We live in a world that is bewildering in many ways. In one sense that which we fight against in one generation we become in the next. What one generation terms as evil the next swallows it as orthodoxy. What goes under one title gradually changes over time and so that those who stand under the same title years later have little in common with those who originally held it. It has been noted that the positions of the political parties in the United States have switched over time as well. In an effort to be ecumenical or perhaps gracious to all, it is easy to have as a creed a historic Confession of faith and yet deny it by one’s so-called practical approach to ministry or the local church. In the modern day we have some if not many who are Reformed in title in the sense that they hold to a creed of Confession and yet are so friendly with practical Arminianism or Pelagianism that it nullifies the Confession. In the words of Tozer, our real creed is often hidden in our hearts beneath the rubbish of an external Confession.
The dangers of this are many. Practical heresy can be hidden beneath orthodoxy. The practice of a false and dangerous gospel ministry and evangelism program can be hidden beneath an outward adherence to a creed. The outward creed helps us to deceive ourselves about our orthodoxy as we go on in the way of our heresies in what we do. Sometimes our practice is more indicative of who we are than of our creeds. We can also see what would happen when a stalwart of the faith takes a position that is not in line with the history of the faith and then says that it is the historical faith. Scripture and Scripture alone must always be the final authority in matters of faith and practice, yet our creeds and histories are also important. We can think that our creed is historically and biblically accurate and yet never really know what either says and how they agree. It is so easy just to accept what other people say is Reformed or is the heart of Arminian teaching and blithely go on in error.
In 1882 the first edition of William Cunningham’s Historical Theology was printed. Much of what is quoted here or will be said as history is taken from his volumes on this. In the late 1500’s and early 1600’s Calvinism was what was taught as orthodoxy in the Netherlands. We should also take note that this is not necessarily the same thing as what goes under the name of Calvinism in the modern day. However, in 1603 a man named James Arminius was appointed as Professor of Theology at Leyden. His teaching and opinions began to be seen as inconsistent with the prevailing views of orthodoxy. He was called to make a public declaration of his sentiments in 1608 but died in 1609. “After his death, Episcopius was considered the head of the party; and he ultimately deviated much further from the pattern of sound doctrine than Arminius had done.”
What we want to note at this point is that James Arminius was indeed called out to answer for his deviation from orthodoxy. He is the father of what is now called “Arminianism.” What Arminius taught, however, was not new. Much of what he taught had been taught by Clemens Alexandrinus and other of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. It is thought that much of this teaching came from the corrupting influences of pagan philosophy. In the fifth century, Pelagius was opposed to the same teachings that Arminius and Calvin later taught. The same thing, in the sense that it was not new, is true of what is known as “Calvinism.” John Calvin did not teach many things new at all, but instead taught in line with Augustine and other men in the early Church.
It is very interesting to notice what happens now according to Cunningham. “The system of theology which has generally prevailed in the Church of Rome was substantially very much the same as that taught by Arminius, with this difference in favour of the Church of Rome, that the Council of Trent at least left the Romanists at liberty to profess, if they chose, a larger amount of scriptural truth, upon some important points, than the Arminian creed, even in its most evangelical form, admits of.” The more evangelical Arminians, those such as John Wesley, took great pains to show that Arminius believed much of what Calvin did and in fact that it was the followers of Arminius who corrupted the system. While that may be true, it is also true that it has not been convincingly shown that Arminius believed that true believers might not persevere in the faith and certainly did not believe in perfectionism as Wesley did. Cunningham does go on to note that what went under the title of Arminianism in his day held to much less truth than did Arminius or Wesley.
Surely some of the application of this position can be seen. A historical person may not be all that telling of what a person really holds to in terms of his or her theology. It is also true that each historical position changes over a period of time. There is a general position known as Arminianism and a general position known as Calvinism. What is important, however, is not to hold to something because that is what a position holds to as those positions slip and slide with each generation. As Cunningham notes later, many of the followers of Arminius slid into Pelagianism. Could that be true of today’s theological Arminians as well? But have those who have held to Calvinism held to the same beliefs as well? We must become those who hold to Scripture. The theological positions of those who have gone before us will serve us well, but we must be those who hold to Scripture above all. At least one reason for that is that the historical positions move back and forth over time. What passes as Calvinism today might also be more like what some historical Arminians have taught in many ways. Things are not so easy these days to discern what a person really believes. That is especially true when the real creed of the heart can be hidden beneath the rubbish of a Confession. For example, many Arminians would be shocked to know that the heart of their system of theology is much the same as that of Roman Catholicism. In fact, historically Roman Catholicism is Arminian in its theology. This is why Reformed people in the past have seen that a return to Arminianism is a return in principle to Roman Catholicism and that is why they fought it so hard. Things have sure changed in our day.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment