I’m tired of these Calvinist vs Arminian wars. Some primary texts and Calvinists’ reflections on Arminianism, and to show, at least in part, why I agree with Calvinist Russell Moore, the Dean of School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote, “I don’t think the distance between mainstream Calvinists and mainstream Arminians is really all that great”:
John Wesley, father of Methodism and Wesleyan Arminianism on total Depravity (in the book “The Works of John Wesley):
“But was there good intermingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with darkness? No; not at all: “God saw that the heart of man was only evil.”… For God, who “saw the whole imagination of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was only the same, that is, it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good… From all these we learn concerning man in his natural state, unassisted by the grace of God, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is” still “evil, only evil” and that “continually.””
John Wesley again:
“Original sin is conceived as inbred sin, as innate corruption of heart and the innermost nature, as an evil root in man from which all other sin springs forth, both inward and outward sins… All who deny this, call it “original sin,” or by any other title, are but heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity… But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or to come back to the text, is “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually”? Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.”
Calvinist R. C. Sproul writes about Arminius and Total Depravity (in Sproul’s Book, “Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will.”):
Begin quote [“James Arminius was emphatic in his rejection of Pelagianism, particularly with respect to the fall of Adam. The fall leaves man in a ruined state, under the dominion of sin. Arminius declares: “In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened [attenuatem]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], destroyed, and lost. And his powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace…”
In the perennial debate between so-called Calvinism and Arminianism, the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures, not unlike collective Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Cavinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated. Arminius himself came from a Calvinistic framework and embraced many tenets of historic Calvinism. He frequently complained, in a mild spirit, of the manifold ways in which he was misrepresented. He loved the works of Augustine and in many respects earnestly sought to champion the Augustinian cause.
The above citation from one of Arminius’s works demonstrates how seriously he regards the depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that man’s will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that is was “imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.” The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.
Indeed, to show his agreement with Augustine, Arminius goes on to say: “For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ [John 15:5]. St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, “Without me ye can do but little”; neither does He say, “Without me ye cannot do any arduous thing,” nor “Without me ye can do it with difficulty”: but He says, “Without me ye can do nothing!” Nor does He say, “Without me ye cannot complete [perficere] any thing”; but “Without me ye can do nothing.”‘”
So far Arminius clearly seems to agree with Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. He affirms the ruination of the will, which is left in a state of captivity and can avail nothing apart from the grace of God…
Arminius not only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? [emphasis mine] Arminius then declares that the only remedy for man’s fallen condition is the gracious operation of God’s Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God.”] End Quote
Robert Shank on Weslyan Arminianism and perseverance of the saints:
“It is abundantly evident from the Scriptures that the believer is secure. But only the believer. Many who have debated “the security of the believer” have missed the issue. The question is not, Is the believer secure? But rather, What is a believer.”
John Wesley on perseverance of the saints:
“A child of God, that is, a true believer, (for he that believeth is born of God,) while he continues a true believer, cannot go to hell. But, (2.) If a believer make shipwreck of the faith, he is no longer a child of God. And then he may go to hell, yea, and certainly will, if he continues in unbelief.”
“God is the Father of them that believe, so long as they believe. But the devil is the father of them that believe not, whether they did once believe or no.”
“Having a strong desire to unite with Mr. George Whitefield,” says Wesley, “I wrote down my sentiments as plain as I could, in the following terms: There are three points in debate: 1. Unconditional election; 2. Irresistible grace; 3. Final perseverance. With regard to the First, unconditional election, I believe that God, before the foundation of the world, did unconditionally elect certain persons to do certain works, as Paul to preach the Gospel. That He has unconditionally elected some persons to many peculiar advantages. And I do not deny (though I can not prove it is so) that He has unconditionally elected some persons, thence eminently styled ‘the elect,’ to eternal glory. With regard to the Second, irresistible grace, I believe that the grace which brings faith, and thereby salvation, into the soul is irresistible at that moment. With regard to the Third-final perseverance-I believe that there is a state attainable in this life from which a man can not finally fall. That he has attained this who is, according to St. Paul’s account, ‘a new creature’; that is, who can say: Old things are passed away; all things ‘in me’ are become new. And I do not deny that all those eminently styled ‘the elect’ will infallibly persevere to the end.” [emphasis mine]
Calvinist Russell Moore, the Dean of School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has written on this war between Calvinism and Arminianism:
“I consider myself a conscientious objector in the Calvinist/Arminian wars. First of all, it’s because I find the issue more complicated than such partisanship can convey, and I think both sides are right at certain points. Second, I find the polemics rather boring compared to the glory of the big scope of God’s kingdom. Third, I don’t think the distance between mainstream Calvinists and mainstream Arminians is really all that great [emphasis mine]. And, finally, because I find the professional Calvinists and professional anti-Calvinists to be shrill and exhausting.”