Introduction

       In 1989, Zondervan Publishing House released what was proclaimed by many to be one of the best defenses of "Arminianism" to be written in recent years. Edited by theologian Clark H. Pinnock, The Grace of God/The Will of Man was a collection of essays written by leading Arminian scholars who argued in unison against the Reformed theology commonly known as "Calvinism," denouncing it as a rationalistic system which denies the clear teachings of the Bible.
       Pinnock, who earned his Ph.D. from the University of Manchester, and is himself a refugee from the Calvinist camp, opened the book with a detailed retelling of his "pilgrimage from Augustine to Arminius." Beginning with his rejection of the doctrine of the "Perseverance of the Saints," which he referred to as "likely the weakest link in Calvinian logic, scripturally speaking,"⁽¹⁾ Pinnock made an eloquent attempt to dispel the "dark shadow" of Calvinism, claiming that it blinds people to the clear salvific teaching of Scripture.
       Baptist minister Laurence M. Vance was equally harsh in his opposition to Calvinism: "Nothing will deaden a church or put a young man out of the ministry any more than an adherence to Calvinism. Nothing will foster pride and selfishness as will an affection for Calvinism. Nothing will destroy holiness and spirituality as an attachment to Calvinism. There is no greater violater of every hermeneutical, contextual, analytical, and exegetical interpretation of Scripture than Calvinism."⁽²⁾
       Most Arminians, of course, would not be so bombastic in their rejection of Reformed theology. It is frequently said that both Calvinism and Arminianism are really two sides of the same coin, being "very close to each other in substance."⁽³⁾ It is said that while Calvinism places an emphasis upon God's sovereignty and justice, Arminianism focuses upon God's infinite love for mankind. Debate between the two theological camps is therefore often repudiated as "anachronistic" and "insensitive,"⁽⁴⁾ and an appeal for "balance" is often heard from those who seek to blur the line of distinction between them.⁽⁵⁾ However, as we shall see, such a plea is made in gross ignorance, not only what Arminianism necessarily implies when its doctrines are drawn out to their logical conclusion, but of what the Bible says about the vital subject of God's redemptive work in behalf of fallen men.
       According to Silas Henn, "By many, the Calvinistic controversy has been considered as long since settled, and comparatively few in these times, amid such enlightened views of Christianity, dare to proclaim, openly and without disguise, the peculiar tenets of John Calvin."⁽⁶⁾ It is a common misconception that Calvinism originated in the mind of a sixteenth-century French rationalist who thought more highly of burning his theological dissenters at the stake than of engaging in a simple, Spirit-led study of the Bible.⁽⁷⁾ This distorted caricature of John Calvin is quite popular in Arminian circles, despite the fact that his own writings abundantly attest to his respect for, and subjection to, the inspired Scriptures:

       If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture. Hence the first step in true knowledge is taken, when we reverently embrace the testimony which God has been pleased therein to give of Himself. For not only does faith, full and perfect faith, but all correct knowledge of God, originate in obedience.⁽⁸⁾

       Calvin's goal, and that of all the Reformers of the Sixteenth Century, was not to "form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine,"⁽⁹⁾ but to return the Christian Church to the pure Gospel upon which it was originally founded. Though his presentation of biblical truths was often accomplished in a very logical manner, intellectualism for the mere sake of it was never his intention. His was a theology that was meant to turn men from an improper view of themselves, and to cultivate within the hearts of his readers a deep reverence and worship for the gracious God whom he preached. According to Calvin, "...[T]he knowledge of God which we are invited to cultivate is not that which, resting satisfied with empty speculation, only flutters in the brain, but a knowledge which will prove substantial and fruitful wherever it is duly perceived, and rooted in the heart."⁽¹⁰⁾
       The theological structure of Calvinism is commonly known by the acronym "T-U-L-I-P" — "Total Depravity," "Unconditional Election," "Limited Atonement," "Irresistible Grace," and "Perseverance of the Saints." What is not commonly known is that the systematization of these five points was not Calvin's idea, but that of the Synod of Dordt in 1618. This council was convened several years after Calvin's death to respond to the assertions of the 1610 manifesto entitled the Remonstrance. The framers of this document, Simon Episcopious and John Uytenbogaert, two professed followers of Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, asserted that man is not so corrupted by sin that he cannot exercise faith on his own, that God "predestined" believers to salvation on the basis of His foresight of their faith, that Christ's death was in behalf of all men without exception, and that men not only can resist the "wooing" of the Spirit, but that they, in a postregenerational state, can also sin to such an extent as to forfeit their salvation.⁽¹¹⁾
       The Synod of Dordt denounced the Remonstrance as a revival of the heretical teachings of the fifth-century British monk, Pelagius.⁽¹²⁾ The so-called "five points of Calvinism," which will be discussed in great detail in the ensuing pages, were therefore formulated in response to the Arminian insistence that fallen man plays a necessary role in his own salvation. Demanding strict adherence to Scripture, the Synod asserted, as did Calvin, that the salvation of sinners is solely an act of God's divine mercy and a bestowal of unmerited grace upon those who do not seek it, and, as such, is an irrevocable gift.
       What has raged within the Christian Church for so long must therefore be viewed, not merely as a non-essential debate between two differing, yet equally legitimate, systems of Bible interpretation, but as a contest between truth and heresy. It is, in fact, a battle between the true and glorious Gospel and an accursed counterfeit (Galatians 1:6-9). In the words of the late Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

       I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel... 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 special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called. Such a gospel I abhor.⁽¹³⁾

Endnotes

1. Clark H. Pinnock, essay: "From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology," The Grace of God/The Will of Man (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), page 17.

2. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, Florida: Vance Publications, 1991), page viii.

3. William J. Abraham, essay: "Predestination and Assurance," The Grace of God/The Will of Man, page 231.

4. Reference: Abraham, ibid.

5. There are indeed those who have embraced Arminianism who clearly see the contrast between it and Calvinism. For example, scholar Terry L. Miethe, a staunch opponent of Reformation theology, stated:

       ...[T]he differences are quite major! They are really the most severe differences possible... philosophically, perhaps ultimately also psychologically, about the nature of God, the nature of man, the teaching of Scripture, and (many times) man's responsibility to his fellow man (essay: "The Universal Power of the Atonement," Grace of God/Will of Man, page 91).

6. Silas Henn, quoted by Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1978), pages 53-54).

7. Dan Corner, "His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin"; online at www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm.

8. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1989), Book I, Chapter VI:2.

9. Calvin, ibid., Chapter IX:1.

10. Calvin, ibid., Chapter V:9.

11. It is perhaps unfortunate that the name of Jacob Arminius has traditionally been associated with these doctrines since he himself did not depart as far from Scripture as did the Remonstrants. In fact, having studied under Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, Arminius held to many of the essential elements of the Reformed faith. For example, it was his constant claim that he had "taught and wished to teach nothing that was in any wise repugnant to the [Belgic] Confession and [Heidelberg] Catechism" (The Works of James Arminius [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986], Volume I, page 106), the two main creeds of the Reformed churches at that time. In Article XVI of the former, we find the following statement:

       We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just; merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He, in His eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.

       Arminius was very clear in explaining his interpreation of this doctrine: "...[I]n his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, in and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good" (Works of Arminius, Volume I, page 659).
       It is apparent, therefore, that Arminius did not have much of a problem with accepting at least the first two points of the Calvinistic system. It is also clear that he did not deny the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, and, in fact, held a view that was identical to that of the Reformers of his day: "At no period have I asserted that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation" (ibid., page 741). Though he felt that he was not bound by "the private interpretations of the Reformed" (ibid., page 103), and though he denounced the doctrine of "reprobation," Arminius nevertheless maintained a great respect for those men under whose teachings he was schooled, particularly John Calvin himself:

       ...[A]fter the Holy Scriptures, I exhort them [his students] to read the commentaries of Calvin, on whom I bestow higher praise than Helmichius ever did, as he confessed to me himself. For I tell them, that his commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation, than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Church Fathers: so that, in a certain eminent Spirit of Prophecy, I give the preeminence to him beyond most others, indeed beyond them all (ibid., page 295).

       Arminius was adamant in classifying himself amongst the Reformers in their denunciation of the Roman Catholic Church. His public statements regarding the Pope were equal to Calvin's in their castigation of the Romish papacy: "I openly declare, that I do not own the Roman Pontiff to be a member of Christ's body; but I account him an enemy, a traitor, a sacrilegious and blasphemous man, a tyrant, and a violent usurper of most unjust domination over the Church, the man of sin, the son of perdition, that most notorious outlaw" (ibid., pages 298-299).
       In light of all this, it may be safely concluded that, unlike Calvinism, the Arminian system cannot be discovered in the writings and stated views of its namesake. In fact, though the moniker will be used throughout this book, "Arminian" is actually a misnomer, for Jacob Arminius himself would not qualify as one:

       ...[T]he most eminent of those who became Arminians, or who ranked among the professed followers of Arminius, soon adopted views of the corruption of man, of justification, of the righteousness of Christ, of the nature of faith, of the province of good works, and of the necessity and operations of grace, that are quite contrary to those which he had entertained and published. Many of them, in the process of time, differed more or less from one another, on all of these points. Even the Confession of Faith, which was drawn out for the Arminians by Episcopious, and is to be found in the second volume of his Works, cannot be referred to as a standard. It was composed merely to counteract the reproach of their being a society without any common principles. Every one was left entirely at liberty to interpret its language in the manner that was most agreeable to his own sentiments. Accordingly, so various and inconsistent are their opinions, that could Arminius peruse the unnumbered volumes which have been written as expositions and illustrations of Arminian doctrine, he would be at a loss to discover his own simple system, amidst that heterogeneous mass of error with which it has been rudely mixed; and would be astonished to find, that the controversy which he had unfortunately, but conscientiously, introduced, had wandered far from the point to which he had confined it, and that with his name dogmas were associated, the unscriptural and dangerous nature of which he had pointed out and condemned (The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, quoted by Laurence Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, pages 52-53).

12. Pelagius, who was the target of many of Augustine's polemical works, categorically denied that men were inherently wicked as a result of the fall of Adam. Instead, he believed that, in sinning, Adam merely served as a bad example to mankind. The sin nature, according to Pelagius, was neither transmitted to his descendants nor was his guilt imputed to them (reference: Louis Berhof, History of Christian Doctrines [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1937], pages 136-137; John Ferguson, Pelagius: An Historical and Theological Study [New York, AMS Press, n.d.], pages 96-97). The teachings of Pelagius thus bore the underlying implication that man is not so much in need of a Savior as merely a good example (reference: Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1910], Volume III, page 815). Consequently, the heretical speculation arose that, in order to act in Adam's place as a true example of righteousness, Christ must have had the ability to sin, but He merely chose not to do so.
       Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in 416 at the Council of Milevis, again in 418 at the Council of Carthage, and also in 431 at the Council of Ephesus. In its place, "Semi-Pelagianism" sprang up, which in turn was condemned in 529 at the Council of Orange. This position attempted to place itself between the two "extremes" of Pelagianism and Augustinianism by declaring that, although man is indeed adversely effected by the Fall, he is morally diseased or crippled, but not totally depraved. The Semi-Pelagians rejected the concept of absolute predestination, asserting instead that God's saving grace is only given to a man after he has taken the initial step by exercising his free will in believing the Gospel. This, of course, is precisely what Arminianism teaches, thus establishing the indisputable theological link between much of modern-day Evangelicalism and the fourth-century heretic, Pelagius. As Loraine Boettner pointed out, "The ancestry of Arminianism can be traced back to Pelagianism as definitely as can that of Calvinism be traced back to Augustinianism. Arminianism in its radical and more fully developed forms is essentially a recrudescence of Pelagianism" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination [Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932], page 47).

13. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, C.H. Spurgeon's Autobiography (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), Volume I, page 168.