CALVINISM VERSUS ARMINIANISM
The Doctrine of Salvation
Life Bible Presbyterian Church: Reformation Lecture
25 October 2004

Introduction 

The modern era is a time of great theological ignorance, profound indifference, and spiritual declension. (Hos 4;6) Most of the denominations and churches which are generally referred to as conservative, Bible-believing and evangelical have different interpretations of the doctrine of salvation. The doctrines of sovereign grace which have been abandoned as obsolete, unfair, unbiblical, and irrational. There is a great divide in the Christian world where it pertains to the understanding of the doctrine of salvation. For the want of a better term, they have been known to us as Arminianism and Calvinism by which we will discuss together.  

Nomenclature and Logic

Just a quick word on nomenclature or the use of terms here. Some are uncomfortable with use of the term, Calvin or Calvinism, (or Paulinism systematised) and said that one is following a man and not God. When one uses this phrase, Calvinism (short of a better term), one is referring to a  system of theology that is clearly taught and consistent with scriptures and that Calvin is only an instrument of God who had explained or expounded that system of theology coherently and clearly to the church  in his biblical expositional writings. It must be stated here that one does not exalt any man when we use a term to represent a system of belief revealed to us in scriptures but that the God of that person whom he worshipped and taught his doctrines is to be magnified and glorified.   

Another relevant point here is related to the use of reason or logic in theology.  We believed that when a person is regenerated his mind is also transformed as Paul said in Rom 12:1 (i.e. the renewing of the mind). There is a place for sanctified logic and reasoning in the understanding of theology or biblical doctrine and one need not commit intellectual suicide when one come to Christ. However, having said that it must also be emphasised that redeemed men are at best  still finite beings with finite minds and understanding and hence, if he comes across a biblical doctrine that is beyond his human comprehension, (ie Trinity, virgin birth of Christ, election, atonement, etc.), it belongs to him to humbly accept the word of God as true and not reject it due to our failure in intellectual or emotional apprehension.(ie it may be supra logical or theo-logical and not ill logical) 

The Origin and History of the "Five Points of Calvinism "

It is always helpful to understand the historical circumstances for why things happened. The 5 points of Calvinism did not come out of the blues, there are noteworthy events that necessitated it, here it is given below. David Steele and Curtis Thomas writes in THE 5 POINTS OF CALVINISM: Defined, Defended and Documented (13-14).  

“To understand how and why the system of theology known to history as Calvinism came to bear this name and to be formulated into five points, one must understand the theological conflict which occurred in Holland during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. In 1610, just one year after the death of James Arminius (a Dutch seminary professor and student of Beza ,the successor to John Calvin) five articles of faith based on his teachings were drawn up by his followers. The Arminians, as his followers came to be called, presented these five doctrines to the State of Holland in the form of a "Remonstrance" (ie a protest). The Arminian party insisted that the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism (the official expression of the doctrinal position of the Churches of Holland) be changed to conform to the doctrinal views contained in the Remonstrance. The Arminians objected to those doctrines upheld in both the Catechism and the Confession relating to divine sovereignty, human inability, unconditional election or predestination, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. It was in connection with these matters that they wanted the official standards of the Church of Holland revised.”  

The Dutch town of Dortrecht (Engl. Dort), may be unfamiliar to many an English-speaking Christian but it was the place where the churches of Holland, Britain, Germany and Switzerland held a great ecumenical conference which resulted in their unanimous agreement concerning the doctrines of grace reflected in the clear teaching of Scripture and the orthodox faith since New Testament times.  

The "Five Points of Arminianism" included the following: this chapter we will get down to the study of the five points of Arminianism - they are by name:  

1.   Free will: The first point of Arminianism was that man possesses "free will". They believed that the fall of man was not total, holding that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Christ unto salvation.  

2.   Conditional Election: Arminianism further teaches that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. In other words man's act of faith is the "condition" for his being elected to eternal life. Since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in accepting Christ as Lord and Savior God then elected him to salvation on that basis.  

3.   Universal atonement: Since it was their further conviction that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish, Arminius and his followers held that redemption (used casually as a synonym for atonement) was general. In other words the death of Christ makes all men salvable though no one is effectually saved by it. Therefore, each individual must exercise his free will to accept Christ in order to be included under Christ's salvation.  

4.   Obstructible grace: Arminians also believed that since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to woo all men to Christ. However - since man has absolute "free will" he is able to resist God's will for his life. The Arminian order being that man exercises his own will first, then he is born again. Although the Arminian says he believes that God is omnipotent, he insists that God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man on an individual basis. 

5.   Falling from Grace: Falling from grace is the logical outcome of the preceding portions of the system. If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved. There is no surety, assurance or confidence in our salvation in this life.  

These are the complete opposite to the five points of Grace with the acrostic known as TULIP (which will be discussed in the chart later). The five points of Calvinism was intended as a direct answer or polemic to the five points of Arminianism.  

The Rejection of Arminianism by the Synod of Dort and the Formation of the Five Points of Calvinism. 

Curtis and Steele adds (14)

“A national Synod was called to meet in Dort in 1618 for the purpose of examining the views of Arminius in the light of Scripture. The Great Synod was convened by the States-General of Holland on November 13, 1618. There were 84 members and 18 secular commissioners. Included were 27 delegates from Germany, the Palatinate, Switzerland and England. There were 154 sessions held during the seven months that the Synod met to consider these matters, the last of which was on May 9, 1619. 

"The Synod," Warburton writes, "had given a very close examination to the 'five points' which had been advanced by the Remonstrants, and had compared the teaching advanced in them with the testimony of Scripture. Failing to reconcile that teaching with the Word of God, which they had definitely declared could alone be accepted by them as the rule of faith, they had unanimously rejected them. They felt, however, that a mere rejection was not sufficient. It remained for them to set forth the true Calvinistic teaching in relationship to those matters which had been called into question. This they proceeded to do, embodying the Calvinistic position in five chapters which have ever since been known as 'the five points of Calvinism.' " The name Calvinism was derived from the great French reformer, John Calvin (1509-1664), who had excelled in expounding and defending these views.

No doubt it will seem strange to many in our day that the Synod of Dort rejected as heretical the five doctrines advanced by the Arminians, (ie disciples of Jacob Arminius, Hugo Grotius and others ) for these doctrines have gained wide acceptance in the modern Church. In fact, they are seldom questioned in our generation. But the vast majority of the Protestant theologians of that day took a much different view of the matter. They maintained that the Bible set forth a system of doctrine quite different from that advocated by the Arminian party. Salvation was viewed by the members of the Synod as a work of grace from beginning to end; in no sense did they believe that the sinner saved himself or contributed to his salvation. Adam's fall had completely ruined the race. All men were by nature spiritually dead and their wills were in bondage to sin and Satan. The ability to believe the gospel was itself a gift from God, bestowed only upon those whom He had chosen to be the objects of His unmerited favor. It was not man, but God, who determined which sinners would be shown mercy and saved. This, in essence, is what the members of the Synod of Dort understood the Bible to teach.” 

Having known the historical content, now it leaves us to examine biblically for ourselves these two divergent views concerning the important doctrine of salvation or Soteriology.  

The Five Points of Calvinism and Arminianism

The following is a comparison of the five points of Calvinism and the five points of Arminianism arising out of the Dutch Remonstrance controversy at the historic Synod of Dort. The "Five Points" of Calvinism can be easily remembered by the acronym TULIP. (the Dutch flower) This material below  is adapted from The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended and Documented, by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. Philipburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1963 (biblical references and quotes in parenthesis are added here by the speaker). 

Answering objections

Firstly, the word “foreknowledge” needs some explanation as it is a significant word that divided the 2 camps. The word is used in Rom 8:29-30 and 1 Pet 1:1,2. It has been claimed that the word means that God knows in advance that we are going to choose us and therefore he chose us first. That  sounds  humanly acceptable  to explain election, there is one complication,  but not biblically sound and correct . (cf Eph  1;5 God ‘s sovereign will and good pleasure is at stake ) The word foreknowledge here means  it also include a  relational concept of God sovereignly fixing his regard on us or take note of us  in time past in a saving relationship and not merely  a  intellectual knowledge In advance of what is going to happen in the future.  Herein lies a significant  point of theological understanding and discernment  (cf. Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, 331.)  

The second main objection is Heb 6:4-8 which apparently seems to suggest or teach on the surface  a falling from grace (ie hence against perseverance of the saints ) but a closer study reveals that the person under scrutiny is a non- redeemed man or a so-called Christian outwardly .(Mt 7:21-23)  Verses 7 and 8 further describes such men as “thorns and thistles” to be rejected and also the use of the adversative “but“ when the author referred to brethren or redeemed man in contrast to unsaved men. (cf. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this section, 912-914. )  

The third objection is  that Calvinism is a deterrent to  evangelism. There is nothing furthur from the truth . Properly understood, Biblical election is the strongest  motive for biblical evangelism and missions  and this is borne out in church history as some of the finest missionaries of all times are devoted  Calvinists. Consider men like George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards ,William Carey to India , the father of modern missions, Adoniram Judson who went to Burma (or Myanmar today) and William Burns to china and Robert Murray Mc Cheyne to Palestine and  others . read Rom 10:10-17 for  a biblical response. The God who elects men to be saved  is the same God who summons us to go forth and preach the gospel to all men and there is no contradiction with God . 

The final objection has to  do with the free will or moral responsibility of  men  and

that calvinism is inconsistent with man ‘s free agency. A  vital principle of interpretation of scriptures is that there is no contradiction in the word of God .(even if it may defy our human intellectual prowess if any at all ) The Bible speaks clearly of human responsibility in Lk 16;16, Mt 11;28-30, Isa 55;6,7 and Heb2:3,4 and many others .God is responsible for our salvation and we are accountable for our damnation and there is no contradiction with God . 

(read Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination for a study of objections and its reply. 205-287) 

A Word on Hypercalvinism

This is an extreme and unbiblical form of Calvinism, to which we do not subscribe.  It essentially does not believe in the free offer of the gospel to all men but a preaching only to the elect. This is defective and unsound as the Lord clearly instructs us to propagate the gospel to all men (Rom 10:10-17) for the simple reason that it does not belong to us to try to distinguish the elect from the non-elect in our preaching but that it is wholly the work of the Spirit in regeneration.  For a deeper study on this, read Iain Murray, Spurgeon vs Hypercalvinism , Banner of Truth Trust. Let none confuse biblical Calvinism from the unsound teachings and practices of Hypercalvinism which is to be avoided .

Total Depravity Explained

(This section below  is a useful summary of enlightening article by Brian Schwertley taken from http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=83, Sep 2004).

A doctrine that historically has had a crucial influence upon the doctrine of salvation is the doctrine of original sin. Original sin refers to the sinful state and condition into which all men are born as a result of Adam’s sin. The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all men, while the pollution and inner corruption of sin is inherited by ordinary generation. Professing Christians differ regarding man’s state after the fall. These differences have led to divergent views regarding redemption. Theological liberals have generally denied the fall and original sin, and thus have developed a humanistic, moralistic, good works version of Christianity. They openly deny the biblical doctrine of the vicarious atonement and the supernatural nature of salvation. Some hold to an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view of the fall. They believe that the whole human race was in Adam when he fell; that human nature is thus tainted with hereditary sin and that all men by nature are inclined toward evil. But they believe that man still has a free will and still has the ability to discern spiritual truth and believe in Christ without the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (contra Tim 3:5). They view man as spiritually sick but not dead. Man may need the help of the Holy Spirit, but it is man’s will which controls this help.

Man is said to be the author of faith and repentance. According to this view, salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man in which man plays the decisive role. (Contra Jn 15:16) The biblical view (often called Augustinianism or Calvinism) holds that the fall has not just rendered mankind sick or disabled, but rather spiritually dead (Eph 2:1,2). Men are totally depraved and totally unable to respond to the gospel without first being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Man’s will is not free to choose spiritual good, because it is enslaved to a heart that cannot discern spiritual truth, that hates God and loves sin. This view holds that salvation is totally a work of God. Adam was the federal head (or representative) of the human race in the Garden of Eden. When he sinned, the entire human race fell in him. “The consequences of Adam’s sin are all comprehended under the term death, in its widest sense.”2 Spiritual and physical death passed to all men. The guilt of Adam’s sin is passed unto all by imputation, and the pollution (innate hereditary moral depravity) is passed to all men naturally born of Adam’s seed. All men are born sinners by nature. “The imagination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me (Ps 51:5). The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies (Ps 58:3). That which is born of flesh is flesh (Jn 3:6). We were by nature the children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Contrary to modern evangelicalism, the Bible teaches that the penalty for sin (spiritual death, etc) and man’s inherited moral corruption have rendered man totally unable to respond to the gospel. The Word of God, therefore, teaches that salvation is absolutely and solely a work of God’s grace and not of man. 

Total depravity describes man’s inherited pollution from Adam, the inherent corruption that extends to every part of man’s nature. Total inability refers to the effect of man’s inherent corruption on his spiritual powers and discernment. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes total inability as follows: “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

This doctrine of total inability plays a crucial role in understanding Christ’s redemption. If men are dead in sin, helpless, and cannot believe in Christ; then the salvation of sinners of necessity involves much more than Christ dying for all men and then waiting to see who will accept His gift of life. If unsaved men are unable to choose or to will any spiritual good, then apart from a spiritual rebirth, no man would choose Christ. If the doctrine of total inability is true, then Christ’s death not only removed the guilt of sin and God’s curse against sinners, but also must be the foundation and guarantee of the application of His work to specific individuals. The common evangelical’s view is that Christ, by His death, made salvation possible for all men; that forgiveness is there waiting for men to receive; that the Holy Spirit may gently urge men to change, but cannot interfere with man’s so called free will. This cannot be true if men are totally depraved and unable to respond to divine truth. Men don’t need a gentle push; they need a spiritual resurrection, a quickening. It would mean that God “in his saving operations, deals not generally with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are actually saved.” It would mean that regeneration must precede and not follow saving faith. It would mean that God works directly upon the human soul in salvation; that Christ is not passively waiting, but actually saving His people fro m their sins. It would mean that salvation is totally a work of God—that God receives all the glory; that man contributes nothing of his own to the process; that even faith and repentance are gifts from above. Salvation is by sovereign grace. Since the doctrine of total inability is so important as it relates to other doctrines, one must carefully examine the scriptural evidence for it.”

The Bondage of the Will

The whole faulty system of salvation as taught by modern evangelicalism rests upon the dogma of “free will.” Arminians argue that man’s ability to will spiritual good and choose spiritual good (Jesus Christ) was left unaffected by the fall. There is no question that man is free in the sense that he acts as he pleases. But can the will of man act independently from the human heart? “Is it an independent, self-determining power?—ie Does the Will stand apart from the other great faculties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can reverse the man and fly against the man and split him into segments, as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or, is the Will connected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the head goes, the whole creature goes, and, as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he?” The will of man always acts in accordance with man’s heart or sinful nature. This is the explicit teaching of Scripture. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks (Lk 6:45). Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life (Prov 4:23). Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil“ (Jer 13:23). For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders... (Mk 7:21). Jesus says that the source of sinful thoughts and acts is the heart and not the will. In other words, the will simply follows or carries out the desires, inclinations, habits, etc of the heart.

Although man is spiritually impotent, he is still responsible for his actions. Man rendered himself unable in the garden; he is not coerced by outside forces. Man freely sins and loves it. His will is in bondage to his wicked heart. “He cannot renew his own will, change his own heart, nor regenerate his bad nature.”16 He is helpless and hopeless apart from a sovereign work of grace upon his heart by God the Holy Spirit. This doctrine of total inability explains why the Bible never attributes salvation to an act of the human will. So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy (Rom. 9:16). Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn 1:13). You did not choose me, but I chose you (Jn. 15:16). “Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen to my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do” (Jn 8:43-44). When Jesus said, Without Me you can do nothing (Jn 15:5), He really meant nothing and that applies to salvation” (end of quote).

Arminians and  Salvation

Are Arminians saved then? Salvation is based on a saving relationship with Christ alone which are all of God’s sovereign mercy and grace and not men. Anyone who believe and confess in Christ as his personal Saviour and Lord will be saved (Jn 1:12, Rom 10:9,10) and I believe as much as one may differ in point of doctrine, one must not disparage and discredit others unduly in terms of the salvation whose only God is the sovereign Judge. One believe that Arminians are  saved if they believe and receive Christ alone as their personal Saviour and Lord and repent of their sins just like any other. True Calvinists will cherish no ill will against the Arminian brethren as George Whitefield epitomised in his magnanimous relationship with John Wesley when asked if he will see John in heaven, he replied no. When pressed further for the reason, he said “O John will be so close to God and I will be so far away from Him that I will not get to catch a glimpse of John in heaven”. Such was the high regard and benevolent spirit that Whitefield had for his brother, notwithstanding some disagreements in matters of doctrines in their earlier years. May we also cultivate this God honouring attitude in our disputes with one another in the fear and love of God ( though it is our sincere desire and humble prayer that our Arminian brethren come to a biblical understanding of the doctrine of sovereign grace that would be a great blessing along life’s pilgrimage.) Salvation is of the Lord (Jon 2:9), and not of man.

Conclusion
We have come to an end of a fruitful study of the doctrines of sovereign grace. It is important to note that the all 5 points of Calvinism represents  a coherent and integrated doctrinal system of soteriology (or salvation) and may not be truncated into just two or three points (or even four) where one may please . One point logically and doctrinally leads on to the other. Every doctrinal point or principle is significant and necessary and it will not be meaningful nor complete without the other four  or the rest accompanying. It is either all of it or nothing at all. 

It is also instructive to be reminded that In the mind of the reformed believer, he humbly acknowledges that all men are dead spiritually (Eph 2:1-5), are either ignorant of or are against the truth, and have no love nor seek Jesus Christ (Jn 3:19-21), he dwell in darkness (Jn 1:4-5), have a heart of stone (Ezek 11:19), are helpless to save themselves (Ezek 16:4-6), cannot repent on his own (Jer 13:23), are slaves of Satan and sin (Act 26:17-18) and cannot see or comprehend divine truth (1 Cor 2:14). This biblical fact may be offensive to the natural man but is unavoidable unless one is willing to ignore the word of God. The doctrine of total depravity of man is important, for when it is properly understood, it proves that salvation is totally of God’s grace and not of man’s doing, to which all true Calvinists readily assent . 

Jack Sin

Maranatha Bible Presbyterian Church

www.maranatha-bpc.com

NB:  For a deeper study on this subject, read

John Leith, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition , Atlanta: John Knox Press ,1991

Steel and Curtis, The 5 Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended and Documented, Philipburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1963.

Christopher Ness, An Antidote against Arminianism ,Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1988.

Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Philipburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1923 .

Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian  Religion ,Grand Rapids:  Zondervan Publishing House , 1962.

Francis Turrentin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Philipburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1992