Articles

The debate between Arminian and Reformed theology is often summarized as a contest between two lists of five points. On one side stands the Remonstrance of 1610, five articles drawn up by followers of Jacobus Arminius after his death. On the other side stand the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), which answered the Remonstrance point by point and are popularly summarized by the acronym TULIP. The acronym came much later, in the early twentieth century, and it simplifies the Canons in ways many Reformed theologians regret. Still, the two lists remain a useful map. This article sets them side by side, explains what each point affirms, and notes where the traditions agree more than the labels suggest.

The historical setting

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch Reformed minister and professor at Leiden who came to question the doctrine of predestination as taught by many of his contemporaries, especially the view that God’s decree of election and reprobation came logically before his decree to permit the fall. He died in 1609. In 1610 his followers presented a petition, the Remonstrance, to the States of Holland and West Friesland, requesting toleration for their views. The document set out five articles on election, the extent of the atonement, human inability, the resistibility of grace, and perseverance.

The controversy grew political as well as theological. In 1618 the Synod of Dort convened, with delegates from the Dutch churches and from Reformed churches in other countries. The Remonstrants were not seated as members of the synod. The Canons of Dort, adopted in 1619, rejected the Remonstrant positions and set out the Reformed view under five heads of doctrine. Remonstrant ministers were deposed, and some were exiled, though the movement continued and was later tolerated.

Point one: depravity and inability

TULIP begins with total depravity. The Canons teach that all people are conceived in sin, are by nature children of wrath, and are unable to do any saving good or to reform themselves without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. “Total” does not mean that people are as wicked as they could be, but that sin affects every part of human nature, including the mind and will.

Many people assume Arminians deny this point, but the Remonstrance affirms it plainly. Its third article states that man “has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will,” and that in the state of sin he “can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is).” He must be born again of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. Wesley taught the same. The difference lies in what God does about this inability. Arminians teach that God gives prevenient grace, which restores to all people enough freedom to respond to the gospel. Reformed theology teaches that God gives regenerating grace to the elect, which renews their hearts so that they believe.

Point two: election

The Canons teach unconditional election. Before the foundation of the world, God chose a definite number of people out of the fallen human race to be saved in Christ, purely out of his good pleasure, and not because he foresaw faith or good works in them. Faith and holiness are the fruit of election, not its cause.

The first article of the Remonstrance teaches conditional election. God decreed to save in Christ those who, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in his Son and persevere in faith to the end, and to leave the unbelieving under wrath. Arminius and Wesley both connected election with God’s foreknowledge of who would believe. Some modern Arminians emphasize corporate election, in which God chooses the church in Christ and individuals share in that election by faith.

Both traditions affirm that election is in Christ, that it is gracious, and that it is not based on human merit. The difference concerns whether faith is the result of election or the condition of it.

Point three: the atonement

TULIP’s third point is limited atonement, which many Reformed theologians prefer to call definite or particular redemption. The Canons teach that Christ’s death is of infinite value, sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but that God intended it to redeem effectually all those, and only those, whom he had chosen. The gospel is to be preached to all without distinction, and the offer is sincere.

The second article of the Remonstrance teaches that Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, “died for all men and for every man,” obtaining redemption and forgiveness for all, yet no one actually enjoys this forgiveness except the believer. It cites John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.

Both traditions affirm that Christ’s death is sufficient for all, that the gospel should be offered to everyone, and that only believers are actually saved. The disagreement concerns God’s intention in the cross: whether Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect, or to make salvation available to all, to be received by faith.

Point four: grace

The Canons teach what TULIP calls irresistible grace, a phrase the Canons themselves do not use. Reformed theologians often prefer “effectual calling” or “efficacious grace.” The Canons teach that when God calls the elect, he works in them so powerfully by his Spirit that they are regenerated and freely believe. This grace does not force the will against its desires; it renews the will so that the person wants to come to Christ.

The fourth article of the Remonstrance teaches that grace is “the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good,” so that the regenerate person can do nothing good without it. “But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible,” the article continues, “inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost.” It cites Acts 7.

Both traditions affirm that grace comes first, that no one comes to Christ without it, and that every good thing in a believer is the work of grace. The difference concerns whether grace, once given, always accomplishes its purpose in the person or can be refused.

Point five: perseverance

The Canons teach the perseverance of the saints. Those whom God has called and regenerated may fall into serious sin and lose a sense of God’s favor for a time, but God will not let them fall away totally and finally. He preserves them by his grace, renews them to repentance, and brings them to glory. The doctrine is meant to give assurance, and the Canons warn that it should never be used as an excuse for carelessness.

The fifth article of the Remonstrance is more tentative than many expect. It affirms that believers have full power through the Holy Spirit to win the victory over Satan, sin, the world, and the flesh, and that Christ keeps them from falling if they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive. It then states that whether believers can, through negligence, forsake the beginnings of their life in Christ “must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.” Later Arminians, including Wesley, concluded that believers can indeed finally fall away. Some Arminians today hold that apostasy is possible only through a deliberate rejection of faith, not through sin as such.

Both traditions agree that believers are kept by God’s power, that warnings in Scripture are serious, and that genuine faith shows itself in endurance. The difference concerns whether God guarantees that every true believer will persevere.

Beyond the acronym

Reducing either tradition to five points has costs. The Canons of Dort are far richer than TULIP. They include pastoral warnings against presumption and despair, statements about the free offer of the gospel, and careful distinctions about human responsibility. The Remonstrance, for its part, is a brief petition, and Arminian theology developed considerably after it, especially through Wesley and the Methodist movement. Wesley’s teaching on prevenient grace, assurance, and holiness gave the tradition a distinct pastoral shape.

The acronyms can also hide the large territory the traditions share. Both are Protestant traditions that affirm the authority of Scripture, justification by faith, the necessity of grace, the deity of Christ, and his substitutionary death. Both preach the gospel to all people and call them to repent and believe. Both teach that salvation is God’s work from beginning to end, though they describe God’s work differently.

Why the debate still matters

The questions raised in 1610 and 1619 are not merely academic. They shape how Christians pray for unbelievers, how they understand their own assurance, how they preach the warnings of Scripture, and how they speak of God’s love. Reformed believers find in their doctrine a deep confidence that God will finish what he began. Arminian believers find in theirs a confidence that God’s love truly extends to every person, and that the invitation of the gospel is open to all who hear it.

The best way to understand either tradition is to read its own documents and its best teachers, and to test both against Scripture. The passages discussed in the other articles on this site, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, and Hebrews 6, are good places to start. Readers who work through them with an open Bible and a charitable spirit will understand both positions better, and will likely find that their own convictions are clearer and more humble for the effort.