Arminianism is a movement of Protestantism initiated in the early 17th century, based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius and his historic supporters known as Remonstrants. Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement submitted to the States General of the Netherlands. This expressed an attempt to moderate the doctrines of Calvinism related to its interpretation of predestination.
I much question whether the man that dies an Arminian can go to heaven. But certainly he will not be an Arminian when he is in heaven. The employ of the blessed is to cast their crowns at the feet of God and the Lamb, and to sing, “Not unto us, O Lord.”
Should it be thought harsh to question the salvation of one who dies under the blindness of Arminianism; as if a man who only robs God in part might miss of glory; let it be considered that, even on earth, if a person robs me only of my watch, or of a single guinea, he has forfeited his life to the law, as much as if he had robbed me of all I am worth.
The old Arminians mentioned in scripture are blamed for thinking wickedly that God was such an one as themselves; but our new Arminians out-sin their predecessors, and actually represent God as a being in many respects considerably inferior to themselves. They suppose him both to form schemes with less wisdom, and to execute them with less power, spirit, and success, than a prime minister of common sense forms and executes his. They dare ascribe to God such impotence, blunders, imperfections and disappointments, as they would blush to ascribe to a Xiemenes, or a Sully.
Arminians consider the grace that is inspired into a true believer’s heart, as a text of scripture written upon a pane of glass, liable to be demolished by the first hand that flings a stone at it.
All the disputes between us and the Arminians may be reduced to these two questions: 1. Is God dependent on man, or is man dependent on God? 2. Is man a debtor to God, or God a debtor to man?
When the Arminians foolishly affirm concerning the will of an unregenerate man, vis., that “Its liberty consists in an indifferency to good or evil, like a balance in equal poise;” holds true of a regenerate man in some circumstances, and in some respect, vis., that a person who is happily resigned to God’s providential disposals, may (in point of absolute acquiescence) be said to have his will in equilibrio, i.e., he wishes to be quite conformed to the divine pleasure, and to incline neither to prosperity nor adversity, life nor death, but is desirous that God’s own hand may incline the scale. We are never truly contented, nor of (course) truly happy, until God and we have but one will between us.
The Arminians think, that in conversion God does little or nothing for men, but gives them a pull by the elbow, to awake them from their sleep. Rather, he acts as maritime officers do by their sailors; he cuts down the hammock of carnal security in which the elect are; down they fall, and the bruises and surprise they receive awaken them to themselves whether, they will or no.
According to Arminians, grace has the name, but free-will has the game.
Arminians suppose God to give us heaven, as the king grants a brief for building a church. The brief runs, “We have granted our most gracious letters patent.” But these same most gracious letters are amply paid for before they are granted. No free, no brief.
Some people (especially the Arminians) seem to speak of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Established Church, as if those articles were like Mr. Van Bushel’s newly-in-vented elastic garters, which are so contrived by springs, that they will accommodate and fit themselves to any leg that should wear them.
Arminians will ask, “Where’s the use of preaching the doctrines of grace, even supposing them to be true? since we may go to heaven without a clear knowledge of them.” And a man may go to heaven with broken bones; yet it is better to go thither in a whole skin. A man may get to his journey’s end, though it rain and thunder all the way; yet it is more comfortable to travel in fair weather. You or I might make a better shift to live upon a scanty allowance of bread and water; yet, surely, and easy fortune, and a decent table are, in themselves, abundantly preferable to poverty and short commons. Who would wish to go upon thorns when his way may be strewed with roses?
Where is the difference between Arminianism and Epicurism? To suppose a fortuitous concourse of incidents is no less Atheistical than to suppose a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
I can compare some ranting Arminian preachers, who represent salvation as a matter of chance, and press men to help forward their own conversion, upon pain of damnation, to none so well as to auctioneers; who, with the hammer in their hands, are always bawling out, “Now is your time; now is your time; a-going a- going, a–going.”
Such a method is equally inconsistent with the analogy of faith, and subversive of the majesty of the gospel. Shall I order a dead soul to awake, and rise itself to life? Let me rather address the living God, and say, “Awake, and put on thy strength, O arm of the Lord! Breathe on these slain, that they may live!”