I submitted this paper for Soteriology (TH 855) at Bob Jones University on April 17, 2003.
Introduction
Throughout the history of the church there have been numerous controversies that have been the cause of division, strife, persecution, and even death. Many of these involved conflicts with those outside the church, but the fiercest took place among God’s people. The early church faced the ontological issues centering primarily on the person of Christ and His relationship to the Father. Other issues that occupied the stage of controversy included the canon and the sacraments, to name a few. But arguably no issue has been so hotly debated and so divisively contended for than the role of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom in salvation. Good men on both sides of the issues have spoken with great passion in defense of their views. The great Calvinist theologian B. B. Warfield asserted that “Calvinism is just religion in its purity.”1 Charles Spurgeon likewise said, “Calvinism is the gospel.”2 Yet others can make statements that Calvinism is not even biblical.3 This passion and zeal on these issues has a history, one that is helpful in setting the stage for an accurate understanding of the points of conflict.
Part One: Historical Background and Development
Where did all of this controversy begin? Is this some new issue that has arisen over the last couple centuries? Did it begin with the Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers? Understanding the history and development of the controversy is an important part of evaluating the issues and learning from the mistakes of the past so that they not be repeated. Although the issues ultimately originate in the Scriptures, both sides regard their views as being faithful to the inspired testimony. So the biblical data will be addressed in the second portion of the paper. The natural place to begin then is with the early patristic writings.
The Early Fathers
The majority of the early church Fathers seemed to emphasize the freedom and ability of man to come to God for salvation. This may seem surprising for those who regard Paul’s teaching on grace to be inconsistent with such an anthropocentric soteriology. One thing that historical theology bears out, however, is that antiquity does not equal accuracy and purity. In just a matter of a century or two there can be radical changes of doctrine, largely due to the issues of the day that are challenging the Christian faith. Such was the case with the first few centuries of the church. Pagan influence was strongly fatalistic, and Gnosticism purported a high view of determinism.4 Because of these unbiblical and unbalanced emphases so prevalent in the early years of the church, theologians, in a counterbalancing attempt, responded by emphasizing the human side of salvation—often to the detriment of divine sovereignty and initiative.5
Pelagius & Augustine
Up to this point, the debate had not really entered into the church itself. The apologists were refuting those outside the church. But with the appearing of the British monk Pelagius on the scene in the early 5th century, the stage was being set for the first major conflict within the church. Pelagius was quite extreme in his views of man. He denied that Adam’s sin influenced anyone other than himself, except by way of setting a negative example.6 Consequently, men were born free and untainted by the corruption and guilt of sin. The will was entirely free to choose evil or good. Even after men chose to sin, freedom was not lost. Salvation is thus attainable by man apart from grace. Man took the initiative to come to God. Grace could be given to assist man in this pursuit, but it was entirely unnecessary to the attainment of salvation. A key tenet of Pelagius’ position was that responsibility was limited by ability. God will not hold men accountable for what they cannot do.
Augustine (AD 354–430) rose up against this view, emphasizing strongly man’s depravity and inability and the need for a sovereign, monergistic work of God’s grace. The will of man was captive to the corruption inherited from Adam. The sinner was not free to come to God apart from grace and could not even cooperate with grace. Thus, salvation must be in its entirety a work of God alone. According to Augustine God could and did command from men what they were powerless to accomplish apart from His grace.7 Augustine’s view won the day, but it did not stay the favored position for long. Almost immediately Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism arose as mediating positions. They were initially condemned, but eventually won out as the majority consensus of the church until the time of the Reformation.
The Roman Catholic Church
For nearly the next thousand years of church history, a synergistic view of salvation held the position of most theologians in the church. Although there was an order of Augustinianism in the church, this was not the majority position. Semi-Pelagianism sought to avoid the extremes of both Pelagianism and Augustinianism. It taught that grace was necessary, but that man must make the first move toward God. God would respond with assisting grace.
The Reformers
Breaking into the religious deadness of the church like no event before (or after) came Martin Luther. This debate concerning sovereign grace and free will continued between Luther and his opponent Erasmus. In many ways this debate paralleled the one from a thousand years previous between Pelagius and Augustine. Luther decried the freewill teaching of the Roman church that was defended by Erasmus. To Luther salvation was sola gratia because man’s will was in bondage.8 The only hope for the sinner was an irresistible work of sovereign grace. Luther’s views of election and reprobation were quite strong, maintaining that God had chosen certain ones to be saved and others to be damned, apart from any merit or foreseen response in the individual.9 The debate controversy paved the way for the other Reformers.
The most notable of the following Reformers was John Calvin (1509–1564). He built upon the foundation laid by Luther and followed in the footsteps of the father of orthodoxy, Augustine of Hippo. This was quite plain from his frequent quotations of him. Calvin systematized the theocentric theology that came to be known as Reformed theology. His Institutes of the Christian Religion, which went through numerous editions and printings in his day, are still regarded today as a classic. Although he did a great deal by way of organization and systematization of Reformed theology, the system that bears his name, which is normally defined by the acrostic TULIP, was not his own devising.10
Arminius and the Remonstrants
James Arminius (1560–1609) was brought up in the Reformed faith as a “Calvinist.” However, the strong Calvinism of men like Beza and Gomarus led him to turn away from what he had been taught. Arminius himself rejected unconditional election for the view of election based on foreseen faith. He also taught the ultimate resistibility of grace, the universal nature of the atonement, and was open to the possibility of a true believer defecting from the faith. Many of the Dutch Protestants joined in the concerns of Arminius. This group came to be known as the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants differed primarily on the issues of (1) election and reprobation, (2) the extent of the atonement, (3) the resistibility of grace, (4) and the possibility of a true believer defecting from the faith.11
The Synod of Dort12
At the request of the Remonstrants, a synod was convened from November 9, 1618 until May 9, 1619.13 This synod met partly to discuss and evaluate the five articles of Remonstrance being set forth by the followers of Arminius.14 Nearly ninety different pastors, elders, theological professors, deputies, and delegates gathered together for this synod.15 The synod did not turn out as the Remonstrants had hoped. The five articles were rejected, many of the Remonstrants were ousted from their pulpits, and a strict five-point Calvinism was affirmed as the accepted form of doctrine.16
Amyraldianism17
Moise Amyraut (1596–1664) was a French Protestant who was influential in the development of a modified form of Calvinism. The ideas behind his system really began to be formulated by his teacher John Cameron (1580–1625). The system was characterized by universal grace and a form of unlimited atonement. He affirmed total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, infralapsarianism, and even double predestination.18 Limited atonement was the primary tenet where he differed with the normative Calvinist. What Amyraut was reacting against was what he regarded as scholasticism present among the Calvinists of his day. He saw himself as being in line with the teaching of Calvin, whom he regarded as teaching this same form of universal atonement.19
Part Two: Comparison, Contrast, and Evaluation of the Systems
Doing a comparison and contrast of systems such as these can be quite challenging due to the fluctuation and evolution inherent in the study of theology. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are often dealt with by looking at the theology of John Calvin and James Arminius, and there is a sense in which this must be the starting point. But what the systems have come to be do not always accord entirely with the teaching and primarily with the emphases of these men themselves. In the passing of over four hundred years, these systems of theology have gone through a number of changes, both major and minor. With this in mind, the discussion will deal with the systems as they have historically been understood, commenting occasionally where significant on the places where they differ from those after whom the systems are named and from the modern developments. Two main systems (Calvinism and Arminianism) will be addressed under each topic, and a third (Amyraldianism) where it differs from the other two.
The Nature of God
The heart of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism ultimately boils down to their view of God.20 Calvinist theologians tend to emphasize that God is the center of all that He does. The motivation and driving force behind creation, redemption, and providence is the glorification of His own name. Calvinistic theology is theocentric because the God of Calvinism is theocentric. Reformed theologians love to emphasize the sovereignty and omnipotence of God over all created beings and things as it relates to God’s unfrustratable effectuation of this goal of self-glorification. The two go hand-in-hand. He invincibly rules and governs all things to bring Himself glory—a goal which will certainly be realized since God cannot fail.
Arminian theologians, on the other hand, usually put man in a more central place in the plans and activities of God. Thus the attribute that receives the most attention is God’s love. God does what He does because He loves man and wants to do everything within His power to save as many people as possible. Because of this view of God, His power must necessarily be limited.
The Sovereignty and Foreknowledge of God
Outside of the context of soteriology, a major dividing line exists in regard to God’s planning and involvement of the future. Do things happen ultimately because of God or because of man? The Calvinist maintains that God has foreordained all the events of history. Then He effectually works to bring about those events.21 The WCF affirms this saying, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1). In other words, everything that occurs in time happens because it was planned in eternity. But it is necessary to go further and clarify why God ordained things the way He did. The WCF goes on and says, “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future” (3.2). This is where the main divide comes. Arminianism affirms that God did ordain the future, but prefers to speak in terms of foreknowledge and permission. And what He does ordain is based simply on what He knew would happen, so that God Himself is not the ultimate cause of the future but man. Arminians still speak in terms of the sovereignty of God. They maintain that God is sovereign, but that He has sovereignly chosen to limit His sovereignty. This governing principle will manifest itself quite clearly in the soteriological aspects of both systems to follow.
Human Depravity
The discussion of these systems has normally had its starting point with anthropology. Since salvation is in view, the underlying presupposition is that man needs salvation. This point is somewhat difficult, because there does not seem to be monolithic agreement, especially on the part of Arminians.
The Calvinistic teaching is that man is radically corrupt in every part of his being. No aspect of human existence goes untouched by the fall. This is what the “total” of total depravity conveys. This depravity is man’s from conception (Ps. 51:5). And it is his by virtue of his union with Adam as his covenantal head and representative. Because of Adam’s sin, both corruption and guilt are imputed to every individual. This original sin is the root of depravity, which consequently renders man incapable of any movement toward God or cooperation with Him. Everything that he does is sin because it flows from a nature and disposition that is opposed to God.22 As a result he cannot please God (Rom 8:8). Calvinists typically speak of man’s will as being in bondage. They repudiate the notion of “freewill” in the sense that man is free to choose to do good works (Rom 3:12). Because the will must function within the realm of one’s nature, fallen man can only desire, choose, and do fallen things. Thus the fallen man may be described as spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), that is, absolutely unable to do anything spiritual to assist or cooperate in his salvation. He is entirely dependent upon the sovereign work of God.
Arminianism is not quite as unified in its position on depravity. Arminius and some early Arminians essentially agreed with the teaching of total depravity. They regarded man as unable to incline himself toward God. He was in absolute need of grace to come to God, but this grace was resistible, and the individual needed to cooperate for it to be of saving value.23 But this view was not retained by later Arminians,24 who essentially denied the doctrine of total depravity and inability. He retains the ability to choose between the good and the evil. This has become the normative Arminian position today—that man is sick and his will weakened, but he is not dead.25 This state of corruption is the result of the fall of Adam. But only the pollution of Adam’s sin was imputed to mankind, not his guilt.26
Amyraldianism differs from the Calvinistic teaching in one notable area—the focus on the intellectual aspect of man’s depravity and inability. Amyraut saw the mind as the governing principle in man. Consequently, moral inability was the result of the noetic effects of sin.27 It seems that this emphasis was motivated by an attempt to protect human freedom.28
Election
According to Calvinism, election is God’s eternal choice of certain individuals in Christ from all eternity for holiness on the basis of nothing foreseen in man, but solely on the basis of His own good pleasure, and for the purpose of bringing glory to Himself through the display of His grace. This position logically flows from their view of depravity, although it is not at all just a logical conclusion. There are numerous passages of Scripture that are used to support this position.
Classic Arminianism has differed with Calvinism on one primary point—the basis of God’s choice of some and rejection of others. While Calvinism sees God as the one who makes the ultimate distinction, Arminianism, in an attempt to safeguard the fairness of God, has seen the necessity of making man the ultimate determiner of his own salvation. They have done this through their understanding of foreknowledge in two key texts: Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1–2. The essence of their argument is based on an etymological defining of προγινώσκω and πρόγνωσις as “prescience.” God has predestined and chosen men on the basis of his prior knowledge of them. But Arminianism emphasizes not God’s prior knowledge of them as individuals, but of their actions.29 Thiessen summarizes the Arminian position quite succinctly: God “chose those who He foreknew would accept Christ.”30
The Amyraldian scheme of election is essentially the same as the Calvinist, but there are some differences that are worth noting—the influence of which will be seen more fully in the discussion on the atonement. These differences flow out of Amyraut’s unique covenant theology.31 Amyraut divided the covenant of grace into two covenants: “a conditional covenant of universal grace and an unconditional covenant of particular grace.”32 This twofold nature of the covenant of grace was reflected in his view of predestination. God’s will in predestination was dual. The first—a “hypothetical universal predestination”—was a “universal and conditional will,” on the basis of which God wanted all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).33 But due to man’s depravity, he could not meet the condition necessary to partake of God’s salvation. The second aspect of God’s will was “particular and unconditional,” guaranteeing that the condition would be met for all the elect.34
Atonement
Probably the most disputed of all points has been this issue of the atonement, specifically its extent.35 Did Christ die for every individual of all time without exception, or did Christ die only for the elect?
The Calvinist position has been historically denominated “limited atonement.” But due to the negative connotations of such a term, many theologians have chosen a more congenial expression like “particular redemption,” “definite atonement,” or “effectual atonement.” In addition, all orthodox views of the atonement may be accurately regarded as “limited.”36 The Calvinist argues that Christ came with the specific intent of saving God’s elect people, and it was their wrath that He bore and their sins that He expiated, being their substitute and bearing their penalty.37 They regard the cross as having real and immediate effects for all those for whom Christ died guaranteeing their future experience of those benefits. The atonement is viewed as the means for accomplishing the purposes of God in election, logically following election in the ordo salutis. The unity of God and His purposes seems to suggest that just as God elected some and the Spirit does His effectual work in them alone, so Christ died to save that same group.38
The Arminian view of the atonement seems to consistently follow from some of the other tenets of the system.39 Since God desires the salvation of all men and has left the ultimate say in that salvation up to them, it would make sense that God would send His Son to provide for that salvation. If God’s universal offer of salvation is to mean anything, it seems that the atonement must have really been accomplished for everyone. The Arminian’s argument is not primarily a logical one. There are a number of passages of Scripture that speak in universal language and seem to imply that what Christ did He did for everyone without exception.
The Amyraldian view of the atonement is probably the issue where the system is most distinct from the other systems. The uniqueness of this view is that it attempts to find a middle ground between the Arminian and the Calvinist. It does so through the twofold will of God concerning the salvation of mankind. This will is reflected in the order of decrees. God decrees (1) to create, (2) to cause/permit the fall, (3) to provide an atonement for all, (4) to elect some and reprobate or pass over others, and (5) to apply the atonement to the elect.40 Warfield summarizes this peculiar position thusly: “Christ died to make satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception if—if, that is, they believe: but that, foreseeing that none would believe, God elected some to be granted faith through the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit.”41
Grace
Another point of divergence is the issue of grace. The Calvinist maintains that God’s grace is not only necessary but is the sole cause of the sinner turning to God. Thus the work of salvation is entirely monergistic. Although this grace is resistible for a time, God will overcome the resistance of every one of the elect and will save them.42 This salvation does not happen against the will of the sinner. Rather, God changes the will of the sinner so that he wants to come to Christ. Most modern day Calvinists see the means for accomplishing this as the regenerating work of God.43
The Arminian view of grace differs in that God’s grace is ultimately resistible. In other words, the ultimate decision in whether one will be saved or not belongs to man rather than to God. Not only is this grace resistible, but most hold that it is universally and indiscriminately distributed. Everyone is on the same level. So God gives His grace equally to all, and they may either choose to resist it or to cooperate with it.
Although Amyraut essentially agreed with irresistible grace, there was a slight difference from the normal Reformed position. Apparently, in an attempt to protect human freedom, Amyraut claimed that this gracious working of God is a working on the mind and a changing of thinking. The will is not directly influenced by grace, but only indirectly.44
Perseverance
The final point of dispute logically is the last of them all. The issue is primarily whether a truly regenerated and justified individual can fall away from grace and at last be damned.
Calvinism, arguing consistently and logically from the other points, maintains that the depraved man whom God chose unconditionally, and the Son died to save, and the Spirit irresistibly called to salvation will certainly remain in that condition and cannot possibly “fall from grace” and end up losing one’s salvation.45 Calvinists then lay stress on both the irreversibility of true conversion and the absolute necessity of continuance and growth in faith and good works.
Arminianism, on the other hand teaches that a genuine believer can depart from his prior confession of faith and lose his salvation. Arminius himself was unsure of this idea. He says at one point that he never taught that a true believer could really fall away, but at the same time, there are passages that would seem to indicate that this indeed was possible.46 The Remonstrants went beyond Arminius on this point expressing little doubt that a justified man could apostatize. Later Arminians have gone even further, being fully confident that apostasy of the regenerate is real and happens often.47
Conclusion
This controversy has been raging for hundreds of years. It is not any less of an issue today. Likely it will continue this way until the end of the age, seeing that a solution will probably not arise that satisfies everyone. The fact that unity is often hindered by this debate should not lead individuals to not take a position. The Bible does address these issues, either directly or by implication. It is the responsibility of every Christian to study these issues for himself and come to his own conclusions, yet he must do so in such a way as to reflect a proper attitude toward those who disagree. While these issues are certainly important and worth studying, agreement on the clear doctrines of the Christian faith should unite true believers together.
Appendix: Lapsarian Positions48
| Supralapsarian I49 | Supralapsarian II | Infralapsarian50 | Sublapsarian51 (Amyraldian) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Election/Reprobation of unfallen man | Election/Reprobation of fallen man | Creation | Create |
| Creation | Apply salvation to elect | Fall | Fall |
| Fall | Provide salvation for elect | Election/Reprobation of fallen man | Provide salvation for all |
| Provide salvation for elect | Fall | Provide salvation for elect | Election/Reprobation of fallen man |
| Apply salvation to elect | Create | Apply salvation to elect | Apply salvation to elect |
Bibliography
Barrett, Michael P. V. Complete in Him: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Gospel. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 2000.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932.
Boice, James Montgomery and Philip Graham Ryken. The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.
Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1998.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vol. Ed., John T. McNeill. Trans., Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960.
Cox, Leo G. “Prevenient Grace: A Wesleyan View.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 12 (Summer 1969): 143–149.
Davis, John Jefferson. “The Perseverance Of The Saints: A History Of The Doctrine.” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991): 213–28.
Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Foundations of Evangelical Theology, ed. John S. Feinberg. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. First published 1860; rewritten and enlarged, 1878; reprint, Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 Vol. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.
Horton, Michael, ed. Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
Hunt, Dave. What Love is This?: Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God. Sisters, OR: Loyal Publishing, 2002.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Trans. J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming R. Revell, 1999.
Miley, John. Systematic Theology. 2 Vol. 1893; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955.
Nichols, James and W. R. Bagnall, eds., The Writings of James Arminius. 3 Vol. Reprint ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. In The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, Vol. X, 139–428. 1850–53; reprint, Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.
Rakestraw, Robert V. “John Wesley As A Theologian Of Grace” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 27/2 (June 1984): 193–203.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.
Sproul, R. C. Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
Strehle, Stephen. “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism.” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989): 345–57.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907.
Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. Calvin and Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932; reprint, 2000.
________. Selected Shorter Writings. 2 Vols. Edited by John E. Meeter. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001.
Notes
1. B. B. Warfield, “What Is Calvinism?,” Selected Shorter Writings, ed. John E. Meeter (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001) 1:389. ↩
2. Spurgeon’s language was often quite strong. In essence he argued that if one does not preach the five points, he has not preached the gospel. In a message entitled “Christ Crucified,” which was delivered on February 11, 1855, he said, “I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that.” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 1 (Ages Bible Software), 100. ↩
3. Dave Hunt, What Love is This?: Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God (Sisters, OR: Loyal Publishing, 2002), 18. ↩
4. Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997), 99. ↩
5. Calvin has suggested two reasons for this emphasis: (1) to counter the extreme and unbiblical notions of the pagan philosophers, and (2) to avoid giving people “occasion for slothfulness.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John T. McNeill, trans., Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), II, 2. 4., 2:258–59. ↩
6. Cairns, “Pelagianism,” Dictionary of Theological Terms (Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1998), 262. ↩
7. Demarest, 64–66. ↩
8. Luther wrote a response to Erasmus in a book that has been regarded by many to be the most important book that he wrote—The Bondage of the Will. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming R. Revell, 1999). ↩
9. Demarest, 108. ↩
10. “T” stands for total depravity, “U” for unconditional election, “L” for limited atonement, “I” for irresistible grace, and “P” for perseverance of the saints. These points were developed at the Synod of Dort in response to the five articles of Remonstrance. ↩
11. In addition to these things, the Remonstrants also questioned “original sin, justification by faith, the atonement, and [possibly] even the deity of Christ.” M. E. Osterhaven, “Dort, Synod of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 332. The views of the Remonstrants cannot be equated with those of Arminius himself. As is often true, one’s followers often go beyond their teacher. ↩
12. “Dort,” which is the most common spelling, is also spelled “Dordt”—both of which are a shortened form of “Dordrecht.” ↩
13. Cairns, 365. ↩
14. Although the synod is usually associated with the discussion of the issues dividing the followers of Calvin and the followers of Arminius, there were at least two other reasons that called for this assembly: (1) “the ancient problem of Erastianism, the control of the church by the state” and (2) the “anticonfessional humanism that was more hellenistic than biblical in spirit.” Osterhaven, 331. ↩
15. There were “thirty-five pastors and a number of elders from the Dutch churches, five theological professors form the Netherlands, eighteen deputies from the States General, and twenty-seven foreign delegates” present for the six month synod. Ibid. ↩
16. Ibid., 332. ↩
17. Amyraldianism is also less commonly called “Amyraldism.” In addition, it has been given the names: hypothetical universalism, mediate regeneration, post-redemptionism, ante-applicationalism, four-point Calvinism, or inconsistent Calvinism. Cairns, 16; Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 475. Although it is customarily called four-point Calvinism, it may better be referred to as four and a half-point Calvinism, since the Amyraldian view of the atonement seeks to find a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism. ↩
18. Stephen Strehle, “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989): 350. ↩
19. Ibid., 354. ↩
20. This is made clear by the recent book on Calvinism by Dave Hunt, What Love is This?: Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God (Sisters, OR: Loyal Publishing, 2002). Hunt says that the God of Calvinism is a totally unbiblical picture of God. Calvinists likewise accuse Arminians as making a god that is pleasing to their sense of justice. ↩
21. There is disagreement among Calvinists on the level of God’s activeness in the effectuation of what He has ordained, especially in the realm of evil. The dividing line usually corresponds to one’s lapsarian position. Infralapsarians will usually make a distinction between God’s active and passive involvement, using language of permission, while supralapsarians tend to stress that God is active in both the ordaining and working of good and evil, usually refusing language of permission. ↩
22. Anything that is not motivated by love for God is sin, and love for God is only possible of the new man. Fallen man may do things that appear to be good, but they are ultimately self-motivated and therefore sinful. ↩
23. Cairns, 39. ↩
24. John Wesley, however, revived this teaching of Arminius emphasizing both depravity and inability. Yet he struggled to see how God’s offer of salvation could be sincere if man was unable to respond. The answer to the solution was the doctrine of prevenient grace. This prevenient grace was the universal undoing of the some of the effects of the fall, restoring to man the ability to repent and believe the gospel. One way this grace manifested itself to all people was by means of the gift of a conscience. Texts used to support this notion include John 1:9 (“There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.”) and Titus 2:11 (“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.”), Cairns, 277; Robert V. Rakestraw, “John Wesley As A Theologian Of Grace” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 27/2 (June 1984), 197. The end result of this position differs little from the normative Arminian position, which simply bypasses the teaching of a total depravity that is undone by prevenient grace by means of weakening the effects of the fall. ↩
25. Most Arminians also differ from the Calvinist with reference to what constitutes sin. For the Calvinist, sin is both acts of the will and the inward desire or disposition of the heart (i.e., concupiscence). The Arminian, however, limits sin strictly to acts of the will. Cairns, 39. ↩
26. Ibid., 39. ↩
27. B. A. Demarest, “Amyraldianism” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 41. ↩
28. Strehle expounds upon this point: “Amyraut leans toward the Arminian tendency of isolating the mind as the instrument of faith in order to safeguard human freedom. For Amyraut, as was true with his mentor [John Cameron], the volitional side of man is merely subject to the intellect, and unable to resist the judgments it offers. The mind is the ultimate sovereign of the human essence, determining the final destiny of the rest of man’s constitution” (350). ↩
29. Much of modern scholarly Arminianism has rejected the prescience view of election, though for two different reasons. Some have rejected it based on exegetical grounds, seeing the arguments against it given by the Calvinist concerning the meaning of “foreknowledge” to be quite strong. Others have rejected the classic view of election based on a denial of foreknowledge in God. God can only know reality, and the future as of yet is not reality and is therefore not knowable as such. Both groups, based on their view of human freedom, have adopted a corporate view of election. God has chosen Christ, and He chose the church collectively in Him. It is up to individuals to decide if they want to be a part of God’s elect church. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 104–107. ↩
30. Henry Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 344. Thiessen goes on to admit that the rationale behind this position is not expressly an exegetical conclusion; rather it is a logical necessity based on certain presuppositions about the character of God. “Although we are nowhere told what it is in the foreknowledge of God that determines His choice, the repeated teaching of Scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation necessitates our postulating that it is man’s reaction to the revelation God has made of Himself that is the basis of His election” (italics mine). ↩
31. Demarest, “Amyraldianism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 41. Amyraut saw three covenants: (1) the covenant of nature between God and Adam, (2) the covenant of law between God and Israel, and (3) the covenant of grace between God and all mankind. ↩
32. Ibid. ↩
33. Ibid. ↩
34. Ibid. ↩
35. This specific issue is probably the most controverted for the reason that it, more so than any of the other points, is in the realm of systematic theology. To ask the question, “For whom did Christ die?” is to ask a question that Scripture does not directly answer. So all the positions are based on logical inferences rather than from explicit statements of Scripture. ↩
36. Only universalism can make the claim of not being limited. The Calvinist view is limited in relationship to those for whom it was intended to save and those for whom it did have real accomplishments, while the Arminian position ends up limiting the efficacy of the atonement in that the intention is broader than the accomplishment. ↩
37. Here is another point of disagreement, though not as well known as the issue of the extent. Nearly all Calvinists believe in a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, while nearly all Arminians reject penal substitution for Grotius’ governmental view. It is interesting to note that at this point most Calvinists and the Arminians are in agreement concerning the relationship between the extent of the atonement and the nature of the atonement. If the atonement is truly substitutionary then it must also be limited. Miley, a Wesleyan Arminian, acknowledges that “Wesleyan soteriology, taken as a whole, excludes the satisfaction theory, and requires the governmental as the only theory consistent with itself.” John Miley, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 2:168. In spite of this comment, there are still Arminians who do hold to a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. ↩
38. See, e.g., Reymond, 677–78. ↩
39. It does not consistently follow from conditional election, however. Foreknowledge seems logically to accord better with limited atonement than unlimited atonement. Therefore, one could conceive how an Arminian could prescribe to a limited atonement; although, it is not likely that such a case has ever existed. Christ came to save everyone that He foreknew would believe in Him. Does not even John 3:16 assert the limited intention of God in salvation? God loved the world, and the result was the giving of His Son. The purpose for which He gave Him was so that everyone who believes would not perish. This is clearly a limited purpose. It was never God’s intention to save those who would not believe. So based on God’s foreknowledge that some would not believe in His Son, it could be concluded that it was God’s intention never to save certain individuals. Thus a limited atonement is entirely consistent with both unconditional as well as conditional election. Boettner makes this argument in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932), 160: “They do but deceive themselves who, admitting God’s foreknowledge, say that Christ died for all men; for what is that but to attribute folly to Him whose ways are perfect? To represent God as earnestly striving to do what He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly.” ↩
40. See the chart in the Appendix for a further examination of the various lapsarian positions. ↩
41. B. B. Warfield, “Calvinism” in Calvin and Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932; reprint, 2000), 364. Reymond argues that the essential point of distinction is that “the actual execution of the divine discrimination [election/reprobation] comes not at the point of Christ’s redemptive accomplishment but at the point of the Spirit’s redemptive application.” Reymond, 477. ↩
42. Some have suggested other names to replace irresistible grace because of the faulty inferences that can be drawn from it. The term “effectual grace” seems to be a better choice because it is a positive rather than a negative term. ↩
43. Some want to see the ordo salutis as effectual calling, conversion, regeneration. But the majority of those who hold this position would be four-point rather than five-point Calvinists (e.g., Demarest, Erickson, Strong). ↩
44. Strehle, 347–350. Cameron, Amyraut’s teacher, believed that “the sole concern of the Spirit in producing faith is in the intellect, seeing that the illumination of this faculty precipitates automatically in enlightenment of the other. The orthodox, of course, do not approve of this cooperation with the human will in conversion, and argue that the Holy Spirit is directly involved with all of man’s faculties.” Amyraut followed this distinction “in contrast to the standard Reformed concept of irresistible grace, involving the determination of the whole of man’s being.” Amyraut is very close to the “Arminian tendency of isolating the mind as the instrument of faith, in order to safeguard human freedom.” Consequently, Amyraut agrees with his teacher: “The volitional side of man is merely subject to the intellect, and unable to resist the judgments it offers. The mind is the ultimate sovereign of the human essence, determining the final destiny of the rest of man’s constitution. The Spirit need only illuminate man’s intellectual faculties, much like a blind man receiving his sight, in order to secure a salutary effect throughout the whole of man’s existence.” ↩
45. There seem to be two different schools of emphasis among those of Calvinistic persuasion. Some, like the Puritans, emphasize the perseverance side, while others seem to lay stress on the preservation side. There is not a real difference in doctrine, just in emphasis, although it does end up influencing the interpretation of certain passages. ↩
46. John Jefferson Davis, “The Perseverance Of The Saints: A History Of The Doctrine,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, 34/2 (June 1991): 221. Arminius “states that he ‘never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish,’ and yet he allows that there are Biblical texts that appear to indicate the possibility of a negligent believer falling away and being lost. He believes the issue is one for further investigation. Arminius affirmed, then, that while he had not explicitly denied the Calvinistic position on perseverance he entertained the possibility that the contrary could be true, though he was not yet prepared to state explicitly that it actually was true.” ↩
47. Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm the necessity of perseverance—the difference being that for the Calvinist, God guarantees the meeting of that condition, while for the Arminian, man is the one who ultimately, with the assistance of grace, needs to make sure the condition is met. There are those who hold to “eternal security,” a position which is usually expressed by the phrase “once saved, always saved.” This, however, is a distortion of the fifth point of Calvinism. Eternal security is usually devoid of the necessity of perseverance, while the Calvinistic doctrine is certainly not. ↩
48. For further discussion on the various lapsarian positions see, e.g., Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 842–43; 931; Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1907) 777–79, who gives only two main positions—supralapsarianism and sublapsarianism; Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 343. ↩
49. Most regard supralapsarianism as hyper-Calvinism, e.g., Strong, Systematic Theology, 777. No lapsarian position is intrinsically hyper-Calvinism, although it may more readily lead to it. ↩
50. Warfield and most Calvinists are infralapsarians, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942), 31. Strong considers this another form of sublapsarianism, Systematic Theology, 779. ↩
51. Thiessen holds to this view with one modification, the omission of the decree of election, Introductory Lectures, 344. Strong as well considers himself a sublapsarian, Systematic Theology, 777. Erickson also labels this position as the position of Arminians, Systematic Theology, 843. However, Arminius himself held to the following four decrees: (1) “the election of Jesus Christ,” (2) “the election of the people of God,” (3) “the provision of prevenient grace,” and (4) “election of individuals on the basis of foreknowledge.” Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 101–102. ↩