We have been discussing the history of the issue between Calvinism and Arminianism. Earlier I set out how William Cunningham stated that both Calvinism and Arminianism were built on earlier writers in history. Calvinism did not start with John Calvin and Arminianism did not start with Jacob Arminius. In The Works of Arminius Peter Bertius notes the same point about Arminius and also perhaps the key point of the system.
“The truly evangelical system of religious belief which is known in modern days under the name of ARMINIANISM, has acquired that appellation, not because ARMINIUS was the sole author of it, but (as I have shown in the Preface to this work,) because he collected those scattered and often incidental observations of the Christian Fathers, and of the early Protestant Divines, which have a collateral relation to the doctrines of General Redemption, and because he condensed and applied them in such a manner as to make them combine in one grand and harmonious scheme, in which all the attributes and perfections of the Deity are secured to him in a clearer and more obvious manner than by Calvinism, and in which man is still left in possession of his free-will, which alone places him in the condition of an accountable being.”
The points made by Bertius are that Arminius systematized and did not invent a new system of theology. He also goes on to remark that man is still left in possession of his free-will. It is an important thing to note that not only did the biographer explain that Arminius’ system leaves man in possession of his free-will, but that position alone “places him in the condition of an accountable being.” While we will not go into this issue in depth at this moment, the doctrine of the total depravity of man and of man’s accountability in Adam has just been attacked. The reason for noting this is to point out that the doctrine of free-will is one of the most important doctrines to Arminianism if not the real determining doctrine for the whole system. But we should also note that when a theology keeps the doctrine of free-will, it has to deny total depravity and something of original sin as well. Even more than that, however, to keep free will certain things must be done to the attributes of God. The biographer recognizes this above in that he speaks of the “attributes and perfections of the Deity are secured to him and a clearer and more obvious manner than by Calvinism, and in which man is still left in possession of his free-will” (underlining for emphasis mine). In other words, the character of God is set out in the system of Arminianism in such a way to leave man in possession of his free-will.
What this does is help us recognize the centrality of the issue of free-will. To maintain free-will in the Arminian sense, the attributes and perfections of God must be seen in such a way. To maintain free-will in the Arminian sense the accountability of man must be seen as something other than in Adam and total depravity must be seen in a different way. Again, without going into detail we can see how central the issue of free-will is for Arminianism. We can also see how some will want to “adjust” the doctrines of God and of depravity to allow for this teaching. They think that it must be true for man to be accountable to God and so all of these other things must be true. However, what we should do is develop all of our teachings from Scripture. But simply note for the moment the importance of free-will to the Arminian system and how seemingly everything revolves around it. Historical Calvinism sets out its system as that which revolves around God. That is the crucial issue. When men who claim to be Calvinists set out a system that revolves around men, they are operating on the principle of Arminianism.
Bertius continues with more interesting notes. Others, he says, have used the same scriptural foundation to found their own theological edifice and their doctrines “lose all that decidedly gracious aspect which, in conformity with the scriptures, Arminius had communicated to them. These men are therefore much mistaken in the alliance which they have thus preposterously claimed: for it is not the evangelical system of Arminius upon which they have ventured to build, but it is the legal and pharisaic foundation of Pelagius.” This is more evidence that adds to what Cunningham said that the followers of Arminius deviated very soon after he died. This teaches us to be careful about how we view these things and how we are to be careful ourselves. Some of those that go under the Arminian banner are not truly Arminian but are in reality Pelagian. All of us, however, must be careful of how we treat the attributes and character of God. We must always worship God as He reveals Himself and how He sets Himself out in narratives and doctrine. We must never treat God with such irreverence as to twist His revelation of Himself to fit a doctrine. Rather, the doctrine must be interpreted to align with His glory or we worship an idol of our own imagination. It is that serious and this is why we must treat the teaching of free-will with utter seriousness.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment