God Loves… Himself

In the last BLOG I tried to show some important aspects of Arminian theology from the published writings of Arminius in which Peter Bertius gives an assessment and overview of Arminius. I will give part of a quote from it and deal with it the rest of this BLOG. “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.” Notice that in the view of Bertius the attributes and perfections of God are secured to him in a clearer and more obvious manner than by Calvinism. Why does Bertius think that is true? Because man is still left in possession of his free-will. This is of utter importance and we must note that this seems to be the most important issue in Arminian theology.

What I am trying to deal with in this BLOG is the importance of the doctrine of the will and of the real nature of theology and different theologies. These things are of tremendous importance and are far more than just a small difference between men. The divide between Arminian theology and Reformed theology is actually quite enormous if people are willing to really look at the real differences and not just agree on a few words. A few months ago I gave a quote from William Cunningham which I will quote again: “This subject of free-will is, as it were, the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace-between man’s natural condition as fallen, involved in guilt and depravity, and the way in which they are restored to favour, to holiness, and happiness.” This is a massively important point. While the doctrine of the will is not thought to be all that important by many people, it is the connecting link between the doctrine of original sin and of divine grace. On the one hand we can say that what some believe about original sin and of divine grace will determine what they believe about the will. On the other hand, what some believe concerning the doctrine of the will seems to of necessity determine what they believe about the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace. This is a point that cannot be stressed too much. If a person tenaciously holds to free-will, that person will adjust biblical data and biblical doctrines so that s/he can hold to that doctrine and claim that the other doctrines are biblical.

What the Bertius quote (from above) shows us is that people also do that with the character and attributes of God. In fact, however, whatever we do to twist the Gospel to fit our conceptions also twists the character of God. The Gospel is nothing less than the shining forth of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Cor 4:4-6). Cunningham tells us that the subject of free-will is the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace. In other words, what we believe about free will is at the very least a determining factor about what we believe about the other doctrines. Bertius then shows us how this doctrine of the will is a determining factor in what we believe about the character and attributes of God. This is what should be the chief objection to a consistent Arminian theology. It is not the doctrine of free-will in and of itself; it is what the doctrine of free will does to the biblical teaching about God. When the doctrine of God is, shall we say, adjusted to make room for free-will, the Gospel as the expression of the glory of God in Christ is adjusted as well. Again, we are not talking about a minor issue; we are talking about the difference between the Gospel and the non-Gospel and the difference between the true God and an idol. If we apply the Arminian conception of free-will in a consistent way, we cannot have a God that has an exhaustive and explicit knowledge of the future. When the Arminian conception of free-will is applied in a consistent way, the Gospel is not entirely and completely of grace and grace alone. That consistent conception of free-will denies total depravity and therefore whether the Gospel of grace is applied to or by man.

Some might accuse me of going too far, though I would say they do not go far enough. We are to be driven by Scripture and God’s glory rather than by political correctness. If something is a different Gospel, then it must be set out as such if we are to be faithful to God and His Gospel. John 1:12-13 shows that regeneration is by the will of God and not by the will of man. To reverse that and say that it is God’s will that responds to the will of man is to say a totally different thing about the Gospel and the character of God. If we say that man is not totally depraved what we must say is that man is able to respond to God in some way. That would leave us with the position of God responding to man rather than what Romans 3:24-27 teaches us. We are taught there that the cause of God saving human beings is not of man in any way but is of His grace. This leaves man with no reason to boast at all. The doctrine of free-will leaves man some room to boast and is a doctrine of God saving mostly by grace. That is a different God and a different Gospel. There is an infinite difference between what is infinite and what is finite. The Gospel of all grace is the infinite grace of an infinite God. A “gospel” of mostly grace is certainly a finite grace.

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.

In the last BLOG I tried to set out the history of Augustinianism (Calvinism) and of Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism). We saw that Semi-Pelagian thinking was an effort at setting up a middle ground between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. We could question whether Semi-Pelagian thinking has arrived at the middle ground or not. We could also question whether there is a middle ground regarding the Gospel or not. Paul did not seem to think so when he said that anyone who taught a different Gospel would be eternally cursed (Gal 1:6-10). In all of our efforts to be at peace and speak in a winsome and gracious way, we must know that if we don’t go to war and speak in what our culture would call ungracious and non-winsome ways, we will not be like Christ or like Paul who was like Christ. The Gospel cannot be preached and fought for by those who want peace at all cost and for no one to be offended. There has been and there will always be the offense of the cross. There has been and always will be the hatred of those who hate God and don’t want to hear of sin and of true grace. We must ask tough questions and be ready to be cursed and insulted if we don’t want to fall under the curse that Paul spoke of.

The following paragraph is from the previous BLOG: “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 John Cassian. When asked which agency begins the work of regeneration, Cassian affirmed “that sometimes it is the divine, and sometimes it is the human.”

What I want to note here is that in truth there is no middle ground between Augustinianism (hereafter Calvinism) and Semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism). While Arminianism may be Semi-Pelagianism, it is not Semi-Augustinianism. Calvinism has stood forth with the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is by grace alone. There cannot be a semi-grace alone position. If salvation is by grace alone, then the smallest thing apart from grace makes it something other than grace alone. Notice again the quote from the previous paragraph: “The essence of the theory consists in a mixture of grace and free-will.” The essence of the Arminian theory is a mixture of grace and free-will. What we want to note again is that the smallest thing added to grace means that it is not grace alone. If we add free-will to grace, then it is not grace alone. Again, if salvation is by grace alone, it cannot be a salvation which anything other than grace effects the salvation. Romans 3:24-4:7 and Ephesians 2:1-10 shows this without question. Salvation is all of grace and nothing but grace.

Let’s take one more look at the quote from the last BLOG: “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.” An efficient agency is an agency of a being that actually does something. Grace is the agency and power of the Holy Spirit while free-will is the agency and power of the human being. But notice that what needs to be renovated is the human will. If the will is free and is the agent and power of the human being then the human will is free enough and has the power to assist in its own renovation. What is it that the will can do? What can we call the thing that the will can act and do to assist in its own renovation? Would “works” be the proper term? But Ephesians 2:9 and many other Scriptures tell us plainly that we are saved by grace apart from works. If the will is an agent of the human being and has power to do even the smallest thing, then that is nothing other than a work of the will.

If the Holy Spirit is the efficient agent of God and the power of God who works by grace alone in the soul, then we can immediately see a problem. If the will is truly free, then it is free of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God. If the will is truly free, then it is free from the power of God working by grace in the soul. A free-will, therefore, is a will that is free from the grace of God to some degree. But salvation is by grace alone and so anything that a free-will has the power or ability to do would be apart from grace and would be a work. Is the originating power of salvation from God alone or by God and man? Is the actual work in the soul all of the grace of God or some by the power of the free-will? If it is all of God and of the grace of God, then Calvinism is correct. If salvation is originated or worked in the smallest way by a free-will, then Arminianism is correct. However, it would not be by grace alone. God saves sinners “to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph 1:6). Any addition by man would change the meaning of that verse to where man would share some of the praise and glory. I simply fail to see one Scripture that would support that position. Salvation is to the glory of God and it is meant to prevent man from boasting at all. However, if one little part of man is free enough to assist in salvation then that little part of man would leave just a little room to boast. One could boast that he chose to go along with his salvation and others did not. But the Gospel leaves no room for boasting.

We must note again that Arminianism is called Semi-Pelagianism and not Semi-Augustianism for a reason. That is because its beliefs share a lot in common with Pelagian beliefs. In reality Arminianism is Semi-Pelagian because it modified the teachings of Pelagius. Instead of saying that the fall of Adam has no real effect on us now, Arminian teaching says there is some effect but man is not completely spiritually dead as Calvinism teaches. Instead of saying that man can work salvation himself, Arminianism says we need the help of God’s grace to be saved. I am quite aware that there are Arminian theologians who will say that we are saved by grace alone. However, that cannot be upheld in a consistent way from the Arminian position. By definition a person must hold to free-will to be an Arminian, yet so far it has not been shown how a free-will position is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. Again, grace alone means that salvation is wholly and totally of the grace of God. Arminianism is Semi-Pelagianism but is still far from Calvinism and its biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone to the glory of God alone.

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.

In 1618 a national synod of Dordt was convened to deal with the question of Arminianism. Depending on how one dates things, it had only been one hundred years since the beginning of the Reformation. The Reformers were united in the main doctrines of the Gospel and of the Christian faith. They differed on certain issues, but they were united in what is now termed “Calvinism.” It is interesting to note that John Calvin did not set out the so-called five points, but in fact the Remonstrants (Arminians) had set out their five points in opposition to the doctrines that Calvin taught. It was the points that the synod gave that denied the teachings of the Remonstrants (Arminians) that are now called the five points of Calvinism.

We must notice that at this point the Reformed doctrines had been set out and defended from Scripture against Rome. Almost all of the churches that had escaped from Roman Catholicism held the Reformed teachings as being the teachings of Holy Scripture. The synod represented virtually the whole Protestant Church. Cunningham says this: “While the members of the Synod of Dordt thus represented, either formally or practically, the great body of the Protestant churches, they were themselves personally the most able and learned divines of the age, many of them having secured from themselves, by their writings, a permanent place in theological literature. This synod, after a full and deliberate examination, unanimously determined against the innovations of Arminius and his followers, and gave a decided testimony in favour of the great principles of Calvinism, as accordant with the word of God and the doctrines of the Reformation.” The synod convened, not just for one weekend, one week or even one month, but for six months. They rejected Arminianism strongly.

At this point we have to stop and think through some of the issues. Martin Luther fought against Roman Catholicism and its Arminian way of salvation and this was the primary cause of the Reformation. Luther believed that the issue of the will was of primary importance and that a person would not be converted until he gave up all hope in himself and his own will. We must not think that the Reformation was primarily over the issues of the Pope and of issues of rites; it was primarily over the issue of how man was and is to be saved. If God alone saves sinners by grace, then the will is not free. Luther congratulated Erasmus for hitting at the primary point of the issue when he wrote against Luther and his doctrine of the bondage of the will. The bondage of the will, at least for Luther, was at the very heart of the Gospel and in fact explained what he meant by grace alone which explained what he meant by justification by faith alone. The battle with Rome was indeed over the Arminian teaching of Rome and its Arminian teaching of the gospel. We now go to the Synod of Dordt. In that historical meeting the teaching of the Reformers was set out as the truth and the Arminian teaching was denounced. As we saw earlier, according to William Ames Arminianism is a dangerous error that tends toward heresy in its mitigated form. If it is not in a mitigated form, then it is to be considered as heresy. All the points of Arminianism were soundly rejected by the Reformers and the Synod of Dordt. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Confession are also very clear in teaching the doctrines taught by the Reformers and of the men of the Synod of Dordt.

What we have to face up to if we want to deal with reality is that the main theologians in the history of the Church since the Reformation have been decidedly against Arminian teaching and at the very least considered it as dangerous error that tended toward heresy. We must not flinch from this and we must not back off from it. We must also face up to the fact that the Reformers and those who followed them were either right or they were wrong. We cannot flee from this at all. Logically and biblically we have to say that they were either right or they were wrong. If they were right, then we have to see Arminian teaching as dangerous. If they were wrong, let us admit that they were wrong and stop calling ourselves Reformed. But I don’t believe that there is a middle ground on this issue. The Reformers and their children were either right or wrong on these issues.

It is helpful to note that there is a distinction between saying that Arminianism is a dangerous error tending toward heresy and then saying that all who are denoted as Arminians are unsaved. One point that must be held out is that it is the system of Arminianism that is being dealt with and not each person. There will be people who call themselves Arminians who are Calvinists and others who are Pelagians. We must set out the system for what it is and then each person can be seen in light of that on an individual basis. To be faithful to Scripture we must set out what a system really teaches before any individual person can be said to be in a system of thought or not. It is dangerous to say that a person is or is not a Christian if we don’t know what they really believe and love. Being faithful to God requires us to be diligent in these matters.

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.

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.

The last few BLOGS we have been looking at some writings of William Cunningham taken from his Historical Theology. What we have seen might be confusing to some, but when understood it should be seen as a severe warning to all within the visible Church today. Regardless of the theological umbrella that one holds on to, underneath that umbrella may be a person that truly denies the Christian faith. In other words, as we have seen, James Arminius stands at the head of Arminian teaching by name. However, in reality he taught nothing new in the history of Christendom but simply set out one system of thought that was opposed to certain teachings of John Calvin who also systematized a certain theology that was also not new in the history of the Church. It is true that some deviated from Calvin fairly quickly, but it is also true that many deviated from Arminius almost immediately and took the theology that bore his name deep into heresy. Regardless of what one thinks of Arminius, his followers left Christian theology while still bearing his name. What this means for people today is that they must begin to examine their own theology and the theology of others with new eyes. It is not enough to say that a person is a Calvinist or an Arminian and therefore the person must be a brother or a sister. It is not enough to carry a theological name from history as those names were abused in history and now today as well.

The followers of Arminius very quickly began to corrupt and even to deny the doctrines of original sin, of the grace of the Spirit in regeneration and conversion and even justification by the righteousness of Christ alone. They corrupted the doctrine of the atonement in denying the substitutionary aspect of the atonement as well as Christ satisfying the wrath of the Father. Some spoke very lightly and perhaps denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Cunningham says that something like this has been “exhibited by most writers who have passed under the designation of Arminius, except the Wesleyan Methodist.” Since Cunningham’s work was published in 1880, undoubtedly he would include the Methodists in his assessment as those who have fallen into that now. He says that the Arminian theology tends to imbibe either more truth or more error and to lean either toward Calvinism or Pelagianism. He continues on to say that “Pelagian Arminianism is more consistent with itself than Arminianism in its more evangelical forms; and there is a strong tendency in systems of doctrine to develop their true nature and bearings fully and consistently. Socinianism, indeed, is more consistent than either of them.”

Could it be that this is what happened within the SBC? Arminian theology became the prevailing doctrine and then it began to seek consistency within itself? Could it be that the liberalism and the Pelagianism that was so rampant within the SBC a few years ago was the fruit of Arminianism logically and consistently applied? We can use Clark Pinnock as an example. He was a firm Calvinist twenty years or so ago. He turned and became Arminian and then went down from there. He is now at best involved in Open Theism and is really denying the truths of the Christian faith. We have also seen what happened to Lutheranism. It started off with Luther who was at least as Calvinistic as Calvin. His teachings were watered down to some degree by Melancthon and from there Lutheran theology has went on to become Arminian and then much of it is now either liberal or Pelagian. Let us not deceive ourselves about the importance of theology and the need to stand firm.

Cunningham goes on to say that the Pelagians of the fifth century did not set out a formal teaching that denied the divinity of Christ and the real atonement of Christ, but they simply omitted them. In leaving those teachings out or not stressing them they were presenting a teaching to men that they could save themselves. The Socinians came along and formally denied what the Pelagians had emphasized less and as such had set out. Notice the way that theology regresses when something is not taught and stressed. If something is not set out and strongly taught, but rather set aside or not emphasized, the next generation will formally set it aside. This is the great danger that the SBC is in right now as well as other denominations. Many are afraid of Calvinism, though some are afraid of it because of false representations, and so prefer to have it neutered. Many who hold to the title of Calvinists don’t want to offend so they go along with that program. Both sides of the issue, then, will carry the blame when the SBC slides further into Pelagianism in the future. It is not enough to be gracious and winsome in order to be accepted, one must stand firm for the truth of God and be able to wield the sword of the Spirit with precision.

If Cunningham was and is correct about what he was saying, then the conservative resurgence in the SBC is simply a momentary postponing of the inevitable march of Pelagiansim from its father of Arminianism. Resurgence from liberalism, Socianism and Pelagianism back to its original source will ultimately not work. If people who call themselves Reformed think that peace within the denomination is best for the denomination and the kingdom, future generations if not the present one will rise up and call them something other than blessed. The denomination will again take up its downward slide (if it ever really stopped) and simply continue to its demise. It may be that the SBC was never really changed at the core even though the leadership became more conservative. But again, if Cunningham is correct, it is not conservative leadership that makes the real difference for the long term, it is the theology that they hold. Are the leaders in the SBC Arminian as James Arminius was or Arminian like his followers were? Or could it be that the Arminianism of Arminius led to the Arminianism of his followers? Again we see that a theological designation as an umbrella is not enough. If Arminianism inevitably goes toward Calvinism or Pelagianism, then the rejection of Calvinism does not look good for the SBC.

The followers of Arminius were called the Remonstrants when they appeared before the Synod of Dordt which started in November of 1618. The men this Synod consisted of were from all over Europe and lasted about six months. This group of men unanimously condemned the doctrinal views of the Remonstrants and wrote a canon of beliefs that have withstood the test of time as being of great benefit to the Church. The Remonstrants were deposed from their ecclesiastical offices and were even exiled. But within a few years they were allowed to return to their country and were permitted to perform public worship and even establish a seminary. Their views began a corrupting influence on the theology of the nation and then other nations as well.

As was stated in the last BLOG (History and Theology I), there was nothing new in the Calvinism of Calvin and there was nothing new in the Arminianism of Arminius. Instead of thinking that Calvinism started with John Calvin, we should think of Calvin as a man that set out a historical system of theology in a precise form. When compared to his successors, Arminius seemed to have held to at least some of the main teachings of Scripture on the depravity of man and therefore the necessity “of a supernatural work of grace to effect their renovation and sanctification.” This is the primary point where evangelical Arminianism differs from Pelagianism though it is possible for a person to claim to be an Arminian and still hold to the Pelagian view of original sin and the depravity or non-depravity of human nature. This distinction must be seen and examined rather than just accepting a person’s word for what theological position that he holds. It is also true that a person can claim to be a Calvinist and in reality be an Arminian. The positions must be examined to determine what position a person really holds to.

Cunningham says that the history of this subject shows us that whenever men abandon the teachings of Calvinism “there is a powerful tendency leading them downwards into the depths of Pelagianism.” While Arminius did not seem to have gone so far, his followers were soon teaching further corruptions concerning “original sin, the work of the Spirit, and justification; and made near approaches, upon these and kindred topics, to Pelagian and Socinian views.” Cunningham goes on to say that “a large proportion of those theologians who have been willing to call themselves Arminians, have manifested a similar leaning-have exhibited a similar result.

At this point we should stop and look at where we have gone. The distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism is not in and of itself people lining up behind two historical figures. In reality John Calvin systematized a body of theology that was taught in Scripture and also taught by Augustine and others. Arminius agreed with Calvin on a majority of things but disagreed on what people later came to call the five points of Calvinism. John Calvin never set out the five points in the way that they came to us later on. What is really going on is that Calvin and Arminius give us two ways that people have looked at Scripture throughout history. A Calvinist is not a person that follows Calvin, but agrees that the system he set out is the teaching of Scripture. This is a very important point. A true Calvinist is one that believes in the authority of Scripture and not the authority of John Calvin. Those who would call themselves “Arminians” must not call themselves that because they agree with James Arminius, but because they believe that his system of thought is more in line with Scripture.

But as Cunningham points out to us the followers of Arminius went further than Arminius did. They were more in line with another group in history that is now called by the name of “Pelagianism” due to the man named Pelagius who set out its principle teachings. Cunningham also tells us that in history a large number of people who call themselves Arminians actually tend toward the Pelagian and Socinian views. We must note this with some degree of care. If this is the tendency of many people if not the majority of people in history who go under that theological system, it should alert us to something that a system tends toward. If the system itself has that tendency on fallen human beings, there are reasons that it does so and that means that we should look at those who are Arminian in profession and ask questions to see if they are not in fact Pelagians.

When Cunningham wrote in the late 1800’s he did not know about what would happen in the SBC. The SBC started off with primarily Reformed men and certainly by the 1940’s appeared to be Arminian. By the 50’s and 60’s the Pelagian roots were there and without question it was settled in. Indeed liberalism and neo-orthodox views were having a major influence, but many times liberals and the neo-orthodox are Pelagian in their views of original sin and of salvation. In other words, the SBC was inundated with Pelagianism in the very recent past. Has it been turned back to Arminianism or Pelagianism under the guise of Arminianism? This is an important question.

We live in a world that is bewildering in many ways. In one sense that which we fight against in one generation we become in the next. What one generation terms as evil the next swallows it as orthodoxy. What goes under one title gradually changes over time and so that those who stand under the same title years later have little in common with those who originally held it. It has been noted that the positions of the political parties in the United States have switched over time as well. In an effort to be ecumenical or perhaps gracious to all, it is easy to have as a creed a historic Confession of faith and yet deny it by one’s so-called practical approach to ministry or the local church. In the modern day we have some if not many who are Reformed in title in the sense that they hold to a creed of Confession and yet are so friendly with practical Arminianism or Pelagianism that it nullifies the Confession. In the words of Tozer, our real creed is often hidden in our hearts beneath the rubbish of an external Confession.

The dangers of this are many. Practical heresy can be hidden beneath orthodoxy. The practice of a false and dangerous gospel ministry and evangelism program can be hidden beneath an outward adherence to a creed. The outward creed helps us to deceive ourselves about our orthodoxy as we go on in the way of our heresies in what we do. Sometimes our practice is more indicative of who we are than of our creeds. We can also see what would happen when a stalwart of the faith takes a position that is not in line with the history of the faith and then says that it is the historical faith. Scripture and Scripture alone must always be the final authority in matters of faith and practice, yet our creeds and histories are also important. We can think that our creed is historically and biblically accurate and yet never really know what either says and how they agree. It is so easy just to accept what other people say is Reformed or is the heart of Arminian teaching and blithely go on in error.

In 1882 the first edition of William Cunningham’s Historical Theology was printed. Much of what is quoted here or will be said as history is taken from his volumes on this. In the late 1500’s and early 1600’s Calvinism was what was taught as orthodoxy in the Netherlands. We should also take note that this is not necessarily the same thing as what goes under the name of Calvinism in the modern day. However, in 1603 a man named James Arminius was appointed as Professor of Theology at Leyden. His teaching and opinions began to be seen as inconsistent with the prevailing views of orthodoxy. He was called to make a public declaration of his sentiments in 1608 but died in 1609. “After his death, Episcopius was considered the head of the party; and he ultimately deviated much further from the pattern of sound doctrine than Arminius had done.”

What we want to note at this point is that James Arminius was indeed called out to answer for his deviation from orthodoxy. He is the father of what is now called “Arminianism.” What Arminius taught, however, was not new. Much of what he taught had been taught by Clemens Alexandrinus and other of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. It is thought that much of this teaching came from the corrupting influences of pagan philosophy. In the fifth century, Pelagius was opposed to the same teachings that Arminius and Calvin later taught. The same thing, in the sense that it was not new, is true of what is known as “Calvinism.” John Calvin did not teach many things new at all, but instead taught in line with Augustine and other men in the early Church.

It is very interesting to notice what happens now according to Cunningham. “The system of theology which has generally prevailed in the Church of Rome was substantially very much the same as that taught by Arminius, with this difference in favour of the Church of Rome, that the Council of Trent at least left the Romanists at liberty to profess, if they chose, a larger amount of scriptural truth, upon some important points, than the Arminian creed, even in its most evangelical form, admits of.” The more evangelical Arminians, those such as John Wesley, took great pains to show that Arminius believed much of what Calvin did and in fact that it was the followers of Arminius who corrupted the system. While that may be true, it is also true that it has not been convincingly shown that Arminius believed that true believers might not persevere in the faith and certainly did not believe in perfectionism as Wesley did. Cunningham does go on to note that what went under the title of Arminianism in his day held to much less truth than did Arminius or Wesley.

Surely some of the application of this position can be seen. A historical person may not be all that telling of what a person really holds to in terms of his or her theology. It is also true that each historical position changes over a period of time. There is a general position known as Arminianism and a general position known as Calvinism. What is important, however, is not to hold to something because that is what a position holds to as those positions slip and slide with each generation. As Cunningham notes later, many of the followers of Arminius slid into Pelagianism. Could that be true of today’s theological Arminians as well? But have those who have held to Calvinism held to the same beliefs as well? We must become those who hold to Scripture. The theological positions of those who have gone before us will serve us well, but we must be those who hold to Scripture above all. At least one reason for that is that the historical positions move back and forth over time. What passes as Calvinism today might also be more like what some historical Arminians have taught in many ways. Things are not so easy these days to discern what a person really believes. That is especially true when the real creed of the heart can be hidden beneath the rubbish of a Confession. For example, many Arminians would be shocked to know that the heart of their system of theology is much the same as that of Roman Catholicism. In fact, historically Roman Catholicism is Arminian in its theology. This is why Reformed people in the past have seen that a return to Arminianism is a return in principle to Roman Catholicism and that is why they fought it so hard. Things have sure changed in our day.