Jacob Arminius on justification

"For Arminius, because of the gracious estimation of God, he credits our faith as our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed to believers, according to at least the later Arminius. He did not believe Christ’s righteousness could be imputed. In discussing justification, Arminius made use of the Latin term acceptilatio, which means a “formal release from an obligation.” Imperfect faith, then, is accepted by God’s gracious estimation as righteousness. Or to put it another way, the human act of faith is by grace counted as evangelical righteousness, as if it were the complete fulfillment of the whole law, even though it is not." 

 This interesting quote comes from Mark Jones book Faith. Hope. Love.: The Christ-Centered Way to Grow in Grace. But the surprising thing here is that he does not cite Arminius which is surprising since he is making the claim that this is the view of Arminius. But I will prove this has no validity at all by looking at Arminius himself and Keith Stanglin, one of the leading scholars when it comes to Arminius.

  First let's look at his 19th public disputation that is dealing with the justification of man he says "it is a justification by which a man, who is a sinner, yet a believer, being placed before the throne of grace which is erected in Christ Jesus the Propitiation, is accounted and pronounced by God, the just and merciful Judge, righteous and worthy of the reward of righteousness, not in himself but in Christ, of grace, according to the gospel, to the praise of the righteousness and grace of God, and to the salvation of the justified person himself." (Romans 3:24-26; 3, 4, 5, 10, 11.) So we see here Arminius affirms that man is accounted righteous because of Christ and not of his faith so the statement from Mark Jones is false but we're not done yet.

Now let's look at his private disputation 48 in which Arminius repeats "Justification is a just and gracious act of God as a judge, by which, from the throne of his grace and mercy, he absolves from his sins, man, a sinner, but who is a believer, on account of Christ, and the obedience and righteousness of Christ, and considers him righteous, to the salvation of the justified person, and to the glory of divine righteousness and grace." Arminius says goes on to say the "the meritorious cause of justification is Christ through his obedience and righteousness" then for the material cause it's "Christ is also the material cause of our justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes his righteousness and obedience to us." The object of justification is the sinner who is a believer. Arminius affirms that faith "is the instrumental cause, or act, by which we apprehend Christ proposed to us by God for a propitiation and for righteousness." The form for Arminius "The form is the gracious reckoning of God, by which he imputes to us the righteousness of Christ, and imputes faith to us for righteousness." Now someone might say here Arminius affirms that faith is our righteousness but there are two problems with that. First point here is that Arminius affirms that Christ righteousness is imputed to believers so contra Jones and other people who say Arminius only believed that that faith is accounted for righteousness. And the second point is that Arminius clarifies what he means by saying "that is, he remits our sins to us who are believers, on account of Christ apprehended by faith, and accounts us righteous in him." So here Arminius doesn't affirm that faith itself remits sins in of itself contrary to the claim of some people but sins are remitted on account of Christ which is apprehend by faith.

  Now let's go to the main work of Arminius, his declaration of sentiments and he gives an entire section dealing with justification. The useful thing Arminius gives is how this entire controversy happens; he points to the debate within the French church and John Piscator. The debate was over if the passive obedience of Christ was imputed which Arminius says that was Piscator's opinions while the French church affirmed that it was both the active and passive obedience imputed. Now Arminius himself says "I never durst mingle myself with the dispute, or undertake to decide it" but the focus comes to Romans 4 and how it should be understood. Now Arminius says there were two views, one which said faith as an act itself was imputed for righteousness while the other view was "that the righteousness of Christ, being apprehended by faith, is imputed to us for righteousness." Now here is what Arminius said about that "In the theses on justification, which were disputed under me when I was moderator, I have adopted the former of these opinions not in a rigid manner, but simply, as I have likewise done in another passage which I wrote in a particular letter." Now someone can argue that Arminius himself concedes that he affirmed that faith as an act was imputed for righteousness. But I'll push back on this point since Arminius himself never finds these things to be contrary to each other. As seen in his private disputation 48 he has no problem with saying that faith is imputed for righteousness and that Christ righteousness is imputed to believers. So for Arminius he sees no problem in saying both of these things and because of that I don't think you can say he would affirm "the human act of faith is by grace counted as evangelical righteousness, as if it were the complete fulfillment of the whole law, even though it is not." Now Arminius says what his view is to clear everything up "I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righteousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, because God hath set forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, [or mercy seat] through faith in his blood." So it's clear as day that Arminius affirms that it's only on the account of Christ that "reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law." So to claim that Arminius said that faith itself does that is just a pure lie with no basis in Arminius works whether in his disputations or his declaration of sentiments.

  Keith Stanglin is one of the leading scholars when it comes to Arminius so I will use his material to support my point. In his work on Arminius on assurance on the section of justification he says "Arminius’s disputations on justification exhibit no meaningful differences with those of his colleagues. They cohere and, even more, they demonstrate identical lines of thought. They all assign God as the principal efficient cause of justification." He goes on to say that "The only difference is that Gomarus explicitly mentions in the material cause the satisfaction of Christ as well, thus emphasizing the active and passive obedience of Christ. Like Arminius, the others do not mention the satisfaction of Christ, although they clearly regarded it as necessary for justification. We do know, however, that Arminius was not keen on getting involved in the debate over the active and passive obedience of Christ." Stanglin cites Kuchlinus to prove that Arminius was identical with other theologians on the material cause "Kuchlinus affirmed, “The material cause (materia) in qua are only those who truly believe: He who believes has eternal life." He goes on to use Trelcatius, another Leiden professor to show Arminius continuity with the standard reformed view "In agreement with Arminius, Trelcatius wrote, “The formal cause ( forma) of justification consists in gracious imputation, which is twofold. One is negative, and is the remission of sins. The other is affirmative, and is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”Arminius certainly does not fall under Trelcatius’s critique of the “adversaries,” who “wish the formal cause to be righteousness inherent and infused in us.” Stanglin points out how the controversy about justification was overblown "Given that the role of faith was the main controversy surrounding  Arminius’s doctrine of justification, it is remarkable to find that the Leiden disputations are substantially identical on this point." Now he points out that when it comes to faith as an instrument or action "When he (Arminius) was accused of teaching that faith is not the instrument of justification, but an act, he said that faith is certainly both. As the instrument of justification, faith “accepts and apprehends the promises given by  God. . . . But apprehension is an action: Therefore faith not as an instrument, but as an action is imputed for righteousness.” So Arminius calling faith an act isn't a big deal since Stanglin says that "neither did the debate turn on Arminius’s calling faith an act, for Gomarus himself refers to the “action of faith". So the similarities between Arminius and the other Leiden theologians when it comes to the causes of justification "among the disputations of the four Leiden theologians, the agreement is striking and the variations are rare."

  So I think here that Arminius did not believe that faith in itself made man righteous and fulfilled the law without Christ. If you look at Arminius himself it's pretty clear that he doesn't teach that and from the scholarship it's as Keith Stanglin says "Attempts to implicate Arminius as un-Reformed by appealing to his statements on justification are finally unsuccessful, no less now as they were then." All I have to say is that before you start making claims about what someone believes, cite them instead of relying on what your favorite theologian says about them. Here is the last quote from Arminius from his apology " The man, then, who says, "the act of faith is imputed for righteousness, does not deny that faith as an instrument concurs to justification. It is evident, therefore, from this answer, that our brethren fabricate and "get up" articles of this kind without the least care or solicitude, and charge me with them."