We will continue our thinking through the issue of Arminianism by turning to the thinking of John Owen. In 1642 he wrote a volume entitled A Display of Arminianism. It should be pointed out that the title of that book goes on and on and in the modern day we shorten the title to that. The title is quite long and may be offensive to modern ears: “A DISCOVERY OF THE OLD PELAGIAN IDOL FREE-WILL, WITH THE NEW GODDESS CONTINGENCY, ADVANCING THEMSELVES INTO THE THRONE OF THE GOD OF HEAVEN, TO THE PREJUDICE OF HIS GRACE, PROVIDENCE, AND SUPREME DOMINION OVER THE CHILDREN OF MEN.” The actual title then goes on even longer, but this should get across the main idea.
When we see writing like this, it is easy to deal with it by dismissing it as a relic of an older era when people were not as nice. But it may also be the case that it was also an era where people thought clearly and were more afraid of offending God than they were of men. It may also be the case that they were men who were godlier than we are today and so had a clearer vision. It is easy to dismiss them and think of them as being a relic of an older era than it is to deal with their clear exegesis of Scripture and biblical theology. Whatever else John Owen was, he was a learned and godly man. His thinking was precise and his knowledge of Scripture and of theology has been surpassed by very few in all of history. This leaves us in our shallow day asking why he was so hard on Arminian thinking. After all, he thought it was simply the old Pelagian idol of free-will. Is that too harsh or is it correct?
We should ask questions about the motives of John Owen from the beginning. If we simply assume that he was a bitter man engaged in a war with those who differed from him, we have simply assumed that without evidence. The editor of Owen’s works looked at the issue (in his Prefatory Note the book on Arminianism) in light of history. He saw this as a battle that really started with Adam and was over whether the scheme of saving grace is simply a divine and external aid to the will of man or whether divine grace is bestowed according to the sovereignty of God and His divine purpose. Owen thought that it was his duty to oppose the innovations of the received doctrines of the church (the Reformed doctrines) and exhibit the views of the Arminians in his day. In the dedication of his book Owen writes in a way that expresses astonishment that this teaching had arisen again. His motives, then, appear to arise from a desire to defend the Gospel of grace alone.
“What benefit did ever come to this church by attempting to prove that the chief part in the several degrees of our salvation is to be ascribed unto ourselves, rather than God?-which is the head and sum of all the controversies between them and us. And must not the introducing and fomenting of a doctrine so opposite to that truth our church hath quietly enjoyed ever since the Reformation necessarily bring along with it schisms and dissensions, so long as any remain who love the truth, or esteem the gospel above preferment? Neither let any deceive your wisdoms, by affirming that they are differences of an inferior nature that are at this day agitated between the Arminians and the orthodox divines of the reformed church. Be pleased but to cast an eye on the following instances, and you will find them hewing at the very root of Christianity.”
These words of Owen shock the modern ear. He does not mince words and does not dance around questions trying to speak in such a way that soothes the ear with distortions of the real issues at hand. He says that introducing the Arminian doctrines was opposite to the truth of the church since the Reformation and that it would necessarily bring alone with it schisms and dissensions. In our day we think that those things are in and of themselves evil things. But to Owen those things were necessary as long as people were around who loved the truth and esteemed the gospel above the preference of other men. Owen writes in a way that questions our own day. Where are those who love the truth so much that they prefer the Gospel above preferment (preference of men)? Where are those who know that what they are doing will bring schism and dissension but know that the Gospel does that? Where are those who have not been blinded by other things and see that these are major and even vital issues? Where are those who see that the real nature of Arminian theology (not an attack on people themselves) is hewing away at the very root of Christianity? In our day Arminianism is thought by Reformed people to be just a less exact expression of the Gospel. When they say that, they show that they are not in line with the history of Reformed theology. While this is not a declaration on each person that is an Arminian in profession, Owen does make clear that the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism are vast and reach to the very heart of the Gospel, which is the heart of Christianity. We should learn from those teachers that God has given us in history to teach us now.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment