We are looking at the thought of William Cunningham in his Historical Theology on Arminianism. So far we have seen that he believed that Arminianism always leads toward Calvinism or Pelagianism because it is an inconsistent system. When people begin to seek consistency, they will go away from true Arminianism to either Calvinism or Pelagianism because those systems are more internally consistent. We must stress that the most important point, however, is to seek to be biblical and consistent with the character of God. Cunningham is sure that Calvinism answers that question. He makes a point that we should read very carefully: “The encroachment they [Arminianism] make upon the grace of God in the salvation of sinners varies, of course, to the extent to which they carry out their views, especially in regard to man’s natural depravity, and the nature and necessity of the work of the Spirit in regeneration and conversion; but Arminianism, in any form, can be shown to involve the ascription to men themselves,–more directly or more remotely,–of a place and influence in effecting their own salvation, which the Bible denies to them and ascribes to God.”
This statement should be approached and examined very carefully, though we don’t have the space for that here. What it does is warn us to be careful about lumping together all who claim to be Arminian and treating them as if they all believed the same system in the same way. While that should be obvious on the face of it, this is very instructive as to our practice. Instead of treating people as if they are Arminian or Reformed, we must learn to teach and make judgments about people based on what they believe and practice as individuals rather than as those who conform to a particular system. Since the Arminian system is not consistent within itself, different people will find some form of consistency somewhere within the system and at times will even leave it without knowing it. By definition, however, according to Cunningham, the Arminian will ascribe to him or herself some place or influence in effecting his or her own salvation. That is an egregious error, but we must note that some might do this by virtue of being consistent within the system or by way of rejecting a false form of Calvinism.
We are given another thought by Cunningham which he synthesizes from William Ames who was an early Puritan who was actually present at the Synod of Dordt though he was not a member of the Synod. He was very critical of Arminians as indeed virtually all the Puritans were. “Ames, then, thought that Arminianism, in its more mitigated form, was not to be reckoned a heresy, but only a dangerous error in doctrine, tending to heresy; and that it should be stigmatized as a heresy, only when it was carried out so far as to deny the necessity of an internal work of supernatural grace to conversion and the production of faith. And the general idea thus indicated and maintained should certainly be applied, if we would form anything like a fair and candid estimate of the different types of doctrine, more or less Pelagian, which have passed under the general name of Arminianism.”
We are not given any thoughts on what a mitigated form of Arminianism is, but he does tell us that even the best of Arminianism should be considered a dangerous error in doctrine, tending to heresy. What he appears to be saying by this statement is that some who claim to be Arminian are actually saved but that what they believe is a dangerous error that tends toward heresy. On the other hand, when people deny the necessity of an internal work of supernatural grace to conversion and the production of faith that is to be designated as heresy. This teaches us to at the very least to walk carefully. Just because a person is an Arminian in name does not mean that we should treat the person as converted or as not converted according to William Ames. However, this statement might bear more examination. What is meant by a necessity of an internal work of supernatural grace to conversion? What is meant by the production of faith that seems to follow the supernatural grace?
It is easy to jump to conclusions at this point on what Ames meant by an internal work of supernatural grace to conversion and the production of faith. What I think that Ames means here will actually include many people in the Reformed camp today as well. Virtually all the Puritans believed that the grace of God worked in human souls prior to actual salvation to bring them to a point of conversion. They believed in a form of preparationism. Today virtually no one holds to that, though indeed there was a vicious form of that in church history. But they taught that this supernatural grace worked to conversion and produced faith as well. This is what Jonathan Edwards and other Puritans were so clear on. The conviction of sin and the breaking of the heart before conversion were also acts of supernatural grace. The giving of faith was also an act of supernatural grace that came after the breaking of the heart because the heart must be broken from what it believes in and holds on to in order to believe in and hold on to Christ. If we simply tell people to pray a prayer without teaching them about the work of God in the soul in convicting of sin and in breaking the heart from sin and self, that is a version of Arminianism that at best is a dangerous doctrine but that Ames would have considered to be heresy. But many people within the Reformed camp deny this today. The very least thing this should do is awaken us from our lethargy. If Arminianism indeed tends toward Calvinism and toward Pelagianism, then we need to wake up and recognize that perhaps there are many who call themselves Reformed today who are actually Arminian but also that there are many people who claim to be Arminian but are actually within the bonds of Pelagianism. The Arminian cloak can cover people in many different directions.
If Cunningham and Ames were and are right, then the issues at hand within the SBC may be different than we have imagined. The issues going on within other denominations might also be far different in reality. In our day we have combined theological imprecision with the political correctness of being gracious and winsome at all times. What that has done is to multiply error within the denominations. There are those that hide their utter heresy knowing it would be considered as heresy and then there are those who never realize that what they believe is heresy. We might have Arminians who believe themselves to be Calvinists trying to coexist with those who believe themselves to be Arminian and yet are really Pelagians. We truly live in a strange day, but until people are willing to be precise in their theology and truly loving in their actions rather than outwardly gracious and winsome, this confusion will not be seen and we will continue on in our utter theological confusion. This means that the Gospel will be hidden beneath the rubbish of theological imprecision and politically correct attitudes. It is easier to have a form of peace than it is to strive for truth which of necessity divides. Jesus told us about this.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment