Arminianism

{{Further|History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate}}

File:Jean Paul Laurens Castellion (cropped).jpg. (1892). Sébastien Castellion.|200x200px]]

Arminius' beliefs, i.e. Arminianism, did not begin with him.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=1}} Before the Reformation, groups like the Waldensians similarly affirmed individual freedom over any predetermined predestination.{{sfn|Smith|2010|p=147}} Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) also promoted much the same view as Arminius nearly a century before him.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=1}} The soteriological doctrines of Arminianism and Anabaptism are roughly equivalent.{{sfn|Sutton|2012|p=86}}{{sfn|Bangs|1985|p=170}} In particular, Mennonites have been historically Arminian whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not, and rejected Calvinist soteriology.{{harvnb|Bender|1953}}: "Mennonites have been historically Arminian in their theology whether they distinctly espoused the Arminian viewpoint or not. They never accepted Calvinism either in the Swiss-South German branch or in the Dutch-North German wing. Nor did any Mennonite confession of faith in any country teach any of the five points of Calvinism. However, in the 20th century, particularly in North America, some Mennonites, having come under the influence of certain Bible institutes and the literature produced by this movement and its schools, have adopted the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or "once in grace always in grace." In doing so, they have departed from the historic Arminianism of the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement." Anabaptist theology seems to have influenced Jacobus Arminius.{{sfn|Sutton|2012|p=86}} At least, he was "sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view, and Anabaptists were commonly in attendance on his preaching."{{sfn|Bangs|1985|p=170}} Similarly, Arminius mentions Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (1513–1600) as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.{{harvnb|Olson|2013b}}: "I am using 'Arminianism' as a handy [...] synonym for 'evangelical synergism' (a term I borrow from Donald Bloesch). [...] It's simply a Protestant perspective on salvation, God's role and ours, that is similar to, if not identical with, what was assumed by the Greek church fathers and taught by Hubmaier, Menno Simons, and even Philipp Melanchthon (after Luther died). It was also taught by Danish Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen (d. 1600)—independently of Arminius. (Arminius mentions Hemmingsen as holding the basic view of soteriology he held and he may have been influenced by Hemmingsen.)" Another key figure, Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563), who opposed Calvin's views on predestination and religious intolerance, is known to have influenced both the Mennonites and certain theologians within Arminius’s circle.{{sfn|Guggisberg|Gordon|2017|p=242}} Early critics of Arminians even cited Castellio as a primary inspiration behind the Arminian movement.{{sfn|Guggisberg|Gordon|2017|p=242-244}}

File:Allegory of theological dispute-Abraham van der Eyk-MBA Lyon H1151-IMG 0428.jpg (1721). Disputes Between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants in 1618.]]

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a Dutch pastor and theologian.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin's hand-picked successor, but after examination of the scriptures, he rejected his teacher's theology that it is God who unconditionally elects some for salvation.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} Arminius's views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus.{{sfn|Wynkoop |1967 |loc=ch. 3}}

In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius presented his theology to magistrates of the States General of the Netherlands in The Hague.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2021|p=29}} After his death, Arminius's followers continued to advance his theological vision, crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance (1610), in which they express their points of divergence from the stricter Calvinism of the Belgic Confession.{{sfn|Wynkoop|1967|loc=ch. 3}} This is how Arminius's followers were called Remonstrants, and following a Counter Remonstrance in 1611, Gomarus' followers were called Counter-Remonstrants.{{sfn|Loughlin|1907}}

After some political maneuvering, the Dutch Calvinists were able to convince Prince Maurice of Nassau to deal with the situation.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} Maurice systematically removed Arminian magistrates from office and called a national synod at Dordrecht. This Synod of Dort was open primarily to Dutch Calvinists (102 people), while the Arminians were excluded (13 people banned from voting), with Calvinist representatives from other countries (28 people), and in 1618 published a condemnation of Arminius and his followers as heretics. The Canons of Dort responded, among other topics, to Arminian doctrines, anticipating their later articulation as the Five points of Calvinism.{{sfn|Wynkoop |1967 |loc=ch. 3}}

Arminians across Holland were removed from office, imprisoned, banished, and sworn to silence. Twelve years later, Holland officially granted Arminianism protection as a religion, although animosity between Arminians and Calvinists continued.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} Most of the early Remonstrants followed a classical version of Arminianism. However, some of them such as Philipp van Limborch, moved in the direction of semi-Pelagianism and rationalism.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=23}}

{{Main|Arminianism in the Church of England}}

File:John-Goodwin (cropped).jpg (1641). John Goodwin.|left]]In England, the so-labelled Arminian doctrines{{sfn|Tyacke|1990|p=24}} were held, in substance, before and in parallel with those of Arminius.{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}} The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (finalised in 1571), were sufficiently ambiguous that they were compatible with either Arminian or Calvinistic interpretations.{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}} Arminianism in the Church of England was fundamentally an expression of negation of Calvinism, and only some theologians held to classical Arminianism, but for the rest they were either semi-Pelagian or Pelagian.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}}{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}}{{harvnb|Tyacke|1990|p=245}}: "Of the various terms which can be used to describe the thrust of religions change at the time Arminian is the least misleading. It does not mean that the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius was normally the source of the ideas so labelled. Rather Arminian denotes a coherent body of anti-Calvinist religious thought, which was gaining ground in various regions of early seventeenth-century Europe." In this specific context, contemporary historians prefer to use the term "proto-Arminians" rather than "Arminians" to designate the leanings of those divines who generally didn't follow classical Arminianism.{{harvnb|MacCulloch|1990|p=94}}: "If we use the label 'Arminian' for English Churchmen, it must be with these important qualification in mind [of been related to the theology of Arminius]; 'proto-Arminian' would be a more accurate term." English Arminianism was represented by Arminian Puritans such as John Goodwin or High Anglican Arminians such as Jeremy Taylor and Henry Hammond.{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}} Anglican Arminians of the 17th century such as William Laud fought Calvinist Puritans.{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}} They actually saw Arminianism in terms of a state church, an idea that was alien to the views of Arminius.{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} This position became particularly evident under the reign (1625–1649) of Charles I of England.{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}} Following the English Civil War (1642–1651) Charles II of England, who tolerated the Presbyterians, re-instituted Arminian thought in the Church of England.{{sfn|Delumeau|Wanegffelen|Cottret|2012|pp=65–66}} It was dominant there after the Restoration (1660){{harvb|Wallace|2011|p=233}}: "According to Edwards, it was only after the Restoration that non-Calvinist views come to be adopted by many of the clergy of the Church of England. Foremost among those who rejected Calvinism had been the Arminians, and Edwards appeared on the scene as a defender of Calvinism against Arminianism at a time when it was more often the Dissenters who were battling it and calling attention to the triumph of Arminianism in the Church of England." for some fifty years.{{sfn|McClintock|Strong|1880}}

The Baptist movement emerged in 17th-century in England. The first Baptists—called "General Baptists" because of their confession of a "general" or unlimited atonement—were Arminians.{{sfn|Gonzalez|2014|pp=225–226}} The Baptist movement originated with Thomas Helwys, who left his mentor John Smyth (who had moved into shared belief and other distinctives of the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites of Amsterdam) and returned to London to start the first English Baptist Church in 1611. Later General Baptists such as John Griffith, Samuel Loveday, and Thomas Grantham defended a Reformed Arminian theology that reflected the Arminianism of Arminius. The General Baptists encapsulated their Arminian views in numerous confessions, the most influential of which was the Standard Confession of 1660. In the 1640s the Particular Baptists were formed, diverging from Arminian doctrine and embracing the strong Calvinism of the Presbyterians and Independents. Their robust Calvinism was publicized in such confessions as the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689. The London Confession of 1689 was later used by Calvinistic Baptists in America (called the Philadelphia Baptist Confession), whereas the Standard Confession of 1660 was used by the American heirs of the English General Baptists, who soon came to be known as Free Will Baptists.{{sfn|Torbet|1963|pp=37, 145, 507}}

File:Camp meeting of the Methodists in N. America J. Milbert del M. Dubourg sculp (cropped).jpg. (c. 1819). Camp meeting of the Methodists in N. America]]

In the Methodist-Calvinist controversy of the early 1770s involving Anglican ministers John Wesley and George Whitefield, Wesley responded to accusations of semi-Pelagianism by embracing an Arminian identity.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|p=78}} Wesley had limited familiarity with the beliefs of Arminius and largely formulated his views without direct reliance on Arminius' teachings.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|pp=66–68}} Wesley was notably influenced by 17th-century English Arminianism and by some Remonstrant spokesmen.{{harvnb|Keefer|1987|p=89}}: "What Wesley knew of Arminius came to him through two basic sources. First, he knew something of Arminius through Remonstrant spokesmen. [...] Wesley's second source of Arminian theology was the English Church in general, particularly the writers of the seventeenth century. This was by far his predominant source [...]." However, he is recognized as a faithful representative of Arminius' beliefs.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|p=82}} Wesley defended his soteriology through the publication of a periodical titled The Arminian (1778) and in articles such as Predestination Calmly Considered.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|p=77}} To support his stance, he strongly maintained belief in total depravity while clarifying other doctrines notably prevenient grace.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|p=81}}{{sfn|Grider|1982|p=55}} At the same time, Wesley attacked the determinism that he claimed characterized Calvinist doctrines of predestination.{{sfn|Grider|1982|pp=55–56}} He typically preached the notion of Christian perfection (fully mature, not "sinlessness").{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} His system of thought has become known as Wesleyan Arminianism, the foundations of which were laid by him and his fellow preacher John William Fletcher.{{sfn|Knight|2018|p=115}}{{sfn|Grider|1982|p=56}} Methodism also navigated its own theological intricacies concerning salvation and human agency.{{sfn|Grider|1982|pp=53–55}}{{sfn|Bounds|2011|p=50}} In the 1830s, during the Second Great Awakening, traces of Pelagian influence surfaced in the American Holiness Movement. Consequently, critics of Wesleyan theology have occasionally unfairly perceived or labeled its broader thought.{{harvnb|Bounds|2011|p=50}}: "The American Holiness movement, influenced heavily by the revivalism of Charles Finney, inculcated some of his Soft Semi-Pelagian tendencies among their preachers and teachers [...]. This has provided critics of Wesleyan theology with fodder by which they pigeonhole inaccurately larger Wesleyan thought." However, its core is recognized to be Arminianism.{{sfn|Grider|1982|p=55}}{{sfn|Bounds|2011|p=50}}

Pentecostalism has its background in the activity of Charles Parham (1873–1929). Its origin as a movement was in the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906. This revival was led by William J. Seymour (1870–1922).{{sfn|Knight|2010|p=201}} Due to the Methodist and Holiness background of many early Pentecostal preachers, the Pentecostal churches usually possessed practices that arose from the Wesleyan Arminianism.{{sfn|Knight|2010|p=5}} During the 20th century, as Pentecostal churches began to settle and incorporate more standard forms, they started to formulate theology that was fully Arminian.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=93}} Today, Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God hold to Arminian views such as resistible grace, conditional election, and conditional security of the believer.{{sfn|Studebaker|2008|p=54|ps=. "Pentecostal theology, generally adopts an Arminian/Wesleyan structure of the ordos salutis [...]."}}{{harvnb|Stanglin|McCall|2021|p=240}}: "[T]he specifically Pentecostal denominations —such as the Assemblies of God, founded in 1914— have remained broadly Arminian when it comes to the matters of free, resistible grace and choice in salvation [...]."{{sfn|AG|2017}}

File:Benjamin Randall (cropped).jpg (founder of the Free Baptist denomination).]]

Advocates of Arminianism find a home in many Protestant denominations,{{harvnb|Olson|2014|pp=2–3}}: "Methodism, in all its forms (including ones that do not bear that name), tends to be Arminian. (Calvinist Methodist churches once existed. They were founded by followers of Wesley's co-evangelist George Whitefield. But, so far as I am able to tell, they have all died out or merged with traditionally Reformed-Calvinist denominations.) Officially Arminian denominations include ones in the so-called 'Holiness' tradition (e.g., Church of the Nazarene) and in the Pentecostal tradition (e.g., Assemblies of God). Arminianism is also the common belief of Free Will Baptists (also known as General Baptists). Many Brethren [anabaptists-pietist] churches are Arminian as well. But one can find Arminians in many denominations that are not historically officially Arminian, such as many Baptist conventions/conferences." and sometimes other beliefs such as Calvinism exist within the same denomination.{{harvnb|Akin|1993}}: "In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches." The Lutheran theological tradition bears certain similarities to Arminianism{{harvnb|Dorner|2004|p=419}}: "Through its opposition to Predestinarianism, Arminianism possesses a certain similarity to the Lutheran doctrine, in the shape which the latter in the seventeenth century more and more assumed, but the similarity is rather a superficial one." and there may be some Lutheran churches that are open to it.{{sfn|Olson|2012}} Newer Evangelical Anglican denominations also show a level of openness to Arminian theology.{{sfn|Olson|2012}} Anabaptist denominations, such as the Mennonites, Hutterites, Amish and Schwarzenau Brethren, adhere to Anabaptist theology, which espouses a soteriology that is similar to Arminianism "in some respects".{{harvnb|Sutton|2012|p=56}}: "Interestingly, Anabaptism and Arminianism are similar is some respects. Underwood wrote that the Anabaptist movement anticipated Arminius by about a century with respect to its reaction against Calvinism."{{sfn|Olson|2014|pp=2–3}}{{sfn|Olson|2012}} Arminianism is found within the General Baptists,{{sfn|Olson|2014|pp=2–3}} including the subset of General Baptists known as Free Will Baptists.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=87}} The majority of Southern Baptists embrace a traditionalist form of Arminianism which includes a belief in eternal security,{{sfn|SBC|2000|loc=ch. 5}}{{sfn|Harmon|1984|pp=17–18, 45–46}}{{sfn|Walls|Dongell|2004|pp=12–13, 16–17}}{{sfn|Olson|2012}} though many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance.{{sfn|Walls|Dongell|2004|pp=7–20}} Certain proponents of Arminianism may be found within the Restoration movement in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=87}} Additionally, it is found in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.{{sfn|Olson|2012}} Arminianism (specifically Wesleyan–Arminian theology) is taught in the Methodist churches,{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2021|p=139}} inclusive of those denominations aligned with the holiness movement such as the Evangelical Methodist Church, Church of the Nazarene, the Free Methodist Church, the Wesleyan Church,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=87}} and the Salvation Army.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2021|p=241}} It is also found in a part of the Charismatics, including the Pentecostals.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=87}}{{sfn|Akin|1993}}{{sfn|Olson|2014|pp=2–3}}{{harvnb|Gause|2007}}: "Pentecostals are almost universally Wesleyan-Arminian rather than Calvinist/Reformed, with rare exceptions among denominational Charismatic."

Arminian theology has found support among theologians, Bible scholars, and apologists spanning various historical periods and theological circles. Noteworthy historical figures include Jacobus Arminius,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=21}} Simon Episcopius,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=23}} Hugo Grotius,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=23}} John Goodwin,{{sfn|More|1982|p=1}} Thomas Grantham,{{sfn|Pinson|2011|p=7}} John Wesley,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=24}} Richard Watson,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=25}} Thomas Osmond Summers,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=25}} John Miley,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=26}} William Burt Pope{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=25}} and Henry Orton Wiley.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=28}}

In contemporary Baptist traditions, advocates of Arminian theology include Roger E. Olson,{{sfn|Driscoll|2013|p=299}} F. Leroy Forlines,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=29}} Robert Picirilli{{sfn|Keathley|2014|p=716}} and J. Matthew Pinson.{{sfn|Keathley|2014|p=749}} Within the Methodist tradition, prominent supporters encompass Thomas Oden,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=29}} Ben Witherington III,{{sfn|Kirkpatrick|2018|p=118}} David Pawson,{{sfn|Stegall|2009|p=485|loc=n. 8}} B. J. Oropeza,{{sfn|Wilson|2017|p=10|loc=n. 30}} Thomas H. McCall{{sfn|Driscoll|2013|p=299}} and Fred Sanders.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=125}} The Holiness movement boasts theologians like Carl O. Bangs{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=47}} and J. Kenneth Grider.{{sfn|Keathley|2014|p=749}} Furthermore, scholars such as Keith D. Stanglin,{{sfn|Driscoll|2013|p=299}} Craig S. Keener{{sfn|Marberry|1998|p=30}} and Grant R. Osborne{{harvnb|Osborne|Trueman|Hammett|2015|p=134}}: "[...] Osborne Wesleyan-Arminian perspective". also support Arminian perspectives.

File:Meister von Großgmain - Hl. Augustinus - 4859 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg. ]]The Pelagian-Augustinian framework can serve as a key paradigm for understanding Arminianism's theological and historical legacy.{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=32–33}} Before Augustine (354–430), the synergistic view of salvation was almost universally endorsed.{{sfn|Schaff|1997|loc=§ 173|ps=. "In anthropology and soteriology [Lactantius] follows the synergism which, until Augustine, was almost universal."}}{{sfn|Wiley|1941|pp=234-235|ps=. "Augustine, himself, distinctly advocated this [synergistic] position at first, but in his controversy with the Pelagians adopted a strictly monergistic system. He held to the total inability of man to exercise good works, and hence, until the individual was regenerated, there was no power to exercise faith. Grace, therefore, was bestowed solely upon the elect through effectual calling, and the atonement limited to those for whom it availed. Previous to this time, synergism had been the dominant theory, i.e., that the individual in his recovery from sin, works with God through grace universally bestowed as a free gift, in such a manner as to condition the result."}} Pelagius (c. 354–418), however, argued that humans could perfectly obey God by their own will.{{sfn|Puchniak|2008|p=124}} The Pelagian view is therefore referred to as "humanistic monergism".{{sfn|Barrett|2013|p=xxvii|ps=. "[H]umanistic monergism is the view of Pelagius and Pelagianism".}}{{sfn|Peterson|Williams|2004|p=36|ps=. "[T]he humanistic monergism of Pelagius."}} This view was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431).{{sfn|Teselle|2014|p=6}} In response, Augustine proposed a view in which God is the ultimate cause of all human actions, a stance that aligns with soft determinism.{{sfn|Rogers|2004|p=1}} The Augustinian view is therefore referred to as "divine monergism".{{sfn|Barrett|2013|p=xxvii|loc={{zwnj}}|ps=. "[D]ivine monergism is the view of Augustine and the Augustinians."}} However, Augustinian soteriology implied double predestination,{{sfn|James|1998|p=103|ps=. "If one asks, whether double predestination is a logical implication or development of Augustine's doctrine, the answer must be in the affirmative."}} which was condemned by the Council of Arles (475).{{sfn|Levering|2011|p=37}}

During this period, a moderate form of Pelagianism emerged, later termed Semi-Pelagianism. This view asserted that human will initiates salvation, rather than divine grace.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=160}} The Semi-Pelagian view is therefore described as "human-initiated synergism".{{sfn|Barrett|2013|p=xxvii|loc={{zwnj}}{{zwnj}}|ps=. "[H]uman-initiated synergism is the view of Semi-Pelagianism".}} In 529, the Second Council of Orange addressed Semi-Pelagianism and declared that even the inception of faith is a result of God’s grace.{{sfn|Denzinger|1954|loc=ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 5-7}}{{sfn|Pickar|1981|p=797}}{{sfn|Cross|2005|p=701}} This highlights the role of prevenient grace enabling human belief.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=81}}{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=153}} This view, often referred to as "Semi-Augustinian," is therefore described as "God-initiated synergism".{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}}{{sfn|Barrett|2013|p=xxvii|loc={{zwnj}}{{zwnj}}{{zwnj}}|ps=. "God-initiated synergism is the view of the Semi-Augustinians".}}{{sfn|Oakley|1988|p=64}}{{sfn|Thorsen|2007|loc=ch. 20.3.4}} The Council also rejected predestination to evil.{{sfn|Denzinger|1954|loc=ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 199|ps=. "We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil."}} As Arminianism aligns with key aspects of this view,{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}} some see it as a return to early Church theological consensus.{{sfn|Keathley|2014|p=703|loc=ch. 12}} Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism{{sfn|Magnusson|1995|p=62}} or, more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=6}}

Arminian theology generally divides into two main variations: Classical Arminianism, based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, a closely related variation shaped primarily by John Wesley.{{sfn|Forlines|2001|p=xvii}}

File:James Arminius 2.jpg (1620). Jacobus Arminius.]]

Classical Arminianism is a protestant theological view, that asserts God's prevenient grace for regeneration is universal and that the grace allowing regeneration and ongoing sanctification is resistible.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2021|pp=6-7}}{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=16, 17, 200}}{{sfn|Wynkoop|1967|pp=61-69}} This theological system was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants, such as Simon Episcopius{{harvnb|Episcopius|Ellis|2005|p=8}}: "Episcopius was singularly responsible for the survival of the Remonstrant movement after the Synod of Dort. We may rightly regard him as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers." and Hugo Grotius.{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=137}}

Arminian theology incorporates the language and framework of covenant theology.{{sfn|Vickers|2009|p=84}}{{sfn|Reasoner|2000|p=1}} Its core teachings are summarized in the Five Articles of Remonstrance, reflecting Arminius’s views, with some sections directly from his Declaration of Sentiments.{{harvnb|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}} "These points [of Remonstrance] are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his Declaration of Sentiments. Some theologians have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism".{{sfn|Forlines|2011}}{{sfn|Olson|2009}} Others prefer "Reformation Arminianism"{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=1}} or "Reformed Arminianism",{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=149–150}} as Arminius upheld the principles of Reformation such as Sola fide and Sola gratia.{{sfn|Pinson|2003|pp=135, 139}}

Arminianism accepts classical theism, which states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=90–91}} In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character.

Besides, Arminianism's view of God's sovereignty is based on postulates stemming from God's character. On the first hand, divine election must be defined so that God is not, in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of evil. It would not correspond to the character of God,{{harvnb|Olson|2013a}}: "Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not {{em|sovereignty}} but {{em|God's character}}. {{em|If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell}}. [...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is {{em|not}} providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is {{em|God's character}}." especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=11}} On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.{{harvnb|Olson|2010}}: "Classical Arminianism does {{em|not}} say God never interferes with free will. It says God {{em|never}} foreordains or renders certain evil. [...] An Arminian {{em|could}} believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs. [...] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will – as if that were central in and of itself. Classical Arminians have gone out of our way (beginning with Arminius himself) to make clear that our sole reasons for believe in free will {{em|as Arminians}} [...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil." Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures.

On one hand, it requires God to operate according to a limited mode of providence. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires God's election to be a "predestination by foreknowledge".{{harvnb|Olson|2018}}: "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without 'prevenient grace' (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. 'A' is called 'limited providence,' 'B' is called 'predestination by foreknowledge.'" Therefore, God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, aligning his certainty with human freedom of action.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=40}}

Arminianism is aligned with classical free-will theism, adopting an incompatibilist position. It asserts that the free will essential for moral responsibility is inherently incompatible with determinism.{{sfn|Olson|2008|p=149|ps=. "Classical free will theism is that form of this model found implicitly if not explicitly in the ancient Greek church fathers, most of the medieval Christian and theologians […] Classical free will theism describes free will as incompatible with determinism".}} In Arminian theology, human beings possess libertarian free will, making them the ultimate source of their choices and granting them the ability to choose otherwise.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=20}} This philosophical framework upholds the concept of divine providence, allowing God's influence and supervision over creation.{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=115-119}} However, it permits the idea of God's absolute control over human actions, as long as such control does not involve human responsibility.{{sfn|Olson|2008|p=151|ps=. "Occasionally God suspends free will with a dramatic intervention that virtually forces a person to decide or act in some way".}}{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=8|ps=. "Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.".}}

Arminianism holds that all human are initially deprived of the Holy Spirit and, as a result, exist in a moral state of total depravity.{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=55-56}}{{sfn|Wiley|1941|pp=123-124|ps=. "Original sin is to be considered as privatio, or a privation of the image of God. [...] Arminius calls it “a privation of the image of God,” but explains this privation as (1) a forfeiture of the gift of the Holy Spirit; and (2) in consequence of this, the loss of original righteousness. Depravity is therefore “a depravation arising from deprivation.” Connected with this deprivation is a positive evil also, which arises as a consequence of the loss of the image of God."}} In this condition, human free will is incapable of choosing spiritual good without the aid of divine grace.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=42–43, 59-}}{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=146–147}} Arminius likely believed that every person is born in this depraved condition because Adam, as humanity’s representative, sinned against God—a view later shared by several prominent Arminians.{{sfn|Grider|1994|loc=ch. 10, "The Representative Theory"}} Like Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, Arminius agreed that human free will is spiritually "captive" and "enslaved".{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=142-145}}{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=526|ps=. "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its 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."}} However, through the action of prevenient grace, human free will can be "freed",{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=142}} meaning it can be restored with the ability to choose the spiritual good, particularly the capacity to accept God's call to salvation.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=153}}

File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt - Hugo de Groot.jpg (1631). Hugo de Groot (1583–1645).]]

Atonement is intended universally: Jesus's death was for all people; Jesus draws all people to himself, with the opportunity for salvation through faith.{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=316}}

Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus, Jesus’s death atones for all sins but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy [...] or that man is justified before God [...] according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=454}} Justification, therefore, is seen through mercy by the imputation of righteousness.{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=140|ps=. "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."}} While not rigidly defined, this view suggests that the righteousness of Christ is attributed to believers, emphasizing that union with Christ (conditioned on faith) transfers his righteousness to them.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Forlines|2011|p=403|ps=. "On the condition of faith, we are placed in union with Christ. Based on that union, we receive His death and righteousness".}}

Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect, which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by penal substitution.{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=140 ff}} Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied governmentally.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=132}} Historical and contemporary Arminians have held one of these views.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=224}}

In Arminianism, God initiates the process of salvation by extending his grace, commonly referred to as prevenient grace, to all people. This grace works within each individual, drawing them toward the Gospel and enabling sincere faith, leading to regeneration.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=154 ff|ps=. "[I]ndeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to Regeneration unless finally resisted."}} It functions through a dynamic influence-and-response relationship, allowing individuals to accept or reject it freely.{{sfn|Forlines|2001|pp=313–321}}{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=142}} Thus, conversion is described as a "God-initiated synergism."{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}}

Election is conditional: Arminius defined election as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=311}} God alone determines who will be saved, and he decides that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. Arminius states, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=311}}

God predestines the elect to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through adoption, glorification, and eternal life.{{sfn|Pawson| 1996|pp=109 ff}}

Related to eschatological considerations, Jacobus Arminius{{harvnb|Arminius|1853c|p=376}}: "First, you say, and truly, that hell-fire is the punishment ordained for sin and the transgression of the law." and the first Remonstrants, including Simon Episcopius{{sfn|Episcopius|Ellis|2005|loc=ch. 20, item 4}} believed in everlasting fire where the wicked are thrown by God at judgment day.

Preservation is conditional: All believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith; therefore, perseverance is also conditioned.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=203}} Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and the Holy Spirit "to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|pp=219–220}} Furthermore, Christ and the Spirit are ever present to aid and assist believers through various temptations. But this security was not unconditional but conditional—"provided they [believers] stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling."{{harvnb|Arminius|1853b|pp=465, 466}}: "This seems to fit with Arminius' other statements on the need for perseverance in faith. For example: 'God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ'."{{harvnb|Arminius|1853c|pp=412, 413}}: "[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation".

File:Simon_Episcopius,_by_Anonymous.jpg.|237x237px]]

Arminius believed in the possibility of apostasy. However, over the period of time he wrote on this question,{{sfn|Stanglin|Muller|2009}} he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.{{sfn|Cameron|1992|p=226}}{{sfn|Grider|1982|loc={{zwnj}}|pp=55-56|ps=. "Arminius used an ingenious device to teach [the possibility of Apostasy], so as not to seem to oppose Calvinism's eternal security doctrine head on and recklessly He admitted that believers cannot lose saving grace; but then he would add, quickly, that Christians can freely cease to believe, and that then they will lose saving grace. So, in a sense, believers cannot backslide; but Christians can cease to believe, and then, as unbelievers (but only as unbelievers), they lose their salvation"}} In 1599, he stated that the question required more scriptural examination.{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|loc="A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans", pp. 219–220|ps=, [1599]}} In his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), Arminius said, "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect."{{harvnb|Arminius|1853a|p=665}}: "William Nichols notes: 'Arminius spoke nearly the same modest words when interrogated on this subject in the last Conference which he had with Gomarus [a Calvinist], before the states of Holland, on the 12th of Aug. 1609, only two months prior to his decease'".

However, Arminius elsewhere expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: In c. 1602, he noted that a person integrated into the church might resist God's work and that a believer's security rested solely on their choice not to abandon their faith.{{harvnb|Oropeza|2000|p=16}}: "Although Arminius denied having taught final apostasy in his Declaration of Sentiments, in the Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination [c. 1602] he writes that 'a person who is being "built" into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process'. Concerning the believers, 'It may suffice to encourage them, if they know that no power or prudence can dislodge them from the rock, unless they of their own will forsake their position.'"{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=455|loc="Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination"|ps=, [c. 1602]}} He argued that God's covenant did not eliminate the possibility of falling away but provided a gift of fear to keep individuals from defecting as long as it thrived in their hearts.{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=458|loc="Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination"|ps=, [c. 1602] "[The covenant of God (Jeremiah 23)] does not contain in itself an impossibility of defection from God, but a promise of the gift of fear, whereby they shall be hindered from going away from God so long as that shall flourish in their hearts."}} He then taught that had David died in sin, he would have been lost.{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|pp=463–464|loc="Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination"|ps=, [c. 1602]}}{{sfn|Gann|2014}} In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=667|loc=Disputation 25, on Magistracy|ps=, [1602]}}

For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Stanglin|2007|p=137}} In 1605, Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore, he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=388|loc=Letter to Wtenbogaert, trans. as "Remarks on the Preceding Questions, and on those opposed to them"|ps=, [1605]}} Scholars observe that Arminius clearly identifies two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}}{{sfn|Gann|2014}} He suggested that strictly speaking, believers could not directly lose their faith but could cease to believe and thus fall away.{{sfn|Bangs|1960|p=15}}{{sfn|Grider|1982|loc={{zwnj}}|pp=55-56|ps=. "Arminius used an ingenious device to teach [the possibility of Apostasy], so as not to seem to oppose Calvinism's eternal security doctrine head on and recklessly He admitted that believers cannot lose saving grace; but then he would add, quickly, that Christians can freely cease to believe, and that then they will lose saving grace. So, in a sense, believers cannot backslide; but Christians can cease to believe, and then, as unbelievers (but only as unbelievers), they lose their salvation"}}{{harvnb|Oropeza|2000|p=16}}: "If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away".

After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a Remonstrance (1610) based quite literally on his Declaration of Sentiments (1607), which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}} In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Schaff|2007}} Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=198|ps=. "Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger."}} They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618), which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.{{harvnb|De Jong|1968|pp=220 ff.|loc=art. 5, points 3–4}}: "True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish." They later expressed this same view in the Remonstrant Confession (1621).{{sfn|Witzki|2010}}

Arminius maintained that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, it was forgivable.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=174}} If it came from "rejection," it was not.{{sfn|Stanglin|2007|p=139}} Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.{{harvnb|De Jong|1968|pp=220 ff.|loc=ch. 5.5}}: "Nevertheless, we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen." However, other classical Arminians, including the Free Will Baptists, have taught that apostasy is irremediable.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=204 ff}}{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=159}}

{{Further|Wesleyan theology}}

File:John Wesley by George Romney.jpg (n.d.). John Wesley.|244x244px]]

John Wesley thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|p=82}} Wesleyan Arminianism is a merger of classical Arminianism and Wesleyan perfectionism.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=189|loc=note 20}}{{harvnb|Sayer|2006|loc=ch. "Wesleyan-Arminian theology"}}: "Evangelical Wesleyan-Arminianism has as its center the merger of both Wesley's concept of holiness and Arminianism's emphasis on synergistic soteriology."{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}}

Wesley’s view of atonement is either understood as a hybrid of penal substitution and the governmental theory,{{harvnb|Pinson|2002|pp=227 ff.}}: "Wesley does not place the substitutionary element primarily within a legal framework [...]. Rather [his doctrine seeks] to bring into proper relationship the 'justice' between God's love for persons and God's hatred of sin [...] it is not the satisfaction of a legal demand for justice so much as it is an act of mediated reconciliation." or it is viewed solely as penal substitution.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=104–105, 132 ff}}{{harvnb|Olson|2009|p=224}}: "Arminius did not believe [in the governmental theory of atonement], neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians."{{sfn|Wood|2007|p=67}} Historically, Wesleyan Arminians adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=224}}

In Wesleyan theology, justification is understood as the forgiveness of sins rather than being made inherently righteous. Righteousness is achieved through sanctification, which involves the pursuit of holiness in one's life.{{sfn|Elwell|2001|p=1268|ps=. "[Wesley] states what justification is not. It is not being made actually just and righteous (that is sanctification). It is not being cleared of the accusations of Satan, nor of the law, nor even of God. We have sinned, so the accusation stands. Justification implies pardon, the forgiveness of sins. [...] Ultimately for the true Wesleyan salvation is completed by our return to original righteousness. This is done by the work of the Holy Spirit."}} Wesley taught that imputed righteousness, which refers to the righteousness credited to a believer through faith, must transform into imparted righteousness, where this righteousness becomes evident in the believer’s life.{{sfn|Oden|2012|pp=88-89}}

Wesley taught that through the Holy Spirit, Christians could achieve a state of practical perfection, or "entire sanctification", characterized by a lack of voluntary sin.{{harvnb|Wesley|1827|p=66|loc="A Plain Account of Christian Perfection."}} "[Entire sanctification is] purity of intention." This state involves embodying the love of God and neighbor.{{harvnb|Wesley|1827|p=66|loc="A Plain Account of Christian Perfection."{{zwnj}}}} "[Entire sanctification is] loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves." It does not mean freedom from all mistakes or temptations, as perfected Christians still need to seek forgiveness and strive for holiness. Ultimately, perfection in this context is about love, not absolute perfection.{{sfn|Wesley|1827|p=45|loc="Of Christian Perfection"|ps=. "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."}}

Wesley believed genuine Christians could apostatize. He emphasized that sin alone does not lead to this loss; instead, prolonged unconfessed sin and deliberate apostasy can result in a permanent fall from grace.{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=239–240|ps=. "the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation [...] the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy."}} However, he believed that such apostasy was not irremediable.{{sfn|Wesley|Emory|1835|p=247|loc="A Call to Backsliders"|ps=. "[N]ot one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands [...] innumerable are the instances [...] of those who had fallen but now stand upright."}}

{{Main|Corporate election}}

The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. In the corporate election view, God chose the believing church collectively for salvation rather than selecting individuals.{{harnvb|Ridderbos|1997|p=351}}: "[The certainty of salvation] does not rest on the fact that the church belongs to a certain 'number', but that it belongs to Christ, from before the foundation of the world. Fixity does not lie in a hidden decree, therefore, but in corporate unity of the Church with Christ, whom it has come to know in the gospel and has learned to embrace in faith." Jesus is seen as the only person elected, and individuals join the elect through faith "in Christ".{{harvnb|Walls|Dongell|2004|p=76}}: "The most conspicuous feature of Ephesians 1:3–2:10 is the phrase 'in Christ', which occurs twelve times in Ephesians 1:3–14 alone [...] this means that Jesus Christ himself is the chosen one, the predestined one. Whenever one is incorporated into him by grace through faith, one comes to share in Jesus' special status as chosen of God."{{harvnb|Barth|1974|p=108}}: "Election in Christ must be understood as the election of God's people. Only as members of that community do individuals share in the benefits of God's gracious choice." This view is supported by Old Testament and Jewish concepts, where identity is rooted more in group membership than individuality.{{sfn|Abasciano|2005|pp=42-43}}

{{further|Salvation in Christianity#Protestantism}}{{Protestantism}}

Pelagianism is a doctrine denying original sin and total depravity. No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity;{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=138–139}} both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God.{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|p=192}} Arminius referred to Pelagianism as "the grand falsehood" and stated that he "must confess that I detest, from my heart, the consequences [of that theology]."{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|p=219|ps=. The entire treatise occupies pp. 196–452}} This association is considered as libelous when attributed to Arminius' or Wesley's doctrine,{{sfn|Pawson| 1996|p=106}} and Arminians reject all accusations of Pelagianism.{{sfn|Pawson| 1996|pp=97–98, 106}}{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=6 ff}}

Semi-Pelagianism holds that faith begins with human will, while its continuation and fulfillment depend on God's grace,{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=160}} giving it the label "human-initiated synergism".{{sfn|Barrett|2013|loc={{zwnj}}{{zwnj}}|p=xxvii|ps=. "[H]uman-initiated synergism is the view of Semi-Pelagianism".}} In contrast, both Classical and Wesleyan Arminianism affirm that prevenient grace from God initiates the process of salvation,{{sfn|Schwartz|Bechtold|2015|p=165}}{{sfn|Forlines|2011|pp=20–24}} a view sometimes referred to as "Semi-Augustinian", or "God-initiated synergism".{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}}{{sfn|Barrett|2013|p=xxvii|loc={{zwnj}}{{zwnj}}{{zwnj}}|ps=. "God-initiated synergism is the view of the Semi-Augustinians".}} Following the Reformation, Reformed theologians often categorized both "human-initiated synergism" and "God-initiated synergism" as "Semi-Pelagianism",{{sfn|Marko|2020|p=772|ps=. "Those who did not think a prevenient grace was necessary for initial human response or that it was resistible came to be called semi-Pelagians by Protestants in the post Reformation period."}} often leading to mistaken belief that Arminianism aligned with Semi-Pelagianism.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=62}}{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=30-31, 40-43, 79-81}}

Calvinism and Arminianism, while sharing historical roots and many theological doctrines, diverge notably on the concepts of divine predestination and election. While some perceive these differences as fundamental, others regard them as relatively minor distinctions within the broader spectrum of Christian theology.{{sfn|Gonzalez|2014|p=180}}

• Human spiritual condition: Arminians agree with Calvinists on the doctrine of total depravity, but differ in their understanding of how God remedies this human condition.{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=31–34, 55–59}}

• Nature of election: Arminians believe election to final salvation is conditional on faith,{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=68}} while Calvinists hold that unconditional election is based on God's predeterminism{{harvnb|Calvin|1845|loc=3.21.7}}: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." making Him the ultimate cause of everything, including human faith.{{harvnb|Alexander|Johnson|2016|p=204}}: "It should be conceded at the outset, and without any embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God."
• Nature of grace: Arminians believe that, through prevenient grace, God universally restores the individual spiritual ability to choose and that subsequent justifying grace is resistible.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=159}} Calvinists however, assert that God's effectual call is given only to the elect and that subsequent grace is irresistible.{{sfn|Grudem|1994|p=692}}
• Extent of the atonement: Arminians, along with four-point Calvinists, advocate for a universal atonement, contrary to the Calvinist doctrine that atonement is limited to the elect.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=221}} Both sides, excluding hyper-Calvinists, believe the Gospel invitation is universal and should be presented to everyone without distinction.{{sfn|Nicole|1995|p=400}}
• Perseverance in faith: Arminians believe preservation to final salvation is conditional on faith and can be lost through apostasy. They contend for a present security in Christ, relying on His protection from all external forces.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=203}} Calvinists, on the other hand, hold to the perseverance of the saints, asserting that the elect will persevere in faith until the end of their lives.{{harvnb|Grudem|1994|p=970}}: "The Perseverance of the Saints means that all those who are truly born again will be kept by God's power and will persevere as Christians until the end of their lives, and that only those who persevere until the end have been truly born again." However, a believer cannot know with certainty if they are elect until they reach the end.{{harvnb|Grudem|1994|p=860}}: "[T]his doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, if rightly understood, should cause genuine worry, and even fear, in the hearts of any who are 'backsliding' or straying away from Christ. Such persons must clearly be warned that only those who persevere to the end have been truly born again." This leads to different interpretations on the assurance of final salvation within Calvinist circles.{{harvnb|Keathley|2010|p=171}}: "John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress has blessed multitudes of Christians, but his spiritual autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, is disturbing. He recounts how, in his seemingly endless search for assurance of salvation, he was haunted by the question, 'How can I tell if I am elected?{{'"}}{{harvnb|Davis|1991|p=217}}: "Calvin, however, has greater confidence than Luther and the Catholic tradition before him that the believer can also have great assurance of his election and final perseverance."

The doctrine of open theism states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely determined (or "settled") because people have not made their free decisions yet. God therefore knows the future partially in possibilities (human free actions) rather than solely certainties (divinely determined events).{{sfn|Sanders|2007|loc="Summary of Openness of God"}} Some Arminians, reject open theism, viewing it as a distortion of traditional Arminianism.{{harvnb|Picirilli|2002|pp=40, 59 ff.}}. Picirilli actually objects so strongly to the link between Arminianism and open theism that he devotes an entire section to his objections. They believe it shifts away from classical Arminianism toward process theology.{{sfn|Walls|Dongell|2004|p=45|ps=. "[O]pen theism actually moves beyond classical Arminianism towards process theology."}} Others view it as a valid alternative perspective within Christianity, despite not aligning it with Arminian doctrine.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=199|loc=note 67}}

• Apostasy in Christianity
• Covenant theology
• Decisional regeneration
• Free will in theology
• Grace in Christianity
• Justification
• Order of salvation
• Salvation in Christianity
• Sovereignty of God in Christianity
• Substitutionary atonement
• Satisfaction theory
• Penal theory
• Governmental theory
• Synergism

{{Reflist}}

{{Refbegin|40em|indent=yes}}

• {{cite book |language=en |last=Abasciano |first=Brian J. |title=Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=6_DTAwAAQBAJ |date=2005 |publisher=A&C Black |isbn=978-0-567-03073-3}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=AG |title=Assurance-Of-Salvation: Position paper |url= https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Assurance-Of-Salvation |agency=AG |date=2017 |access-date=15 December 2021}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Akin |first=James |title=A Tiptoe Through Tulip |url= https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/tiptoe-through-tulip-1163 |agency=EWTN |date=1993 |access-date=15 June 2019}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last1=Alexander |first1=David |last2=Johnson |first2=Daniel |title=Calvinism and the Problem of Evil |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Pickwick Publication |date=2016}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Arminius |first=Jacobus |translator-last1=Nichols |translator-first1=James |translator-last2=Bagnall |translator-first2=W. R. |title=The Works of James Arminius |publisher=Derby, Miller & Orton |location=Auburn, New York |date=1853a |url= https://archive.org/details/worksofjamesarmi01armi_0/page/n8 |volume=1}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Arminius |first=Jacobus |translator-last1=Nichols |translator-first1=James |translator-last2=Bagnall |translator-first2=W. R. |title=The Works of James Arminius |publisher=Derby & Miller |location=Auburn, New York |date=1853b |url= https://archive.org/details/worksofjamesarmi02armi/page/n6 |volume=2}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Arminius |first=Jacobus |translator-last1=Nichols |translator-first1=James |translator-last2=Bagnall |translator-first2=W. R. |title=The Works of James Arminius |publisher=Derby & Miller |location=Auburn, New York |date=1853c |url= https://archive.org/details/worksofjamesarmi03armi_0/page/n10 |volume=3}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Bangs |first=Carl |title=Arminius: An Anniversary Report |journal=Christianity Today |date=1960 |volume=5}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Bangs |first=Carl |title=Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Wipf & Stock |date=1985}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Barrett |first=Matthew |title=Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration |location=Phillipsburg |publisher=P & R Publishing |date=2013}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Barth |first=Markus |author-link=Markus Barth |title=Ephesians |location=Garden City, New Jersey |publisher=Doubleday |date=1974 |isbn=978-0-385-08037-8 |url= https://archive.org/details/ephesians34tari |url-access=registration}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Bender |first=Harold S. |title=Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online |chapter=Arminianism |date=1953 |chapter-url= https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Arminianism}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Bounds |first=Christopher. T. |title=How are People Saved? The Major Views of Salvation with a Focus on Wesleyan Perspectives and their Implications |journal=Wesley and Methodist Studies |date=2011 |volume=3 |pages=31–54 |doi=10.5325/weslmethstud.3.2011.0031 |jstor=42909800 |s2cid=171804441 |doi-access=free}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Calvin |first=John |title=Institutes of the Christian Religion; a New Translation by Henry Beveridge |location=Edinburgh |publisher=Calvin Translation Society |date=1845 |translator=Henry Beveridge |volume=2 |at=books 2, 3 |url= https://archive.org/details/institutesofreli02calvuoft}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Cameron |first=Charles M. |title=Arminius–Hero or heretic? |journal=Evangelical Quarterly |volume=64 |issue=3 |date=1992 |pages=213–227 |doi=10.1163/27725472-06403003 |s2cid=252237177 |url= https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-3_213.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Cross |first1=F. L. |title=The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2005}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Davis |first=John Jefferson |title=The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine |journal=Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society |date=1991 |volume=34 |issue=2 |url= https://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Davis-History-of-the-Perseverance-of-the-Saints.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=De Jong |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Y. De Jong |chapter-url= https://evangelicalarminians.org/1618-opinions-of-the-remonstrants-with-a-memorial-to-james-arminius/ |title=Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt, 1618–1619 |publisher=Reformed Fellowship |date=1968 |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |chapter=The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618)}}
• {{Cite book |language=fr |last1=Delumeau |first1=Jean |last2=Wanegffelen |first2=Thierry |last3=Cottret |first3=Bernard |chapter=Chapitre XII: Les conflits internes du protestantisme |title=Naissance et affirmation de la Réforme |location=Paris |publisher=Presses Universitaires de France |date=2012}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Demarest |first=Bruce A. |title=The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=U0_1wAEACAAJ |date=1997 |publisher=Crossway Books |isbn=978-0-89107-937-8}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last=Denzinger |first=Henricus |author-link=Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger |title=Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum |edition=30th |location=Freiburg im Breisgau |publisher=Herder |date=1954 |url= https://patristica.net/denzinger/}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Dorner |first1=Isaak A. |title=History of Protestant Theology |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Wipf & Stock |date=2004}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Driscoll |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Driscoll |title=A Call to Resurgence: Will Christianity Have a Funeral or a Future? |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=wJPv1JiR6XEC |date=2013 |publisher=Tyndale House |isbn=978-1-4143-8907-3}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Elwell |first=Walter A. |title=Evangelical Dictionary of Theology |location=Grand Rapids, MI |publisher=Baker Publishing Group |date=2001 |isbn=9781441200303}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last1=Episcopius |first1=Simon |last2=Ellis |first2=Mark A. |chapter=Introduction |title=The Arminian confession of 1621 |publisher=Pickwick Publications |location=Eugene, Oregon |date=2005 |chapter-url= https://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ellis.-Arminian-Confession-1621-Intro.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Forlines |first=F. Leroy |title=The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=LYCOTh4jpFoC |date=2001 |publisher=Randall House Publications |isbn=978-0-89265-962-3}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Forlines |first=F. Leroy |editor-first=J. Matthew |editor-last=Pinson |title=Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=khsYTwEACAAJ |date=2011 |publisher=Randall House |isbn=978-0-89265-607-3}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Gann |first=Gerald |title=Arminius on Apostasy |journal=The Arminian Magazine |date=2014 |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=5–6 |url= https://evangelicalarminians.org/arminius-on-apostasy/}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last=Gause |first=R. Hollis |title=Living in the Spirit: The Way of Salvation |location=Cleveland, Ohio |publisher=CPT Press |date=2007}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Gonzalez |first=Justo L. |title=The Story of Christianity |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=3llUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA180 |volume=2: The Reformation to the Present Day |date=2014 |publisher=HarperOne |isbn=978-0-06-236490-6}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Grider |first=J. Kenneth |title=The Nature of Wesleyan Theology |journal=Wesleyan Theological Journal |volume=17 |issue=2 |date=1982 |pages=43–57 |url=https://wtsociety.com/files/wts_journal/1982-wtj-17-2.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Grider |first=J. Kenneth |title=A Wesleyan Holiness Theology |location=Kansas City, MO |publisher=Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City |date=1994}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Grudem |first=Wayne |title=Systematic Theology |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=IVP |date=1994}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Guggisberg |first1=Hans R. |last2=Gordon |first2=Bruce |title=Sebastian Castellio, 1515–1563: Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a Confessional Age |location=Oxon |publisher=Taylor & Francis |date=2017}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Gunter |first=William Stephen |title=John Wesley, a Faithful Representative of Jacobus Arminius |journal=Wesleyan Theological Journal |date=2007 |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=65–82 |url= http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/2007-wtj-42-2.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Harmon |first=Richard W. |title=Baptists and Other Denominations |location=Nashville, Tennessee |publisher=Convention Press |date=1984}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Heron |first=Alasdair I. C. |chapter=Arminianism |date=1999 |title=Encyclopedia of Christianity |editor-last=Fahlbusch |editor-first=Erwin |volume=1 |pages=128–129 |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |chapter-url= https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch0001unse_t6f2/page/128}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=James |first=Frank A. |title=Peter Martyr Vermigli and Predestination: The Augustinian Inheritance of an Italian Reformer |publisher=Clarendon |location=Oxford |date=1998}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Kang |first=Paul ChulHong |title=Justification: The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness from Reformation Theology to the American Great Awakening and the Korean Revivals |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=jNIpgIkTMHIC |date=2006 |publisher=Peter Lang |isbn=978-0-8204-8605-5 |location=New York}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Keathley |first=Kenneth D. |title=Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach |location=Nashville |publisher=B&H Publishing Group |date=2010}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Keathley |first=Kenneth D. |editor-first=Daniel L. |editor-last=Akin |title=A Theology for the Church |chapter-url={{google books |id=ZnHxAwAAQBAJ |plain-url=yes |keywords=The Work of God: Salvation}} |date=2014 |publisher=B&H |isbn=978-1-4336-8214-8 |chapter=Ch 12. The Work of God: Salvation}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Keefer |first=Luke |title=Characteristics of Wesley's Arminianism |journal=Wesleyan Theological Journal |date=1987 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=87–99 |url= https://wtsociety.com/files/wts_journal/1987-wtj-22-1.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Kirkpatrick |first=Daniel |title=Monergism or Synergism: Is Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone? |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Pickwick Publication |date=2018}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Knight |first=Henry H. |title=From Aldersgate to Azusa Street: Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal Visions |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Wipf & Stock |date=2010}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Knight |first=Henry H. |title=John Wesley: Optimist of Grace |location=Eugene, Oregon |publisher=Wipf & Stock |date=2018}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Lange |first=Lyle W. |title=God So Loved the World: A Study of Christian Doctrine |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=5W0yOQAACAAJ |date=2005 |publisher=Northwestern Publishing House |location=Milwaukee, Wisconsin |isbn=978-0-8100-1744-3}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Levering |first=Matthew |title=Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-960452-4}}
• {{cite CE1913 |language=en |last=Loughlin |first=James Francis |wstitle=Arminianism |volume=1 |short=1}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Luther |first=Martin |author-link=Martin Luther |translator-first=Henry |translator-last=Cole |title=Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will: Written in Answer to the Diatribe of Erasmus on Free-will. First Pub. in the Year of Our Lord 1525 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=4CkBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA66 |date=1823 |publisher=T. Bensley |location=London}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=MacCulloch |first1=Diarmaid |title=The Later Reformation in England 1547–1603 |location=New York |publisher=Macmillan International Higher Education |date=1990}}
• {{cite book |editor-last=Magnusson |editor-first=Magnus |title=Chambers Biographical Dictionary |title-link=Chambers Biographical Dictionary |publisher=Chambers |via=Cambridge University Press |date=1995}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Marberry |first1=Thomas |chapter="Matthew" in the IVP New Testament Commentary Series By Craig S. Keener |title=Contact: Official Publication of the National Association of Free Will Baptists |publisher=The Association |volume=45 |date=1998}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Marko |first=Jonathan S. |chapter=Grace, Early Modern Discussion of |editor-last=Jalobeanu |editor-first=Dana |editor2-last=Wolfe |editor2-first=Charles T. |title=Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |date=2020 |isbn=978-3-319-20791-9}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=McClintock |first1=John |last2=Strong |first2=James |chapter=Arminianism |title=The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature |location=New York |publisher=Harper and Brothers |date=1880 |chapter-url= https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/A/arminianism.html}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Mcgonigle |first=Herbert |title=Sufficient Saving Grace |publisher=Paternoster |location=Carlisle |date=2001 |isbn=1-84227-045-1}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=More |first=Ellen |title=John Goodwin and the Origins of the New Arminianism |journal=Journal of British Studies |date=1982 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=50–70 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |jstor=175656 |doi=10.1086/385797 |url= https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/lib_articles/22}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Muller |first=Richard A. |title=Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=jUhexw_A7AUC&pg=PA45 |date=2012 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=978-1-4412-4254-9}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last1=Nicole |first1=Roger |date=1995 |title=Covenant, Universal Call And Definite Atonement |journal=Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society |volume=38 |issue=3 |url= https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/files_JETS-PDFs_38_38-3_38-3-pp403-412_JETS.pdf}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last=Oakley |first=Francis |title=The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity |location=Toronto |publisher=University of Toronto Press |date=1988}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Oden |first=Thomas |title=John Wesley's Teachings |location=Grand Rapids, MI |publisher=Zondervan Academic |volume=2 |date=2012}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |chapter=The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God |editor-last=Ware |editor-first=Bruce |title=Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views |location=Nashville, TN |publisher=B&H Publishing Group |date=2008}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities |location=Downers Grove, Illinois |publisher=InterVarsity Press |date=2009}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=One more quick sidebar about clarifying Arminianism |website=Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings |publisher=Patheos |date=2010 |url= https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/a-quick-sidebar-comment-on-civility/ |access-date=27 August 2019}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=My List of "Approved Denominations" |website=My evangelical, Arminian theological musings |date=2012 |url= https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/11/my-list-of-approved-denominations/ |access-date=6 September 2019}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=What's Wrong with Calvinism? |website=Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings |publisher=Patheos |date=2013a |url= https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-calvinism/ |access-date=27 September 2018}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=Must One Agree with Arminius to be Arminian? |website=Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings |publisher=Patheos |date=2013b |url= https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/11/must-one-agree-with-arminius-to-be-arminian/ |access-date=7 December 2019}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=Arminianism FAQ: Everything You Always Wanted to Know |publisher=Seebed |location=Franklin, Tennessee |date=2014 |isbn=978-1-62824-162-4 |url= https://store.seedbed.com/products/arminianism-faq-by-roger-e-olson?_fs=9c5cfc09-a722-400f-9bdc-11fac927fd9d}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=Calvinism and Arminianism Compared |website=Roger E. Olson: My evangelical, Arminian theological musings |publisher=Patheos |date=2018 |url= https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/11/calvinism-and-arminianism-compared-by-roger-e-olson/ |access-date=27 August 2019}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Oropeza |first=B. J. |title=Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation |location=Tübingen |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |date=2000}}.
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Osborne |first1=Grant R. |last2=Trueman |first2=Carl R. |last3=Hammett |first3=John S. |title=Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 views |location=Nashville, Tennessee |publisher=B & H Academic |date=2015 |isbn=9781433669712 |oclc=881665298}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Pawson |first=David |title=Once Saved, Always Saved? A Study in Perseverance and Inheritance |publisher=Hodder & Stoughton |location=London |date=1996 |isbn=0-340-61066-2}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Peterson |first1=Robert A. |last2=Williams |first2=Michael D. |title=Why I am not an Arminian |publisher=Intervarsity Press |location=Downers Grove, IL |year=2004 |isbn=0-8308-3248-3}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Picirilli |first=Robert |title=Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation |publisher=Randall House |location=Nashville, Tennessee |date=2002 |isbn=0-89265-648-4}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last=Pickar |first=C. H. |title=The New Catholic Encyclopedia |publisher=McGraw-Hill |location=Washington, DC |orig-date=1967 |date=1981 |volume=5}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Pinson |first=J. Matthew |title=Four Views on Eternal Security |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=Harper Collins |date=2002}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Pinson |first=J. Matthew |title=Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up? A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters |journal=Integrity: A Journal of Christian Thought |date=2003 |volume=2 |pages=121–139 |url= https://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pinson-on-Arminius.pdf}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Pinson |first=J. Matthew |title=Thomas Grantham's Theology Of The Atonement And Justification |journal=Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry |date=2011 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=7–21 |url= https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbtm/08-1_007.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Puchniak |first=Robert |chapter=Pelagius: Kierkegaard's use of Pelagius and Pelagianism |title=Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medieval Traditions |location=Farnham |publisher=Ashgate Publishing |date=2008 |isbn=978-0-7546-6391-1}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Reasoner |first=Vic |title=An Arminian Covenant Theology |journal=Arminian Magazine |date=2000 |publisher=Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers |volume=18 |issue=2 |url=https://evangelicalarminians.org/vic-reasoner-an-arminian-covenant-theology/}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Ridderbos |first=Herman |title=Paul: An Outline of His Theology |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=W_OJNyhn8kgC&pg=PA351 |date=1997 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans |isbn=978-0-8028-4469-9}}
• {{Cite journal |language=en |last=Rogers |first=Katherin |title=Augustine's Compatibilism |journal=Religious Studies |date=2004 |volume=40 |issue=4 |pages=415–435 |doi=10.1017/S003441250400722X}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Rupp |first1=Ernest Gordon |author-link1=Ernest Gordon Rupp |last2=Watson |first2=Philip Saville |title=Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation |url= https://archive.org/details/luthererasmus0000rupp |url-access=registration |date=1969 |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |location=Louisville, Kentucky |isbn=978-0-664-24158-2}}
• {{Cite journal |language=en |last=Sanders |first=John |title=An introduction to open theism |date=30 July 2007 |journal=Reformed Review |volume=60 |issue=2}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Sayer |first=M. James |title=The Survivor's Guide to Theology |location=Grand Rapids, MI |publisher=Zondervan |date=2006}}
• {{Cite web |language=en |last=SBC |title=The Baptist Faith and Message |work=Southern Baptist Convention |date=2000 |access-date=19 August 2019 |url= https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Schaff |first=Philip |title=History of the Christian Church |volume=3 |place=Oak Harbor, WA |publisher=Logos Research Systems |year=1997 |url=https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3/hcc3.i.html}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Schaff |first=Philip |chapter=The Five Arminian Articles, A.D. 1610 |title=The Creeds of Christendom |volume=3 |isbn=978-0-8010-8232-0 |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=Baker Books |date=2007 |url= https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xv.html |pages=545–549}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Schwartz |first1=William Andrew |last2=Bechtold |first2=John M. |title=Embracing the Past—Forging the Future: A New Generation of Wesleyan Theology |date=2015 |publisher=Wipf & Stock |location=Eugene, Oregon}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Smith |first=Damian J. |title=Crusade, Heresy and Inquisition in the Lands of the Crown of Aragon: (c. 1167 - 1276) |location=Leiden |publisher=Brill |date=2010}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Stanglin |first1=Keith D. |title=Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation |location=Boston, Massachusetts |publisher=Brill |date=2007}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Stanglin |first1=Keith D. |last2=Muller |first2=Richard A. |title=Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe |chapter=Bibliographia Arminiana: A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography of the Works of Arminius |location=Boston, Massachusetts |publisher=Brill |date=2009 |pages=263–290}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Stanglin |first1=Keith D. |last2=McCall |first2=Thomas H. |title=Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=00ulN0NOINsC |date=15 November 2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press USA |location=New York |isbn=978-0-19-975567-7}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Stanglin |first1=Keith D. |last2=McCall |first2=Thomas H. |title=After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2021}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last=Stegall |first=Thomas Lewis |title=The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel Regarding the Contents of Saving Faith |location=Milwaukee |publisher=Grace Gospel Press |date=2009}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Studebaker |first=Steven M. |title=Defining Issues in Pentecostalism: Classical and Emergent |location=Euguene, OR |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |date=2008}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last=Sutton |first=Jerry |title=Anabaptism and James Arminius: A Study in Soteriological Kinship and Its Implications |journal=Midwestern Journal of Theology |date=2012 |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=121–139 |url= https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/midwestern-journal-theology/11-2_054.pdf}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Teselle |first=Eugene |author-link=Eugene Teselle |chapter=The Background: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy |editor1-last=Hwang |editor1-first=Alexander Y. |editor2-last=Matz |editor2-first=Brian J. |editor3-last=Casiday |editor3-first=Augustine |title=Grace for Grace: The Debates after Augustine and Pelagius |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=Catholic University of America Press |date=2014 |pages=1–13 |isbn=978-0-8132-2601-9}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Thorsen |first=Don |title=An Exploration of Christian Theology |location=Grand Rapids, Michigan |publisher=Baker Books |date=2007}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Torbet |first=Robert George |title=A History of the Baptists |url=https://archive.org/details/historyofbaptist0000torb |url-access=registration |edition=3rd |date=1963 |publisher=Judson Press}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Tyacke |first=Nicholas |title=Anti-Calvinists: the rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590–1640 |url= https://archive.org/details/isbn_0198201842/page/244 |date=1990 |publisher=Clarendon |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-820184-7}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Vickers |first1=Jason E. |title=Wesley: A Guide for the Perplexed |location=London |publisher=T & T Clark |date=2009}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Wallace |first1=Dewey D. |title=Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation |date=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Walls |first1=Jerry L. |last2=Dongell |first2=Joseph R. |title=Why I Am Not a Calvinist |publisher=InterVarsity Press |location=Downers Grove, Illinois |date=2004 |isbn=0-8308-3249-1}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Wesley |first1=John |title=The Works of the Rev. John Wesley |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=UNZhAAAAIAAJ |date=1827 |publisher=J.& J. Harper |location=New York |volume=8}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last1=Wesley |first1=John |last2=Emory |first2=John |title=The Works of the Late Reverend John Wesley |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=R_MsAQAAMAAJ |date=1835 |publisher=B. Waugh and T. Mason |location=New York |volume=2}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Wiley |first=H. Orton |title=Christian theology |location=Kansas City, MO |publisher=Beacon Hill Press |date=1941 |volume=2 |url=https://whdl.org/en/browse/resources/6496}}
• {{Cite book |language=en |last=Wilson |first=Andrew J. |title=The Warning-Assurance Relationship in 1 Corinthians |location=Tübingen |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |date=2017}}
• {{cite web |language=en |last=Witzki |first=Steve |title=The Arminian Confession of 1621 and Apostasy |website=Society of Evangelical Arminians |date=2010 |access-date=25 May 2019 |url= https://evangelicalarminians.org/arminian-confession-of-1621-and-apostasy/}}
• {{cite journal |language=en |last1=Wood |first1=Darren Cushman |title=John Wesley's Use of the Atonement |journal=The Asbury Journal |date=2007 |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=55–70 |url= https://place.asburyseminary.edu/asburyjournal/vol62/iss2/4}}
• {{cite book |language=en |last=Wynkoop |first=Mildred Bangs |title=Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology |location=Kansas City, Missouri |publisher=Beacon Hill Press |date=1967}}

{{refend}}

• [https://evangelicalarminians.org/ The Society of Evangelical Arminians]

{{Clear}}

{{Arminianism footer}}

{{Methodism footer}}

{{Christian theology}}

{{Christian History}}

{{Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:17th-century Reformed Christianity

Category:Reformed Christianity in the Dutch Republic

Category:Christian terminology

Category:Christian theological movements

Category:Jacobus Arminius

Category:Methodism

Category:Philosophy and thought in the Dutch Republic

Category:Protestant theology

Category:Seventh-day Adventist theology