We continue looking at the thought of William Cunningham the renowned Presbyterian historian and theologian from the 1800’s. In the last BLOG we looked at how simply not emphasizing something in one generation leads to the next denying it. While a person may hold to the general theological heading (Calvinist, Arminian) that others previously held to, the essence of the teaching has changed. Here is a very important quote from Cunningham: “Many of those who, in modern times, have passed under the name of Arminians, have followed the Pelagians in this important particular, and while distinguished from the Socinians by holding in words-or rather, by not denying-the doctrines of the divinity and atonement of Christ, have practically represented Christianity, in its general bearing and tendency, very much as if these doctrines formed no part of revelation; and all who are Arminians in any sense,–all who reject Calvinism,–may be proved to come short in giving to the person and the work of Christ that place and influence which the Scriptures assign to them.”
Let us examine this. First, take notice that Cunningham is saying that there were many in his time that went under the name of Arminian and yet they were in reality like the Pelagians. In order to do this they held to certain words and did not deny certain teachings. This should raise little red flags and make the antennas rise to the top. If that happened in the 1800’s when people were more theologically educated in the churches, then it is happening now. Let us also realize that a person can be a Calvinist in outward creed and also have Pelagian principles, and perhaps especially in our day. Charles Finney is an example of that. But notice how dangerous it is not to teach the full deity and work of Christ. We hear a lot about the humanity of Christ, but yet we hear so little of any teaching on His divinity. How much we hear of the cross and atonement in very general terms, but we hear so little of it expounded and explained. In other words, if we don’t teach on those great doctrines we are no better than those who don’t believe them. But once we begin to teach the full and glorious doctrines of the deity of Christ and of His atonement as God in human flesh, we can begin to see that it is inconsistent with Arminian doctrine.
Cunningham goes on to note that Roman Catholicism has always held to the doctrines of the divinity and atonement of Christ, but “they have contrived to neutralize and pervert their [the doctrines] legitimate influence by a somewhat more roundabout process.” He goes on to say that they have not omitted them or left them out at as much as the Pelagians and many Arminians have done. He says that this omission or at least failure to teach these doctrines in their full bearings and applications has been done “by different writers and sections of the church, passing under the general designation of Arminian, in different degrees.” This points to what may be described as “the fundamental characteristic principle of Arminianism,–that which Arminianism either is or has a strong and constant tendency to become; and this is,–that it is a scheme for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves, instead of ascribing it wholly, as the Bible does, to the sovereign grace of God,–the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ,–and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Spirit.”
Here in unadorned and unvarnished language is the real issue between what historical Calvinism states is the biblical truth and what Arminianism states is the biblical truth. I did not add the word “historical” before the word “Arminianism” and yet added it before the word “Calvinism” for a purpose. It is possible to go under the title of Calvinist and still be Arminian or even Pelagian in a practical and even real sense. A historical Calvinist will not be Arminian. It is also true as Cunningham has pointed out that many Pelagians and Socinians go under the title or heading of Arminian. Nevertheless, we see some of the major issues at hand. While the Arminian may indeed say that salvation is all of grace, yet by definition the Arminian to be an Arminian has to leave some freedom for the will to choose apart from grace or the will would not be free. The Arminian has then set out some partition and assigned a little bit for man to do and so salvation is not all of grace. While the Arminian may not admit to this point, that is his or her position when consistency is applied to it.
If the work of Christ is truly all sufficient, then there is nothing left for the sinner to do. If the work of the Spirit is truly efficacious and all powerful, then it is the Spirit that works regeneration and faith in the hearts of sinners. Indeed one may not deny the work of Christ in theory, but once we leave a little bit for man to do we have denied that Christ is all sufficient. One may not deny the efficacious work of the Spirit, but to leave just a little bit for man to do is to deny the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Spirit. When the Arminian does not speak of Christ and the Spirit as all sufficient and all powerful, he is at the least leaving room for Pelagian thinking in his hearers. This is at the very least a dangerous tendency. It is not the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment