by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH.D.

I. Introduction

From Augustine to the Remonstrants, the problem of freedom and evil has haunted Christian theology. Arminianism arose in the seventeenth century as a protest against Augustinian determinism, seeking to vindicate God’s goodness through the preservation of libertarian free will. Yet the historical development of the Arminian tradition reveals a tragic irony: in attempting to rescue God from the charge of tyranny, it rendered Him impotent and morally inconsistent. The benevolent deity of Arminian thought permits the eternal ruin of billions to preserve the supposed dignity of creaturely choice. Such a God, far from being loving, appears self-regarding and indifferent.

Moreover, the Arminian reliance upon foreknowledge as the basis of election not only misconstrues the biblical text but evacuates divine sovereignty of meaning. Scripture consistently affirms both human inability and God’s unconditional predestination. The attempt to explain away these doctrines undercuts the very justice and goodness Arminianism sought to defend.

II. The Early Arminian Vision: Grace Restoring a Lost Freedom

Jacobus Arminius (1559–1609) maintained that fallen humanity was totally depraved and incapable of turning to God without divine initiative. His innovation lay in the doctrine of prevenient grace, an influence that precedes conversion and restores sufficient freedom for all persons to respond to God’s call.¹ Grace, in this view, is resistible; the will is synergistic with grace rather than monergistically regenerated.

The Remonstrant Articles of 1610 formally articulated this position, affirming that divine election is conditional upon foreseen faith.² God, according to this scheme, looks down the corridors of time, perceives who will freely believe, and elects them on that basis. Thus election becomes a divine ratification of human choice rather than its cause.

Yet this approach introduces insuperable moral and metaphysical difficulties. It postulates a God who foresees the universal fall, foreknows the eternal damnation of the majority, and nevertheless proceeds with creation—without any plan to redeem the totality of His handiwork. Divine goodness is thereby subordinated to the abstract principle of libertarian freedom.

III. The Wesleyan Refinement and Its Moral Paradox

John Wesley inherited Arminius’s framework but deepened its devotional and moral character. He affirmed total corruption but taught that Christ’s atonement restored prevenient grace to all.³ Salvation thus remains universally accessible yet perpetually resistible. In practice, Wesleyan Arminianism inspired evangelistic fervor and personal holiness, but philosophically it could not resolve the contradiction between divine benevolence and eternal loss. If God’s love is truly universal and His grace sufficient for all, how can He rest while any are finally lost? The divine permission of everlasting ruin becomes indistinguishable from indifference.

IV. The American Devolution: From Grace to Natural Ability

Nineteenth-century American revivalism carried Arminian theology to its logical but disastrous conclusion. Charles Finney (1792–1875) rejected inherited guilt and moral inability, insisting that sinners possess full natural power to repent.⁴ Grace became merely persuasive rather than regenerative. This shift from prevenient to motivational grace marked the transition from theological Arminianism to moralistic voluntarism.

In Finney’s system, divine love ceases to be redemptive power and becomes moral influence. The sinner is no longer dependent upon grace but upon his own decision. What began as a protest against fatalism ended as an exaltation of self-sufficiency. Thus Arminianism devolved into practical Pelagianism.

V. The Inadequacy of Arminian Theodicy

Even in its most sophisticated form, Arminianism fails to justify the ways of God to man. Its deity is omniscient yet chooses to actualize a world in which sin and eternal misery are foreknown and unredeemed. The claim that divine love requires the possibility of rejection empties love of its redemptive content. A parent who permits his children to destroy themselves eternally for the sake of preserving their “freedom” is not loving but callous.

Augustine’s determinism, for all its harshness, limited the experiment of free will to two individuals—Adam and Eve. The Arminian God repeats this experiment with billions, fully aware that most will perish. Thus Arminianism does not mitigate the problem of evil but multiplies it exponentially.

VI. Scriptural Testimony to Human Inability

The biblical witness is unequivocal concerning the moral and spiritual impotence of fallen humanity:

“There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:10–11, KJV).
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44).
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... neither can he know them” (1 Cor. 2:14).
“The carnal mind is enmity against God... neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7).

These texts affirm more than mere moral weakness; they assert inability—a radical incapacity that only divine grace can overcome. The Arminian claim that prevenient grace universally restores ability lacks explicit biblical support and renders these statements effectively meaningless.

VII. Scriptural Testimony to Divine Election

In contrast to the Arminian scheme of conditional election, Scripture presents election as sovereign, unconditional, and rooted in God’s eternal purpose:

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4).
“According to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9).
“As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate... moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called...” (Rom. 8:29–30).

In these passages, foreknowledge is not mere prescience but fore-love—God’s gracious determination to set His affection upon certain persons.⁵ The grammar of Romans 8:29 places foreknowledge and predestination in a causal sequence within God’s decree, not as an observational act of foresight. If election were conditional upon foreseen faith, then faith would precede divine choice, undermining Paul’s explicit statement that election “is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Rom. 9:16).

VIII. The Inadequacy of “Foreknowledge” as the Ground of Election

The Arminian view of foreknowledge reduces divine omniscience to passive awareness. It imagines God as an observer of future contingencies, not as their ordainer. Yet such a conception is logically incoherent: if God merely knows what free creatures will do, His knowledge still makes those acts certain; and if they are certain, they are no longer indeterminate. Thus, conditional election collapses into either determinism or open theism.

Moreover, biblical “foreknowledge” (Greek proginōskō) carries the covenantal sense of intimate personal choice rather than abstract cognition. When Scripture says, “The Lord knew you” (Deut. 7:7–8; Amos 3:2), it denotes electing love, not neutral foresight. Therefore, to base election upon foreseen faith reverses the biblical order: faith is the fruit of election, not its cause (Acts 13:48; John 6:37).

IX. The Moral Consequences of the Arminian God

If God foreknows eternal torment for the majority yet elects not to intervene decisively, He becomes morally culpable by omission. To allow preventable evil for the sake of preserving a philosophical abstraction—libertarian freedom—is not love but self-regard. Arminianism thus exchanges divine sovereignty for divine sentimentality. The result is a theodicy in which God’s goodness is compromised, His power curtailed, and His purpose fragmented.

X. Conclusion: The Only Sufficient Theodicy

Both Calvinism and Arminianism falter at the same point: they leave evil with the last word for a portion of God’s creation. Calvinism attributes this to decretal reprobation; Arminianism to autonomous free will. But in either case, the final state of the cosmos is dualistic—evil and good coexisting eternally.

The only theodicy that preserves both divine sovereignty and divine love is one in which predestination aims at universal restoration (Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:20; Rom. 11:32). Election, rightly understood, is not the rejection of the many for the sake of the few but the choosing of the few for the redemption of the many. God’s foreknowledge is not passive observation but purposeful ordination “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

Thus the tragedy of Arminian freedom is that it exalts the autonomy of the creature above the triumph of divine grace. A truly benevolent God would not rest until every lost soul is restored, for the love that allows eternal loss is no love at all.

Notes

Jacobus Arminius, Works, trans. James Nichols (London: Longman, 1825), 2:192–96.
“The Remonstrant Articles” (1610), in Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Harper, 1877), 3:545–46.
John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions, Sermon 85, “On Working Out Our Own Salvation.”
Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology (Oberlin, 1846), Lecture 17.
See John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 316–18; Richard B. Gaffin, “By Faith, Not by Sight” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 62–64.

Wednesday, October 29, 2025

The Tragedy of Freedom: The Historical Drift of Arminianism and Its Failure as a Theodicy