History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2024) |
The history of the Calvinist–Arminian debate begins in early 17th century in the Netherlands with a
Theological background
Augustine and Pelagius
In response to Pelagius, Augustine adopted a theological system that included not only original sin (which Pelagius denied), but also a form of predestination.[2] Some authors maintain that Augustine taught the doctrines of limited atonement[3] and of irresistible grace,[4] later associated with classic Calvinism; however, others insist that Augustine's writings conflict with these doctrines.[2][5] Critics maintain that part of Augustine's philosophy might have stemmed from his expertise in Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Manichaeism, which maintained a high view of a man's spirit and low view of a man's body.[6] Against the Pelagian notion that man can do everything right, he taught that man could do little right. Thus, he reasoned, man cannot even accept the offer of salvation — it must be God who chooses for himself individuals to bring to salvation.
A group of Italian bishops, led by Julian, defended the Pelagian view against the Augustinian concept of predestination but was rejected by the
Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism
After the death of Augustine, a more moderate form of Pelagianism persisted, which claimed that man's faith was an act of free will unassisted by previous internal grace. The Second Council of Orange (529)[7] was convened to address whether this moderate form of semi-Pelagianism could be affirmed, or if the doctrines of Augustine were to be affirmed.
The determination of the Council could be considered "semi-Augustinian". However, it also denied strict predestination, stating, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema." The document received papal sanction.
Middle Ages
Augustine's teaching on
- Infusion of grace (infusio gratiae) – God infuses grace into the human soul – the Christian now has faith and, with it, the ability to do good – this step is entirely God's work and is not done by man, and once a man has faith, he can never entirely lose it – however, faith alone is not enough for salvation;
- Faith formed by charity (fides caritate formata) – with man's free will restored, man must now do his best to do good works in order to have a faith formed by charity; and then;
- Condign merit (meritum de condigno) – God then judges and awards eternal life on the basis of these good works which Aquinas called man's condign merit.
Aquinas believed that by this system, he had reconciled
A second stream of medieval thought, commonly referred to as the Ockhamists after William of Ockham and also including Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel rejected Aquinas’ system as destroying man's free will. The Ockhamists argued that if a man loved God simply because of "infused grace", then man did not love God freely. They argued that before a man received an infusion of grace, man must do his best in a state of nature (i.e. based on man's reason and inborn moral sense). They argued that just as God awards eternal life on the basis of man's condign merit for doing his best to do good works after receiving faith as a gift from God, so too, the original infusion of grace was given to man on the basis of "congruent merit", a reward for man's doing his best in a state of nature. (Unlike condign merit, which is fully deserved by man, congruent merit is not fully deserved, and includes a measure of grace on God's part. Congruent merit is therefore also sometimes called "semimerit". According to the Ockhamists, a gracious God awards an individual with congruent merit when he or she does the best that he or she is able to do.)
Aquinas’ followers, commonly referred to as the
However, since the Catholic Church's rejection of
Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam
|
Luther continued to defend these views. In 1520,
Luther responded with his De Servo Arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will) (1525) in which he argued that man was not free to do good. Rather, man's fallen nature is in bondage to sin and to Satan and man can only do evil. The only way an individual can be saved is if God freely chooses to give that person the gift of faith. Luther's position in On the Bondage of the Will became the position adopted by the Protestant movement.
Jacobus Arminius and the Synod of Dort
Jacobus Arminius enrolled at Leiden University, and after five years of education traveled in the early 1580s to study in Geneva. Theodore Beza was the chairman of theology at the university there. Beza later defended Arminius by saying "let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope the best of him in every respect…"[15] In late 1587, at the age of 28, Arminius returned to Amsterdam to fulfill his desire to be a pastor.
Arminius' entry into the
When Arminius received his doctorate and professorship of theology at Leiden in 1603, the debate over Calvinism came back to life. Conflicts over predestination had appeared early in the Dutch Reformed Church, but "these had been of a local nature, occurring between two fellow ministers, for instance, but since the appointment of Jacobus Arminius as a professor at Leyden University (1603) the strife had moved to the place where the education of future ministers took place."[18]
Arminius taught that
Arminius and his followers believed that a national synod should confer, to win tolerance for their views. His opponents in the Dutch Reformed Church maintained the authority of local synods and denied the necessity of a national convention. When the States of Holland called together the parties, Arminius's opponents, led by his colleague Franciscus Gomarus, accused him not only of the teaching of the doctrines characteristic of Arminianism as it would become (see below), but also of errors on the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, and works salvation. These charges Arminius denied, citing agreement with both Calvin and Scripture.[20]
Arminius was acquitted of any doctrinal error. He then accepted an invitation to a "friendly conference" with Gomarus[21] but his health caused the conference to end prematurely. Two months later, on 19 October 1609, Jacobus Arminius died.
The Remonstrants and Calvinist reaction
After the death of Arminius, the Hague court chaplain, Johannes Wtenbogaert, one of the professor's followers "who dogmatically and theologically was on one line with him, but who in the field of Church politics was a much more radical supporter of state influence championed his cause".[18] This was seen as a betrayal on Gomarus' side, for earlier in his career (as a minister of Utrecht) Wtenbogaert "had resisted state influence with all his might".[18]
Gradually Arminian-minded candidates for ordination into the ministry ran into ever greater difficulties. In their classes examinations, not only was subscription to the Dutch Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism demanded (which most were willing to do), "but they were asked questions that were formulated in such a way that ambiguous answers were no longer possible."[18]
In reaction to this growing pressure Wtenbogaert drew up a petition to the State General, called a Remonstrance in late 1609, early 1610. The "Remonstrants" highlighted five aspects of their theology: (1) election was conditional on foreseen faith; (2) Christ's atonement was unlimited in extent; (3) total depravity; (4) prevenient and resistible grace; and (5) necessity of perseverance and the possibility of apostasy. The Remonstrants first expressed an uncertainty about the possibility of apostasy.[22] They removed it latter in the document they presented officially at the Synod of Dort, The Opinion of The Remonstrants (1618), holding to conditional preservation of the saints.[23]
_-_Johan_van_Oldenbarnevelt.jpg)
Forty-four ministers (mostly from the province of Holland) signed onto the Remonstrance, and on 14 January 1610 it was submitted to the Grand Pensionary, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. (Due to this document the followers of Arminius became known as Remonstrants.) Oldenbarnevelt held onto the Remonstrance for an unusually long period and it was not until June 1610 that it was submitted in an altered form to the States of Holland. "The States sent the five articles to all classes, forbidding them to go 'higher' in their examinations of ordinands than what was expressed in the articles. Needless to say, most classes did not take the slightest notice of this prohibition."[18]
In another attempt to avoid a provincial synod, the States held The Hague Conference which lasted from 11 March to 20 May 1611 (with intermissions). It was at this conference that the delegates of Arminius' opponents submitted a response to the Remonstrance, called the Counter-Remonstrance (from which the name Contra- or Counter-Remonstrants was given them).
Leading influences among Arminius' followers (now called
Behind the theological debate lay a political one between
Numerous historians hold that many of the civic officials that sided with the Remonstrants did so because of their shared position of State supremacy over the Church and not because of other doctrinal ideas, saying "the alliance between the regents and the Remonstrants during the years of the Truce is merely a coalition suited to the occasion, not the result of principal agreement...the magistracy of Delft was Counter-Remonstrant-minded, but in the States of Holland the city supported Oldenbarnevelt's policy regarding the convocation of a National Synod [to avoid calling one]. Incidentally, suspectedly Calvinistic opinions went together in Oldenbarnevelt's person."[18]
In the years after Arminius' death, Maurice became convinced that Oldenbarnevelt (and by association, Arminians) had strong Catholic sympathies and were working to deliver Holland to Spain. As insurance, Maurice and his militia systematically and forcibly replaced Remonstrant magistrates with Calvinist ones.[24] Thus, when the State General called for a synod in 1618, its outcome was predetermined. Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius were arrested, and the synod, held at Dordrecht (Dort), was convened.
This Synod of Dort included Calvinist representatives from Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and France, though Arminians were denied acceptance. Three Arminian delegates from Utrecht managed to gain seats, but were soon forcibly ejected and replaced with Calvinist alternates.[25]
The Synod was a six versus six style of representation that lasted over six months with 154 meetings. The synod ultimately ruled that Arminius' teachings were heretical, reaffirming the
Robert Picirilli gives this summary of the aftermath of the Synod of Dort:
"Punishment for the Remonstrants, now officially condemned as heretics and therefore under severe judgement of both church and state, was severe. All Arminian pastors—some 200 of them—were deprived of office; any who would not agree to be silent were banished from the country. Spies were paid to hunt down those suspected of returning to their homeland. Some were imprisoned, among them Grotius; but he escaped and fled the country. Five days after the synod was over, Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded.[26]
Somewhat later, after Maurice died, the Remonstrants were accorded toleration by the state and granted the freedom to follow their religion in peace, to build churches and schools. The Remonstrant Theological Seminary was instituted in Amsterdam, and Episcopius and Grotius were among its first professors. Today both the seminary and the church have shifted from their founders' theology.[27]
Seventeenth century English politics
Early
In 1618, the
Charles I supported the Arminians, and continued the trend of promoting them; Charles tended to promote only Arminians.
Early Methodism
These theological issues played a divisive part in the early history of
Wesley was a champion of the teaching of Arminius, defending his
Denominational Views
Protestant denominations
To this day, Methodism and offshoots of the denomination:
Roman Catholic views
While most
Eastern Orthodox views
A Synod of
We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He hath chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He hath rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause....since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.[33]
In the same document, the synod renounced Calvin by name and pronounced an anathema upon anyone teaching that God predestined anyone to evil or Hell.
References
Citations
- ^ Pawson, David Once Saved, Always Saved? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996) p. 89.
- ^ a b Portalié, Eugène (1913). . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
- ^ Anderson, David R. (2010). Free Grace Soteriology. Zulon Press. p. 92.
- ^ Charles W. Eliot, ed. (1909). "Introduction". Confessions of St. Augustine. Collier & son. p. 4. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
- ^ "CHURCH FATHERS: Catechizing of the Uninstructed (St. Augustine)". www.newadvent.org. 18 (30). Retrieved 16 May 2023.
For He ... gave freedom of will to men, in order that they might worship God not of slavish necessity but with ingenuous inclination....
- ^ Pawson, p. 91.
- ^ Second Council of Orange text: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/orange.txt
- ^ "The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity", By Francis Oakley (University of Toronto Press, 1 January 1988), page 64
- ^ "An Exploration of Christian Theology", Don Thorsen (Baker Books, 2007), 20.3.4
- ^ Cf. Second Council of Orange ch. 5–7; H.J. Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, p. 375–377
- ^ Pickar, C. H. (1981) [1967]. "Faith". The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. Washington D.C. p. 797.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
- ^ Olson, Roger E. (20 August 2009). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. InterVarsity Press. p. 81.
- ^ Stanglin, Keith D.; McCall, Thomas H. (15 November 2012). Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace. Oxford University Press. p. 153.
- ISBN 978-0-687-01744-7.
- ISBN 978-0-8341-0254-5.
- ^ Bangs, pp. 138–141.
- ^ a b c d e f Edwin Rabbie (1995). Hugo Grotius: Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas, 1613. Brill.
- ISBN 978-0-89265-648-6.
- ^ Picirilli, pp. 11–12.
- ^ Picirilli, pp. 14–16.
- ^ Witzki 2009, p. 13.
- ^ De Jong 1968, pp. 220-. Points three and four in the fifth article read: True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.
- ^ Picirilli, pp. 14–16.
- ^ Picirilli, pp. 15–16.
- ^ Picirilli, p. 16.
- Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.) 1:811.
- ^ Schaff, Philip The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III: The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1889)
- ISBN 978-0-521-49947-7.
- ^ . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
- ^ James 1998. "Although the vast majority of Roman Catholic theologians strongly refuted a rigorous doctrine of double predestination, nevertheless a few early sixteenth-century Roman Catholics, such as Konrad Treger, considered it a legitimate part of their Augustinian heritage."
- ^ "Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine, from the Bible to the Present," John H. Leith (Westminster John Knox Press, 1 January 1982), Page 485
- ^ The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem: Sometimes Called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden Under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672, (Baker), 1899
Sources
- De Jong, Peter (1968). "The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618)". Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt, 1618–1619 (PDF). Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship.
- James, Frank A. III (1998). "Neglected Sources of the Reformation Doctrine of Predestination Ulrich Zwingli and Peter Martyr Vermigli". Modern Reformation. 7.
- Witzki, Steve (2009). "James Arminius – The Security of the Believer and the Possibility of Apostasy" (PDF). Society of Evangelical Arminians. Retrieved 25 July 2019.
| Background |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Documents | ||
| Doctrine | ||
| Historical theologians | ||
| Modern theologians | ||
| Movements | ||
