say God knows before the foundation of the world those who would accept Him or reject Him which is the part of Calvinism I would agree to. So for me both are partly correct and both are partly wrong. Does that makes sense?
Interesting discussion Joel and I would be interested in your further thoughts and explainations from what I said. It seems we agree and I want to come to even a greater understanding than it currently appears.
John 02.28.06 at 11:54 pm
I don’t know if Willimon is joking or not. I doubt it.
It’s rather surprising that a theologian with such wide-ranging influence as Arminius is almost forgotten. The only references that I’ve seen from him so far in seminary are through Wesley’s essays on Arminian theology.
But I’m just in the first year, so that might change.
Joel 03.01.06 at 1:53 am
dh,
Yes, I caught your reference to being a Calviminian. I also understand that there are shades of Calvinism — hyper, etc., just as there are subgroups of Arminianism — such as legal Arminianism in which salvation can be lost if a single sin goes unrepented for. I do not ascribe to such legalistic Arminian thought.
John,
I’m not surprised or disappointed that Willimon would look to Luther and Calvin, as Wesley himself would have granted that they offered much. However, Willimon must know of the profound influence that Arminian thought had on Wesley and the Wesleyan Methodist movement. Yet Willimon almost seems to be discounting the Arminian influence. He is a “reformer” in the sense that he favors less bureauacry in the church and more life changing witnessing and service. However, most reformers tend to claim they want to return to our Wesleyan roots. Well, our Wesleyan roots are planted deeply in Arminian soil, so I’m wondering how rooted Willimon is in traditional Methodism.
That said, I’m always bugged by people who assume that Wesley himself wouldn’t have continued to grow theologically. I just can’t imagine that Wesley would want us held prisoner by each and every one of his theological pronouncements. God has revealed much through science, the arts and Scripture study since Wesley’s time, and we should take advantage of those revelations.
Mitch Lewis 03.01.06 at 2:33 am
“… grace obviously touched Hitler’s life in some manner …”
Grace nearly touched Hitler’s life in Count Von Stauffenberg’s suitcase. Alas.
dh 03.01.06 at 2:16 pm
Joel, what was your take on the rest of my post on the subject? I would be interested in hearing where you agree and disagree. I value your opinion and the original post was good. What is your take?
Joel 03.01.06 at 10:24 pm
dh,
I’m not completely sure what I believe with respect to “open theology.” On the one hand I consider God to be all-knowing. I also think God’s basic nature as to the truths of love and justice are unchanging. I’m not convinced that God is entirely immutable, however, because I believe that God can change in reaction to events that occur. There are aspects of process theology that appeal to me.
One of the huge problems in addressing the issue is that humans appear to be bound by a three dimensional world, whereas God isn’t and is timeless, as well. Layering a God we cannot fully know — and who isn’t bound by time or space except as God chooses to be confined — on top of the limited human experience and knowledge is a very risky and ultimately unsatisfying undertaking.
I don’t consider Arminiansim or Calvinism as belief systems, but rather as merely tools or models to help one understand differing Scriptural takes on God’s providence. I consider myself to be a follower of Christ, not of Arminius or Wesley.
dh 03.01.06 at 11:38 pm
What is “open theology”? I appreciate your response. I personally believe the fact he is infinite and we are three diminsional is the explaination of how we see apparent changes that within God’s infinite realm aren’t. I would agree that within our realm your second paragraph is true that it may seem an unsatisfying undertaking but I would venture to say that that doesn’t mean that God is unchanging and within our diminsion there is free-will with God knowing our choices and interacting within the unchanging context. I believe that when God says He will do something He will do it and that when it appears God changed His mind that what actually took place were unwritten or unspoken contingencies on humanity of the original thing that appeared to change. These contingencies are Scripture in light of Scripture. Does that make sense?
I too consider myself a follower of Christ but I see some of both Calvin and Arminius that has value and other of both that is not. That is how I can be Calvi-minian. I think the Arminians project hypercalvinism and double predestination onto Calvinism and Calvinism project onto the whole the idea that all Arminians don’t believe in God’s forknowledge or has selected forknowledge. Hense parts of both are equally wrong and other parts of both are equally false.
Joel 03.02.06 at 1:30 am
dh,
“Open theology” or “open theism” is free will theism that believes God either can’t or chooses not to see into the future. Most Arminians do not subscribe to open theism.
Kim 03.02.06 at 9:34 am
Nor does God.
Joel 03.03.06 at 12:46 am
Kim,
With all due respect, neither you nor I are fully capable of figuring out what God subscribes to, particularly as to the “means.” It is much easier to understand what God’s goal is as opposed to the ways God will employ. A God who is all-powerful also has the power to limit the amount of power used. There is a great mystery to God’s providence that is simply unknowable. Humans are bound by thinking that is tied to the idea that everything has a beginning, whereas God always was. Although I am uncomfortable with open theism, I also can’t completely harmonize God knowing the future on the one hand with us making decisions on the other hand. But if we really don’t make choices or decisions, then God makes them and becomes the creator of both good and evil. Yet still, I believe that God will not grant us freedom to the extent of thwarting God’s salvation plan and purposes.
For a long time I’ve had a problem with the literal story of Adam and Eve for at least the reason as to why would God create them as God did if God knew they would rebel. Again, I can chalk it up to the idea that God is not limited to three dimensions as we seem to be, but that still leaves me with some unease.
Kim 03.03.06 at 5:11 pm
Sorry, Joel - just me being flippant.
I share your concerns. And I’ve just finished a big row over at “Faith and Theology” with some hyper-Calvinists who are happy to live with a God who “wills” Auschwitz - even if “permissively”. More specifically, I quite agree with you that “A God who is all-powerful also has the power to limit the amount of power used”: it would be an impotent God that is a prisoner of his power. Indeed, with Barth, I consider absolute power to be evil, and I want to go so far as to re-define - on the basis of the cross -the divine power as the divine love: i.e. to suggest that God’s only power is precisely the power of his love.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that, like its parent Process Theology, Open Theology is a curate’s egg at best. God is surely more than just a “fellow-sufferer”, his glorious eschatological future more that just up for grabs. Barth called the Liberal Theology of his day “flat-tyre” theology - it ulimately gets us nowhere. I feel the same about Open Theology.
Joel 03.04.06 at 3:45 am
Kim,
Yep, for all of us, one of the great limitations of written communication is that we can’t hear voice inflections or observe body posture. I should have, but didn’t, catch that you were being flippant.
Again, I’m not comfortable with open theism, yet neither do I think that foreknowledge on God’s part means that human free will is an illusion. The main thing that appeals to me about process theology is the notion of a dynamic God whose basic nature is unchanging as in “Jesus is the same….” However, I think that God can change from supporting capital punishment in olden times as something necessary to the survival of a society that was often on the move, while opposing capital punishment today as unneeded for the maintenance and order of society. God not only wants a relationship with us, but I think God expects to be, and is, changed by God’s interaction with us. What doesn’t change is God’s essential nature of goodness, truth, wisdom, etc. and that God remains at all times sovereign and omnipotent (as to love and goodness, truth and justice).
I actually wrote the original post more to express my amazement that a United Methodist Bishop, any UM Bishop, would seemingly marginalize Arminius, since Wesley’s essential writings and sermons are by incorporation part of UM doctrine and Wesley clearly tied his overall theology to Arminianism, while at the same time agreeing essentially with Calvin on the matter of “total depravity.” Christianity makes no sense to me absent some degree of free will, along with the promise that Christ died for all. However, neither do I see Calvinists as lesser or inferior Christians.
Kim 03.04.06 at 11:57 am
On “free will”, see my remarks (way!) above.
Basically, I’m with the Reformers on this one - Luther, of course, preceded Calvin in seeing that “freedom of choice” is the servum arbitrium, i.e. the enslaved will. Genuine freedom is not an anthropologically posited given, the freedom (sic) to sin or not to sin (Hercules a the crossroads, as Barth put it), but freedom from sin (potestas non peccandi), the freedom of the children of God, which is the sheer gift of the Holy Spirit.
Joel 03.04.06 at 7:29 pm
Kim,
Wesleyans, of course, believe that there can be dire consequences for using our free will for the ill. We also believe we are accountable or responsible for the choices we make. We also believe that the ideal is “make me a captive Lord, and then I shall be free.”
For me to truly understand your take on free will, I would need to know your views of why the Holocaust, slavery, unjust wars, murder, rape, etc. occur. Some Calvinists tell me that everything that happens is either part of God’s plan or is ordained by God. I assume that is some sort of hyper-Calvinism. Yet, if these events are neither part of God’s plan nor relate to decisions (choices of the free will) to sin, then I am at a loss to understand the genesis of sin. I always thought sin was disobedience to God’s will, and yet if there is no free will to disobey or obey, how can disobedience be considered a sin?
Perhaps part of the difficulty is that certain words in the theological vocabulary have different meanings to Arminians and Calvinists.
Kim 03.05.06 at 12:36 pm
Yes, Joel, you rarely find a theodicy among hyper-Calvinists that is not morally repugnant - i.e. that is either callously dismissive of the sheer scale and depth of suffering, and/or that complacently turns God into a monster, and that amounts to a form of pious deterministic nihilism. Fundamentally I am an antitheodicist, against theodicy’s obsession with explanation and theological closure.
How do I understand providence? Basically, as God’s ordering of his omni-gracious will for creation in such a way that evil - which God most definitely does not will, indeed cannot will (because God’s nature - love - is the grammar of God’s will, not the reverse ) - evil, whose origin is prescisely not explicable, which is a surd, a negative, a parasite corruption of being, which yet God tolerates, becomes the occasion of the activity of his omni-gracious will for re-creation.
As for the “free will to obey or disobey” - that may have been an option for Adam before the fall (whatever we mean by “him” and “it”!), but it is certainly no longer an option for us, Adam’s brood. We sin without coercion but by necessity (if you like) - that is the very mystery of iniquity.