In The Arminian Notion of General Redemption, and a Milder Law, chapter six of Baptist Theologian John Glazier Stearns’ book Calvinism and Arminianism Compared and Tested by the Scriptures, Stearns evaluates the major tenets of Arminianism from a critical view, strictly comparing scripture from the Christian Bible (and its common interpretations) to the beliefs declared by Arminians. Stearns’ objective viewpoint reveals some acute factionalism within specific Arminian beliefs that were developing in the mid 1800s .
Before comparing Arminian beliefs to scripture, Stearns first identifies the central concept of the doctrine, “[t]hat God, by the atonement of Jesus Christ, has redeemed all men from the law or [old] covenant” (Stearns 79). Stearns continues in clarifying that Armenians do not necessarily believe in universal salvation because, “[t]here is… a distinction between the price of redemption, and actual deliverance” (Stearns 80). In this way, Arminians practice a general redemption instead, believing that actual deliverance (salvation) is based on certain conditions that must be met and chosen under a humans free-will (faith in Christ) (Stearns 81, 88). Stearns then shifts his work to focus on factional Arminian beliefs that were developing at that time (chiefly, salvation in infancy and its relation to the doctrine of original sin) and aims to establish a scriptural basis for these beliefs (Stearns 81). Stearns cites Romans 5:18-- “By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life”-- to support the then growing belief that “... the atonement of Christ, [covers] all mankind in infancy” and that children “are born into the world in this state [of purity]” (Stearns 81). Stearns later revisits his contemplation on the issue of original sin within Arminianism, using Titus 2:14-- “[Jesus] gave himself to us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”-- as a counterargument against the factionist belief, stating that ultimately, “None are redeemed but his peculiar people, his seed, the church” (Stearns 88-89). In closing, Stearns addresses the growing amount of legalism that was infiltrating Arminianism by comparing the “Adamic Law” which made “no provision for deficiency in duty” (old covenant theology) to that of the “The Law of Liberty” which “does not reject sprinkled devotion” (new covenant) , ultimately concluding that only God knows the sincerity of man’s intentions (Stearns 91).
The information given by Stearns above provides insight into how Arminianism grew and developed within the Americas during the 1800s, and builds nicely onto the historical perspective of Calvinism presented by Hindmarsh in his article The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism. Stearns resolidifies the basic fact that all Arminian doctrine is based upon grace for all humankind, per their individual choosing. Stearns’ perspective gives a good description of the difference between having the ability to choose grace and atonement, and making that actual choice-- further verifying and defining the true difference between Calvinist and Arminian Doctrine, and thus answering many of my original research questions. Furthermore, Stearns exploration of the debate on original sin answers the question of how Arminian doctrine has been changed by popular sentiment and adapted over time. Additionally, Stearns use of scripture to uphold these beliefs makes his argument stronger, while also creating an increasingly nuanced perspective that, at times, seems to contradict itself. This shows the importance of understanding scriptural interpretation over time and its basis in how certain words and phrases-- such as salvation or atonement-- are defined by a culture or group (Stearns mentions this when debating what it means to be delivered from sin, but not receiving salvation) (Stearns 80). Stearns’ focus on the scope of soteriology within Arminianism, rather than the actual attributes of God which that soteriological doctrine seem to assign Him, show a different, less emotional side of Arminianism. Since Stearns’ perspective is so heavily entrenched in scripture, his view of Arminianism is limited to the interpretation of those scriptures-- thus creating a doctrine of quasi-legalism.
When comparing Stearns’ Arminianism to that of Olson’s Arminian viewpoint in Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian, and Rice’s doctrine in Divine Knowledge and Free-Will Theism, the perspectives begin to diverge dramatically. While Olson and Rice focus on the graceful characteristics of God and His attributes, Stearns embeds his Arminian doctrine within strict scriptural interpretation of soteriology and the extent of salvation (Olson 88) (Rice 130) (Stearns 81). Thus, while both Olson’s and Rice’s perspectives on Arminian doctrine create a sense of personal relationship between sinner and saviour, Stearns’ doctrine largely ignores this idea (Olson 90) (Rice 122). In this way, Stearns’ beliefs are actually closer to those of Calvinist Van Wyk and Hindmarsh in Luther and Calvin on Predestination: A Comparison and The Inner Life of Doctrine: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Among Methodists, who focus on God’s ultimate sovereignty and power (Van Wyk 5) (Hindmarsh 384). However, unlike the Calvinists, who use the profound magnitude of God to establish such sovereignty, Stearns looks towards the falling away of the old covenant and establishment of the new covenant to support the awesomeness of God (Stearns 91). This further refines Stearns position, and merges both the doctrine of grace (which establishes the new covenant) and that of God’s sovereignty, to create a semi-legalistic doctrine. It could be argued that such a belief automatically requires a personalization of that grace, creating a relationship between Stearns’ belief and Habets’ belief of “acute personalization of grace” seen in The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism, which states that the act of grace in and of itself is personal to each believer who accepts it (Habets 337). Additionally, Stearns’ further strays from the other Arminians when considering the law of God, admitting in agreement with Van Wyk and Habets that only God knows the sincerity of a believer’s intentions and actions, thus assuming only God can ultimately decide who is saved and not saved (Van Wyk 3) (Habets 349) (Stearns 91). In this sense, it would appear that Stearns factionalist Arminian doctrine is only Arminian in its tenet of free-will when choosing salvation, if that salvation has not already been limited by God’s choosing or scripture (Stearns 80, 88-89).
Stearns, John G. "The Arminian Notion of General Redemption , and a Milder Law." Calvinism and Arminianism, Compared and Tested by the Scriptures. By John G. Stearns. Rochester: William Alling and, Printers, 1836. 79-100. Print.