by Rev. Donald Beaton
Careful students of contemporary theological literature must be impressed by the extent to which it is permeated by the leaven of Arminianism. What that system failed to achieve in the arena of debate it has accomplished by peaceful penetration. It has saturated theological thinking to an extraordinary degree. The “revival” literature of today is full of it, as is also the religious press generally. Warnings from the pulpit and denunciation of the errors of Arminianism are not now heard as once they were. Even in pulpits where the truth is preached, it is to be feared that, in some cases, a faithful witness is not raised against Arminianism. The cause of this may be due in a measure to the fact that in defending the cause of truth new forms of error have to be exposed and assailed, with the result that the old enemy is left so far unmolested as if it were dead. Unfortunately this is not so; Arminianism is very much alive in the pulpit, in the theological and religious press, and in the modern evangelistic meeting. It is true, no doubt, that there has been a notable revival of Calvinistic teaching on the Continent, and an effort is being made to revive interest in it in this country, but there can be little doubt notwithstanding that Arminianism still enjoys great favour with the religious public. When we bear in mind the horror with which our forefathers regarded Arminianism, the modern attitude to it indicates how far the professing Church has drifted from the position of the theologians of those days. The symbolic books of the Church of England — the XXXIX. Articles — and the symbolic books of the Church of Scotland — the Confession of Faith — are undoubtedly Calvinistic, but can it be said that all who sign these symbols are Calvinists at heart?
The theological system called Arminianism received its name from the Dutch theologian, Jakob Hermanss, the Latinised from of whose name was Arminius. He was born at Oudewater, about 18 miles from Rotterdam, in 1560, and died at Leyden in 1609. In 1588 he was appointed preacher of the Reformed congregation at Amsterdam. While here his views underwent a change, and his expositions of Romans vii and ix and his utterances on election and reprobation gave offence. His colleague, Plancius, opposed his views, and disputes arose in the consistory which for a time were put to a stop by the burgomasters. Arminius was called to fill the professor’s chair at Leyden, and in his lectures on predestination he stirred up considerable opposition, his chief opponent being Gomarus. The dispute spread among the students and the ministers. The followers of Arminius refused to be called Arminians, preferring the name Remonstrants, from their Remonstrantiae, drawn up in 1610 after Arminius’s death (1609), which formed an exposition and justification of their views. They held that they should not be hampered by subscription to the symbolical books, but that free investigation on the Bible should be allowed. Their Remonstrance was met by a Counter-Remonstrance. The controversy went on for years, causing considerable disturbance. When Prince Maurice countenanced the cause of the Counter-Remonstrants a change took place as to the State attitude to the controversy, and a national synod was called by the States-general at Dort (May 30, 1618).
The presentation of the case of the Arminians in Five Articles determined to a large extent the form in which the whole subject was afterwards discussed at the Synod of Dort under the Five Heads: (1) Predestination or election. (2) On the death of Christ, the nature and extent of His redemption. (3) On the cause of faith, that is, the power or agency by which it is produced. (4) The mode of conversion, or the agency by which it is effected, and the mode of its operation. (5) On perseverance. On these great doctrines the Synod of Dort gave decisions condemning the Arminian positions. It is mainly the doctrines of conditional predestination, man’s ability to spiritual good and a universal atonement, which have made their way into the theological thinking of our time. No doubt some of these doctrines make a pleasing appeal to the natural man, but they are contrary to the clear statements of scripture and the plain facts of experience.
Dr. W. Cunningham seems to us to have happily hit on the real inwardness of the Arminian error when he says: “It is not very difficult to point out what may fairly enough be described as the fundamental characteristic principle of Arminianism — that which Arminianism either is, or has a strong and constant tendency to become; and this is, that it is a scheme for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves, instead of ascribing it wholly, as the Bible does, to the sovereign grace of God, the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ, and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Spirit . . . The encroachment they make upon the grace of God in the salvation of sinners varies, of course, according to the extent to which they carry out their views, especially in regard to men’s natural depravity, and the nature and necessity of the work of the Spirit in regeneration and conversion; but Arminianism in any form can be shown to involve the ascription to men themselves, more directly or more remotely, of a place and influence in effecting their own salvation, which the Bible denies to them and ascribes to God” (Historical Theology, ii. 377, 378).
Dr. Cunningham was a master theologian, and in the work quoted and in his “Reformers and Theologians of the Reformation” he has given an invaluable exposition of the Reformed theology. This is a serious indictment against Arminianism, for it virtually means that it robs God of His glory in the salvation of the sinner and denies that this salvation is all of grace from beginning to end.
Prof. R. Watts, of Belfast, used to tell his students that Arminianism fought none of the battles of the Reformation, and that when it appeared on the stage it was as the sower of discord and disunion that it made its presence felt. Arminianism, in a word, is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of God. This is the rock against which it is spending its strength, and on which it will ultimately be broken to pieces. In this attack it has as its supports all those elements in our fallen nature, which are at war with the divine sovereignty. Arminianism has never had a glimpse of the majesty of the divine truth that God, as sovereign Lord, has a right to do with His creatures what seems to Him good, and it has failed to grasp the utter ruin of man and the awful depths to which he has fallen. It denies to God the high place that is due to Him, and exalts man to a position which is not his due. If it has ever candidly faced the Saviour’s words: “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight,” it has never been awed and subdued by them.
He that loves not Christ more than his life, bids fair to lose both Christ and his life.
John Brown.
They that know God will be humble; they that know themselves cannot be proud.
Flavel.