The alpha point of Arminius’s synergistic conception of salvation is marked by his use of the facientibus—the sinner who is always ready to embrace the grace of God because of universal prevenient grace—and the omega point is marked by his understanding of justification—that a redeemed sinner had to remain faithful to be justified at the final judgment rather than rest entirely on the imputed active obedience of Christ. Only those who persevered in Christ would be finally justified. This justification was not grounded solely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ but also upon the believer’s sanctification-driven perseverance. Granted, Arminius’s soteriology was bathed in affirmations of the necessity of the grace of God, but it is fair to say that his soteriology nevertheless conflicted with the Reformed consensus of the day. While Arminius maintained he was a confessional Reformed theologian, his soteriology stands outside the confessional boundaries of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.
J. V. Fesko | Arminius and the Reformed Tradition: Grace and the Doctrine of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2022), 85–86.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- What it Means to be Confessional
- Why the Focus on the Confessions?
- Why Are Confessionalists Just A Niche?
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to:
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Inwoo Lee
Inwoo Lee (BA, UCSD) earned his MA (Historical Theology) in 2020 from Westminster Seminary California and is author of “Righteous Before God: William Perkins’ Doctrine of Justification in Elizabethan England” (MA Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2020). He lives in the Great Seoul area, in South Korea with his wife Holly.
More by Inwoo Lee ›
So much for Wilson, Frame, Piper, et cetera ad nauseam. What spools me up is the fact that they and the ill-informed call them Calvinists and Reformed. Calumny.
Of these three, John Frame is a minister in a confessional Reformed denomination (PCA) and legitimately a Calvinist. I disagree John rather strongly (and he with me) on a number of issues. I would agree that some of what he has said (as noted in my recent review of his Concise Theology) is inconsistent with Reformed theology and if Calvin has anything to say about it, inconsistent with what he wrote but John’s in a different class from Wilson and Piper, neither of whom are ministers in Reformed churches.
See Dr. Clark’s answer, he certainly said it went well. Frame by all accounts is calvinist and reformed, though not as Orthodox as some.
I would argue as well that piper is at least calvinist. Reformed? Not historically, but he certainly lends that way and has been overall a positive voice in America proclaiming the gospel.
Wilson teaches open heresy. (See “Reformed is not enough” or many of his other works) I don’t think it’s quite fair to lob Wilson/piper/frame all together.
Ben,
I’m not nearly as optimistic any more about Dr Piper’s message. Final salvation through works, his language, is not good news. It isn’t “Calvinist” if Calvin has anything to say about what Calvinist means. He’s predestinarian, which is necessary but it’s hardly sufficient.
Thanks for the clarification. I have not personally listened/read him extensively for many years. I did appreciate his tome “Providence” that was more recent. I’ll be more wary of endorsing him across the board in the future!
So it would be safe to assume that Norman Geisler would fit right into the synergist model, correct?
It’s a fair question but one should read Geisler himself to confirm.