The followers of Arminius were called the Remonstrants when they appeared before the Synod of Dordt which started in November of 1618. The men this Synod consisted of were from all over Europe and lasted about six months. This group of men unanimously condemned the doctrinal views of the Remonstrants and wrote a canon of beliefs that have withstood the test of time as being of great benefit to the Church. The Remonstrants were deposed from their ecclesiastical offices and were even exiled. But within a few years they were allowed to return to their country and were permitted to perform public worship and even establish a seminary. Their views began a corrupting influence on the theology of the nation and then other nations as well.
As was stated in the last BLOG (History and Theology I), there was nothing new in the Calvinism of Calvin and there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. Instead of thinking that Calvinism started with John Calvin, we should think of Calvin as a man that set out a historical system of theology in a precise form. When compared to his successors, Arminius seemed to have held to at least some of the main teachings of Scripture on the depravity of man and therefore the necessity “of a supernatural work of grace to effect their renovation and sanctification.” This is the primary point where evangelical Arminianism differs from Pelagianism though it is possible for a person to claim to be an Arminian and still hold to the Pelagian view of original sin and the depravity or non-depravity of human nature. This distinction must be seen and examined rather than just accepting a person’s word for what theological position that he holds. It is also true that a person can claim to be a Calvinist and in reality be an Arminian. The positions must be examined to determine what position a person really holds to.
Cunningham says that the history of this subject shows us that whenever men abandon the teachings of Calvinism “there is a powerful tendency leading them downwards into the depths of Pelagianism.” While Arminius did not seem to have gone so far, his followers were soon teaching further corruptions concerning “original sin, the work of the Spirit, and justification; and made near approaches, upon these and kindred topics, to Pelagian and Socinian views.” Cunningham goes on to say that “a large proportion of those theologians who have been willing to call themselves Arminians, have manifested a similar leaning-have exhibited a similar result.
At this point we should stop and look at where we have gone. The distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism is not in and of itself people lining up behind two historical figures. In reality John Calvin systematized a body of theology that was taught in Scripture and also taught by Augustine and others. Arminius agreed with Calvin on a majority of things but disagreed on what people later came to call the five points of Calvinism. John Calvin never set out the five points in the way that they came to us later on. What is really going on is that Calvin and Arminius give us two ways that people have looked at Scripture throughout history. A Calvinist is not a person that follows Calvin, but agrees that the system he set out is the teaching of Scripture. This is a very important point. A true Calvinist is one that believes in the authority of Scripture and not the authority of John Calvin. Those who would call themselves “Arminians” must not call themselves that because they agree with James Arminius, but because they believe that his system of thought is more in line with Scripture.
But as Cunningham points out to us the followers of Arminius went further than Arminius did. They were more in line with another group in history that is now called by the name of “Pelagianism” due to the man named Pelagius who set out its principle teachings. Cunningham also tells us that in history a large number of people who call themselves Arminians actually tend toward the Pelagian and Socinian views. We must note this with some degree of care. If this is the tendency of many people if not the majority of people in history who go under that theological system, it should alert us to something that a system tends toward. If the system itself has that tendency on fallen human beings, there are reasons that it does so and that means that we should look at those who are Arminian in profession and ask questions to see if they are not in fact Pelagians.
When Cunningham wrote in the late 1800’s he did not know about what would happen in the SBC. The SBC started off with primarily Reformed men and certainly by the 1940’s appeared to be Arminian. By the 50’s and 60’s the Pelagian roots were there and without question it was settled in. Indeed liberalism and neo-orthodox views were having a major influence, but many times liberals and the neo-orthodox are Pelagian in their views of original sin and of salvation. In other words, the SBC was inundated with Pelagianism in the very recent past. Has it been turned back to Arminianism or Pelagianism under the guise of Arminianism? This is an important question.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment