arminianism-may-june-1992

Arminianism

BALLOT

~

••-<

[

-

II

8. ~

Will You be Saved?

.•..

--;

Yea

No

u • ~ -ij'Ui

~.!I

-I A_

GOD has voted

If

X

rca.

·s:

i! ..

~I

.:

...

L.

.Ir' • II

-'=• .Sa

.

.!­ ~~

SAT AN has voted

X

'.!

.. j

B ;.~ cr·

NI­ CD •

.,,:,a

-!• .•.. .M ••

,,-l~• ~I

~."

~~

I

-­ 00

_

!o'I1

~

A TIE! Your vote must decide the .Issue air

Ir'

r I

If)

Now ie the accepted tim.; DOW Ia the aal.atioll.-2 CoriDthiuaa 1,2

_~

01

IMPORTANT

ELECTION

modernREFORMATION ©is a production of CURE Publications Ltd.

President

m odernREFORMATION MAY/JUNE 1992

..----...

I

\J

Michael S. Horton

Vice President Kim Riddlebarger Managing Editor

Arminianism

Shane Rosenthal

Assistant Managing Editors Paul Gelormino Doug Hoisington

Production Manager Mark Salo

Contributors Richard Gilbert Michael S. Horton Alan Maben Kim Riddlebarger Rick Ritchie Dr. Rod Rosenbladt

Special Assistants Lori Ann Bach

ARTICLES

Who Saves Who?

1

by Michael S. Horton

Who Was Arminius?

5

by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

Fire &Water

8

by Kim Riddlebarger

Rodney Castellanos

10 Horton Heidi Spitler

ALutheran Response to Arminianism

11

by Rick Ritchie

CURE Board of Trustees Howard F. Ahmanson Cheryl Biehl Robert den Dulk Dr. W. Robert Godfrey Richard Hermes Dr. Rod Rosenbladt

CURE Board of Directors Executive Dir~ctor

Evangelical Arminians

15

-~-

by Michael S. Horton

Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?

20

by Alan Maben

John Bunyan &Arminianism

24

Theology At AGlance

25

Vacant

Director of Communications Alan Maben

Director of Development Dan Bach

Director of Media & Production

DEPARTMENTS

Shane Rosenthal

Director of Research Richard Gilbert

Treasurer Micki Riddlebarger

Secretary ·10 Horton CURE is a non-profit educational foundation committed to communicating the insights of the 16th century Reforma­ tion to the 20th century Church. For more information. call during business hours at: (714) 956-CURE. or write us at: Christians United for Reformation 2034 E. Lincoln Ave. #209 Anaheim CA 92806

We Confess 4 INTERVIEW: Dr. J.I. Packer 14 p ••••••••••••••••••••••••• •

• •

SUBSCRIBE TO...

•

A Bi-MonthlyTheologica1 Journal Published by Christians United for Refonnation

• D • • D • •

•

1 year (6 issues) $12.00 2 years (12 issues) $24.00 Copy & send to: CURE

2034 E. Lincoln #209 Anaheim, CA 92806

Name Address City/St/Zip Phone

• • •

• • • __

I •

••••••••••••••••••••••••••

1110(/enzREFORr\'lATION

~ Who

Saves Who?

God casts his vote; Satan casts his, but you must cast the deciding ballot?

MICHAEL S. HORTON

•

CURE PRESIDENT

according to fleshly descent, was first in line to carry on the Abrahamic inheritance, but God chose to bless Jacob and curse Esau "before the twins were born, having done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to election might stand, not because of the one who works, but because of the one who calls" (Rom. 9: 11). This is the most obvious demonstration that God's gift of grace depends on his own generosity in election rather than on natural descent, racial privilege, or moral righteousness (see Dt 9:4-6; 29:2-4). "As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, butEsau I have hated'" (Rom. 9:13).

The touchstone question in the running ruler of all creation and, therefore, quite debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, capable of ruling merely as a dictator, he Paul and the J udaizers, Augustine and nevertheless condescends to enter into a Pelagius, the Dominicans and the Fran­ covenant with fallen creatures, binding us ciscans, the Reformers and the medieval to him, and himself to us.

Roman Catholic Church, and the Calvin­ This is the background ofPaul , s letter Objections Answered ists and Arminians is this: Who saves to the Romans in general, and chapter nine Paul realizes that he isn't going to get who? in particular. Paul has raised the issue of away with this so easily. It is a declaration In this article I want to offer some brief faithfulness. Because we are, individually from the mouth of God himself, but it is scriptural responses to the common ob­ and corporately, foreknown, predestined, going to take some explaining: "What . jections concerning the doctrine of elec­ shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness called, justified, and anticipate glorifica­ tion. Mterall, ifone does not believe in the tion, nothing "shall be able to separate us with God? Certainly not! For He says to doctrine of unconditional election, it is from the love of God which is in Christ Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I impossible to have a high doctrine of grace. Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:39). But that will have mercy, and I will have compas­ As Luther told Erasmus, ignorance of this raises an important question, especially sion on whomever I will have compas­ great truth is, in a real sion'" (Rom. 9:14-15).

Salvation in general, and sense, ignorance of the Christian gospel: "For election in particular, are due to something in God, when the work s and power of God are un­ not in us. There is a perni­ known in this way, I cious idea floating around the evangelical world cannot worship, praise, these days, owing more to thank. and serve God, pop-psychology than to since I do not know how religion. that if we want a much I ought to attribute basis for self-esteem we to myself and how much ought to remember that to God." This distinc­ Jesus Christ thought we tio n is essential, he were worth his death. Ac­ added. "if we want to cording to Scripture, live a godly life... If we however,Jesus Christ died do not know these things, for us because "God so we shall know nothing at loved..... (In. 3: 16). In all of things Christian and other words, there was shall be worse than any heathen."l As Luther something in God-an in herent compassion, pointed out in his debate Who reaches for who in the salvation process? with Erasmus, this issue

mercy, and love, which of free will and election is essential in for the Jewish believers reading this letter: moved him to save us, while there was maintaining the doctrine ofjustification by If God has failed in his promise to save absolutely nothing in us that attracted him. eliminating any element of human deci­

Israel, as many thought Paul was implying Even conservative evangelicals sometimes sion oreffort as a foothold for merit. There­

in his ministry to the Gentiles, why should sound as though God is compelled to show fore, let's take a brief survey of the biblical we have confidence in his determination mercy, as though love were his only at­ tribute, but this passage reminds us that support for this important doctrine by con­

to save us? sidering one cf the principal passages:

The apostle then launches into his God is free to show mercy or withhold it Romans chapter nine.

discussion of the "true Israel." Even in the according to his own good pleasure, since mercy, by definition, is not deserved.

Old Testament, not every fleshly descen­ The Covenant Mter explaining how God is not de­ dent was a child of God (Is. 6:9-13, etc.).

Running throughout the Old Testament At one time, even Esau was a member of pendent on his creatures in any sense, Paul and on into the Gospels is the concept of God's covenant people, as he grew up Continued on next page covenant Although God is the sovereign beside his brother Jacob. In fact, Esau, MAY/JUNE 1992

• 1

' lllodenzREFOIU\lATION

Continued/rom previous page concludes, "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9: 16). There are few clearer declarations of monergism (i.e;, the idea that God alone saves) than this. In one sentence the apostle excludes any human activity, either volitional orphysical. 'There is absolutely nothing our decisions or ac­ tions contribute to our own salvation. So much for the popular Arminian maxim, "God casts his vote for your soul, Satan casts his, but you must cast the deciding ballot." Gone is the decisional regenera­ tion that makes the new birth dependent on an exercise of the human·will: "You did not choose Me; I chose you and appointed you to bear fruit that would las~" Jesus told his disciples (In. 15:16). Also, we "were born not of the ·will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God" (In. 1:13), and have "... been predestined according to the plan of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11).

Notice, too, that this exclusion of "willing and running" takes into its scope not only real, but foreseen decisions and actions on our part. Many will concede that God chose people, but based on his foreknowledge of their own choice. How­ ever, this is excluded in the sweep ofPaul 's statement in verse 13, and in verse 11: " ...for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose ofGod according to election might stand.... " If God's election depended on our foreseen decision, this not onl y raises a question concerning God's grace (i.e., foreseen merit is merit nonetheless), but also concerning human sinfulness. Mter all, if God looked down the corridor of time, what would he have seen in us be­ sides sin and resistance? How could he foresee an exercise of the will that he himself did not grant, since "no one can come to the Father unless the one who sent me draws him" (In. 6:44)?

Of course, this raises three principal objections. The fIrst and most obvious one is the issue of fairness.

It is a measure of our sinfulness and pride that we would use God's gracious initiative in election as an occasion for placing his righteousness and justice in question. If we are, as a race, in as serious shape as Paul has been telling us, especiall y in the fIrst three chapters, there should not be one reader who would seek God's jus­ tice in his or her own case. God's justice­ giving us what we deserve----demands our execution. God's mercy, therefore, is owed 2 •

MAY/JUNE 1992

to none. Paul refers God's mercy to his divine freedom. Since all deserve judg­ ment, the mere fact that many will be spared is cause for astonishment rather than for wondering why God did not elect everyone.

To illustrate this divine freedom, Paul recalls Pharaoh to the witness stand: "For this very purpose," God declares, "I raised you [pharaoh] up, that I might show my power in you and that my name might be declared in all the earth" (Rom; 9: 17). No

If God's election dependedon our foreseen decision, this not only raises a question concerning God'sgrace ( i.e. foreseen merit is merit nonetheless), but also concerning human sinfulness Jewish reader needed to be reminded how negatively Pharaoh figured in Israelite history. While it might be excessive to compare him to Hitler, there is no doubt that the Egyptian ruler who had held Israel captive for slave labor was the last person first-century Jewish Christians would have wanted Paul to use as an example ofGod's freedom. Nevertheless, the apostle reminds them of the words of Exodus 9: 16, that God had raised him up. Later, he will also recall to their attention the fact that ''There is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom. 13: 1).

Amos called upon a forgetful and apathetic generation to realize God's sov­ ereignty over history: "If there is a calam­ ity in a city, will not the Lord have done it? ...A lion has roared! Who will not fear?" (Am. 3:6). In Daniel four we have Nebuchadnezzar's dream, interpreted by Daniel. The proud king was humiliated by God until, in the ruler's own words, "I lifted my eyes to heaven, and my under­

standing returned to me." He realizes for the frrst time that " ...all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; he does ­ according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants ofthe earth. No one can restrain his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" His conclusion?

"His ways are just and those who walk in pride he is able to humble" (Dan. 4:34-37).

Isaiah 45:1-7 points up God's use of yet another pagan ruler, Cyrus, " ...that they may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things." In short, the telos or design of history is the glory of God. Each of us exists because it happens to serve God's design for glorifying himself. He saves us because the exercise of his love and mercy brings him honor, not because there is anything in us that moves him to respond.

Another reason Paul brings up the example of Pharaoh is the circumstances surrounding God's instructions to Moses in the first place. In Exodus 4:18-23, we read that God commanded Moses to return to Egypt. "And the Lord said to Moses, 'When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. ,,, In other words, God is going to hold Pharaoh accountable for his hardness of heart even in the face of Moses' signs and wonders, and yet God intended to harden Pharaoh's heart all along. It's a tough passage, but there it is.

The second objection picks up where the frrst leaves off: How can God blame us for what he determined? Mter all, "Who can resist his will?" (Rom. 9:19). How could God blame Esau, Pharaoh, or my . unbelieving neighbor if they were only fulfilling his plan? This is the essence of the objection Paul anticipates. The belief that God's will "cannot be thwarted" (Dan. 4) is not a peculiarity of Reformation though~ nor indeed of Christian thought.

It is a basic declaration of theism! If one believes that God is dependent on human beings in any sense (either their willing or running), they are not merely Christians of a different color; they are following an essentially non-Christian and non-theistic interpretation of God's nature. Contem­ porary evangelical scholars such as Drs. Clark Pinnock and Richard Rice realize this and call for a rejection of classical­ theism for just that reason (see "Evangeli­ cal Arminianism" in this issue).

!}lode nzR EFORr-..1ATI<)N But this idea that God's ultimate in­ tentions and designs cannot be frustrated or overturned creates tension. Paul does , not resolve it, as God does not care to reveal it even to an apostle. Calvin warned, "The curiosity of man is such that the more dangerous the subject, the more willing he is to rush boldly into it..Let this, therefore, be our sacred rule, not to seek to know anything about predestination except what the Scripture teaches us. Where the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop our minds from going on further.''2 Paul does not reply with a sophisticated line of meta­ physical reasoning. He simply says, "Who are you, a mere human, to-'answer back to God?" In other words, to demand that God defend himself in our presence on this matter is the height of arrogance. Is there any reverence for God anymore? Is the Sovereign God allowed no secrets, no pri­ vacy in his heavenly chambers? Must every comer of his rooms be ravaged by our naive and fallen speculations? No! Here, to switch metaphors, we come to the end of the precipice and to take a single step farther is to fall hopelessly into despair and confusion.

Next, Paul appeals to another Old Testament illustration: the potter and the clay. In Isaiah 29: 16, the prophet declares, ~ "You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!

Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'He did not make me?'" But Paul changes the last question to read, "Why did you make me thus?" Out ofthe same lump (i.e., the same mass of fallen humanity), God chooses to make vessels of wrath and vessels ofmercy, one to bring him glory by demonstrating .his justice, the other to glorify him for his compassion and mercy.

There is no distinction, as all are taken from the same group. Therefore, the elect cannot be proud.

Notice that this will of God is not capricious or arbitrary, a view that many Arminians suppose, and hyper-Calvinists encourage. That, it must be said, is a view of God that has more in common with Greek philosophy than with Christianity.

It is fatalistic and hopelessly at odds with the biblical picture. Rather, God's will is connected to his nature and attributes. In this sense, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, no being (including God) has a free will. The will serves the nature, and God is moved to elect, redeem, justify, and save not because of an arbitrary decision or whimsical display of power, but in order to show mercy and compassion. Remember, he "will have mercy on whomever he will

have mercy." In other words, God is presented in this passage as electing men, women, and children out of an already condemned and ruined race. Their con­ demnation is just, so God is not responsible for the resistance, disobedience, and hatred of those who are rejected, but only for the salvation of those who do embrace the forgiving grace of God. Finally, it is essential that we point out what Paul labors to make clear else­ where, especially in Ephesians chapter one: All of this is "in Christ" Weare chosen, predestined, redeemed, justified, called, sealed, and so on, "in him." One of the great New Testament emphases, re­ covered so clearly by the Reformers, was that election should only be taught and understood in the context ofone's relation toChrist In other words, we cannot search for our election in an abstract philosophical manner. To be chosen is to be "in Christ" and to be in Christ is to be united to him through faith. We find our election not in our performance, race, success, oroutward signs-for this was Israel's folly-but in Christ's cross and resurrection.

If these answers are not good enough for the reader, Paul concludes, the alterna­ tive to election is immediate judgment for all human beings (Rom. 9:22~23).

The fmal question that is likely to be asked is this: Aren't we really talking about the nation Israel? Many of us were raised with the explanation that Romans nine was dealing with!srael' s election, and not ours. This meant that Romans nine could be ruled inadmissible for use in the debate. But as Paul made clear here, as elsewhere, the true Israel is created by grace, not by human descent, decision, or duties. Thus, there is no true Israel apart from faith in Christ Only those who cling to him in faith are chosen; the rest are judged along with the Gentiles (Rom. 11 :5­ 10). "Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham," Paul instructed the Galatians (Gal. 3:7). There are no Jews who ever have been saved, are now saved, or who ever will be saved who were not chosen members of the church in both testaments-the ancient (Old Testa­ ment) church looking · forward to Christ and the modem church looking back to Christ and forward to his return.

Nevertheless, to emphasize that he is not speaking merely ofthe nation ofIsrael , Paul adds, "even us whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles," (Rom. 9;24) drawing on Old Testament prophecies pointing to the ingathering of the elect Gentiles together with the Jewish

remnant in the formation of one body.

The Basis of Reprobation Much could be said about the other side of the coin. As there are vessels of mercy that are chosen, so there are vessels of wrath that are rejected. All Paul wishes to say about this matter is this: No one is reprobated by God without just cause.

"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righ­ teousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why?" Does Paul answer, "Because they weren't cho:­ sen"? No, the blame is squarely on their shoulders: "Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law" (Rom. 9:30-33).

One of the surest ways to be confident that you are not one of the elect is to pursue a righteousness that you have created by your willpower and effort The elect are simply those who have put down their swords of war, their shovels for digging out their own righteousness, and have placed themsel ves at the mercy of this God who has promised to have compassion on all who seek him. They are to be comforted by the fact that if they are seeking him it is because he himself has fIrst loved and drawn them to himseif. However, unbe­ lievers are not to look to their election, but to Christ, whose offer of forgiveness ex­ tends to all people everywhere: "Come unto me, all you who work and are loaded down and I will give you rest" Thus, this doctrine is calculated to drive home the idea that God saves us by grace alone because of Christ alone. Many are willing to accept that they were justi­ fied freely, but their resistance to this doc­ trine reveals an unwillingness to fully ac­ cept the idea that their salvation is not conditioned on anything in them. May we all, regardless of our traditional perspec­ tive, take this passage from Paul's Magna Charta seriously and employ this doctrine of election not merely in the service of theological debate, but in grateful appre­ ciation and thanksgiving.

Notes 1. Martin Luther, The Bondage ofthe Will (philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975),

p.117.

2. John Calvin, N.T. Commentary on Romans Nine.

MAY/JUNE 1992

• 3

"lode rnREFoRMATION

UJe Confess.• • Catholic The Council of Orange (529 AD) delivered a clear denunciation of Semi-Pelagianism, the . ancient equivalent ofArminianism: Canon 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of saying a prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, 'I was found by them that did not seek me: I appeared openly to them that asked not after me' (Rom. 10:20).

Canon S. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also itS beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and come to the regeneration of holy baptism-if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace...it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles ....

Canon 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith.

Canon 22. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin.

Conclusion. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him .... We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward ....

Lutheran The Lutheran position is made clear in the following excerpt from the Book of Concord's Solid Declaration, Article XI, ((On Election. " Moreover, when people are taught to seek their eternal election in Christ and in his holy Gospel as the "book of life,» this doctrine never occasions either despondency or a riotous and dissolute life. This does not exclude any repentant sinner hut invites and calls all poor, burdened, and heavy-laden sinners to repentance, to a knowledge of their sins, and to faith in Christ and promises them the Holy Spirit to cleanse and renew them. This doctrine gives sorrowing and tempted people the permanently abiding comfort of knowing that their salvation does not rest in their own hands. If this were the case, they would lose it more readily than Adam and Eve did in paradise-yes, would be losing it every moment and hour. Their salvation rests in the gracious election of God, which he has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand 'no one can pluck' us Oohn 10:28; 2 Tim. 2:19).

Reformed The Reformed position has been most precisely defined on these issues, of course, by the famous Canons ofDort (1619). Readers will benefit from reading the Canons in their entirety, but here is one excerpt from the discussion of election and reprobation.

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin (Rom. 2:19, 23; 6:23). But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternallife ... Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.

4 •

MAY/JUNE 1992

.

~I

HlOdenzREFOI{MATIUN

Who Was Arminius?

\

in Amsterdam, he was given a very good letter ofrecommendation from Beza to the Dutch Reformed Church.

Before returning to Amsterdam, Arminius took a trip into Italy to see the sights. This trip was later used by some Calvinists to accuse Arminius of having Roman Catholic sympathies. But such DR. W. ROBERT GODFREY CURE GUEST WRITER

charges were clearly untrue and unfair.

James Arminius (Jacob Harmenszoon) edition of the Belgic Confession, which Once back in Amsterdam he became is undoubtedly the most famous theolo­ one ofseveral pastors there, and in 1590 he clearly summarized the Calvinistic faith gian ever produced by the Dutch Reformed and set it off from Roman Catholicism married Lijsbet Rerel, a daughter ofone of Church. His fame is a great irony since the and Anabaptism. The Belgic Confession Holland's most influential men. Arminius Dutch Reformed Church historically was became one ofthe basic doctrinal standards became allied to a regent family and his a bastion of strict Calvinism, and Armin­ convictions on the relation of church and of Dutch Calvinism. ius has given his name to a movement very state were the same as that ofmost regents.

The decade ofthe 1560s saw dramatic much in opposition to historic Calvinism. developments in the Netherlands. The He was appointed in 1591 to a commission Who was this Arminius? What did he Belgic Confession was published. A storm to draw up a church order in which the teach? Are the differences between Cal­ oficonoclasm broke out, destroying many church was given a position clearly sub­ vinism and Arminianism important to­ ordinate to and dependent on the state. images in Roman Catholic churches day?

This position (usually called Erastianism) throughout the provinces. Guidode Bres r;:::============================:::;l was martyred for the faith. Philip II was not held by most clergy in the Dutch Reformed Church. Most followed Calvin's increasingly alienated the nobility and the people with his fiscal · and conviction that the church must have a measure of independence from the state, religious policies. Revolts broke especially in matters of church discipline. out against royal authority.

The issue of discipline was a contro­ By the early 1570s civil war had versial one in the Netherlands. The Belgic begun in earnest agai~t Spain. His­ Confession had stated that discipline was . tory knows this revolt as the Eighty one of the marks of the true church and Years War, which was not settled Calvinists strongly believed that the church until 1648. Growing up in the midst ought to have the right especially to regu­ of civil war in state and church, late the teaching ofits ministers. But in the Arminius knew the bitterness ofwar.

Netherlands, the government had at times In 1575 his mother and other mem­ bers of his family died at the hands . protected ·ministers who were targets of church discipline. Arminius' s Erastianism of Spanish troops in a masSacre at distinguished him from most of his minis­ Oudewater. terial colleagues.

In October of 1575 Arminius Who Was Arminius? , Most of the years of Arminius' s pas­ entered the newly founded University of Arminius was born in 1559 in Leiden. He was the 12th student to enroll torate (1587-1603) in Amsterdam were Oudewater-a small city in the province in the school that honored the heroic resis­ peaceful. But there were some controver­ ofHolland. Holland was one of seventeen tance of Leiden to Spanish siege in 1574. sies. Arminius preached through the book prosperous provinces then known as the He was a talented student and like many of Romans, and some of his sermons did Netherlands or the Low Countries, which students of his day continued his educa­ evoke opposition. In 1591 he preached on today are divided into the Netherlands, tion at other schools. From 1581 to 1586 Romans 7: 14 and following. The standard Belgium and part of northern France.

Cal vinist interpretation argued that Paul in he studied in Geneva and Basle.

In 1559 His Most Catholic Majesty these verses is speaking as a regenerate While in Geneva Arminius seemed Philip II was the king of Spain and Sover­ Christian. Romans 7 then presents the to have some trouble with Theodore Beza, eign of the Netherlands. Despite Philip's Calvin's staunch successor. The evidence Christian's continuing struggle resisting ardent Roman Catholicism and persecut­ sin in his life. By contrast, Arminius suggests not theological, but philosophi­ ing zeal, Reformation movements had been cal, differences. Indeed, there is very taught that Paul is remembering his previ­ strong in the Low Countries for decades. little evidence as to exactly what 0us, unregenerate state. For Arminius the In the late 1540s Calvinism emerged as an Arminius's theology was in his student struggle against sin in Romans 7 is a attractive, popular religion in the Nether­ struggle before conversion. The Calvinyears. What is clear is that when Arminius lands, especially in the southern provinces. was ordered to return to the Netherlands In 1559 Guido de Bres wrote the first in 1586 to take up pastoral responsibilities Continued on next page

Arminianism had a founder. Who was he, and what did he teach that had everyone talking?

•

MAY/JUNE 1992

• 5

Illoc/enlREFORivIATION

Continued from previous page ists objected sharply to this interpretation, asking how the unregenerate can delight in the law in the inner man (Rom. 7:22). In 1593 Arminius preached on Romans 9 and his sermons on predestination seemed in­ adequate to many Dutch Calvinists.

Still these controversies passed. When two vacancies in the theological faculty at the University ofLeiden had to be filled in 1603, people of influence in the govern­ ment thought ' Anninius ought to be ap­ pointed, but strict Calvinists objected, unsettled by too many questions about Arminius's orthodoxy. The disagreement was resolved when both sides agreed to allow the one remaining member of the faculty, Franciscus Gomarus, to interview and evaluate Anninius for this position.

Gomarus was a strict' Calvinist of un­ doubted orthodoxy. After the interview Gomarus declared himself satisfied with Arminius and that latter was installed as a professor at Leiden.

The reason Gomarus was satisfied with Arminius is Wlclear. It is as unclear as the reason that Beza recommended him, or that his orthodox colleagues in Amsterdam got along with him as well they did. Perhaps Gomarus failed to ask the right questions, or Arminius was not candid with his answers. Another possi­ bility is that Arminius's theology changed significantly after the interview, but it is difficult to speculate.

Within a few years, however, suspi­ cions began to arise about Arminius.

People criticized the books he assigned students. Others worried about his private Sessions with students. Gomarus became convinced that Arminius was not ortho­ dox on the doctrine of predestination.

These suspicions led Arminius' s classes to try to examine Arminius' s doctrine, but the trustees of the Wliversity would not permit that. Some said the issues sur­ rounding Arminius' s teaching could only be resolved at a national synod. Butthe government was reluctant to allow a na­ tional synod to meet.

Tensions within the church finally led to a government investigation in 1608. In the course of that investigation, Arminius wrote his "Declaration of Sentiments," probably the best summary of his beliefs.

Arminius had been insisting that he was

only trying to protect the church from the extremes of Calvinism, especially supra­ lapsarianism. Gomarus had replied that the issue was not peripheral matters such as supra-lapsarianism, but rather the Ref­ ormation doctrine of justification by faith.

With no satisfactory resolution to the matter, Arminius became ill and died in 1609, a minister in good standing in the Dutch Reformed Church.

FO,r Arminius, God's grace is essential and necessary, but is not absolutely efficacious.

Man's response to grace remains the final, decisive factor in salvation

as

6 •

MAY/JUNE 1992

What Did Arminius T each?

Arminius is best known theologically for his rejection of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. In this definition Arminius states his belief that faith is the cause of election: "It is an eternal and gracious decree ofGod in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believ­ ers, and to endow them with eternal life, but to condemn unbelievers, and impeni­ tent persons." But such a position reverses the biblical pattern (e.g., Romans 8: 30 and Acts 13:48) where election is clearly the cause of belief. For orthodox Calvinists . faith is a gift of God. If election-God's purpose to give faith according to His sovereign will-does not precede faith, then faith is not truly a gift.

Arminius expanded his basic defmi­ tion of predestination in four theses. First, God decreed absolutely that Christ is the Savior who will "destroy sin", "obtain salvation", and "communicate it by his own virtue." Second, God decreed abso­ lutely to save "those who repent and be­

lieve in Christ, and for His sake and through Him, to effect salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end." Third, God decreed "to admin­ ister in a sufficient and efficacious man­ ner the means whieh were necessary for repentance and faith" according to divine wisdom andjustice. Fourth, God decreed "to save and damn particular persons" based on the foreknowledge of God, by which He knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his pre­ venting [I.e., prevenient] grace, believe, and through his subsequent grace would

persevere."

In his exposition of predestination Arminius sought to have a theology of grace and to avoid all Pelagianism. He stated, "That teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to divine grace, provided he so pleads the cause of grace, as not to inflict an injury on the justice of God, and not to take away the free will of that which is evil. " Arminius wanted a theology of grace that made God seem fair in all his dealings with man, and also wanted to leave room for people to reject grace.

Like many others Arminius thought this kind of theology would make it easier to preach the Gospel and emphasize human responsibility. But Arminius ultimately failed to have a true theology of grace.

For Arminius, God's grace is essential and necessary, but is not absolutely effi­ cacious. Man's response to grace remains the final, decisive factor in salvation.

Jesus is no longer the actual Savior of His people. He becomes the one who makes salvation possible. Man's contribution, however sincerely Arminius tried to limit it, became central for salvation.

Arminius also gave faith a different place in his system from the role that faith had occupied in earlier Reformed theol­ ogy. Arminius taught that faith itself was imputed to the sinner for righteousness, whereas the earlier teaching had stressed that it was the object of faith, namely Christ and His righteousness, that was imputed to the sinner. This shift is impor­ tant because again it shifts the primary focus of salvation from God's work: in Christ to man's faith. Arminius can even speak of faith being the one work re­ quired of man in the New Covenant This kind of teaching led to Gomarus' charge

l]lode rnREFORMATION that Arminius was undermining the Prot­ estant doctrine of justification by faith.

Arminius' teaching turns faith from an instrument that rests on the work ofChrist to a work ofman , and tends to change faith from that which receives the righteous­ ness of Christ to that which is righteous­ ness itself.

Mter the death of Arminius, contro­ versy continued in the Netherlands about the teachings of Arm'inianism. Forty-two ministers in 1610 signed a petition, or Remonstrance, to the govern­ ment asking for protection for their Arminian views. Theheart of this Remonstrance summa­ rized their theology in five points: conditional election, universal atonement, limited depravity, sufficient but resist­ ible grace and uncertainty about the 'perseverance of the saints.

The Calvinists answered with a Contra-Remonstrance in 1611.

It's surely ironic that through the centuries there has been so much talk of the "five points of Calvinism" when in fact Cal­ vinists did not originate a dis­ cussion of five points. Indeed, Calvinism has never been sum­ marized in five points. Calvin­ ism has only offered five re­ sponses to the five errors of Arminianism.

Controversy raged in the Netherlands over Arminianism, even threatening civil war. Fi­ nally in 1618, after a change of leadership in the government, a national synod was held at Dordrecht-the Synod of Dort-to judge the Arminian theology. Bythetim~theSynod of Dort met, the issues raised by the Arminians were being widely discussed in the Re­ formed community throughout Europe.

Reformed Christians from Great Britain, France, Switzerland and Germany ex­ pressed great concern for the dangers posed

by Arminian theology.

William Ames, one of the great En­ glish Puritans, wrote that Arminianism "is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error in the faith tending to heresy ... a Pelagian heresy, because it denies the

effectual operation of internal grace to be necessary for the effecting of conversion and faith." In this evaluation Ames rightly saw the conflict between Calvinists and Arminians as related to the conflict be­ tween Augustine, the champion of grace, and Pelagius, who insisted that man's will was so free that it was possible for him to be saved solely through his own natural abilities.

The Synod of Dort had delegates not only from the Netherlands but also from

five errors of Arminianism and expressed the Calvinist alternative to those errors: 1) God freely and sovereignly determined to save some lost sinners through the righ­ teousness of Christ and to give to His elect the gift of faith; 2) God sent His Son to die as the substitute for His elect and Christ's death will certainly result in the salvation of His own; 3) Man is so utterly lost in sin that without the regenerating grace ofGod, man cannot desire salvation, repent, be­ lieve or do anything truly pleasing to God; 4) God's grace saves the elect sinner irresistibly since only ir­ resistible grace can overcome man's rebellion; 5) God in mercy preserves the gift offai th in His elect to ensure that the good work He began in them will certainly come to comple­ tion in their salvation.

Do The Differences Be­ tween Arminians & Cal­ vinists Matter Today?

throughout Europe, the only truly interna­ tional Reformed synod. The Synod re­ jected the teaching ofthe Arminians and in clear and helpful terms presented the or­ thodox Calvinist position in the Canons of Dort. Unanimously approved by the Synod, they were hailed throughout the Reformed churches ofEurope as an excel­ lent defense of the faith.

The Canons of Dort responded to the

Many argue that the differ­ ences between Calvinists and Arminians no longer matter.

Mter all, some argue, Arminius lived 400 years ago. Are his views still important and influ­ ential? The answer to that ques­ tion must be a resounding yes.

Arminianism is very influential in evangelical and Pentecostal circles today.

Indeed Arminianism today usually goes much further in emphasizing free will than Arminius did or would ever have approved of doing. Some downplay the dif­ ferences between Arminians and Calvinists out of an activ­ ism that is rather indifferent to theology. Such activists often argue that, with so much to do for Christ in the world and with so much opposition to Christianity in general, theo­ logical differences must be minimized.

It is certainly true that the theological differences between Calvinists and Arminians should not be overemphasized.

Most Arminians have been and are evan­ gelical Christians. But the differences

Please turn to Arminius on Page 24 MAY/JUNE 1992

• 7

Ill()(

Ie,., ZRErOR !'dATION

Fire & Water A Princeton apologist still helps us see why Calvinism and Arminianism simply don't mix KIM RIDDLEBARGER

•

CURE VICE PRESIDENT

Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield (1851-1921) was in many minds the greatest American theologian living during the period between the Civil War and World War 1. As professor of Polemical and Didactic theology at Princeton Theologi­ cal Seminary from 1887 until his death 34 years later,B.B. Warfield was the leading advocate and most articulate spokesman of the "Old Princeton" tradition which had been established in 1812 by A.A. Alexander, with the opening of what was then a small and virtually unknown Pres­ byterian seminary in Princeton, N J ..

than 2,000 students, A.A. Hodge another 400, and B.B. Warfield some 2,700 more, 1 including such noted defenders of Re­ fonned orthodoxy of the next generation as Louis Berkhof and Cornelius VanTil. Church hisl9.rian Mark Noll gives us an interesting glimpse of the influence of Princeton graduates upon the life of the American church:

The Old Princeton Tradition The Old Princeton tradition came to be characterized by both the noted per­ sonalities who composed its faculty and by the institution's commitment to the ideal that truth is to be found in the objective world and in the express declarations found in Holy Scripture, with a faculty roster that read like a veritable Who's Who of theo­ logical luminaries, including founder Archibald Alexander (1772-1851); Charles Hodge (1797-1878); Charles' son Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886), who was known for his careful and clearly presented theological argumentation; B.B . Warfield; and later J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary and noted warrior in the fight against Protestant liberalism.

Other Princeton professors to make their marks upon the American church include Robert Dick Wilson, who mastered more than 50 Semitic languages; John Davis of Davis Bible Dictionary fame; Geerhardus Vos, the father of Refonned biblical the­ ology; William Henry Green; and C.W. Hodge, just to name a few. The influence of these men and this institution upon American Christianity cannot be underes­ timated. Charles Hodge alone trained more 8 •

MAY/JUNE 1992

An enthusiastic speaker at the seminary's centennial rejoiced in the fact that 'besides theological and college teachers, Princeton has contributed 56 moderators of General Assemblies, and five bishops to the Protes­ tant Episcopal Church.' The same speaker went on to note that "she has not, as yet produced a Pope, but has trained three stated clerks of the General Assembly.'2

No other theological institution has ever contributed so much to the American church. And no other American seminary ever opposed Anninianism as fiercely.

Unfortunately, there remains the tragic sense that when Old Princeton died (and some say that it really died with Warfield), the Refonned influence upon American Christianity has been in constant retreat in the face of Anninian erosion ofCalvinism ' s God-centered religion ever since.

But Old Princeton was more than influ­ ential personalities. She is also remem­ bered for her commitment to historic Re­ fonned orthodoxy as expressed in the Re­

fonned creeds, and especially in the West­ minster Standards. Princeton was well known as the stalwart bastion of "old ~/ school" American Presbyterianism, the defender of Calvinistic orthodoxy. As an institution, she was known for an unwavering commitment to the inerrancy ofHoly Scripture in an age when the grow­ ing intoxication with higher-critical meth­ odology new ly imported from Europe was threatening to cut out the very foundations ofChristian supernaturalism. No one even thinks to question Princeton's commit­ ment to her unshakable belief that the Westminster Standards were the clearest and best expression of biblical truth in existence.

To the Princeton mind, truth was objec­ tive and inviolable. There was no pressing need to discover new truths, since by and large the Princetonians believed that this is what the Refonnation and the 200 year tradition of Refonned scholasticism was all about-the rediscovery of the biblical gospel and its subsequent elaboration in the Refonned creeds and scholastic dog­ matic systems. The Princetonians saw their task not as discovering "new truths" but the constant application of existing truth to the specific new situations.

Warfield literally reviewed hundreds upon hundreds of books during his pro­ ductive career, and it was there, in the course ofreviewing the latest volumes that comprise the academic theological enter­ prise and the on-going debate with Anninianism, that Warfield took opportu­ nity to respond to many a theological op­ ponent, and specifically in the case under review here, to those who advocated the Anninian theological system.

While Warfield reviewed hundreds of volumes, there are two notable reviews that stand out very effectively for our topic at hand. These are Warfield's review of He That is Spiritual, written by Louis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, and also Warfield's review of Methodist theolo­ gian John Miley's two-volume work, Systematic Theology.

First Principles: The Glory of God or the Freedom of Man Before we can look at the specifics of Warfield's treatment of Chafer and Miley,

nu)dernREFORMATI()N

/

it is important to point out the fact that dom to choose and to follow Christ.

Miley even admits the very point with Warfield firmly believed that Arminian­ ism was "the fIrst serious defection from which Calvinists have been charging the fundamental conceptions of the Re­ Arminians since the beginning, "that sal­ formed system ... in the early years of the vation is conditional in the sense of being 17th century:'3 Arminianism was there­ a real synergism."6 Salvation, then, is not fore a self-conscious rejection of the very something that God does to orfor men and frrst principle of the Reformed system­ women who are dead in sin and cannot the "glory of God," which Warfield be­ save themselves, but salvation is based lieved was exchanged in Artninian theol­ upon an act that the sinner mustperform ogy for the fundamental principle of the himself in exercising the freedom that "freedom ofman." Given Warfield's view God has given to all. To this Warfield of truth, such a definition was an attack not only upon specific doctrines of the Re­ formed system, but upon the very essence of evangelical Christianity itself. This is . no intramural debate for Warfield, for as he saw it, the very character of the gospel itself was at stake.

John Miley (1813-1895) was professor of Systematic Theology at Drew Univer­ sity in New Jersey and author of the two­ volume Systematic Theology, which was perhaps the best of all of the Arminian theologies ofthe period, serving, in effect, as a rival to Charles Hodges' famous Systematic Theology. Thus the Calvinism of Old Princeton and Charles Hodge had finally met a serious rival. Miley's vol­ ume, wrote Warfield, "is altogether a good book, which the Arminian should find rarely satisfying, and with which the Cal­ vinist should count it a privilege to join adds, with perhaps a note of seeming issue."4 When giants such as Warfield and disbelief, "With these facts Dr. Miley Miley cross theological swords, the issues remarks the atonement ofsatisfaction must that divide these schools quickly come be excluded "7 (italics mine). If hwnan into view. freedom is our starting point, the doctrine Warfield immediately isolates Miley's of the substitutionary atonement must be central premise. '''Freedom,' Miley says, rejected as well, and here Miley himself 'is fundamental in Arminianism. The sys­ admits this conclusion. In the Arminian tem holds accordingly the universality and scheme, how can Christ be said to bear the provisional nature of the atonement; and sins of someone else when we must see the conditionality of the atonement. "'S responsibility for our own actions as para­ Since hwnan freedom is the starting point mount? There is no room in the Arminian in the Arminian system, all Arminian doc­ system for the crediting of the guilt of trines end up being explained in light ofan Adam's sin to us, no room for Christ's act of the human will (psychology), rather righteousness to be credited to us, nor is than through the biblical doctrine of the there any way for our sins to be truly paid grace and mercy of God (theology). Miley for by Christ. In John Miley's Systematic flatly admits that "the cardinal doctrines Theology, Warfield writes, we have a man of Wesleyan Soteriology (i.e. the doctrine who "presents himself here as above all of salvation) are that the atonement is only things an Arminian, and as above most provisory in its character, rendering men Arminians ready to follow his Arminian­ savable, but not necessarily saving them." ism to its logical conclusions."8 The issue In other words, the death ofChrist does not in view,here then, is just what are these actually save sinners but merely renders logical conclusions and where do they people savable if they exercise their free­ lead? Thus, here we can see in the clearest

B.BaWarfield realized that "it is far better to be inconSistently Evangelical than consistently Arminian..•"

contrast the very points that distinguish Reformed orthodoxy from what is indeed at best a very "serious defection."

Ifhwnan freedom is the central premise in Arminianism, then Miley must reject the doctrine of original sin. God cannot hold any of Adam's descendants respon­ sible for Adam's own actions, since men and women must be free to obey or dis­ obey on their own. "Arminianism, [Miley] says, has no logical place in its system for a doctrine ofrace sin, either in the sense of the participation of the race in the guilt of Adam's first sin, or in the sense of the infection of the race with a guilty corrup­ tion."9 So if we start from the premise that man must be free ifhe is to be responsible for his own free actions, we must then reject the biblical (Rom. 5:12-19) idea affrrmed by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants of original sin and guilt, whereby Adam's descendants are not only seen as gUilty for his act of rebellion, but also inherit his moral corruption as well.

And what is worse, if Miley is right about human freedom, original sin is not all that must be rejected. Warfield points out: Ifthe Anninian principle [ofhillllan free­ dom] is to rule, [Miley] says, the doctrine of race sin must go, and the doctrine of vicari- . ous punishment must go. And as he thinks the Arminian principle ought to rule, he teaches that man are not by nature under the condemning wrath ofGod, and that Christ did not vicariously bear the penalty of sin (italics mine).10

Thus John Miley, being the consistent theologian that he is, quickly reaches the logical conclusion that the first principle of Arminianism (human freedom) inevita­ bly leads-the rejection of both the doc­ trine of original sin (since God cannot hold any of Adam's descendants responsible for Adam's actions) and the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement ofChrist (since on this same frrst principle, God cannot charge anyone's sins to Christ, since we are responsible only for our own actions).

As Warfield sees it, the first principle of Arminianism effectively destroys the very foundation of evangelical Christian­ ity since both its doctrine of sin and salva­ tion are redefined in psychological rather Continued on next page MAY/JUNE 1992

• 9

nlode nlREFORMATION Continued/rom previous page than biblical and theological terms. Warf­ ield realized that "it is far better to be inconsistently Evangelical than consistently Arminian ... Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism, and the very proof of Evangelicalism is a proof of Calvinism."11 In other words, if you follow Miley and the logic of the Arminian system, then you can no longer affmn the two cardinal doctrines historically regarded as essential in main­ taining the biblical and evangelical prin­ ciple that it is God who sayes silll?-ers, and not sinners who save themselves with God's help. Thus to follow Miley and Arminian­ ism at this point is to reject the biblical doctrine of original sin and the substitu­ tionary atonement of Christ, and that is no slight denial.

With what does Miley leave us? The death of Christ does not save anyone, but merely makes people savable if they exer­ cise their freedom to believe in Christ Miley interprets the cross to mean that God forgives sin on the grounds of a "substitute for penalty," for Christ's death does not actually save anyone. Rather, what does save is God's supposed free decision to acceptChrist's death as an example oflove and not as a payment for sin the exact justice upon all infractions of God's law.

That Miley's point here is not supported by scripture and is completely arbitrary is noticed by Warfield: "If 'justice,'" Warfield explains, 'must punish sin simply for the reason of its demerit, penal substitution is the only possible atonement '" Notice for Miley, God need not exercise justice but instead as the moral governor of the uni­ verse he can merely decide to accept the sacrifice of Christ as a substitute for the exercise of his justice. Warfield cannot let this point go unchallenged: That the [governmental] theory of the atonement may be held, and with it the Arminian system, therefore, we must deny to God that moral indignation in view of evil, which we cannot help recognizing as one of the highest endowments ofmoral beings, and must transmute his 'justice' into merely the public justice of a wise ruler; we must revise, in a word, all our natural notions of the relations of an infmite holy being to sin. 12 /

Simply put, John Miley and the Armin­ 10 .

MAY/JUNE 1992

ian system as he defmes it, absolutely rejects the idea that a holy God must punish all sin. If Miley is correct, then, Christ cannot die to bear the sins of the world. Instead, Christ dies to merely demonstrate the love of God, as God ac­ cepts his sacrifice as the example of love and sacrifice for all of his creatures, and not in any way as a literal payment to propitiate his wrath and to execute his justice. Since God need not punish sin anyway, how can we say any longer that

There is no room in the Arminian system for the crediting of the guilt of Adam's sin to us, and no room for Christ's righteousness to be credited to us...

God is holy? God simply accepts the sacrificeofChrist arbitrarily, not punishing sin, but overlooking it. Warfield then asks the obvious question: "If it be 'safe' to forgive sin on the ground of a 'substi­ tute for penalty,' it would seem just as 'safe' to make sincere personal repentance that substitute as to make the suffering of an alien [Christ] such a substitute." In other words, Christ did not have to die on the cross as the substitute for our sin, and God killed his own Son on the cross when he did not really need to carry out such a terrible act. Instead, he could simply have accepted our repentance as sufficient payment If this is true, we have not only destroyed the idea of a substitutionary atonement, we have killed God himself.

For God can no longer be seen as holy, and he cannot be loving, either, since Christ was cruelly punished on the cross for no good reason.

All of this is done, according to Miley and the Arminian system, in the name of

human freedom, a "first principle" which has no support whatever in scripture.

Viewed from this perspective, Arminian­ ism is not simply an alternative for evangelicals who are uncomfortable with cer­ tain doctrinal tenets of Calvinism. Taken to its logical conclusion, Arminianism is not only a departure from historic ortho­ doxy, but a serious departure from the evangel itself.

-, ~

A Calvinist and Arminian Synthe­ sis?

Louis Sperry Chafer's book, He Thatls Spiritual (1918), received the brunt of Warfield's criticism in a second review germane to our topic. Here we do notsee the gospel so much at stake; instead we see the confusion and harm that results when someone who should know better tries to synthesize two logically conflicting posi­ tions into one, such as when well­ intentioned but historically ill-informed evangelicals try to synthesize Calvinism and Arminianism into a tertium quid that ends up as neither, and known only by the dubious title of"Calminianism." Such are Chafer's efforts in He That Is Spiritual.

Warfield sets his sights on this biblical and logical inconsistency: Mr. Chafer is in the unfortunate and, one

would think, very uncomfortable condition

of having two inconsistent systems of reli­

gion struggling together in his mind. He was

bred an Evangelical, and as a minister of the

Presbyterian Church, South, stands commit­

ted to Evangelicalism of the purest water.

But he has long been associated in his work

with a coterie of "Evangelists" and "Bible

Teachers," among whom there flourishes

that curious religious system (at once curi­

ously pretentious and curiously shallow)

which the Higher Life leaders of the middle

ofthe last century brought into vogue; and he

has not been immune from its infection.

These two religious systems are quite

incompatible. The one is the product of the

Protestant Reformation and knows no deter­

mining power in the religious life but the

grace of God; the other comes straight from

the laboratory of John Wesley, and in all its

forms-modifications and mitigations

alike-remains incurably Arminian, sub­

jecting all the gracious workings of God to

Turn to Fire on Page 23

-,

-

.

-

ALutheran Response to Arminianism The issues at stake have concerned more than Calvinists RICK RITCHIE

•

CURE STAFF WRITER

Since the 17th century, Calvinism has would allow that, but that the Arminians been identified with its five-point reply to never issued to the Lutherans a five-point the Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. refutation of their supposed errors. Luth­ Calvinists often complain that this sum­ eran pastors and theologians had enough to mary of their theology, though accurate in keep them busy in teaching their doctrine expressing the Calvinists' disagreement rightly and refuting those who directly with their Arminian opponents, presents a attacked them. Little would have been truncated view of what Calvinism really is. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , Where in the five points do we hear of the covenant or of union with Christ? To properly understand a theology, we must not only know what it says to its opponents, but we need to know how it is to be pre­ sented on its own terms.

If a five-point summary is an awk­ ward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined doctrine of election (it certainly has one).

God's gracious election of certain indi­ Luther's "Arminius" was Erasmus ofRotterdam viduals to salvation was affirmed in Article X ofthe Formula ofConcord, the last of the gained by refuting the errors of somebody Lutheran confessions. The darker side of else's opponents.

Today the story is different While predestination has also been considered.

As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann presenting its doctrine according to a five­ Sasse wrote, point system is not the most natural way to present the Lutheran doctrines of grace, it Lutheran theology ... knows ... about the God is almost necessitated by the fact that of Predestination: This God who makes us American evangelicals have come of age responsible for demands which we cannot in an environment where the theological fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot categories have been defined by others, answer, who created us for good and yet and most of those "others" have been leaves us no other choice than to do evil­ Arminians. this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God Unless our doctrines are presented in of absolute Predestination. This is the God a way such that the contrasts with who hardened Pharaoh's heart, who hated Arminianism are easily seen, even an Esau even before he was born, the Potter who otherwise clear presentation ottheLutheran fashions pots and before whom one shrinks­ doctrines will produce confusion. For one and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless thing, superficial similarities between the sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, 'Tua two systems could easily be mistaken for culpa!' Thine is the gUilt!1 areas of agreement In addition, there are doctrines that have a fit within the whole The reason Lutheranism has never structure of Lutheranism but will at first been presented according to a five-point glance appear disastrous on account of the scheme is not that it lacks the doctrines that logical implications that would result from

,

nlodernREFORMATION

their adoption into an Arminian system.

Ribbed vaulting and massive gargoyles sit splendidly on the top of a cathedral whose stone columns and flying buttresses are designed to support their weight, but these same items can crush a building whose walls are not designed to uphold their massive weight.

Arminian Principles Rejected The best way to compare two theo­ logical positions is to compare their un­ derlying principles. According to J.1.

Packer, the theological position of the Remonstrants came from two philosophi­ cal principles: ...fIrst, that divine sovereignty is not com­ patible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi­ Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first, that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible h~an act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently ofHim; second, that since the Bible regar9s faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal?

Lutheranism lines up behind Packer and fmds these principles to be abhorrent.

While Lutheranism never had the occasion to come up against the five points of Arminianism, it had several opportunities to fight against the underlying Arminian principles.

At first glance, Lutheranism might appear to be an amalgamation of Calvin­ ism and Arminianism because, with regard to the five points, it seems to agree with Calvinism on some points and Arminianism on others. .We must be careful, however, to look at the underlying principles that motivated the positions.

When we do this, we will find that Lutheranism is not in fundamental agreement with the Remonstrants on any of the five points. To demonstrate this, I have put the positions side-by-side (see chart on page 12).

The two positions of Lutheranism and Arminianism are clearly different at each point, even where there are some

Continued on next page MAY/JUNE 1992

• 11

nlo(/ernREFOR1'vlATION

Continued from previous page similarities. The guiding motif in Arminianism is the free will of man, but in Lutheranism this is rejected. God is the main actor in Lutheranism. While the diagram above ought to be sufficient to show that Lutheranism and Arminianism are incompatible, there are two points which it will be especially profitable to look into more deeply: apostasy and unconditional election.

election was a cause of faith, or faith a cause of election. Hundreds ofarticles on the nature of election appeared in the theological journals ofthe Lutheran church bodies involved in the dispute. People were even barred from communion over it In short, the debate concerned the doctrine that the Calvinists refer to as unconditional election.

The Missouri-Synod theologians claimed that the cause of God's election was his graciousness toward individual~ not any faith, goodness, receptiveness, or

alone together guarantee that salvation is all of grace. Both tell us that salvation does not come to us on the basis of merit.

Just as receiving salvation by means of faith guarantees that we do not contribute to salvation (as faith is a gift from God and we are merely receptive), so also, know­ ing that God predestined us to salvation before we had done anything good or evil guarantees the same thing-unless we say that God chose us because he saw that we would come to faith.

Some ofthe theologians who claimed

The Problem ofApostasy Both the Arminians and the Lutherans believe that a true Christian can fall from the faith. When two groups of Christians hold to the same doctrine, we usually are inclined to guess that they hold their position for the same reasons, that a common principle leads them to a common conclusion. In the case of apos­ tasy, both the Arminians and the Lutherans would cite some of the same biblical passages in support oftheir position (e.g., Heb. 6:4ff, 2 Pt. 2:1), but the Lutheran would reject the philosophical baggage concerning the glories of free will, which would be the stronger element in the Arminian case for apostasy.

For the Arminian, the ability to fall away from grace is merely the flip side of the individual's ability to decide for Christ If we can decide to accept him, it stands to reason that we must also have the power to reject him.

For the Lutheran, the ability to fall from grace is not the flip side of the ability to decide for Christ, for we do not hold that man has that ability. The use of the term "ability" is even somewhat misleading in this context We might as well speak of the ability of an uncon­ scious man to drown in water. The ability to drown is not a special branch of swimming, and neither is apostasy a special branch of spiritual ability.

The Unconditional Election of Grace Around the tum of the century, the matter of predestination became the sub­ ject of furious debate within the Ameri­ can Lutheran church. If you have heard that predestination is not a Lutheran issue, you have heard wrong. The controversy erupted over the question of whether 12 .

MAY/JUNE 1992

A Comparison Chart

Arminian Position

Lutheran Position

1. After the fall, man retained the power to accept or reject God's grace.

1. After the fall, man is by nature hostile to God. By his own power, he is only able to reject God.

2. God predestined those whom he foresaw would come to faith to final salva­ tion.

2. Godpredestinedthosewhomhe loved from all eternity to come to faith and salvation.

3. Christ took upon himself the sins of the whole world and made it possible for individuals to decide whether to be saved.

3. Christ took upon himself the sins of the whole world and provided a perfect redemption. God himself provides the faith that grasps the redemption offered.

4. God's grace can be resisted by man's free choice. Theelect arethose whomGod foresees will use their own free choice to accept and not resist his offer.

4. God'sgraceisresistiblewhenheworks through means. Nevertheless, his eternal choice to save his chosen will not be thwarted; the elect will not succeed in resisting to the end.

5. Any Christian may use his or her free choice to fall away from the faith.

5. While some true Christians believe for atime and later fall away, the elect will be brought to faith and kept in faith until God brings them to glory.

even lack of resistance that he saw in them. The theologians of the other Luth­ eran church bodies said that this view of election was in conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Mis­ souri-Synod theologians claimed that the opposite was true.

Election and justification by faith

that election took place in view of fore­ seen faith wanted to make election into a form of justification that took place in eternity. Just as God reckoned a person righteous in time when a person trusted him, these theologians said that God would make this declaration in eternity when he looked into the future and saw this faith . .

JJlo£ic rnREFORMATION

Concluding Advice· The "Missourian" theologians said that For those who have grown up under they did not so much object to the content the prevailing teaching in American of this view as much as the language. churches (Arminianism), Reformation Perhaps this was the case, they concluded, theology often comes across as unusual. but this was not what the Scriptures meant Even when it does not, it is often passed when they talked about election. offas a peripheral issue. "I don't care how What was more insidious was that I was saved, I just care that I was saved," some theologians saw faith to be a human is a common response from those who contribution to salvation. It was not a assume that they can know that they were · work of God the Holy Spirit'who brought saved when they don't know how. This is a person to faith through the message of no side issue, however. Wrong principles the Gospel, but a work of man-man' s small contribution to his salvation. This resembled the Arminian ,argument that God had lowered the cost of salvation to bargain-basement prices; instead ofkeep­ ing the law, now God just required faith.

This type offaith was no faith at all. It was a hindrance to faith!

This matter had come up in the Lutheran church more than once before.

Philip Melanchthon, Luther's co-reformer and one of the authors of the Lutheran confessions, had in his later career said that there were three causes of election, man's non-resistance to grace being one.

Later theologians sometimes fell into speaking of conversion being the result of "new powers imparted by grace," or "right conduct over against grace." This al ways tumeq, out to be the grossest form of moralism. The "faith" that is required bears an uncanny resemblance to works. on this issue will always lead to disaster in In each case the sinner is thrown back this life, if not in the next. onto himself for deliverance.

If you want to discover just how A person's stand on unconditional pervasive Arminian principles are, just election is indicative ofhis true adherence check to see how many clear biblical to salvation by grace alone through faith alone. If non-resistance or right conduct . passages you have been systematically taught to misinterpret. How many times become the grounds of election, you can has the verse "Behold I stand at the door bet that the "faith alone" which is being and knock ... " (Rev. 3:20) been taken to be talked about is not faith at all, but a work Christ standing at the door of our hearts of man. Credit may be given to God after asking us if we will let him save us, when the fact for giving us this power, but who it is Christ standing at the door to the could see in this type of faith the empty church in Laodicea? How often have we hand of which the reformers spoke? A heard that "God has voted for us, Satan new power from God may sound like a has voted against us, and we cast the gracious gift, but beware! If the new deciding vote" when Romans 8:31 teaches power is the ability to save oneself by that ifGod is for us who can be against us? following the right principles, it is best We are told to make a decision for Christ, left unwrapped. The Missouri-Synod but we say that we do not want to be theologians were very careful to ensure bothered with hearing about what he has that gifts remained gifts and good news remained good news. If we wish to do the decided about us.

If the introduction to Reformation same, we had better guard our doctrine of theology is causing some distress, do not unconditional election. be surprised. That is normal. To find out

Aperson's stand on unconditional election is indicative of his true adherence to salvation by grace alone through faith alone

that God has no interest in allowing our destiny to remain in our hands is a scary thought when we trust ourselves more than God. It might cause sleepless nights.

It might inspire heated arguments. We might wish to avoid these for the sake of love-but love of what? Certainly not God. God is the primary one to whom we relate, and he will not have one of his creatures loved above himself. To avoid dealing with central questions concerning salvation out of love is not spiritual, it is carnal. Any time spent on these issues will be worthily spent.

Read about these things. Do not assume that since these arguments have been going on for centuries, there must be no solution. You might be surprised to find that, at least at the level of basic principles, the Bible is quite clear. The fact that the debate has run on for centu­ ries does not mean that equally clear minded Christians could not come to agreement, but that there are spiritual fac­ tors that prevent Reformation principles from being accepted. The old Adamic nature loves itself above God and wants to be captain of its own destiny. This, and not God's lack ofclarity on vital issues, is why the conflict continues. If you wish to become convinced of this, take and read.

For Further Reading Luther, Martin. The Bondage ofThe Will A must for those interested in the Arminian controversy.

Pieper, F. Conversion and Election: A

Pleafor aUnitedLutheranism inAmerica.

This book gives probably the best over­ view available ofthe Lutheran position on election.

Tappert, Theodore G., ed. Lutheran

Confessional Theology in America 1840­ 1880. Several of the chapters are articles written by theologians during Lutheranism's predestinarian controversy.

Sasse, Hermann. Here We Stand: TheNa­ ture and Character ofLutheranism. This book, among other things, puts the doc­ trine of predestination into its Lutheran context.

Watson, Phillip. Let GodBe God! Another work which gives an overview ofLutheran theology. This one, however, deals more specifically with Luther than the Lutheran church.

MAY/JUNE 1992

• 13

IJIoe/enlREFORMATION

CURE: ' Dr. Packer, what exactly do people mean by unconditional election?

Packer: It is a phrase which folk: use to express this thought: that because we sinners are helpless, God has to take all the steps that are necessary in order to bring us to faith and fellowship with him­ self and finally to eternal life. Uncondi­ tional election is the name for the choice God makes to do that in any particular case, and it has to be unconditional be­ cause if God waited for man to merit it he would wait forever.

CURE: Dr. Packer, why do we need an "election?"

Packer: Because we will never be saved unless God chooses to save us.

Election leads to the saving action ofGod in his lordship, and if we were left to ourselves we would never respond to God on our own at all. This is what people don't seem to appreciate, that all of us by nature are anti-God in our deepest in­ stincts (see Romans chapter 3). Wedon't always realize this because many of us think we are seeking God, and frankly, people want a God they can manage and manipulate and have as a safety net Those are facts about human life, and very fa­ miliar facts. But when it is a matter of responding to the real God and respond­ ing in a way that he calls for: that is by humbling ourselves before him, learning to trust his word absolutely, turning from sin, taking our hands offofthe reins ofour own life and letting him be in control, we wake up to the fact that we don't like this at all and we shy back from it. That is our nature. So you see, God has to take action otherwise we shall never come to him at all because that is the state in which fallen humans find themselves.

CURE: Doesn't this detractfrom our responsibility to respond to the gospel? If J'm one of the elect, God will save me, and if J'm not I can­ not be saved anyway so why worry about it?

Packer: No, that isn't the way to look ' - ­_ _ _ _ _ _----l at it because

14.

MAY/JUNE 1992

I -N

T -E

R

V

lEW

Dr. J.I. Packer on Unconditional -Election God has made us folk who act oftheir own will and he keeps us that way. And so he takes account of us for the things that we have done because they really were our own actions. The fact that we haven't got it in us to respond to God in a positive way doesn't mean that we don't choose not to respond to God. We do choose not to respond to God, and it's for that choice that we're responsible before him. The

He saved us, and we ought to be thanking Him for our conversion and for the fact that each day he keeps us in grace... truth about us is that we are like drowning folk who can't swim and left to ourselves would just go under and eventually not come up again. God takes action, as it were, to dive in, swim to us, grab hold of us and save us. Election, as we said a moment ago, is his decision to do that, and in his lordship and power he does it, and so our salvation is entirely due to him. But all the time we are responsible for being the people that we are, drowning in our own moral mess.

CURE: I sn' t foreknowledge the ba­ sis of election? Didn't God choose us because he looked down into the future and foresaw that we would believe in him?

Packer: He foreknew us all right. but

. he foreknew us as we are by nature, that is, he foreknew us as folk: who wouldn't respond to him unless he first changed our heart, so he chose us to have our hearts changed. But it's all his initiative, all his sovereignty frrst to last. The Bible de­ scribes this human condition in many ways. It tells us that we are spiritually blind, spiritually deaf, our hearts are hard-that is to say we are unresponsive to God, and we are spiritually dead. The Bible says all those things. You couldn' t express the thought of unresponsiveness more strongly.

CURE: Wouldn'titbeunfairforGod to elect one person to heaven. but then not elect my next-door neighbor?

Packer: Well, the thing to remember here is, frrst ofall, that why God does what he does is oftentimes a mystery to us. He doesn't tell us why he chooses one and not another. To ask the question therefore is foolish; it doesn't get us anywhere. But we should remember, secondly, that in fact as God sees us we all actually deserve to be condemned because we're all actu­ ally choosing every day to live in defiance of his laws and his way, and to follow our own way instead; that's rebellion,. and that's sin. Well now, it's out of a body of humanity, every one of whose members deserves to be rejected, that God has in . fact saved some. The Bible makes it plain that he doesn't choose to save all, but he is under no obligation to choose to save all.

In fact, he's under no obligation to choose to save any, because we all deserve from his hands condemnation and punishment.

CURE: Would you agree with Spurgeon when he said, "What's hardfor me to believe isn't that he didn't choose to save everybody, but that he chose to save me " .?

Packer: Well, that, I believe, is the way to look at it The marvel in this business is that anybody is saved, and certainly that I am saved. Of course, we all know the inside story of our own lives better than anybody else. We, after all, are the people who have lived those lives. We know how bad we are. I can't understand any Christian who isn 't constantly amazed that God saved him or her in spite of all

Turn to

Packer on Page 22

llU)(

Evangelical Arminians

Torn between two systems, evangelical Christians must make a choice MICHAEL S. HORTON

•

CURE PRESIDENT

Ie rnREFORMATl< >N

Greek thinking, so we are making peace with the culture of modernity.''2 The purpose of these quotes is not to focus attention on one evangelical theologian's departure from Reformation theology, but to raise the question in very practical terms, "Is it possible to be an 'evangelical Arminian'?" In this article I attempt to defend a negative answer to that important question.

What Is An Evangelical?

"A theological shift is underway among evangelicals as well as other Christians ....This trend began, I believe, because of a fresh and faithful reading of the Bible in dialogue with modem cul­ ture, which places emphasis on autonomy, temporality, and historical change."1 This announce~entfrom Dr. Clark Pinnock, a respected evangelical theologian, is nei­ ther a criticism, nor a warning, but a promising development in the view ofits author.

A number of evangelical leaders met near Chicago two years ago for the pur­ pose of defming the term "evangelical," but many left as confused concerning . what that label comprehends as they were when they arrived. It is becoming in­ creasingly difficult to say what an evan­ gelical is, and is not. Basically, Ameri­ can evangelicalism divides from the mid­ eighteenth century on into two traditions: revivalistic and Reformational (as in the 16th century Reformation). While the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Revival in Britain were ex­ amples of the harmony between reforma­ tion and revival, these eventually be­

came rivals as the latter developed an Arminian theology. As the Arminian branch of revivalism gained the popular advantage, evangelicalism became in­ creasingly shaped by human-centered theology on a popular level even while its principal works of systematic theology were reformed.

However, today we see a shift even within the evangelical theologicalleader~ ship. Dr. Pinnock writes, "It is my strong impression, confrrmed to me even by those not pleased by it, that Augustinian thinking is losing its hold on present-day Chris­ tians." Evangelists are not the only ones preaching an Arminian gospel: "It is hard to fmd a Calvinist theologian willing to defend Reformed theology, including the views of both Calvin and Luther, in all its rigorous particulars now that Gordon Clark is no longer with us and John Gerstner is retired...So I do not think I stand alone."

The drift is on. Dr. Pinnock insists that Augustine was shaped by Greek thinking more than scripture and the reformers simply followed his mistakes, but that was acceptable for their time: "Just as Augustine came to terms with ancient

One might think that the term "prot­ estant" has been around a lot longer than "evangelical," the latter often associated with the crusade and television evange­ lism of recent years. However, the term "evangelical" is the older of the two. It appears in medieval manuscripts, de­ scribing a qualification of a good preacher: He must be evangelical. Until the Reformation, however, that adjective could mean anything from having a sincere love for Christ to possessing missionary zeal. When Luther arrived on the scene he was eager to employ the time-honored term in the service ofgospel recovery. After all; what could be more appropriate as a designation for a man or woman of the Reformation? It was all about a recovery of the evangel itself.

Thus, the term took on anew signifi­ cance, moving trom an adjective to a noun. One was not only "evangelical" in the ambiguous medieval sense of being pious, zealous, and faithful, but an evangelical in the sense that one adhered to the Reformation's tenets. After 1520, an evangelical was a person who was comm itted to the sufficiency ofscripture, the priesthood of all believers, the total lostness ofhumans, the sole mediation of Christ, the gracious efficacy and finality of God's redemptive work in Christ through election, propitiation, calling and keeping. The linchpin for all of this was the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christalone. Thus, the believer, declared righteous, by virtue ofGod' s satisfaction with Christ's holiness imputed (credited) to us through faith alone, is simul iustus et peccator: "simultaneously justified and sinful."

The evangelicals, therefore, whether

Continued on next page MAYnuNE 1992

• 15

lJ[O(/eJ"IZREFC)RI'vIATIC)N

Continued from previous page

is infallible), it is nevertheless unavoidably true that those who called themselves evangelicals have historically affirmed and defended those teachings as being biblical.

Thus, historically speaking, those who do not affirm those doctrines are, by virtue of the law of non-contradiction, not evangelicals.

Lutheran or Reformed, insisted that this was the gospel. It was not a peripheral area of abstract doctrinal debate on which Christians could "agree to disagree agree­ ably." It was not merely an implication of the gospel or a part ofthe gospel: It was the gospel! It was this message and no other, be it ever so similar, that everyone had to What Is An Arminian? get right On other matters Christians of James Anninius, one of Beza' s students, goodwill might differ, but without the first raised the eyebrows of the Dutch Re­ distinction between a gospel of works and formed Church by teaching that the person a gospel ofgrace alone (Luther wrote) one cannot distinguish a Christian from a Muslim or Jew. Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, wrote, "Igno­ rance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still cor­ rupt Christianity."3 Theologians and historians to the present have referred to the formal and material principle of the Reformation, the former being the sufficiency of scripture, and the latter being the doctrine of justi­ fication by grace alone through faith alone.

As the formal principle ofthe Reformation is "scripture alone! ," we today must de­ Paul describes in Romans 7 was unregener­ fme "evangelical" according to scriptural ate, whereas the Reformed had always in­ teaching. If the reformers misinterpreted terpreted it as a sad, but appropriate, picture the Bible on anyone ofthese key teachings, of the Christian life (simultaneously justi­ they must be corrected by those same fied and sinful). But there was more con­ scriptures. However, historically, the term troversy beneath this: Arminius denied "evangelical" has referred to those who unconditional election, arguing that God embraced either the Lutheran or the Re­ made his eternal decision based on his formed confessions of faith. Only in the foreknowledge offaith and obedience. With gradual Americanization of the evangeli­ this, the entire Reformed system was denied. cal faith has this inheritance been jetti­ Upon his death, however, Anninius's soned, as though "scripture alone" meant followers began to press the theologian's that to merely adhere to theformal principle claims even further. The "Remonstrants," of the Reformation was enough. As long as they were called, presented their claims as one believed the Bible, one could stand in five points: election was conditional (Le., wherever he or she liked on the material determined by foreseen faith and obedi­ principle of God's method in saving sin­ ence), the atonement was universal not only ners. If this were true, one would have to in sufficiency but in intention, depravity is concede to the Mormons and Jehovah's only partial, grace can be resisted, and the Witnesses membership in the National regenerate can lose their sal vation. Further, Association of Evangelicals. the Anninians denied the Reformation be­ There are two ways of dealing with this lief that faith was a gift and that justification question ofdefining "evangelical": scrip­ was a purely forensic (legal) declaration. tural and historical, but in this brief space For them, it included a moral change in the allow me to focus on the argument that this believer's life and faith itself, a work of term ought to be defmed and used in its humans, was the basis for God's declara­ historical, time-honored sense. While the tion. In 1618-19 at the Synod of Dort, an Reformation may ,theoretically, have erred international conference of Reformed on its chief doctrines (since only scripture churches, the Remonstrants (Anninians)

Wherever Arminianism was adopted, Unitarianism followed, leading to the bland liberalismof present mainline denominations

16 .

MAY/JUNE 1992

were judged heretical and the churches of the Reformation concurred, even those of non-Reformed persuasion (as, for instance, the Lutherans).

Arminianism came to the English­ speaking world chiefly through the efforts of 17th century Archbishop ofCanterbury William Laud; Bishop Jeremy Taylor; and the great preacher, Lancelot Andrewes.

The leading Puritans such as John Owen, Richard Sibbes, ·and Thomas Goodwin opposed Arminianism as a Protestant form of "Romanism" in which the Christian faith degenerated into a moralism that confused the Law and the Gospel and with-held from God his rightful praise for the whole work of salvation. Eventually, the English "Arminian" element evolved into the High Church wing of the English Church, emphasizing the importance of ritual and the church hierarchy as well as the moralistic Deism which characterized the preaching of the eighteenth century.

Wherever Arminianism was adopted, Unitarianism followed, leading on to the bland liberalism of present mainline de­ nominations. This can be discerned in the Netherlands, in Eastern Europe, in En­ gland, and in New England. In fact, in a very short period of time, the General (Anninian) Baptists of New England had become amalgamated into the Unitarian Church in the 18th century.

This is not simply an argument from the so-called "slippery slope": in other words, if we allow for x, soon we will be embracing y. History actually bears out the relationship between Arminianism and naturalism. One can readily see how a shift from a God-centered message of human sinfulness and divine grace to a human-centered message of human po­ tential and relati ve divine impotence could create a more secularized outlook. If human beings are not so badly off, per­ haps they do not need such a radical plan of salvation. Perhaps all they need is a pep talk, some inspiration at halftime, so they can get back into the game. Or perhaps they need an injection of grace, as a spiri­ tual antibiotic, to counteract the sinful affections. But in Reformation theology, human beings do not need help. They need redemption. They do not merely need someone to show them the way out; they need someone to be their way out of spiri­ tual death and darkness.

IJl(}(lenIREH>!{t\\:\TIUN

Thus, the evangelicals who faced this challenge of Anninianism universally re­ garded it as a heretical departure from the Christian faith. One simply could not deny total depravity, unconditional election, justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone, and con­ tinue to call himself or herself an evangeli­ cal. There were many Christians who were not evangelicals, but to be an evangelical meant that one adhered to these biblical convictions. While Calvinists and Luther­ ans would disagree over the scope of the atonement and the irr~sistibility of grace and perseverance, they were both strict monergists (from mono, meaning "one" and ergo, meaning "working"). That is,they believed that one person saved us (namely, God), while the Arminians were syner­ gists, meaning that they believed that God and the believer cooperated in this matter of attaining salvation. It was this moner­ gism which has distinguished an evangeli­ cal from a non-evangelical since the Refor­ mation.

Are Arminians Evangelicals?

tury, Whitefield (a Calvinist) and Wesley (an Arminian) were willing to work to­ gether as close friends and allies in the evangelistic effort. However, as Wesley began to teach~ that justification was not purely forensic (that is, a legal declara­ tion), but that it depended on "moment by moment" obedience, the Calvinists who had enthusiastically supported the revival and led the evangelistic cause side by side grew increasingly worried. Late in life, Wesley recorded some very unfortunate

The gospel is the church's most precious possession, "for it is the power of God unto salvation," and the debates over its content are not likely to disappear by a generous dosage of muddleheadedness of which we evangelicals seem to be in rather large supply these days.

The heart of the Reformation debate was, Who saves who? Does God save sinners? Or do we save ourselves with God's help? The Roman Catholic Church was confused on that question throughout the Middle Ages, sharply divided at the time of the Reformation, but finally deter­ mined by the Council of Trent in the mid­ 16th century that the second answer was better. God's grace is the source, but human cooperation with that grace is what makes God's saving will effective. Thus, God justifies us by making us better and that involves our own participation.

The orthodox Protestants were not over­ reacting, therefore, when they regarded the Arminian denials as no different from the positions of Trent, which had declared the statements in his Minutes of the Methodist evangelicals "anathema." . It would have Conference, including the conclusion that been bigoted for them, therefore, to regard his own position was but "a hair' s breadth" Trent's position as unorthodox ifthey were from "salvation by works." Fearing an unwilling to say the same of a similar implicit antinomianism (license) in the "Protestant" deviation.

Reformation doctrines, Wesley urged his So what does all of this mean for us supporters to warn the Calvinists "against nearly four centuries after Arminianism making void that solemn decree of God, was condemned by the Churches of En­ 'without holiness no man shall see the gland, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Swit­ . Lord,' by a vain imagination ofbeing holy zerland, the French Protestants, and the in Christ. 0 warn them that if they remain evangelicals of Eastern Europe? unrighteous, the righteousness of Christ In the British revival of the 18th cen­ will profit them nothing!"4 John Wesley's

favorite writer, William Law, wrote, "We are to consider that God only knows what shortcomings in holiness He will accept; therefore we can have not security of our salvation but by doing our utmest to de­ serve it...We have," said he, "nothing to rely on but the sincerity of our endeavors and God's mercy."s . Was Law an evan­ gelical? If so, someone owes Pope Leo an apology.

The doctrine of justification- "simul­ taneously justified and sinful"-is scan­ dalous to human reason, and Wesley is famous for his "Quadrilateral" of author­ ity: scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. So much for "Scripture alone"!

Both the material and the formal principle ofthe Reformation are at least undermined, if not denied. So much of tradition, expe­ rience, and reason opposes this doctrine.

One modem evangelical theologian writes, "We can love God perfectly and we can be righteous in this world even as Christ is righteous ..." and adds that the Bible "leaves no place for voluntary and known sin in the life of the believer."6 Another adds, "But can it really be true-saint and sinner si­ multaneously? I wish it were so...Simu/ iustus et peccator? I hope it's true! I simply fear it's not."7 These views were presented in a volume that offered five . views of sanctification from evangelical writers.

In the Evangelical Revival, therefore, Wesley was allowed to · embrace Arminianism while retaining the use ofthe evangelical label, in spite of the fact that to that time evangelicalism .had repudiated the position as the very error of the medi­ eval church that precipitated the Refor­ mation in the first place. In one of his best sermons, Wesley, nevertheless, defmed justification not as a purely forensic (legal) declaration distinct from sanctification, but as both deliverance from the guilt of sin and " ... the whole body of ~in, through Christ gradually 'fonned in his heart. '" To be justified means that one does not sin " ...by any habitual sin... nor by any willful sin ... nor by any sinful desire ... " nor"...by infirmities, whether in act, word or thought..And though he cannot say he 'has not sinned,' yet now 'he sins not "'8 The Minutes for the .First Annual Methodist Conference affirm that repentance and

Continued on next page MAYJJUNE 1992

• 17

1111)( /e rllR LH)RI\'lATION

Continuedfrom previous page works must precede faith, if by works one means "obeying God as far as we can."

Furthermore, "If a believer wilfully sins, he thereby forfeits his pardon ... Are works necessary to continuance of faith? With­ out doubt, for a man may forfeit the gift of God either by sins of omission or commis­ sion."

Justification may be lost every time one willfully disobeys and Wesley adds, "We do not find it affirmed expressly in Scrip­ ture that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any, although we do find that faith is imputed unto us for righteousness. " This imputation or crediting of faith as our righteousness, rather than Christ's active and passive obedience, is precisely the doctrine articulated by Arminius, render­ ing faith a work which achieves righteous­ ness before God. Knowing who will most likely balk against the teaching within the evangelical Church of England, Wesley asks, "Have we not then unawares leaned too much towards Calvinism ..." in the past?

"It seems we have," he answers, equating Calvinism with antinomianism. 9 Contem­ porary Wesleyan theologian,John Lawson, writes, "This judicious and moderating 'Arminian Evangelicalism,' which is now so largely characteristic of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, is perhaps the most endur­ ing and important contribution of the Methodist movement to theological un­ derstanding in the Church. "10 While Wesleyans insist they affirm justification by faith alone, they define it in the same moral terms rejected by evangelicals ever since the Reformation debate. Lawson himself defines justification as "the first and all-important stage in a renewed

manner of life. actually changed for the better in mind and heart. in will and ac­ tion."l1 Thomas Aquinas could hardly have improved on this definition.

Today, theologians such as Dr. Clark Pinnock insist on wearing the "evangeli­ cal" label while they move beyond Arminianism to an all-out denial of classi­ cal theism. Such spokespersons may insist that they are merely contributing to the ongoing evolution and upward develop­ mentofdoctrine, butin fact they are merely reinventing old heresies. As Arminius revived Semi-Pelagianism, Dr. Pinnock is merely advancing a ·revival of outright 18.

MAY/JUNE 1992

Pelagianism and Socinianism, enhanced by the latest academic craze-process the­ ism.

Once he became an Arminian, Dr. Pinnock notes, "I soon realized something would have to be done about the received doctrine of God." God is no longer time­ less, changeless, oreven all-knowing. Mter all, "decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God." Dr. Pinnock also denies original sin, admitting that on this point, as on others, he is moving beyond Arminianism. And the next

this: we have gone back to using "evan­ gelical" as an adjective. As its medieval use was ambiguous, referring more to a general attitude ofhumility , zeal, and simple Christ-likeness, so too the contemporary use falls most often into that category. An evangelical is someone who "loves Jesus," who "wins souls," and who has a "sweet spirit." Ken Myers notes that evangelicals no longer believe in orthodoxy. but in orthopathos--a concern for right feelings rather than right thinking and worship.I3 One Christian publisher released a book by a Franciscan "evangelical" titled, Evan­ gelical Catholics even though Roman Catholics still officially deny the suffi­ ciency of scripture, justification by grace alone through faith alone, and so on. If "evangelical" means anything at all any more, it is essential that we make such distinctions.

Having said that, it is equally important to realize that this is not a matter of bigotry or denominational pride. We will see non­ evangelicals in heaven. As I reflect on view~ that I used to hold, it is sobering to say the least and it reminds me that the chances are pretty good that I have a good distance to go yet. While we must believe certain essential truths in order to be saved, we are not saved by the amount of doctrine that we know. There will doubtless be Roman Catholics, Arminians, and others in Paradise who were saved by God's grace domino? "Obviously it required me to even if they, like me, did not understand or reduce the precision in which I understood appreciate that grace as much as they should the substitution [of Christ on the cross] to have. Nevertheless, if we are going to still take place."12 It must be said that if such use "evangelical" as a noun to defme a writers can continue to be regarded as body of Christians holding to a certain set evangelical leaders (Dr. Pinnock is still a of convictions, it is high time we got clear respected member of the Evangelical on these matters. An evangelical cannot be Theological Society). it is up to us as heirs an Arminian any more than an evangelical of the Protestant Reformers to issue an can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives apology to the Roman Catholic Church for of evangelicalism were denied by Rome at dividing over issues no more essential than the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants these. Original sin, the substitutionary in 1610, were confused and challenged by atonement, justification, eternal judgment, John Wesley in the 18th century, and have and classical theism (the doctrine of God) become either ignored or denied in con­ all must go, according to Dr. Pinnock and temporary "evangelicalism." his team of writers in A Case for Armini­ In conclusion, the evangelical move­ an ism (Zondervan, 1989). "I do not think ment is faced with a difficult decision: we should feel we have lost something of . either to reclaim the meaning of"evangeli­ absolute value when we find ourselves at cal," or to shed its confinement. Let those variance with some of the old sO-:called maverick"evangelicals" who deny the great orthodox interpretations," Dr. Pinnock truths of the evangelical (and indeed, even concludes. the catholic) faith stand up with the cour­ From where I sit, the main problem is age of their convictions and lead an exodus

Late in life, Wesley recorded...that his own position was but "a hair's breadth" from "salvation by works."

}Jlode rnREFORMATION from evangelicalism, but it is to my mind the height of arrogance and dishonesty to seek to represent oneself as something which one clearly is not.

My purpose has not been to pontificate about what ought to be done with certain individuals, but to point out the serious crisis evangelicals face as a movement. It is as if the evangelical leadership declared the movement a "consistency-free zone," an island on which the law of non-contra­ diction does not apply. A recent (April 27, 1992) issue of Christianiiy Today featured an article offering a "thir~d way," an alter­ native to both Calvinism and Arminianism as "seeds fora biblical via media," as though the Bible taught something in between the view that God alone saves and that we cooperate with God in our salvation. But the main benefit of such a position is not that it explains the biblical record, but that it "stakes off common ground-to the sur­ prise, at times, of participants all around­ marking a safe and neutral area large enough for both groups to stand while growing together in the know ledge of our Lord Jesus Christ After 450 years of constant controversy, perhaps this is no small step."

After all, "The hallmark of a Christian is not logic, but love" (pp. 32-33). The gospel is the church's most precious possession, "for it is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:20), and the debates over its con­ tent are not likely to disappear by a generous dosage of muddleheadedness of which we evangelicals seem to be in rather large supply these days.

Today one can be an evangelical­ which has historically meant holding to total depravity, unconditional election, justification by grace through faith alone, the sufficiency of scripture-and at the same time be an Arminian, denying or distorting this very evangelical message.

Contemporary Christians, generally speaking, have chosen to be agnostic on some of the most basic evangelical convic­ tions. A few generations ago, a defense of justification would be considered a de­ fense of evangelicalism itself, but today when I describe this doctrine I often hear, "That's awfully Calvinistic." (Obviously, those who say this have not run into many Lutherans!) What used to be considered broadly evangelical is now regarded by many as narrowly Reformed. Such shifts have · been amply documented in Evan­

gelicalism: The Coming Generation, by University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter. This, I submit, is just the sort ofirresponsible thinking that is sweep­ ing evangelicalism out to sea in confusion, division and irrelevance.

Let us lovingly confront our brothers and sisters in a spirit of boldness, but hu­ mility, as we undertake to bring ourselves and our fellow Christians into greater con­ formity to "the faith once and for all deliv­ ered to the saints" (Jude 24).

Notes 1. Dr. Clark Pinnock, A Case for Arminianism: The Grace of God and the Will ofMan (Zondervan, 1989), p. 15 2. Ibid., p. 27 3. Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (E. Sussex: Focus Press, 1992), p. 41 4. Outler, ed., Wesley's Works, vol. 2, p.

127 5. William Law, Christian Perfection, (Creation House, 1975), pp. 137-8 6. Donald Alexander, ed., Christian Sanctification: Five Views (lVP, 1981), p.

84 7. Ibid 8. "Salvation by Faith," by John Wesley, Timothy Smith, ed., Whitefzeld & Wesley on the New Birth (Zondervan, 1986) 9. Minutes of the First Annual Methodist Conference, in Timothy Smith,ed.,op. cit., pp.155-158 9. John Lawson,!ntroduction to Christian Doctrine (Zondervan, 1986), p. 217 10. Ibid., p. 226 11. Pinnock, op. cit..

12. Ken Myers, All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Crossway, 1989),p.186

For Further Reading Pinnock, cited above; Richard Rice, God's ForeknowledgeandMan's Will (Bethany); Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans); James Arminius's Collected Works (Baker); Allan Sell, The Great De­ bate (Baker); Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (Nelson).

Spurgeonisms

"As long as the 9th chapter of Ro­ mans remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to prove Arminianism; so long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of elec­ tion from the Scriptures."

"The Arminian says there are some in the covenant who tumble out of it; that God has chosen some men--that he justi­ fies, that he accepts them, then turns them outofhis family. The Arminian holds the unnatural, cruel, barbarous idea, that a man may be God's child, and then God may unchild him because he does not behave himself. The idea is revolting even to human sensibility. If our children sin, they are our children still; though chastened and vexed sore, yet never do they cease to be remembered amongst our family. There are many of God's children that have gone astray and been chastened for it; but it were and idea too barbarous to suppose that God would unchild his child for any sin he doth commit He keepeth fast his covenant; he loveth them, sinners though they be."

"I do not serve the God of the Annin­ ians at all; I have nothing to do with him, ... he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence. A mutable God may be the God for them; he is not the God for me ... Jehovah changes not; he knoweth no shadow of turning. If he hath set his heart upon a man, he will love him to the end. If he hath chosen him, he hath not chosen him for any merit of his own; therefore he will never cast him away for any demerit of his own. If he hath begot­ ten him unto a lively hope, he will not suffer him to fall away and perish ... .If one dear child might fall away, then might all?

If one of them for whom the Saviour died might be damned, then might the Saviour's blood be utterly void and vain? If one of those whom he hath called according to his purpose might perish, then were his purposes null and void?

(From Spurgeon's Sermons, Baker Books) MAY/JUNE 1992

• 19

l}z()(/erlzREF()Rt\1ATION

Are you Sure You Like Spurgeon?

"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation b~ works..." ---C. H. Spurgeon ALAN MABEN

•

CURE STAFF WRITER

Praised by many evangelicals as a great preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon is considered a successful and "safe" ex­ ample of a "non-theological" ministry.

His works are recommended as a means to lead many aspiring pastors into develop­ ing their own successful ministries. His Lectures to My Students are often used for this purpose, emphasizing the "practical" aspects ofevangelism. But while the form ofSpurgeon ' s successful preaching is often studied by would-be pastors, the content of this Christian giant's preaching and teaching is often ignored. Spurgeon is popularly thought to have heartily ap­ proved of the same theology that is pres­ . ently dominating American culture: Arminianism.

Many Christian leaders, for instance, like to point out Spurgeon as one who also had no formal college training. They ignore the fact that he had a personal library containing more that 10,000 books. t It is further argued that the success of his ministry in themid-to-late 19th century was due to his anti-intellectual piety, "his yieldedness to the Spirit," and his Arminianism. The fact is, Spurgeon was 20.

MAY/JUNE 1992

not anti-intellectual, nor did he entertain delusions of being so holy that he could allow God to work only ifhe was "yielded."

Most importantly, he was not an Arminian.

He was a staunch Calvinist who opposed the dominant religious view of his day (and ofours), Arminianism.2 Even toward the end of his life he cold write, "From this doctrine I have not departed to this day."3 He was grateful that he never wavered from his Calvinism.4 "There is no soul living who holds more fmnly to the doc­ trine of grace than do 1...'tS Reviewing Spurgeon's beliefs, one will see that this tremendously fruitful ministry was built upon the preaching of the biblical gospel.

In his work, "A Defence of Calvin­ ism," he states unequivocally: [T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified. unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do notbelieve we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, withoutworks; 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 lthink 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, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."6

Here Spurgeon affIrms his agreement with what are usually called ''The Five Points of Calvinism." Spurgeon's own

summation was much shorter: A Calvinist believes that salvation is of the Lord. 7 Se­ lections from his sermons and writings on these subjects make his position clear.

Regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace: 'When you say, 'can God make me become a Christian?' I tell you yes, for hereirrrests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, 'will you have it?', but it makes you willing in the day of God's power ....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, 'I do not want to besaved'; Christ says you shall be. Hemakes your will tum round, and then you cry, 'Lord save, or 1 perish!'8

Regarding Unconditional Election 1 do not hesitate to say, that next to the doctrine of the crucifixion and the resurrec­ tion of our blessed Lord-no doctrine had such prominence in the early Christian Church as the doctrine of the election of grace. 9

And whoo confronted with the discomfort this doctrine would bring, he responded with little sympathy: '''I do not like it [divineelection],' saithone. Well, Ithought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?'''tO Regarding Particular Atonement: [I]fit was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which bumeth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bough; with His blood. tt He has punished Christ, why should He punish twice for one offence? Christ has died for all His people's sins, and if thou art in the covenant, thou art one of Christ's people.

Damned thou canst not be. Suffer for thy sins thou canst not. Until God can be unjust, and demand two payments for one debt, He can­ not destroy the soul for whom Jesus died. 12

Regarding the Perseverance of the Saints: I do not know how some people, who

-

-

believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe in the doctrine of the fmal persever­ ance of the saints, I think I should be of all men most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort.13

-~

I

The selections above indicate that C. H. Spurgeon was without a doubt an affirmed, self-professing Calvinist who made his ministry's success dependent upon truth, unwilling to consider th~ "Five Points of Calvinism" as separate, sterile categories to be memorized and believed in isolation from each other or Scripture. He often blended the truths represented by the Five Points, because they actually are mutually supportive parts of a whole, and not five little sections of faith added to one's col­ lection ofChristian beliefs. Spurgeon never presented them as independent oddities to be believed as the sum of Christianity.

Rather, he preached a positive gospel, ever mindful that these beliefs were only part of the whole counsel of God and not the sum total. These points were helpful, defensive summaries, but they did not take the place of the vast theater of redemption within which God's complete and eternal plan was worked out in the Old and New Tes­ taments.

Certain that the Cross was an offense and stumbling block, Spurgeon was un­ willing to make the gospel more acceptable to the lost. "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and to God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine."14 Elsewhere he challenged "I cannot fmd in Scripture any other doctrine than this. Itis the essence ofthe Bible....Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be heresy ... "1s Spurgeon believed that the price of ridicule and rejection was not counted so high that he should refuse to preach this gospel: "[W]e are reckoned the scum ofcreation; scarcely a minister looks on us or speaks favorable of us, because we hold strong vies upon the divine sovereignty ofGod, and his divine electings and special love towards His own people."16 Then, as now, the dominant ob­ jection to such preaching was that it would

-

- -- --

- - - -- ----

lllo£iernREFURivIATIUN

lead to licentious living. Since Christ "did it all," there was no need for them to obey the commands of Scripture. ' Aside from the fact that we should not let sinfulpeople decide what kind ofgospel we will preach, Spurgeon had his own rebuttals to this confusion: [I]t is often said that the doctrines we believe have a tendency to lead us to sin... .! ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the systems of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full ofthem? HadamanbeenanArminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing; but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as orthodox. We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles ....We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy suc­ cession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you fmd holier and better men in the world?17

His attitude toward those who would dis­ tort the gospel for their own ideas of "ho­ liness" is clear from the following: No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it 'a licentious doctrine' did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. 18

According to Spurgeon (and Scripture for that matter), the response ofgratitude is the motive for holy living, not the uncertain status ofthe believer under the influence of Arminianism legality; "It is nothing but legality which lays at the root of Arminianism."19 He was very clear on the dangerous relationship of Arminianism to legalism: "Do you not see at once that this is legality-that this is hanging our salva­ ~on upon our work-that this is making our etemallife to depend upon something we do? Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, preached by an Arminianism, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works."20

as

A status before God based upon how we "use" Christ and the Spirit to feign righ­ teousness was a legalism hated by Spurgeon. As in our day, Spurgeon saw that one ofthe strongholds ofArminianism included the independent churches. 21 Arminianism was a natural, God-reject­ ing, self-exalting religion and heresy. 22 As Spurgeon believed, we are born Arminians by nature.23 He saw this natural aversion to God as encouraged by believing self-cen­ tered, self-exalting fancies. "If you believe that everything turns upon the free-will of man, you will naturally have man as its principal figure in your landscape. "24 And again he affirms the remedy for this con­ fusion to be true doctrine. "I believe that very much ofcurrent Arminianism is simply ignorance ofgospel doctrine. ''25 Further, "I do not serve the god ofthe Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence ...The God that saith to-day and denieth to-mor­ row, that justifieth to-day and condemns the next ..is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation of Ashtaroth or Baal, but Jehovah never was or can be his name. ''26 Refusing to com­ promise the gospel in any way, he soundly refuted and rejected common attempts to unite Calvinism and Arminianism into a synthesized belief. Nor would he downplay the importance of the differences between the two systems: This may seem to you to be oflittle conse­ quence, but it really is a matter of life and death. I would plead with every Christian­ think it over, my dear brother. Whensomeof us preach Calvinism, and some Arminianism, we cannot both be right; it is ofnot use trying to think we can be- 'Yes,' and 'no,' cannot both be true....Truth does not vacillate like the pendulum which shakes backwards and forwards ....One must be right; the other wrong.27

Notes 1. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dic­ tionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), s.v.

"Spurgeon, Charles Haddon," by J. E. Johnson.

2. From sermon cited in lain Murray, The Forgo.tten Spurgeon, 2nd ed., (Carlisle, MAY/JUNE 1992

• 21

-

-

nlode rllREFORMATION Continued from Packer on Page

14

God he is suddenly liberated from the need to keep everything going by his own effort that badness, twistedness, depravity and and he is free and joyful in the Lord and the sinfulness inside. That certainly is how I paradox is that he then worships more wholeheartedly and runs faster in obedi­ feel about myself.

CURE: How essential is this doctrine ence. This doctrine which sounds as if it ought to impede human effort does in ac­ to our understanding ofsalvation in gen­ tual fact lead folk to run that much more eral?

Packer: Well, if we aren't clear that vigorously in the path of obedience be­ God's election and God's lordly grace is cause they know how much they owe to responsible for our salvation-that is, if God. Dr. Packer, if this doctrine is we aren't clear that it is God who saved us CURE: and not we who saved ourselves with His true, is there any reason to believe that the help, then we won't trust him as we should gospel invitation is genuine?

Yes there is. The most obvi­ and we will rely on ourselves to keep Packer: ourselves going, whereas the Christian ous and basic reason is that Christ died to who knows God's grace relies on God to guarantee the truth ofthe gospel invitation, keep him going. Furthermore, we won't and the promise of salvation attached to it, be praising God on a day-to-day basis for wherever that gospel invitation goes. In all that we ought to bepraising him for. He other words, everybody who hears the word saved us and we ought to be thanking him of invitation from God, "Whosoever will, for our conversion and for the fact that let him come and take of the water of life each day he keeps us in grace just as much freely ... " or, "God so loved the world that as we thank him for sending his son to die he gave his only begotten son that whoever for our sins. But it will only be 50 percent believes in him should not perish but have of the praise we ought to offer if we don't eternal life ... " can be sure that because appreciate that it was he who saved us by Christ died, that word is true for him. So the decision he makes in response to or bringing us to faith. disregard for that word really is the deci­ CURE: So this is something really sive decision for his destiny. There is practicalfor the Christian and not some­ nothing phony about the gospel offer. It is thing that should be left in the seminary true for everyone who hears it. And the classroomfor theological debate. ofChrist guaranteed that that was so. death Packer: Oh, indeed no. I am not say­ The gospel is to go to all the world, and that ing that we ought, when we preach and · means that all the world is to be invited to teach in local churches, to be drilling receive etemallife. people in the basics of historical theology But how can you reconcile For Further Reading

with all of its technical terms. But when it CURE: "God so loved the world... " with the idea MUrray, lain. The Forgotten Spurgeon, 2d comes to the nitty gritty ofpractical Chris­ that God elects to save some but not oth­ ed. Carlisle, P A: Banner of Truth Trust, tianity, we certainly ought to be teaching 1986; reprint. .

ers? people that all grace is God's free gift, and We have to understand that Spurgeon, Charles H. "A Defence of Cal­

that none of it is earned. We also ought to Packer: "world" in the Scriptures is a word which vinism" in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography. teach that all Christian life is the fruit of is sometimes used not statistically for the Edited by S. Spurgeon and J. Harrald. Rev God's grace, none of which is our contri­ world in all its numbers, such as x billions ed. Vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859. bution. God has taken us in hand, God has of people, but for the world in its moral . Carlisle,PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976; chosen to save us, and we ought to be very quality, that is, the world in all its badness. reprint. thankful. This doctrine of election is a Spurgeon, Charles H. New Park Street matter for worship rather than for debate When it says that Christ is the savior of the Pulpit. A collection of his sermons. and argument and it is only human pride, world, part of the thought at any rate is that Spurgeon, Charles H. Metropolitan Tab­ incidentally, that keeps people debating Christ saves men out of every race and ernacle Pulpit. A collection of his ser­ and arguing about it because deep down kindred and tribe and tongue in all their mons. within us we want to be able to say, "Well, badness and rebellion against God. Doesn't a doctrine like this I saved myself at one point anyway. I did CURE: help us to get beyond the shallow evange­ contribute something." The Christian can't lism of the contemporary church? say that, however. God has humbled him Packer: Yes, there is certainly more to beyond that point, but that humility is part Christianity than the Jesus trip. of his happiness actually. When the Christian knows that he can trust a faithful PA: Banner of Truth, 1986),52.

3. "A Defense of Calvinism," by C. H. Spurgeon, in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiogra­ phy, eds. S. Spurgeon and J. Harrold, Rev ed., vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976: re­ print), 165.

4. J. E. Johnson, 1051 5. Spurgeon, "A Defense of Calvinism," 173.

6. Ibid. 168.

7. Ibid., 168.

8. As cited in Murray, 93.

9. From a sermon cited in,Murray, Ibid., 44.

10. Ibid., 60.

11. Spurgeon, 172.

12. From a sermon cited in Murray, 245.· 13. Spurgeon, 169.

14. Ibid., 162.

15. Ibid., 168.

16. Murray, 168.

17. Spurgeon, 174.

18. Ibid.

19. Murray, 79.

20. Ibid., 81.

21. Murray, 53.

22. spurgeon, 168.

23. Ibid., 164.

24. Murray, 111.

25. Ibid., 68.

26. Spurgeon's Sermons, vol. 6 (Baker, .

1989), p. 241 27. Murray, op. cit., 57.

22.

MAY/JUNE 1992

,

Continued from Fire on Page 10 human determining. The two can unite as little as fIre and water. 14

Warfield's point must not only be seen as a serious blow to the logic of Chafer's dispensational-evangelical "hodgepodge" view ofsanctification, for it applies equally to all of those in today's very popular non­ denominational movements who also re­ ject the confessionalism of Protestant or­ thodoxy and attempt to mix conflicting doctrinal elements into a kind of theologi­ cal stew that is supposed to have a broader­ based appeal for the masses, but instead leads only to doctrinal confusion. And as in Warfield's day, under the quite preten­ tious guise of rejecting "theology" and "head-knowledge," there are many who end up in a shallow sea of error and confu­ sion. U nfortunatel y, this error is still with us and in even greater measure than in Chafer's time. Take for an example the subject of Chafer's book: the Christian life. Here, as in all other aspects of our salvation, either God works in our sanctifi­ cation through meanS1lI1d our part is purel y response and gratitude, or we are the prime mover in sanctification by "yielding," "seeking," "making Christ Lord," and so forth. While the Calvinist insists on active, energetic involvement in this process, ei­ ther God is the one working in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, or sanctifi­ cation is the product of our striving and yielding.

What Chafer has done is to combine two contrary elements. losing both the ac­ tivism of human responsibility as well as the gracious character of sanctification by trying to achieve something "in between" the two.

Chafer insists upon the very untenable distinction between "carnal men and spiri­ tual men," which Warfield notes is based upon Chafer's serious misreading of 1 Corinthians 2:9. According to Warfield, Chafer tells us "that the passage from the one [the carnal] to the other [the spiritual] is at ouroption, whenever we care to 'claim' the higher degree by 'faith.'" Chafercom­ mits the same error as other "victorious Christian life" advocates and it is easy to see that this immediately separates the body of Christ into those "who have it," and "those who don't." This has a divisive

I1l0dernREFORMATION

effect upon the church everywhere such of Calvinism and Arminianism continues teaching has gone. In addition, such to ·be reproduced in our day, with even unbiblical schemes make the human will, higher levels of odd contradictions and ambiguities, demonstrating that the sort of instead of the grace of God, the determin­ ing power in the Christian life. Thus, clear-thinking, biblically sound, confes­ sanctification has little to do with the means sional evangelicalism of the Old Princeton of grace (Word and Sacrament), but is school is in desperate need of being heard instead dermed in terms of" 'engaging' the again.

Spirit (as we engage, say, a carpenter) to do work for us ...and we do explicitly hear of Notes: 'making it possible for God' to do things, 1. Mark A. Noll, The Princeton Theolo­ a quite terrible expression."ls gian: 1812-1921 (Grand Rapids: Baker, The Arminian roots of Chafer's system 1983), p.19 are visible not only when he treats the 2. Ibid., p. 20 subject of the Christian life, but when he 3. See Darryl G. Hart's fine essay, ''The discusses the doctrine of salvation. Chafer Princeton Mind in the Modem W orId and writes that "sinners are not saved until they theComm<:>D SenseofJ. Gresham Machen," The Westminster Theological Journal 46 trust the Saviour, and saints are not victo­ rious until they trust the deli verer. God has (1984), pp. 1-25 made this possible through the cross of his 4. Warfield, "Calvinism" in Calvin and Son. Salvation from the power of sin must Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981),p. be claimed by faith as well" (italics in 362 original). Again notice the separation of 5. Warfield, "A Review of Systematic Christians who are only "saved" from those Theology" reprinted in Selected Shorter who choose to be "victorious." Since it Writings of Warfield, vol. 2, ed. John E. depends upon an act of the will to be Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and "saved" it likewise follows for Chafer that Reformed, 1980), p. 214 Miley's work has it depends upon an act ofthe will to become recently been reprinted by Hendrickson "victorious," too. Here Warfield concludes: PUblishers.

6. Ibid.

No doubt what we are rustled to say of this 7. Ibid. Synergism means "working to­ is that here is the quintessence of gether," here taken in the sense of man and Arminianism. God saves no one-He only God working together (cooperating) in sal­ makes salvation possible for men. Whether vation. This was the position taken by the it becomes actual or not depends absolutely Roman Catholic Church at the Council of on their own act. It is only by their act that it Trent is made possible for God to save them. But 8. Ibid. it is equally true that here is the quintessence 9. Ibid., p. 314 of the Higher Life teaching, which merely 10. Ibid., p. 315 emphasizes that part ofthis Arminian scheme 11. Ibid. which refers to the specific matter of sancti­ 12. Ibid., p. 316 fication (italics in original). 16 13. Ibid., p. 318 14. Warfield, "Review of L. S. Chafer's Thus, "A haunting ambiguity is thrust He That Is Spiritual," in The Princeton upon Mr. Chafer's whole teaching by his Theological Review (Vol.XVII, No.2 hospitable entertainment of contradictory [April 1919], p. 322 ff. systems ofthought."17 For those who have 15. Ibid. p. 322 struggled to become "victorious Chris­ 16. Ibid. tians," and never knew quite when that 17. Ibid. moment would arrive, this confusion and 18. Ibid. ambiguity is no mere academic quarrel, For Further Reading

but a serious practical matter. For Refor­ mation Christians, life in the Spirit, no less Mark A. Noll, The Princeton Theology:

than justification itself, is a gift for all 1812-1921 (Baker). B.B. Warfield, Col­ lectedWorks, 10 volumes (Baker); Studies

believers at the beginning of their Chris­ tian life, not a state of spiritual attainment in Perfectionism (Presbyterian and Re­

reserved for the elite. Chafer's confusion formed).

MAY/JUNE 1992

• 23

I}l()(

Ie /"IIR Ef'( )RivlATI()N

John Bunyan & Arminianism

There was a time when theology was everyone's business, and hymn-writers, poets, and artists of all sorts even got in on the debates. John Newton, who wrote "Amazing Grace," is one such example, along with Isaac Watts ("Joy to the World," "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," "Our God, Our Help in Ages Past"), Augustus Toplady ("Rock of Ages"), and William Cowper. ; John Bunyan (1628-88) was a selfeducated Baptist minister who engaged in theological debates, but ususally with a gentleness and humility uncharacteristic of the age. Nevertheless, Bunyan is best known for his classic of English literature, The Pilgrim's Progress, which was more popular than the works Shakespeare in its day. In fact, for decades after its frrst printing, the fictional account of a seeker on his way to the Celestial City was second in popularity only to the Bible itself.

But what many people today do not seem to realize is that Bunyan wrote the work, at least in part, as a tract against Anninianism. Mr. Worldly Wiseman "savourethonlythedoctrineofthisworld," and it is for this reason that "he always goes to the Town of Morality to church; and partly because he loveth that doctrine best, for it saveth him from the Cross."

The gentleman to whom Mr. Worldly Wiseman refers Pilgrim in this Town of Morality is Mr. Legalism and his son Mr. Civility. Hypocrisy lent his distractions to Pilgrim's journey, as did Pliable, who lis­ tened to everybody's teaching.

But Bunyan's chief foil is Ignorance, who as one source puts it, "was cheerfully consigned to hell by Bunyan for not being a Calvinist." Ignorance replies to Christian's explanation of the gospel with the familiar refrain, "What! Would you have us trust to what Christ in his own

person has done without us? This conceit would loosen the reins of our lust, and tolerate us to live as we list. For what matter how we live, if we may be Justified

by Christ's personal righteousness from all, when we believe it?" Christian re­ sponds, "Ignorance is thy name, and as thy name is, so art thou; even this thy answer demonstrateth what I say. Ignorant thou art of what Justifying Righteousness is, and as ignorant how to secure thy Soul through the Faith of it from the heavy wrath of God."

Continued from Arminius on page 7

work of God or it is partially the work of man. There is no way to "transcend" this reality. On close examination those efforts to transcend Calvinism are at best other forms of Anninianism.

Some try to split the difference be­ tween Anninianism and Calvinism. They say something like, "I want to be 75% Calvinist and 25% Anninian." If they mean that literally, then they are 100% Anninian since giving any determinative place to human will is Anninian. Usually they mean that they want to stress the grace of God and human responsibility. If that is what they mean, then they can be 100% Calvinist for Calvinism does teach both that God's grace is entirely the cause of salvation and that man is responsible be­ fore God to hear and heed the call to repentance and faith.

Today some Calvinists are hesitant to stress their distinctives because they feel that they are such a small minority within Christendom. They must remember that in the providence ofGod, Calvinism has gone through varying periods. In some it has flourished and in some it has declined.

God does not call His people to be success­

ful; He calls ·them to be faithful.

Calvinists should still confidently teach the sovereign grace of God as it was summarized in the Canons of Dolt. They should do so because, according to this author and the witness of Reformed Chris­ tians in church history, Calvinism is both biblical and helpful. It is helpful because in a world that is often foolis hly optimistic and man-centered, Calvinism teaches the seriousness of sin and the glories of the redemptive work of Christ for sinners. In the face of so much religious shallowness, the profundity of Calvinism is needed.

Shallow religion produces shallow Chris­ tian living. The depths of God's grace should lead Christians to live gratefully, humbly ,joyfully and carefully before God. Today the church of Jesus Christ does not need less Calvinism. Rather it needs to recover a forceful and faithful commit­ ment to the God-centered biblical mes­ sage.

(Originally printed in Christian Renewal, 1988--used by permission).

-,

between Calvinists and Anninians are im­ portant precisely for the work that all want to do for Christ What is the work that needs to be done and how will it be done?

The answers to those questions depend very much on whether man has a free will or not. Does one seek to entertain and move the emotions and will of men whose salvation is ultimately in their own hands?

Or does one present the claims of God as clearly as possible while recognizing that ultimately fruit comes only from the Holy Spirit? Those kinds of concerns will affect the ways in which Christians worship and .witness and serve and live.

Some argue that the differences be­ tween Calvinism and Anninianism are unimportant because the theological terms of the controversy were wrong or are now outmoded. They argue that just as progress has been made in so many fields, so theo­ logical progress has transcended the old controversies. This claim may be an attrac­ tive one until it is examined closely. On close examination such a claim proves to be false. Either salvation is entirely the 24 .

MAY/JUNE 1992

-selections takenfromThe Harvard C/as­ sics edition (NY: P.F. Collier & Son Corporation).

nlo(/erIlREFORl\1ATION

Theology at a glance...

Issue

Calvinism

ORIGINAL SIN

HUMAN WILL

/

'.

total depravity and guilt inherited from Adam in bondage to sin

GRACE OF GOD

common grace given to all; saving grace given to the elect

PREDESTINATION

rooted in God's decree

REGENERATION ATONEMENT

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT

ORDER OF SALVATION

monergistic Christ's death is a substitutionary penal sacrifice intended only for the elect by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God election, predestination, union w/Christ, calling, regeneration

faith, repentance, justification

Arminianism weakness inherited from Adam free to do spiritual good enabling grace given to all; saving grace given to those who believe rooted in God's foreknowledge

synergistic Christ's death is a sacrifice that God benevolently accepted in place of a penalty

intended for all

by the power of the HoIy Spirit in response to the the will of the sinner calling, faith, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, glorification

sanctification, glorification

PERSEVERANCE

perseverance of all the elect by God's grace

perseverance dependent upon obedience

Information on this chart taken from the Chronological 6- Background Charts ofChurch History

Published by Academie Books/Zondervan 1986