God Loves… Himself

We will continue on with John Owen. Last time we noted the fact that all theology is done with God or man at the center. All theology is done out of a supreme love for God or a supreme love for man. All theology is practiced by a person that is under the influence, that is, under the influence of love for God or enmity with God. Even very religious people can be at enmity with the true God and their theology actually be nothing more than an erecting of an idol. They do in fact love that idol because it is the reflection of themselves and is an idol of their own creation made after their chief love. I might be accused of going after Arminians at this point, but I am actually thinking of all that do this. This can be done under any theological heading. Any theology can be done with a heart that truly desires to control God and is an act of enmity against the true God. It is also the case that not all who go under the heading of Reformed are in fact Reformed in the historical sense of the word. This is also a result of the depravity of human nature and can be nothing more than a man looking for comfort under a theological heading rather than the true God. All must examine their hearts to know if they believe in and love the true God rather than their own image.

Owen refers to the Arminians this way: “Never did any men… more eagerly endeavour the erecting of this Babel than the Arminians, the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency.” He then notes that their innovations tend to one of two ends: One, “To exempt themselves from God’s jurisdiction,–to free themselves from the supreme dominion of his all-ruling providence.” In this he says that they desire to “have an absolute independent power in all their actions, so that the vent of all things wherein they have any interest might have a considerable relation to nothing but chance, contingency, and their own wills.” He calls this a “sacrilegious attempt.”

Owen lists several attributes of God that the Arminians deny in order to seek self-sufficiency at the expense of God’s jurisdiction. He says they deny the eternity and unchangeableness of God’s decrees. If this is not denied then they “should be kept within the bounds from doing anything but what his counsel hath determined should be done.” They also question the foreknowledge of God because this “encroaches upon the large territory of their new goddess, contingency.” The third thing they have to deny is “the all-governing providence of this King nations, denying its energetical, effectual power, in turning hearts, ruling the thoughts, determining the wills, and disposing of the actions of men, by granting them nothing unto it but a general power and influence, to be limited and used according to the inclination and will of every particular agent.” The next thing they have to deny is “the irresistibility and uncontrollable power of God’s will, affirming that oftentimes he seriously willeth and intendeth what he cannot accomplish.” These are massive denials concerning the character and attributes of God.

Owen is sets out what must happen for a human being to be sufficient in his will. To set up the sufficiency of man in free-will, it is a logical consequence that the character of God must be viewed differently. The doctrine of free-will not limited to the study of man but has major and even severe repercussions on the character of God. Theology is much like a pond in that it matters not where the stone is thrown into the water as the ripples will spread over the whole pond. Owen shows us the consequences of the Arminian teaching of free-will, though many people deny that they really deny those things about God. Their views will take them there of necessity and this is seen in so many people actually denying these things in our day. The doctrine of God is affected by every doctrine and the doctrine of man has a major impact on how we view God. If we start with God, we end up with a particular view of man. If we start with man, we are forced to adjust our views of God to allow for man to have free-will.

“The second end at which this new doctrine of the Arminians aimeth is, to clear human nature from the heavy imputation of being sinful, corrupted, wise to do evil but unable to do good; and so to vindicate themselves a power and ability doing all that God which God can justly require to be done by them in the state wherein they are…that so the first and chiefest part in the work of their salvation may be ascribed to themselves.” Without going into all the points that Owen sets out, it is obvious that for man to have free-will he must not be dead in sins and trespasses and have some power to do good from within himself or his will would not be truly free. We also see something else and that is if man is not dead in sins and totally depraved, then this limits the power and extent of grace shown to him. For the will to be free and to do what Arminianism claims it can do, it must be able to act apart from the direct and efficacious power of grace. If not, it is not free. What we can see is that the endeavor to establish free-will and self-sufficiency has a massive effect on the doctrine of God. A sovereign God who never changes and has an eternal plan is not the same god as one that changes and cannot carry out his plan because he is frustrated by the will of human beings.

We will continue to look at what some main figures in the history of the Church thought of Arminian theology. We are presently examining to some degree what John Owen thought. We will think through some of the points that Owen makes in his A Display of Arminianism. Owen starts with a few thoughts on how the depravity of man influences or perverts man’s ability to think and interpret divine truth. He says that man is corrupted by nature and darkened by a mist of ignorance “whereby he is disenabled for the comprehending of divine truth.” He “is also armed with prejudice and opposition.” We know that Scripture teaches us that man is at enmity with God and even hates Him (James 4:4; I John 2:15-16). Scripture also teaches that man loves himself and is centered upon himself rather than God in his fallen condition. It is no wonder, then, that the fallen mind is at war with God and the revelation of God regarding His sovereignty and character.

“As a desire of self-sufficiency was the first cause of this infirmity, so a conceit thereof is that wherewith he still languisheth; nothing doth he more contend for than an independency of any supreme power, which might either help, hinder, or control him in his actions.” He goes on to apply that with these words: “All which wrangling disputes of carnal reason against the word of God come at last to this head, whether the first and chiefest part, in disposing of things in this world, ought to be ascribed to God or man?” To attain his own preeminence man will declare God to be unjust, unequal and unfair. “Never did any man more eagerly endeavour the erecting of this Babel than the Arminians, the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency.”

What Owen does, then, is get right to the key issues at hand. Who is supreme, sufficient and preeminent? Is it God or man? He rightly sees this as a battle over who is truly in control. Scripture reveals God is supreme in all matters. Scripture reveals God as the only sufficient One. Scripture reveals God as the preeminent One. However, man wants to retain control and so argues that if these things are true then God is unjust and unfair. It is at this point that we can see the enmity of the heart of man against the true and living God. Man is at war with God in this area and all other areas as well. This enmity and war is seen by the erecting of the idol of evolution in order to wrest the hand of God from man’s origin and as the sustaining power behind man’s existence. In the realm of religion God has been relegated to little better than a puppet because He is at the bequest and control of man as long as man does his performed duties and rites. In other religious circles God is still mostly in control in most cases but man has retained his free-will and that keeps God at arms distance and allows man to retain some control. But all of it is an effort to maintain some self-sufficiency for man and deny the rights of God in certain ways.

We simply must see that theology is done by the utter heathen in the darkest places of the world and it is also done in the seminaries. Each and every aspect of theology will always reflect something of the character of God. One cannot come up with a doctrine that does not reflect the view of God that the holder of the doctrine has. Yet all doctrine is believed, whether consciously or not, in a way that either holds God to be supreme and all-sufficient or man as sufficient in some areas. All doctrine is developed with God as the center of it or with man trying to limit God in some way to allow for man’s own freedom. All doctrines are developed and believed with greater or lesser degrees of the influence of man’s depravity exerting itself. Theology is not developed, believed and practiced in an intellectual way apart from the influence of depravity. It is done with a primary love. That is either love for God or it is out of love for self. Theology is either a revelation of God and His glory or it is man coming up with ideas about God from man’s own image and ideas of how God should be. The latter is crass idolatry.

Let us ask ourselves about our own beliefs and our own hearts. When we read and study Scripture, do we interpret it in order to defend something about ourselves or to love God as He is revealed? When we read and study Scripture, do we have to modify the character of God revealed in it by telling ourselves that He can’t be that way and must be another? On what basis do we modify what Scripture teaches us about God? Usually we modify the teaching about God based on what we think we know about man. This is a very dangerous hermeneutic since Romans 1:18ff tells us that a sign of the wrath of God is that we suppress the truth of God and He turns us over to hardened hearts. We are greatly mistaken if we limit that to those utterly apart from Christianity. The suppression of the truth of the character of God is practiced by theologians and pastors on a regular basis. It is uncomfortable to be in the presence of a God that is uncontrollable and unsafe. We either learn to love Him as He is or we will change the teaching about Him to where He is safe and somewhat controllable. Notice that this is to make Him in our own image for our own purposes. It is a common way to exert self-sufficiency and as such to practice idolatry.

In an attestation to the work on the atonement by John Owen (Death of Death) a then famous Puritan divine who was a member of the Westminster Assembly gives us the idea that men in that time had of Arminianism. Again we must note that there is a distinction between what one believes about a system of thought and what one might believe about individual members who profess that system. I am quoting from this attestation written by Stanley Gower in an effort to get across the idea that it was not just John Owen who believed these things.

There are two rotten pillars on which the fabric of late Arminianism (an egg of the old Pelagianism, which we had well hoped had been long since chilled, but is sat upon and brooded by the wanton wits of our degenerate and apostate spirits) doth principally stand. The one is, that God loveth all alike, Cain as well as Abel, Judas as the rest of the apostles. The other is, that God giveth (nay is bound, “ex debito,” so to do) both Christ, the great gift of his eternal love, for all alike to work out their redemption, and “vires credendi,” power to believe in Christ to all alike to whom he gives the gospel; whereby that redemption may effectually be applied for their salvation, if they please to make right use of that which is so put into their power.

The former destroys the free and special grace of God, by making it universal; the latter gives cause to man of glorifying in himself rather than in God,–God concurring no farther to the salvation of a believer than a reprobate. Christ died for both alike;–God giving power of accepting Christ to both alike, men themselves determining the whole matter by their free-will; Christ making both savable, themselves make them to be saved.

This cursed doctrine of theirs crosseth the main drift of holy Scripture; which is to abase and pull down the pride of man, to make him even to despair of himself, and to advance and set up the glory of God’s free grace from the beginning to the end of man’s salvation. His hand hath laid the foundation of his spiritual house; his hand shall also finish it.

Again we notice that in older days men used strong words and put them down for all to see. In our day it is not thought to be politically correct or gracious to use such strong language. However, we must remember that in the New Testament Jesus and Paul used strong language. Men like Stanley Gower and John Owen thought of themselves as defending the Gospel itself and Reformed theology as a whole when they took up their pens against Arminian theology. As we can see from the above quote, the issues of free-will and a universal redemption were thought to destroy the Gospel of grace alone. Those men saw it that way, though it is no longer thought of that way in the modern day. Why do we not think of it that way today? Has Scripture changed or something else?

Today we think of grace as supplying salvation. In their day they saw grace not only supplying but also supplying what is needed to apply salvation and then applying it. In our day even Reformed people think that grace provides and then applies salvation by regenerating man and giving man the ability to believe. This makes it easy to join hands with Arminian theology since the Arminian thinks that God gives some grace and that he (the Arminian) simply chooses to go along. The modern Reformed person says that they are not far apart and that God gives the grace to the Arminian to believe though the Arminian simply does not recognize that it is God who enabled him or her to believe. The older writers would have thought that a failure to attribute all to grace was another Gospel.

The older writers said the death of Christ was applied by the Spirit and not the human will. They saw that for salvation to be applied to those truly dead in sins and trespasses, that grace must not only apply salvation, it must break the pride of the sinner and make him desire to be saved. Not only must grace work faith in the soul, it must work until the soul does not believe in itself. Instead of grace giving man hope in his own free-will to do something toward salvation, instead grace works despair of any help or hope in self in order that the person may trust in Christ alone. In other words, the sinner is nothing but a mass of sin and self and has nothing to start with. Grace works from the beginning and does all of the work in the sinner and nothing is left to the free-will to do because in the sinner the will is never free from a desire to sin until grace delivers the soul from sin. It was more than believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone; it was being justified by the work of grace alone.

Last time we continued the History and Theology strain of thought by starting to look at the thinking of John Owen on this issue. Owen was so upset at the bringing in of Arminian theology in his day that in 1642 he wrote a volume entitled A Display of Arminianism. He was convinced that Arminianism was not just a little different than the teaching of the church since the Reformation, but instead was a major error that attacked the very core of the Gospel. If he was correct in his day, then his insights should be examined to see how they apply today. Last time I gave a quote of Owen (the first nine lines below). I will continue on in that quote after repeating the first part.

“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.

Surely these are not things…, as Austin [some Puritans called Augustine Austin] speaks,–‘about which we may differ without loss of peace or charity.’ One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius…The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim ieron polimon, ‘a holy war,’ to such enemies of God’s providence, Christ’s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters.”

Owen then goes on to say in his “To the Christian Reader,” that “never were so many prodigious errors introduced into a church, with so high a hand and so little opposition, as these into ours, since the nation of Christians was known in the world.” He goes on to say that he did not set out to refute all of their errors, but the ones that were at the very foundation-errors that “prevaricated against the very grounds of Christianity.” The writing of Owen at this point is simply stunning. While it is legitimate to ask if the brand of Arminianism was the same then as it is now, we must be careful not to dismiss Owen without examination. There is a reason that he has been called by many “The Theologian of the Puritans.” We must ask ourselves if the truth has changed or if Owen was wrong. If Owen was wrong, we must realize that our words and thoughts have tremendous implications. We would then have to show where Owen differed in terms of the Gospel from Luther and Calvin and from the other Puritans. If we think they were all wrong on this issue, then we must realize that the whole Reformed tradition is wrong. At the very least that would mean that we are no longer Reformed. Let us be honest on this point.

From the quotes given above, see what Owen and Augustine thought of unity between differing trains of thought. Can one church really have peace and unity with such widely divergent trains of thought? Not if both are taught in a real consistency. Both views when truly held will bring about a loss of peace and of charity as well. Does the Spirit of truth lead one into a view that totally contradicts the view of another? Can two really opposing views that are essential to the Gospel be held while at the same time expecting for there to be peace? If Augustine and Owen were correct on this, then the only way for there to be peace in one church between those who hold opposing views is if one or both will water their views down or simply not stand up for them. We live in a day where peace and tolerance are preached as the essence of Christianity and of love. But let us not forget that in love Jesus cleaned out the Temple in anger. Let us not forget the zeal and suffering it took for the Reformation to take place and bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ back to its purity. Let us also not forget that the Reformation was a time of great revival. If we truly desire days of blessing and great revival in our day, we must not forget that the Gospel must be stated with precision and the contrary views also stated. That will cause division and trouble. Ah, but let us also remember that the prophets and apostles and Jesus Himself also caused division and trouble. That is one thing that the Gospel does. If we wish to avoid trouble or division, we simply need to avoid standing for the truth of the Gospel. The cross, after all, is offensive. When we are so gracious as not to offend, we are not standing for the cross or Gospel.

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.

Last time I ended with the following paragraph that flowed from Romans 1:25 and its context:

“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rom 1:25) Look at this startling text of Holy Writ. God turns people over to sin because they exchange the truth about Him for a lie. What lie is that? Evidently the lie was something that turned the revelation of who God is to something about man because man now worships and serves the creature. But isn’t that exactly what we do when we change the truth of who God is for something that is more comfortable to us? Isn’t that exactly the trouble within Christendom today? Churches have become user friendly and are more concerned with man being comfortable than they are of seeking the living God. Evangelism has become a method of filling the church building rather than to proclaim the glories of God by means of the Gospel of grace. Theology has now become more of a form of apologetics instead of declaring the truth of who God is. Why do I say apologetics? For it seems as if many theologians are almost apologizing to men for how God has revealed Himself and giving reasons for why it appears as if He did something or is a certain way. When theology reaches that point, theologians have become more ashamed of God before men rather than ashamed of how men are before God.

What we must do, that is, what we must do if we truly love God and the truth of God, is to ransack our hearts and ask ourselves if we love God enough to stand for the truth of God before others who ridicule it and mock it. Our doctrines reflect the state of our heart and our love for God or man. Why should we be ashamed before men to tell them that God is sovereign and they are not? Why should we be ashamed to tell them that God must save them totally by grace if He pleases and that He is not at their own disposal? Why are we so ashamed of the fact that God hates sinners (Psalm 5:5-6) and that His wrath is upon them (John 3:36) even this moment if they are without Christ? Why do we always feel the need to apologize to men for that fact that the God we say we love hates sin and has broken out in wrath many times in history? Why do we feel we have to apologize for the fact that God will send sinners who hate Him to hell where their torment will be unceasing and unmitigated agony for eternity?

As I type those words I believe I know the answer as I can see my own heart as well. Down deep we want men to be pleased with God so that they will be pleased with us. We are so tempted to water our theology of God down a bit in order that we will be accepted and people will still think of us as nice and gracious. Mr. Beaver (of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe fame) had a much better theology than most of us in the present day. When the child asked if Aslan was safe, the reply was shocking to our modern ears. With mocking laughter Mr. Beaver replied, “of course he is not safe, but he is good.” That is a proper reply to many of the inane and blasphemous teachings of God that go under the guise of theology today. Of course God is not safe and there is nothing about our attempts to make Him safe that will make Him so. There is also nothing about our attempts to be liked and thought gracious and kind that will change God either. He is sovereign and He does as He pleases in the heavens and on earth. We have no control of the sovereign of this universe and our futile attempts to create an image of Him in our own images are nothing but idolatry. In our own minds we attempt to create a god that is safe and likable, but in reality we have incensed Him even more by our blasphemous attempts to change Him and please others.

We must be ever so careful to develop our view of God from Scripture and not from something that will make fallen minds more comfortable and ourselves more liked by men. We are rather to please God and those who love God will be pleased to see God in and through us. Theology should start and end with God and His revelation of Himself rather than be done in an attempt to make the character of God fit with our beliefs and presuppositions. If our theology does not start and end with Him, it will start with ourselves and end in even more idolatry. If our theology is a defense of a certain teaching of man, we have started in the wrong place. If we start our theology with the doctrine of how God has revealed Himself, then we have started in the right place. It is my contention that historical Calvinism started where the Bible does and that is with the doctrine of God. The doctrine of man is then built around God and His Word. It is also my contention that Arminianism begins with the doctrine of man and his free-will and then goes astray from that. Modern day theologians want to be winsome and so want to appease people on the other side. What we must do is to seek the Lord of glory and let the chips fall where He ordains that they fall. If men are not pleased, then perhaps they are not pleased with the true and living God. If they are not pleased with God, then they need to repent rather than us trying to make God more winsome for them.

The following words were quoted in the last two BLOGS. They are from the published writings of Arminius in which Peter Bertius gives an assessment and overview of Arminius. Right after that I made a few comments of which I will also include. “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.

This is a chilling quote. It should serve as a call to awaken all who are interested in the glory of God and His Gospel. We are to be more interested in knowing and loving God than we are in anything else. All of our doctrines should be a reflection of His character and a manifestation of His glory through Christ in the world. If we start with man, or at least camp out on a doctrine of man, we have started or have stayed in the wrong place. One basic rule of interpretation is that when we come to the Scripture we will either be conformed to Scripture or we will twist it to conform to us. When we do this we are guilty of conforming God to our image and then worshipping our own image. But we are to be conformed to God rather than twisting Him to conform to ourselves.

Romans 1:18-25 shows how this is done. We must be careful not to think of this practice as only happening among professing heathens, but must look in our own hearts and ask if these things are being practiced by us. All of the time we hear people say things like: “God will never send me to hell for His is a God of love.” What they have done is defined a god from their own imagination. So many seem to love a god that they have dreamed up and might even weep over what he has done for them. But the truth of the matter is that their little god does not resemble the sovereign God of Scripture and those people worship idols. The very heart of legalism, formalism and antinomianism is the same thing. It always begins with a wrong conception of God and a wrong conception of God always begins with the god that I dream up or one that must be in agreement with principles that I think must be held to. But Scripture is the revelation of God and not anything that man can dream up.

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1).

What is God’s wrath revealed against? It is against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. We can accept that and we will declare that. It is easy to believe that God’s wrath is revealed against the wicked behavior of human beings who obtain abortions and steal and kill. But notice that God tells us that His wrath is against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God’s wrath is against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of those who suppress the truth.

What truth is it that they were suppressing? “21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Instead of honoring God as He really is, they became futile in their speculations. God punished them by giving them a darkened heart. What happened then? “22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.” Surely, one might say, we don’t do this. We don’t have idols erected in our church buildings. But notice that the text does not have to exclude other forms of idolatry. When we reject the glory of God for something like fallen man, whether physical or spiritual, that is idolatry. Any time we twist the revelation of God Himself and try to say He is like us, we are guilty of this as well. What did God do? “24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Why did He punish them? “Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” What was the result of that lie? They worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.

Look at this utterly startling text of Holy Writ. God turns people over to sin because they exchange the truth about Him for a lie. What lie is that? Evidently the lie was something that turned the revelation of who God is to something about man because man now worships and serves the creature. But isn’t that exactly what we do when we change the truth of who God is for something that is more comfortable to us? Isn’t that exactly the trouble within Christendom today? Churches have become user friendly and are more concerned with man being comfortable than they are of seeking the living God. Evangelism has become a method of filling the church building rather than proclaiming the glories of God by means of the Gospel of grace. Theology has now become more of a form of apologetics instead of declaring the truth of who God is. Why do I say apologetics? For it seems as if many theologians are almost apologizing to men for how God has revealed Himself and giving reasons for why it appears as if He did something or is a certain way. When theology reaches that point, theologians have become more ashamed of God before men rather than ashamed of how men are before God.

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.