Rev D A Ross
James Arminius was a minister of the Calvinistic Church of Holland and a professor of theology in the University of Leyden from 1602 to 1609. He developed views very different to the Calvinistic tenets in which he was trained and propagated a scheme of theology which has been associated with him ever since. Just as Calvinism took its name from the teachings of John Calvin, Arminianism is named after James Arminius.
After his death a considerable number held to his views, but they were firmly opposed by the Calvinists. Forty-six pastors who rejected orthodox Calvinism in favour of Arminius’ teachings, drew up a Remonstrance, or Protest, in five articles, which publicised their views on predestination and grace. The articles were presented to the States of Holland with the request that these pastors be allowed to continue in their places in the Church without having their orthodoxy examined by the ecclesiastical courts. The Calvinists put forward a counter-Remonstrance in five points, which marked the origin of the famous Five Points of Calvinism. The importance of this controversy drew the best and most learned of theologians from many parts of Europe to the Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618-19. William Cunningham comments: “The Synod of Dort, representing as it did almost all the Reformed churches, and containing a great proportion of theologians of the highest talents, learning, and character, is entitled to a larger measure of respect and deference than any other council recorded in the history of the Church”.2
The Arminians, like the Calvinists, were bound by the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism but were now advocating a departure from them. It appears that they conducted themselves in a devious fashion at the Synod and an exasperated president eventually dismissed them with the vigorous words: “You are sent away. Go! You began with lies, and you have ended with lies!”3 In their absence, the Synod got down to the serious business of dealing with their theology and proceeded to formulate 93 articles, the famous Canons of Dort. John R de Witt sums up the work of the Synod: “The divines of Dort were not first of all concerned with scholastic questions which bore no relationship to life. To them the controversy was not in any sense an academic one. It was utterly practical. In their view, as in that of Athanasius in his struggle against Arianism twelve hundred years before, the ultimate issue was salvation itself.”4
Arminianism, as John R de Witt goes on to stress, was no slight error: “If the Arminians had their way, and their doctrines were introduced into the Church, the end result would be destructive to the Christian doctrine of salvation”. No doubt these words express the deep concern the Calvinists had in their stand against the views of Arminius as they emphasised the doctrines of the Word of God. “Hence the Canons – the unconditional and gracious character of election, the atonement of Christ limited as to its design and extent, the total depravity of man, the irresistibility of grace, and the perseverance of the saints – were all in answer to the five articles of the remonstrance, intended to establish clearly and unmistakably the utterly gracious character of salvation: that ‘it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy’ (Rom 9:16).” It was inevitable that the Arminians who would not submit to the Canons would be forbidden to exercise their ministry in public. For this the Calvinists have been charged with persecuting the Arminians, but it was in keeping with biblical church discipline. These five points opposed the Arminian errors: man’s ability to do good, conditional election, universal atonement, resistible grace, and the possibility of falling from grace.
1. Man’s Natural Power. The Westminster Confession of Faith states, “We are utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” (6:4). Also: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (9:3). Some Arminians maintain that man, in spite of the Fall, has not lost all ability to do good. Others accept that man by the Fall did become thoroughly depraved but maintain that God makes up this loss by giving to man, through Christ, “sufficient grace, and hence gracious ability, to obey the gospel”.5 In either case they hold that man can do spiritual good accompanying salvation should he so desire.
Such teaching has no warrant from Scripture, which assures us that all are, spiritually, “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1). Under the covenant of works, man was to stand or fall in Adam, as he was the root and representative of mankind. Sadly, Adam fell and, in consequence, all mankind fell in him. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). The Word of God confirms again and again – for example in Romans 3:9-18 – that the natural man is spiritually dead. When Paul wrote: “There is none righteous, no, not one . . . there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way . . . there is none that doeth good, no, not one”, he was addressing Jews and Gentiles alike – but showing self-righteous Jews in particular that they were as much subject to total depravity as the Gentiles.6
Of course, as Louis Berkhof points out, total depravity does not mean “that every man is as bad as he can be, but that sin has corrupted every part of his nature and rendered him unable to do any spiritual good. He may still do many praiseworthy things in relation to his fellow-beings, but even his best works are radically defective because they are not prompted by love to God nor done in obedience to God.”7 Furthermore, total depravity does not mean that man is deprived of natural liberty. He acts freely, but according to his fallen nature. What he does, he does freely. He always deliberately refuses the remedy offered in the gospel; he freely and willingly rejects Christ. The Saviour told certain Jews: “Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40), and this is true of every sinner until God makes him willing to come to Christ. Thus Robert Shaw says: “In his natural corrupt state, man freely chooses evil, without any compulsion or constraint on his will; and he cannot do otherwise, being under the bondage of sin.”8
This is radically different to the Arminian teaching of man’s freedom and power to choose good and, in particular, to receive Christ as a Saviour. The Word of God makes it evident that fallen man will not receive Christ or do anything that is truly good. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, who are accustomed to do evil” (Jer 13:23). Until he is given a new nature by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, man cannot do good. How crystal-clear the witness of God: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgements and do them” (Ezek 36: 26-27). Only then will the sinner receive and rest on Christ alone for salvation and begin to go in the way of holiness.
2. Election. The Westminster Confession of Faith states: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. . . . Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God . . . hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto” (3:3,5). Arminians are deeply opposed to the doctrine of unconditional election – God choosing some of fallen mankind to eternal life, not because of any gracious quality in them, for they had none, but simply because He wished to do so. They are particularly opposed to the teaching that God passed by the rest of mankind, who are condemned to a lost eternity because of their sin. Arminians do accept an election, but it is based on conditions to be fulfilled by man, and it is only when these conditions are fulfilled that he is finally chosen to salvation. Arminians accept that the decree of election is from eternity, but only in the sense that God foreknew who would make choice of Christ as their Saviour.
John L Girardeau expresses both views as follows: “Does God eternally elect individuals to believe, and to persevere in holiness unto the attainment of everlasting life? The Calvinist answers, Yes. The Arminian answers, No, He purposes to elect to everlasting life those who of their own free choice believe and persevere in holiness to the end.” The election, then, taught by the Arminian depends not on what God, but on what man, will do. Should he choose to be saved, God will choose him to be saved. If he does not choose to be saved, God cannot choose to save him and so, in effect, He cannot save the sinner. Girardeau says of this Arminian election: “What the purpose to elect signifies, how it accomplishes any more than the individual’s own perseverance to the end achieves, it is impossible to see”.9
It seems that no doctrine offends the natural man like the biblical doctrine of election. Man’s fallen nature wishes it were not there and tries to devise a way round it. John Wesley spoke of “the horrible decree of predestination”.10 But however much man is offended by the doctrine of election as it stands in the Scriptures, it is quite impossible to evade the faithful statements on the subject in the Reformed Confessions. “For whom [God] did foreknow, He also did predestinate . . . Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified” (Rom 8:29-30).
The doctrine of election naturally follows from that of total depravity. A totally-depraved creature needs a total, divine deliverance. Because of the sinful disposition of man’s heart, he will not and cannot turn to God. A person in some dire situation may not be able to reach safety because of the forces against him, although he is willing to be delivered. It is otherwise with fallen man. He is at home with all that opposes his salvation, including the devil and his own corrupt nature. Therefore, while he needs to be saved, he is unwilling to be saved in the manner God lays down; he is at enmity with God. But God in mercy chose some of Adam’s lost race to salvation. If He had not done so, they would all have continued eternally in enmity to God.
But just as God in Elijah’s day reserved to Himself 7000 who did not bow the knee to the image of Baal, “even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:4-7).
Others have not been elected to eternal life, but there is no injustice on God’s part in leaving them in their lost state. All mankind, as fallen, clearly deserve a lost eternity. Had God chosen to do so, He could justly have sent all to outer darkness, but instead it has pleased Him to choose some of them to eternal life. But, as Loraine Boettner rightly says in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, “the non-elect are simply left in their previous state of ruin, and are condemned for their sins. They suffer no unmerited punishment, for God is dealing with them not merely as men but as sinners.” These mysteries are too deep for us, but they are set before us in the Word of God. It is a great consolation to know that there is an election of grace and that sinners will indeed be saved. On the other hand, how painful to think of sinners being eternally damned! Nevertheless, we are sure that God, who is good, will ever do what is good. In one sense there is no mystery in God passing by the whole of mankind and ordaining them to destruction for their disobedience. The great mystery is that He would ordain any sinner to eternal life.
It is also important to note that God appoints the means to bring to heaven those who are elected. That is, He has provided a Saviour, in the person of His Son in our nature, and calls sinners by the gospel. All the elect, and no others, the Holy Spirit, “doth persuade and enable . . . to embrace Christ Jesus freely offered to [them] in the gospel” (Shorter Catechism, answer 31). And they are enabled to persevere in the way of salvation to the end.
1The first section of a paper given at last year’s Theological Conference.
2The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformers, p 367.
3“The Synod of Dort”, in The Banner of Truth, December 1968, p 5.
4“The Synod of Dort”, p 7.
5A A Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp 294.
6See Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol 2, pp 327-8.
7Summary of Christian Doctrine, p 70.
8Exposition of the Confession of Faith, p 117.
9Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, p 46.
10Classics of Protestantism, p 176.
The sight of Christ on the cross is a judge upon the bench against all temptations. The consideration of three things keeps one from the power of temptation: the worth of a soul, the heinousness of sin and the love of Christ. And you see all these in Christ upon the cross. When temptation comes, stand and look upon Him.
As a man is unable to overcome any sin, so also, if he be fallen, he is unable to rise again. Peter himself must have a look from Christ before he could repent.
The priest when he blessed, indeed he could wish well, and he could pronounce a man blessed, and he might absolve, but he could go no further . . . he could not bestow the blessing; but our Lord Christ, being a High Priest beyond all the high priests that were ever before Him in this respect too – where He doth bless, He bestoweth the blessing, being God and man.
There are three we read of in Scripture especially that did bless: the father, the king and the priest: the father did bless his children, the king blessed his subjects, and the priest blessed the people. Now the Lord Jesus Christ He is our Father, “the everlasting Father”; He is our King, “I will set My King upon My holy hill”; and He is our great High Priest; and therefore, all these relations meeting in Him, it belongs unto Him above all for to bless the people.
William Bridge