In earlier BLOGS I set out the belief of William Cunningham that Calvin and Arminius did not teach anything new. This is based on the thought that John Calvin read extensively from Augustine and the Church Fathers and simply set out their thought as he thought it was in line with Holy Scripture in a systematized way. In other words, what we call Calvinism is really Augustinianism. The essence of Calvinism is really Augustinianism if you look at it from the historical writings of human beings. In one sense Calvinism is not the proper title. However, since the Synod of Dordt it has been helpful to set out systems of thought as contrasted between Calvin and Arminius.
But what are the roots of Arminianism and where did Arminius obtain his thinking from? At this point I will be following William G.T. Shedd’s thought found in his History of Christian Doctrine. Calvinism is founded in Augustinian thinking and so if we go back to Augustine we see that in his lifetime there was a British monk named Pelagius (founder of Pelagianism) who constructed a system of teaching regarding human beings, sin and salvation that was totally antagonistic to the Augustinian view. This brought about a series of writings by Augustine and trials for Pelagius. But it also brought about a hardening in some of the followers of Augustine and they were not as balanced as Augustine. In their stating of certain issues they taught a misunderstanding of what Augustine really taught.
A group of monks in North Africa fell into dispute over the meaning of predestination with some taking it to allow for licentiousness and others were thrown into great mental doubt and despair. A third group, however, began to accept as true that there could be a slight virtuous efficiency in the human will in regeneration. Augustine responded to these monks and greatly relieved the difficulties. At the same time a group in France led by John Cassian began to oppose the Augustinian theology as well. Augustine also responded with writing to this group but they were not convinced. One man in particular, Faustus of Rhegium, was the most able activist for the cause of the Semi-Pelagian (Arminianism) theory. He wrote a book on grace and free will which greatly influenced the council of Arles and the council of Lyons which met in 475 and sanctioned Semi-Pelagianism. However, in 529 the council of Orange condemned the Semi-Pelagianism position regarding grace and free-will. “If any one assert that by reason of man’s prayer the grace of God is conferred, but that it is not grace itself which causes that God is prayed to, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah (lxi. 1) and the apostle Paul (Rom. x. 20).”
The Semi-Pelagian theory was intended by its advocates to be a middle ground between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. “The essence of the theory consists in a mixture of grace and free-will. There are two efficient agencies concerned in the renovation of the human will: viz, the will itself and the Holy Spirit. Hence, the product can not be referred either to one or the other, as the sole originating cause.” It was this “co-existence of two co-efficients and their co-operation” that was stressed by Cassian. When asked which agency begins the work of regeneration, Cassian affirmed “that sometimes it is the divine, and sometimes it is the human.”
The points that come from the Semi-Pelagian views are clear. Man has a moral freedom to some degree and is assisted by divine grace rather than grace doing it all. Man has not lost all power to do good, but has freedom of the will to a degree. The fall lessened the power of free will, but did not destroy it. It means that the decree of election is a conditional decree with God making the determination “to bestow forgiveness and assisting influences on those who he foresees will make a beginning. And yet the merit of his salvation man must not ascribe to himself, but to the grace of God, because without this grace man’s endeavors would be unsuccessful.” In other words, Shedd, quoting Wiggers, says this: “Augustinianism asserts that man is morally dead; Semi-Pelagianism maintains that he is morally sick; Pelagianism holds that he is morally well.
By now it should be clear that Arminius did not advocate anything new. While it may not be certain where he obtained his views from, it is certain that he did not invent these views. The assertion of God’s sovereignty and the efficiency of divine grace rather than free-will by Augustine moved Pelagius to assert his heretical views. In the middle of these two views came Semi-Pelagianism in an attempt to strike a balance. The same thing happened in the Reformation and the times just after it. Roman Catholicism repudiates Pelagianism in its doctrinal form but certainly appeared to be some form of practicing Pelagianism in the days of Luther. Luther himself was strongly Augustinian, but after he died Melancthon seemed to drift toward Semi-Pelagianism. After Calvin died Arminius arose to contest some of the teachings of Calvin. His followers degenerated to far worse.
It is not strange to think that since we are born with Pelagian doctrines in our heads and hearts and are at enmity against the true God that people who read their Bibles and are religious would try to twist the Bible into some form of Pelagianism. That is exactly what we have seen throughout history and we are seeing the same thing today. As R.C Sproul has stated, we are in a period of the Pelagian captivity of the Church. Pelagianism in various forms of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy and even certain forms of fundamentalism has gripped Christendom and it almost appeared to be in its dying throes. There appeared to be something of a revival (not a revival of the Holy Spirit as such) of Augustinianism in years past that confronted Pelagian thinking. But let us never forget that Semi-Pelagian thinking has been there the whole time. We should also not forget the words of Cunningham that Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism) is not a consistent position and that its adherents will inevitably tend toward Calvinism or Pelagianism. Those who call themselves Arminians today may or may not be adherents to Arminian theology. In fact they may be adherents to a non-Christian “theology” of Pelagianism. We must be very careful.
But the other side of the coin is also true. There may be those people who tend toward Calvinism or Augustinianism and yet are true Arminians. We must always be diligent to note what a person says s/he believes and how consistent that belief is with the practice. As noted above, Semi-Pelagianism, which is Arminianism, believes in free-will to some degree. Any belief in free-will in the realm of salvation of necessity denies salvation by grace alone. It may hold to the belief that grace enables and that it is almost all grace, but a belief in free-will in the realm of salvation of necessity denies salvation by grace alone whether a person holds that in theological form or not. The theological war on the Augustinian versus Pelagian front continues and will continue until judgment day. The reason for this is that Pelagianism is the teaching of self and self-sufficiency of man in life and salvation which is the poison that the devil brought into the human race. Augustinianism is the doctrine of the glory and sufficiency of God in salvation which is by grace alone. Semi-Pelagianism will always try to find a way between the two. The human heart is deceitful and will not always follow each line of thinking consistently.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment