sign in sign up
<<
Home , Christology, Jacobus Arminius, Ordo salutis, Trinity

THE CHRISTOLOGICAL PROBLEM IN THE THOUGHT OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS

by RICHARD A. MULLER

Pasadena,CA

Virtually all discussions of the of Jacobus Arminius (1559- 1609) have viewed his theology retrospectively in the light of the Remonstrance of 1610 and of the debate over the which ultimately led to the of Dort'. That there is a validity both historical and theological in this approach is undeniable, but the approach is clearly problematic when the topics of the Remonstrance, the Contra-Remonstrance and the are used restrictively as a grid through which to determine the essential elements of the theology of Arminius himself. In short, Arminius ought not to be viewed simply as a Reformed theologian who departed from the early Reformed of his teachers over the primary issue of and its relation to the ordo salutis and who produced no important variations of in the other theological loci".

1 Cf. Gerard Brandt, TheHistory of theReformation and otherEcclesiastical Transactions in and about theLow Countries: from the Beginning of theEighth Century, down to theFamous , 4 vols. (London, 1720-23;repr. New York: AMS Press, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 25-55, where Arminius theologyis presentedvirtually entirely in terms of the debate over predestination. This approach is typicalalso of the biographiesof Arminius: e.g., , De vitaet obitu...D. lacobi Arminii oratio,in Jacobus Arminius, Operatheologica (, 1629),fol. i-iv; Brandt, Historiavitae Jacobi Arminii(, 1724); Carl Bangs,Arminius: A Study in the DutchReformation (Nashville, 1971). Despite his recognitionof the importance of the doctrine of to the developmentof Arminius' thought and despite his careful analysisof the chronologyof Arminius' theologicaldebates, Bangs elaborates theologicallyonly on Arminius' doctrinesof thechurch, , and grace, ,the order of salvation and predestination-with no discussionof other central issuessuch as ,the doc- trine of Godand the workof Christin the two statesand threefoldoffice (cf. pp. 253 332-55). A similar situation obtains in theologicalstudies of Arminianismlike A. W. Harrison, The Beginningsof Arminianismto the Synodof Dort(London, 1926); idem., (London, 1937);and Howard Slaatte, TheArminianArm of Theology(Washington, D.C., 1979);and also in the standard historiesof Protestant theology:cf. I.A. Dorner, Historyof ProtestantTheology, trs. GeorgeRobson and SophiaTaylor, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1871),vol. 1, pp. 417-426;Otto Ritschl, DogmengeschichteProtestantismus, des 4 vols. (Leipzigand Göttingen, 1908-27),vol. 3, pp. 314-39;Hans Emil Weber, ,Orthodoxie und Rationalismus (Gütersloh, 1937-51; repr. Darmstadt, 1966),vol. 2, p. 98-110.The soleexception known to me is Dorner's brief commenton the problemof Arminius' conceptsof and Atonementin History,I, pp. 423-24. G.J. Hoenderdaal, "Arminius, Jacobus," s.v. in TRE supplies excellent bibliographicalresources but is all too brief in its survey of doctrine. 2 Cf. Richard A. Muller, "The Federal Motif in Seventeenth Century Arminian 146

The early orthodox system and the confessional basis of Reformed theology had been so fully developed by the time of Arminius' tenure at Leiden that a variation of doctrine in one part of the system implied a fairly massive alteration of other interrelated doctrinal topics. The Armi- nian position represents a systematic alternative to the Reformed. To view it as anything less is to do it considerable injustice 3. In calling for this new perspective on Arminius' theology, we encounter a major methodological problem: Arminius tells us virtually nothing of the positive sources of his views. When he differs with the positions of his Reformed teachers, the theological antecedents of his views can, at best, only be surmised on the basis of doctrinal similarities. The attempt to ascertain some of these sources is crucial, however, once it is recognized that the usual interpretation of Arminius' thought as generated entirely in reaction to the surpralapsarianism of a "Bezan orthodoxy" is untenable. Not only is this thesis incapable of explaining Arminius' departures from the paradigm of Reformed orthodoxy on topics other than predestination, such as the highly important topic of Christology, it is also based on a misunderstanding of Arminus' education in theology in Leiden and Geneva and cannot explain even the predestinarian side of Arminius' thought 4.

Theology,"in Nederlands Archief Kerkgeschiedenis,voor 62/1 (1982),pp. 102-122.The editors of NAK have graciouslyallowed me to providea list of errata for "The FederalMotif": they are as follows:p. 104, 11. 3, 14, religioaltera; p. 104, n. 7, promissionesMosaicœ; p. 107, 1. 4, facientibusquod...; p. 109, 11. 17-18, "Nihil enim in tota theologiaest, quod non dirigitur in actionem"; p. 113, 1. 7-8, foedusMosaicum; p. 114, 1. 20, lex Mosaica;p. 115, 1. 3 from below,praecepta novifoederis; p. 118, 11. 17-18,idem; p. 119, 1. 13, idem; p. 121, 1. 5 from below, lex primaeva. 3 Ibid., pp. 102-3, 121-22. 4 Cf. Bangs,Arminius, pp. 68-80, 139-41.Although Bangs' arguments represent a major revision of Bertius' account of the origins of Arminius' views, particularlyconcerning the role playedby pre-CalvinisticDutch theologyand by the controversialposition held by , Banga nonetheless retains the assumption, based on Bertius' account, that Arminius' own theology stands opposed primarily to the Bezan, supralapsarian view of predestination:cf. Bertius, De vita et obitu, p. iii verso. I have argued elsewherethat the Reformed doctrine of predestinationdeveloped in the sixteenthcentury not as a "central dogma" but as part of an interrelatedset of doctrinal interests,and that the developingpat- terns of Christologyin fact influencedthe language of predestination.This essaycarries for- ward a similar point with respect to Arminius' theology-but at the same time recognizes a further need to examine in the detail other lociin Arminius' theologyfor their impact on and relation to his teaching on predestination. Concerning the Reformed development,see Richard A. Muller, Christand the Decree: Christology and Predestinationin Reformed Theology from Calvinto Perkins(Durham, N.C., 1986)and idem., "Perkins' A GoldenChaine: Predestinarian Systemor SchematizedOrdo Salutis?" in The SixteenthCentury Journal,IX/1 (1978),pp. 69-81.