Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch theologian from the end of the sixteenth century. His remarks in a paper published after his death were highly critical of certain aspects of what was becoming the Calvinist doctrines in the Dutch Reformation. The Synod of Dordt was convened to deal with the Arminian problem, and the resultant Canons of Dordt contain the Five points of Calvinism. Interestingly enough, Arminius’ document is called the Five Articles of the Remonstrants. Since I plan to discuss the full Canons of Dordt in the future, this particular discussion will center on Arminius’ work, and the direct Calvinist rebuttal, without diving into the full set of doctrines for either side.
While it would be perhaps easy to label Arminius a heretic, Luther thought it important that there be a distinction between being in error over a particular doctrine and being a heretic. Even if, as in the case of Arminius, you follow his error to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion is a heresy, this is not the same as being a heretic. This distinction is thought to be very important. At the end of the discussion, I will come back to this point so as to come as close to an ecumenical position as can be made.
Having said that, the Synod of Dordt declared the Five Articles of Remonstrance heretical. Remember first, that the Remonstrants were reacting to the Calvinist doctrines of the Belgic Confession. Therefore, they already had the Calvinists in a foul mood by complaining. Secondly, this is all happening in the shadow of Trent, which occurred fifty years prior to 1610, when these Articles were published. Therefore, many of the Reformers were clearly not in the mood to give ground back to Rome on any issue. And so, without further elaboration, let’s discuss the specifics.
Article 1That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
Nice. At first glance, this doesn’t look that bad. But if you will remember the recent post that I made about “only” being an important word, look where that word is importantly missing from this article. First, there are conditions applied here. Whereas Calvin would say shall believe only, Arminius says believe and persevere in faith. This is a dangerous precipice on which he has moved. To persevere implies activity or work on the part of the individual. While Calvin talks about perseverance of the saints in that Jesus will persevere in the shepherding of His flock, Arminius has turned this into individual humans persevering in their faith. In other words, although he states that through grace we receive faith, it is by our own works that we maintain it.
Article 2That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
More of the same. We need to address the Article first and then 1 John 2:2. Arminius specifically states that Christ died for every man. This means that the resurrection is not sufficient for salvation for some men. He requires a work from man. He has turned belief and faith into a work, rather than a gift of grace received from the Holy Spirit. Arminius actually contradicts himself from the first article. The theological difference between Jesus having died for all men, but it wasn’t effective for some, and Jesus having died for His elect, and it was completely effective for them all, is huge. Can you really worship a god who is ineffective in achieving his ends? Or rather, do you believe that God accomplished exactly what He set out to accomplish?
1 John 2:2 is a huge passage. When reading a verse that seems to say something out of step with the rest of the gospel, a good rule is to go back and put the verse back into context. Look instead at the first paragraph of 1 John 2. This looks a little different when you read the next four verses. In the context of the whole letter, it is clear that there are schisms within the early church that John is addressing. If Salvation was for everyone, much of the rest of this letter would not make any sense. It makes far better sense that the phrase the sins of the whole world means that these Christians to whom John is writing are not the only Christians for whom the resurrection was effective. The Christians in the whole world, both of that time and of all times, are the beneficiaries of the propitiation earned by the resurrection. This is every much as vast and sweeping a statement in terms of numbers and future without compromising the rest of the letter or the Gospel. Remember, any sentence removed from context is vulnerable to manipulation of its meaning. This sentence makes perfect sense within its context in 1 John without attempting to apply meaning other than that which John intended.
Article 3That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
This one is interesting. This is the idea of prevenient grace that you may hear about. More on this is coming in the next article. The Romans talk about the same thing in a slightly different way. What is meant here is that fallen man needs a push. The grace that saves sort of cleans the slate for you, but then you are on your own for the rest of your life. So, we need Christ to teach us what is good, but after we are born again, we know what is right. What this does is say that the curse of Adam is lifted in terms of the condition of sin, and yet we still suffer the wage of sin at death. It is a truly remarkable contradiction for which no explanation is offered. The only workable solution is that perfection is required to avoid death, but not for salvation. I’m not finding any passages that make that work.
Article 4That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7 and elsewhere in many places.
This article that discusses prevenient grace again explicitly denies the doctrine of irresistible grace. But that is logical to Arminius, isn’t it? If you do not believe that Romans 3:1-20 means that man’s condition is completely hopeless without Jesus, and do believe that everyone is the beneficiary of the resurrection, then it makes sense that people have to be able to say NO to God. This is exactly backwards from Calvin. Calvin thinks that God sees the world as a vast graveyard, and then God stoops down and saves a lot of us. Arminius thinks that God saves everyone, but we have the ability to turn our backs on God. Which God sounds worthy of worship to you: God who does exactly what He sets out to do and is completely effective doing it, or god who tries to save everyone, but many humans are able to resist and defy him? This is a Holiness of God problem. Surely, Arminius had a higher view of God that this.
Article 5That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.
Clearly John 10:28 is a difficult passage for Arminius. He tries to explain it away. Essentially, he has to do great violence to the verse in order to make his theology fit. A rule of thumb: theology flows out from the text; theology is not imposed upon the text. Arminius is determined to elevate man to the level of God, with just a little hand up from God.
This is what we are being sold in the church today. Whenever we are asked to make a decision for God, we are being asked an Arminian question. Calvin and Luther wouldn’t ask for altar calls because altar calls flow from either Arminian or, worse, Pelagian theology. The style of worship is a necessary outflow from theology and doctrine. When we change the way we worship, we are signaling a change in doctrine. That should always get our attention.
Is Arminius a heretic? He clearly errs. The similarities to Pelagius are striking. But Arminius maintains a small semblance of grace in his theology. He at least requires Christ to wipe the slate of sin clean for us. We are at liberty to muck it up again. Finally, Arminius runs head long into John 10:28, by his own admission, and just tosses out the verse. It is a difficult call, but many Calvinists would call many Arminians brothers in Christ. That will break the tie for now. In the end, it will not be us who decides. We are not, after all, given the ministry of fruit inspection.
No comments:
Post a Comment