Arminian teaching regarding original sin

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm by Roger E. Olson

Arminian teaching regarding original sin 2011-08-18T19:31:57-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One of the purposes of this blog is to clarify Arminian theology and distinguish classical Arminianism from the all-too-common misrepresentations of it by some Calvinists, Lutherans and (ironically!) self-styled Arminians. One point I have been trying to get across to readers (e.g., in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities as well as in my published dialogues with Reformed theologian Michael Horton) is that much of what gets called “Arminianism” in contemporary American church life is simply semi-Pelagianism. Through sloppy scholarship and sometimes sheer ignorance (and sadly, occasional blatant misrepresentation) the two have become confused in most people’s minds. The result is that many who are classical Arminians don’t want that label applied to them.

So, further along that line, classical Arminianism, as distinct from semi-Pelagianism and its popular folk religious expressions in contemporary American church life, DOES affirm original sin and total depravity. All one has to do to know this is to read Arminius, The Arminian Confession of 1621 (written by Simon Episcopius), John Wesley, John Fletcher (Wesley’s most faithful theological interpreter during Wesley’s own lifetime), Richard Watson, William Burton Pope, Thomas O. Summers, John Miley, H. Orton Wiley, Ray Dunning, Kenneth Grider, Thomas Oden and any other faithful follower of the original teaching of Arminius. All affirm the bondage of the will to sin before and apart from supernatural, prevenient grace.

Sidebar: Some here have questioned where prevenient grace is found in the Bible. One answer to that is–where is the Trinity found in the Bible? On almost every page (slight exaggeration). It is a theological concept for a reality assumed in the Bible that only needed to be named and explicated once it was denied (by semi-Pelagians). Calvinists also believe in prevenient grace. The difference is that Arminians believe it is resistible. Arminians point to the many uses of “draw” in John and elsewhere as evidence of resistible, prevenient grace. Calvinists typically argue that the Greek word means “compel.” Arminians point to its use in John 12:32 (Jesus saying “If I be lifted up I will draw all men to me.”) The same Greek word is used there as in the passages Calvinists point to as evidence of its irresistibility. If the Greek word MUST mean “compel,” as R. C. Sproul and other Calvinists claim, then in John 12 Jesus is affirming universalism. In any case, a theological concept does not have to be spelled out in Scripture in order to be Scriptural.

Contemporary Arminianism is of two minds about original sin and inherited guilt. All agree about total depravity–every aspect of human nature is corrupted by the fall and incapable of exercising a good will toward God apart from God’s supernatural, enabling grace. But some Arminians believe that children are born without any hint of Adamic guilt; inherited condemnation is not even acknowledged by them. This would be the case with most Baptist Arminians AS WELL AS MOST REFORMED BAPTISTS!

Other Arminians, including some Arminian Baptists, believe that racial guilt and condemnation is real but set aside by the atoning death of Christ. They base this on Romans 5. One interpretation of Romans 5 (especially verse 12 as it was rendered in Augustine’s faulty Latin translation) is that it teaches universal condemnation because of the first Adam’s sin. That such condemnation was set aside by Christ’s atoning death is justified (such Arminians claim) by the parallelism in Romans 5 between the universality of the effects of the first Adam’s disobedience and the second Adam’s obedience. Without any doubt this is the doctrine espoused by church father Athanasius. All one has to do is read De Incarnatione to find it.

So, just as Calvinists don’t agree among themselves about everything (supralapsarianism versus infralapsarianism is one example of Calvinist diversity) so Arminians don’t agree among themselves about everything. But, so far as I know, no Arminian makes this disagreement a test of fellowship.

What all Arminians agree about is that in fact (de facto) condemnatory guilt that causes one to go to hell only attaches to presumptuous sinning which ALWAYS occurs with the awakening of conscience (what Baptists call the “age of accountability” which is not a specific age but a stage of moral and spiritual development). Thus, all Arminians deny that any children who die go to hell.

It is high Calvinists who have a problem with children. They don’t believe baptism saves; it parallels circumcision as a sign and seal of belonging in the covenant. So what assurance is there that a child who dies is not in hell? Some Calvinists say “there can be no such assurance.” Others say children of covenant parents are in the covenant until they are old enough to make their own decision for or against Christ. But what about children of non-covenant parents? Are all who die in infancy or childhood destined for hell? I know very few Calvinists who will say that. But why? If Adam’s guilt is imputed to all people without exception (except for Christ, of course) and not removed by Christ’s atonement then surely some children who die go to hell. What argument could be given to deny it?

This is a hard pill to swallow, but it seems strict, high Calvinists must just do that. (And some I have asked do.) But most appeal to mystery and say “It is best to leave such cases to the mercy of God.” But wait! Why not say “It is best to leave such cases to the justice of God?” Why suddenly appeal to God’s mercy just because they are children? They are born guilty, condemned. Christ’s atoning death has not set that condemnation aside. What ground is there, within the Calvinist system, for asserting that God will have mercy on all children who die? That is the same, is it not, as claiming that all children who die are elect? But what are the biblical or theological warrants for such a claim within the Calvinist system?

In any case, inherited guilt and condemnation is NOT an item of ecumenical orthodoxy (as distinct from the orthodoxy of a particular branch of Christianity). Inherited corruption IS. Inherited guilt and condemnation is virtually unheard of in theology before Augustine who based it on a mistaken translation of Romans 5:12 in the Latin Bible he used.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 3, 2010

Stephen Hawking on the world without God

Next Post

September 7, 2010 Protestant purgatory?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the profession of Peter and Andrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fishermen Carpenters Priests Tax collectors