Home

Email

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE

OR CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM

We have before us a subject that has had immense bearing on the Church of Christ throughout the world, it is a subject of no little controversy, and to deal with it thoroughly we would need several session, so what we are about to say is a potted history.

 The doctrines of Grace versus the doctrines of Arminianism, this is an important topic because it defines our theological position, showing whether we stand for the true Gospel, or for another Gospel, if for another Gospel then we are placing ourselves in a very dangerous position. Few today realise the danger that is faced by accepting and following false doctrine, yet there are millions throughout the world, who love the Lord Jesus, yet have follow in the path of false teachers. Today the most popular churches and centres of worship are built upon false doctrine.

 In order to have some understanding of this battle we will take a brief look at some biographical details of the main characters as well as the doctrines involved and the impact they have or could have had, we will not be able to consider all points, but I hope there will be sufficient material in this lecture to encourage further and deeper study. We start by going to the root of the problem, which has its origins in the 4^th century.

 THE FOURTH CENTURY

We begin our study with a man by the name of Morgan, a British monk, a man of original thought and a desire for fame. This man, like many others was a fortune hunter, seeing the city of Rome as the place to make it; He arrived in Rome about 380. His place of birth has been variously placed as being Scotland, Ireland and Wales, but with a name like Morgan, I think Wales is the favourite. The name Morgan means ‘Sea born’ the Greek equivalent is ‘Pelagius’. It is from this name that the heresy he taught takes its name Pelagianism.

 The chief points of his doctrine were:

1: The denial of original sin.

2: The idea that man is able to turn to God and serve Him without the need of divine grace.

The great opponent of this heresy was Augustine of Hippo, a man who is seen by many as being the greatest thinker in Christianity of that day. He was a man not unused to battles for the faith, having defended Christianity against assaults by the Manichees, this was dualistic religious movement founded in the 3^rd century by an man named, Mani, hence the name Manachaism. Incorporating elements of most religious systems, in a sense a New Age religion a Gnostic religion!

 Augustine was no stranger to controversy or battle. Augustine took issue with the doctrines of Pelgius, because of their denial of biblical truth. The battle was not without its moments, for it was not only fought verbally in the confines of a council meeting, but it spilt out onto the streets, were it turned violent. Pelagius and his colleague were banished from Rome, because of the violence they stirred up. In 418 they were condemned by the bishop of Rome Zosimus. At the Council of Carthage they were even more strongly condemned, as indeed were their doctrines at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Despite this condemnation, the Pelagian doctrines found support at home here in Britain, the British people being proud of their countryman.

It is interesting to note, that Pelagius, never personally propagated his teaching in Britain, however his doctrines were accepted by the majority, much to the dismay of the orthodox believers and clergy. Despite the attempts of this godly remnant to teach the truth, their influence was small. In desperation they sent for help to the Gallican Church. The church in Gaul, having discussed the matter at length in the Council of Troyes, sent two bishops to Britain, Germanius and Lupus. They arrived in 429 and by their eloquent teaching persuaded the British Church that Pelagianism was heretical. In order to confirm the truth, a Council was convened at Verulam, (St Albans) at which the Orthodox party, were victorious.

 Mr Morgan and his doctrines were defeated and the truth prevailed, well at least for a time, soon what we called the Dark Ages fell upon Europe and Britain alike, and many great battles for truth were fought, we have already mentioned Wickliffe. We move forward to the time of John Calvin, today he is mostly known in church circles because of the doctrine that carries his name, Calvinism. However, Calvin’s main battle was an attempt, to return to church to its former doctrinal and practical wholesomeness. But not only that he sought to apply the law of the church to the state, and when given the opportunity, as he and his colleague Farrel were, moved against vice, civic transgressions, seeking to remove all traces of moral sores and disease from the body politic, often having the culprits public ally punished. It was this, strict applications of doctrine, possibly more than anything else that lead to the resurgence of Pelagianism.

 THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

In the early part of the 16^th century, a cooper, by the name of Chauvin, lived in a town called in English ‘Bishop’s Bridge’ in Picardy Northern France. He had a son called Gerard, who was an apostolic notary, and secretary to the bishop. He had married a girl named Jean Lefranc, they had three sons and two daughters, the second son was named Jean, later he assumed the Latinised form of the name Johannes Calvinus, or John Calvin in English, and he was born in the year 1509. He was a shy child; always seeking the shadows, rather than the limelight, he said of himself “I began to seek some secluded corner where I might be withdrawn form public view”. Despite his desire to live a quite secluded life, God led him to a very public life, one of controversy and true biblical reform.

 At the age of 12, a chaplaincy became vacant in a small church; John’s father sought the help of the bishop to bestow on John the benefice. On 21^st May 1521, aged 12, John was appointed chaplain of that church, and received the Roman tonsure. It was a common practice in those days to grant such ecclesiastic offices on children. He studied theology at Paris and law at Orleans; it was here that he came under the influence of Protestants. In October 1533, he settled for a while in Paris, here an old friend Nicholas Cop had just been elected Rector of the University. He turned to Calvin for help in preparing a lecture that he had to give, on the Feast of all Saints, the lecture defended the views of the Reformers, in particular the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. As a result, Cop was forced to leave Paris. It was about this time that Calvin underwent a conversion experience, which he attributes to Divine intervention. On the 4^th May 1534, he resigned his Chaplainry at Noyon. He felt called to restore the church to its original purity.

 He was forced to leave Paris, because of the rising feelings against Protestantism and settled in Basel, in 1536 he published his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”. In 1536, on a visit to Geneva, he was asked to help William Farrell organize the Reformation there, and was duly appointed preacher and professor of theology. The result was their expulsion from the city, only to be welcomed back three years later.

 Calvin’s theology was based very much on Luther’s and the other reformers, laying great emphasis on the sovereignty of God, on the fall and depraved nature of man and Redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ.

 THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

Arminianism was in the first instance a revolt against Calvinism, there were signs of dissent from Calvinism, before Jacobus Arminius, a theologian of the Dutch Reformed Church raise his banner against it. He had been a student of Bezer, who was a superlapsarian. The question is what is a superlapsarian? Superlapsarians are those who say that God elected a people before the fall of Adam in eternity that is elected a people unto salvation. Infralapsarianism is that God elected a people from the sinful human race after the fall of Adam. Starting to defend the superlapsarian doctrine he was led by his studies to reject it. In 1603 he became a professor a Leyden, and came into conflict with his colleague Gamerius who was a strong superlapsarian, Arminius died in 1609, but not before he had set out his theological system.

 The Arminian Creed was set out in the Remonstrance, that is, a formal representation addressed in 1610 to the States of Holland and West Friesland, it comprised of five articles this was met by a counter remonstrance by the Calvinists. The controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians was brought to a head at the Synod of Dort in 1618.

 Delegates from England were sent by the Archbishop of Canterbury it was at this Synod that Arminianism was rejected and a moderate form of Calvinism, which is sublapsarian or infralapsarian, was sanctioned. The issues involved seriously affected the Christians concept of God of sin and of salvation. The difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is not primarily one of emphasis but of content, one proclaims a God which saves, which is Calvinism, and the other speaks of a God that enables man to save himself, this is Arminianism. Calvinism presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity, in the salvation of sinners, the Father elects the Son Redeems and the Holy Spirit effectively applies salvation to the elect.

 Arminianism on the other hand sees all mankind as being objects of redemption, all who hear the Gospel are called and those who respond and receive the Gospel are the elect. Arminianism denies that any man's salvation can be certain and sure by any of these acts. Calvinism makes salvation depend on the Sovereign work and free grace of God whereas Arminianism makes salvation depend the work and freewill of man. Calvinism regards faith as part of Gods gift of salvation and Arminianism as mans own contribution. Calvinism gifts all the glory of saving sinners to God, whilst Arminianism divides the praise between God and himself, that God built the machinery for salvation and man who by believing got the machine going.

The five points in the Arminian remonstrance were:-

1: That the elect were actually those who believed the Gospel.

2: That Christ died to make it possible for sinners to be saved

3: That Man is able of his own freewill to believe the Gospel of not.

4: That Man is able to resist the inward call of the spirit.

5: Those who believe and are truly saved can loose their salvation, by failing to keep up their faith.

 To counter this the followers of Calvinism countered by publishing their own Remonstrance known today in summary as the five points of Calvinism, popularised in the acrostic TULIP

Total Depravity,

Unconditional Election,

Limited Atonement,

Irresistible Grace,

Perseverance of the saints.

 Despite the fact that twice this doctrine has been shown to be erroneous, it will not lie down and die, in the 17^th century is again raised its head.

 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CONTROVERSY:

 In the 18th century there was a great controversy between these two positions, the main opponents being Charles Wesley and John Whitefield. The results of this conflict have left a legacy of confusion and error in the Church, resulting in the ecumenical movement, the charismatic movement, and its excesses, the new evangelical movement, multifaith worship etc.

  George Whitefield was born in Gloucester in 1714, George Whitefield was a man destined to become one of the greatest Christian leaders of the 18^th century, although somewhat over shadowed in England by John Wesley. He was the son of a widow who kept an inn in the city. He went to Pembroke-college Oxford as servitor student that is an undergraduate student who performs menial duties in exchange for assistance funding from the college.  It was here at college that he met and befriended Charles Wesley. After graduation in 1736, but still very youthful but of genuine piety, a quality that came to the attention of the bishop of Gloucester who ordained him before the canonically accepted age. He was a close friend of Wesley, a friendship that eventually became very strained as we shall shortly see. Like Wesley, Whitfield was a member of the holy club that met at Oxford, a group that became known as Methodists.

 His preaching was par excellence, attracting upwards of 20,000 in the open air, the effect of his preaching was to bring the hearers to tears of repentance. Where his power lay, was not in his language or even logic, as many of his published show nothing remarkable. His power lay not within himself, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. He was a sound Calvinistic, but this was not reflected fully in his preaching. It was in this major point of doctrine that he differed from his friend and colleague, John Wesley, who was an Arminian, as we will shortly see; it was this difference that brought about the estrangement of their friendship.

 On March 11^th 1741 George Whitfield arrived at Falmouth from America and to his amazement he found himself rather unpopular, the congregations had dwindled and his printer refused to print any more of his work. Others wrote to him saying that God would destroy him in a fortnight, and that his fall would be as great as Peters, instead of having thousands attend his preachers scarcely one of his spiritual children came to see him. On Kennington Common only 100 came to hear him. Why had he become so unpopular? He thought it was because of two well meant but ill judged letters he had written against two favourites in England at the time. The first was written against `The whole duty of Man' and Arminian book and against Archbishop Tillotson, whom Whitefield declared knew no more about religion that did Mohammad. He condemned both the book and the Bishop for their Arminianism and he thought because of these letters the world was angry with him.

 The fact of his unpopularity was due to Wesley, before Whitfield left England for America, Wesley had received a letter charging him with not preaching the Gospel because he did not preach the doctrine of election. Wesley responded by threatening to drive Calvin out of Bristol. Whitfield had done his best to persuade Wesley not to preach against that doctrine although he believed it never preached in favour of it, in case a spilt should be caused between them, this meant of course that Whitefield a staunch Calvinist, was failing in his ministry, by not preaching the whole counsel of God, a fact that we need to keep in mind. Wesley appealed to God for guidance by drawing lots at the same time he was witnessing severe emotional effects among his hearers. He was thoroughly convinced that these effects were the sign of divine approval of his ministry, Charismatic effects. Therefore he asked God to make it clear whether he should preach against predestination by bringing about a recurrence of these effects. When he next spoke the emotional effects occurred again and along with the lot that said preach and print, he felt divinely authorized to thrust this divisive subject into the revival movement. So Wesley preached and Whitfield pleaded with him not to print his sermon, Wesley listened, and did not print it until after Whitfield had sailed to America. Whitfield then was forced into a corner and reluctantly wrote a reply to the sermon from Bethesda in Georgia Dec 24th. 1740.

 Wesley told his followers that he had published his sermon under divine direction, and those who believed this had therefore to believe that his doctrine was correct, for God would not surely allow Wesley to publish error. So Whitfield in order to get people to listen to him and his arguments had to show that Wesley had not been divinely instructed either to preach or publish this sermon. He therefore told how Wesley had supposedly received this divine guidance and how he had neglected of enquire of God in the first place as the whether the doctrine was true.

 In order to support his evidence Whitfield told how on the morning he sailed from Deal to Gibraltar, Mr. Wesley arrived from Georgia. Now that it was Wesley’s duty to go and see Whitfield before he sailed, but instead he went to London and left a letter for Whitfield, in the letter he write this "When I saw God by the wind which was carrying you out and brought me in I asked counsel of God, His answer you have enclosed.” Enclosed was a piece of paper on which was written the words "Let him return to London." When Whitfield received the note he was surprised, here was a good man, he says, telling me that he had cast a lot telling me that God would have me return to London, on the other hand I knew my was to Georgia, taking leave of London and could not justly leave the soldiers who had been committed to my charge. I betook myself and a friend to prayer, it was whilst praying that the passage 1Kings ch.13 impressed itself on him. This was the story of the prophet who was slain by a Lion for turning back contrary to divine directions at the word of another Prophet. So Whitfield continued his voyage, and Wesley afterward acknowledged that God had given him a wrong lot then, although he had never given him a wrong one before. To say the very least that is highly questionable theology if not down right blasphemous, for it suggests that God made a serious mistake! Whitfield replied that God had given Wesley a wrong Lot, because Wesley had tempted God in drawing lots.

 Wesley’s sermon against predestination, was basically a tirade against the doctrine of reprobation, it is easy to get people incensed against the doctrine of predestination, by arousing people prejudice against the idea of predestinating people to hell. For instance Wesley declared that predestination consigns thousands of millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault on their part to everlasting burnings. Whitfield replied, `But who ever asserted that thousands of millions of men without any preceding offence or fault of theirs were doomed to everlasting burning. Do not they who believe God's dooming men to everlasting burnings also believe that God looked on them as men fallen in Adam? And that the decree that ordained the punishment, first regarded the crime by which it was deserved? How then are they doomed without any preceding fault?

 Wesley's great error was to apply his own fallible finite logic to the infinite wisdom of God. He took the doctrine of election which the Bible clearly teaches, and argues that it makes all preaching vain, removes motive for holiness and destroys the comfort of religion destroys zeal for good works and makes the Gospel unnecessary to all sorts of men. He set up his understanding and logic against the infinite wisdom and logic of God. Howell Harris, who was very fond of the Wesley’s, wrote to John Wesley, saying "Dear Bro, As you are a public person you grieve by your opposition what your people feel, this his electing love, and all arises from the prejudices of education, books companions and ye relics of the old dogmas, and the remains of your carnal reason." Gods infallible Word a product of His infinite wisdom cannot be plumbed by our finite and fallible minds and logic, This was the great error of Wesley, it is the error of all those who do not go along with the doctrines of Grace, Christians must learn, indeed humble themselves to be taught of God, rather than leaning to their own understanding.

 Julia Wedgwood, who heard the sermon that Wesley preached made this telling comment “There is in it something of that provoking glibness with which young or half cultivated people settle in a few sentences questions that have exercised the deepest minds ever since the dawn of speculation. Now the fact is Wesley was neither young or uncultivated but that incapacity for seeing difficulties, which is characteristic of an early state of culture, was a part of his nature. In this sermon he does not once confront the difficulties, which must be accepted by anyone who from his point of view should reject predestination. He does not see that if the design of Christ was to save all the result is that He only saves some His work was a failure. It is evident that of all the books written of this subject, that Wesley had nor read a single word. He had simply taken it for granted that the opinions he had set himself to confute, could only be held by fools.” Julia Wedgwood, to explain that the power and influence of the sermon, was not to be found in the Theological arguments but in the enthusiasm, exuberance and rhetoric of the preaching, emphasising his influence as a preacher.

 We have mentioned this sermon, not only because it was the one that was responsible for the ensuing problem between Whitfield and Wesley, but also for the fact it was this sermon that was the actual beginning of his own movement with all the results that were to flow from it, including the modern charismatic movement. Whitfield however continued to appeal for peace and to promote Wesley’s prominence. But with the prospect of dissension his life became clouded with sorrow. Wesley increasingly separated from him, growing more and more domineering and autocratic, he brought widespread dissension into the revival, peace and happiness gave way to strife. Whitfield returned to America, where he received a letter from Wesley, trying to involve him in further dispute. Whitfield replied from Savannah, In his letter writes he “Why then should we dispute, when there is no probability of convincing, will it not in the end destroy brotherly love, how glad would the enemies of the Lord be to see us divided. I have lately read the life of Luther, and think it in nowise to his honour that the last part of his life was disputing with Zwingle and others. Who in all probability loved the Lord Jesus, not withstanding they might differ with him in no other points. I pray to God that the more you judge me the more I may love you and learn to desire no ones approbation, but that of my Lord and master Jesus Christ.” Wesley went on to assert that people, who rejected the doctrine of election, had greater grounds of assurance of salvation, than did those who had accepted it. Whitfield’s response to this was “What could it signify to a mans whose conscience is thoroughly awakened and who is warned in good earnest to seek deliverance from the wrath to come. Though he should be assured that all his past sins be forgiven, that he now a child of God, if not withstanding this he may here after become a child of the Devil and be cast into hell at last. Could such an assurance yield any solid lasting comfort to a person convinced of the corruption and treachery of his own heart and of the malice, subtly and power of Satan, no, that which alone deserves the of a full assurance of faith is such an assurance that emboldens the believer under the sense of his interest in distinguishing love to give the challenge to all his adversaries, whether men or devils.” Wesley was for war, Whitefield was for peace.

 It seems a great tragedy that in the time of revival Wesley should have forced a division between the two of them it was not the result of him studying the Bible and coming to the conclusion that false doctrine was being preached. But rather on the casting of a Lot and the emotional happenings at his meetings, neither of which could be supported by God’s Word. By this action Wesley showed that whatever he may have taught on the sufficiency of Scripture he did not believe in that sufficiency when it came to guidance, thus it was by extra biblical means he lead people by his example, to believe that God speaks and guides, not only by His Word but also in and by other ways as well, so opening the door to all the fanaticism that arose from his second blessing teaching on perfectionism.

 Calvinism teaches the Sovereignty of God, and only such that He has determined all things to the purpose of His will, can challenged the unbeliever to give up his unrighteous ideas ungodly philosophies and sinful ways, Arminianism cannot do this.  Did God then allow Wesley to preach against predestination and so bring discord into the revival, to castigate Whitfield for neglecting to preach it? If Whitfield had preached election and predestination and thoroughly routed the Arminianism of Wesley, I such we might not have seen the rise of some of the 19^th century movements, such as the Tractarian movement that arose in the Anglican church. I suggest also that Calvinism would have challenged Darwin’s right to interpret his discoveries according to his own presupposition, Calvinism would have stood up and said, thank you Mr Darwin for your work and the facts you have discovered, but these facts must be interpreted in the light of Gods revelation. As it was the Church had been so weakened by the Arminian teachings, it sought to find ways by which to compromise with his worldly ideas. Nothing happens by chance, all things happen according to the Sovereign and prediterminate will of God, for He alone knows the meaning and purpose of all things, and He has given us a revelation of His will and purpose the true interpretation and meaning of all things in the Bible.

 Whitfield erred because of the overwhelming desire to keep peace and unity was put before the glory of God, he should have preached the whole counsel of God and left the consequence of this to God, after all the excuse that Wesley gave for preaching against predestination was that he should preach the whole counsel of God. Only Calvinism could have erected a formidable defence against the advances of Romanism, Arminianism cannot do so. It is true Whitfield wrote letters expressing the truth of Calvinism, but he would have been far better had he openly and publicly preached the great truths of election and predestination and effectively stopped the advance of Wesley’s Arminianism.

 There is nothing that the Armininians dislike more, than these two great doctrines, for they undermine the false idea of mans free will, they argue that these doctrines destroy mans responsibility. The doctrine of election and predestination is nothing more than to say, that all things in history are not governed by chance but by the sovereign will and determined purpose of God, the Arminian ideas of responsibility and freewill reject this. This therefore means that chance is a major ingredient of Arminianism. In Arminianism, God can only make it possible for man to be saved. Man must of his own freewill choose to accept this way of being saved. Man therefore has the power to resist the will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit; it is therefore man not God who decides what the future will be and who will be in heaven and who not. This means that God is confronted by something outside of Himself that determines what He should do. He has no idea what His creatures may or may not do, it is only when they have acted that He is able to react, so instead of God governing and determining and ruling over all, His creature by their freewill rule over Him, govern and determine His actions. So man limits God, God is therefore surrounded by uncertainty, because He does not know what His creatures will do next.

 The implications of this are not worth considering, for the consequences are frightening. Arminian reduces God to no more than being an expert player in the game of life and no more. With God thus reduced to the expert, man is therefore able to turn Him for advice, advice that his own freewill allows him to accept or reject. So in Arminianism as with Romanism God is only an expert, whose advice may or may not be accepted. Thus God is reduced to the level of Buddha, Allah or other such pagan deities. The result of this idea is the mess we are in today, with ecumenism, multifaith services etc. with each person being able to choose the way of salvation that suits their own ideas. Arminianism leads inevitable to this position, for in the Arminian thought God is not sovereign.

 Let us therefore learn from Whitfield’s great mistake and take the truth of the doctrines of Sovereign grace to a needy and dying world, for it is these truths that can and will save souls, save the nation and save the church. Do not be afraid of these truths shout them from the housetops, for our salvation is all of Grace. Calvinism takes the biblical doctrine of God and man seriously, total depravity and mans inability expresses mans hostility to God and his helplessness in salvation. Election teaches that God governs all things and not even salvation is left to chance. The other three points teach, that God actually save sinners, that man in no way saves himself it is all of grace, Amen

                                                                                                                       Peter J Gadsden

RETURN TO ARTICLES