 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(April 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Thehistory of the Calvinist–Arminian debate begins in the early 17th century in the Netherlands with aChristian theological dispute between the followers ofJohn Calvin andJacobus Arminius and continues today among someProtestants, particularlyevangelicals. The debate centers aroundsoteriology (the study ofsalvation) and includes disputes abouttotal depravity,predestination, andatonement. While the debate was given itsCalvinist–Arminian form in the 17th century, issues central to the debate have been discussed inChristianity in some form sinceAugustine of Hippo's disputes with thePelagians in the 5th century.
Pelagius was a Britishmonk who journeyed toRome around 400 A.D. and was appalled at what he perceived as the improper behavior within churches. To combat this lack of holiness, he preached aGospel that began withjustification throughfaith alone (it was actually Pelagius, notMartin Luther, who first added the wordalone toPaul's phrase inEphesians 2:8)[1] but finished through human effort and morality. He had readAugustine'sConfessions and believed it to be a fatalistic and pessimistic view of human nature. Pelagius's followers, includingCaelestius, went further than their teacher and removed justification through faith, setting up the morality- and works-based salvation known asPelagianism. The only historical evidence of the teachings of Pelagius or his followers is found through the writings of his two strongest opponents—Augustine andJerome.
In response to Pelagius, Augustine adopted a theological system that included not onlyoriginal sin (which Pelagius denied), but also a form ofpredestination.[2] Some authors maintain that Augustine taught the doctrines oflimited atonement[3] and ofirresistible grace,[4] later associated with classic Calvinism; however, others insist that Augustine's writings conflict with these doctrines.[2][5] Critics maintain that part ofAugustinian soteriology may have stemmed from his expertise in Greek philosophy, particularlyPlatonism andManichaeism, 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 defended the Pelagian view against the Augustinian concept of predestination but was rejected by theCouncil of Ephesus in 431. Later a monastic movement in southernGaul (modern-day France) also sought to explain predestination in light of God's foreknowledge, but a flurry of writings from Augustine (Grace and Free Will,Correction and Grace,The Predestination of the Saints andThe Gift of Perseverance) helped maintain thepapal authority of his doctrines.
After the death of Augustine, a more moderate form of Pelagianism persisted, which claimed that man's faith was an act offree will unassisted by previous internal grace. TheSecond Council of Orange (529)[7] was convened to address whether this moderate form ofsemi-Pelagianism could be affirmed, or if the doctrines of Augustine were to be affirmed.
The determination of the Council could be considered "semi-Augustinian".[8][9] It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted (even in its beginnings) from thegrace of God, enlightening thehuman mind and enabling belief.[10][11][12] 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 areanathema." The document received papal sanction.
Calvinist Reformers used the Council's canons to demonstrate that their formulations of original sin and depravity had already been taught much earlier in the church. Arminian theologians[13][14] also refer to the Council of Orange as a historical document that strongly affirms man's depravity and God'sprevenient grace but does not present grace as irresistible or adhere to a strictly Augustinian view of predestination.
Augustine's teaching ondivine grace was considered a touchstone oforthodoxy within the western church throughout theMiddle Ages.[citation needed] Nevertheless, within an Augustinian context, theologians continued to debate the precise nature of God and man's participation in salvation, as well as attempting to work out a place for the church's emerging system ofsacraments in the overall scheme of salvation.
Thomas Aquinas, the most influentialCatholictheologian of the Middle Ages, taught that, from man's fallen state, there were three steps to salvation:[citation needed]
Aquinas believed that by this system, he had reconciled Ephesians 2:8 ("By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God") andJames 2:20 ("faith without works is dead") and 2:24 ("by works a man is justified and not by faith only"), and had provided an exposition of the Bible's teaching on salvation compatible with Augustine's teachings.
A second stream of medieval thought, commonly held by theOckhamists, 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 "semi-merit". 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 theThomists, accused the Ockhamists of Pelagianism for basing the infusion of grace on man's works. The Ockhamists defended themselves from charges of Pelagianism by arguing that, in the Ockhamist system, God was not bound to award the infusion of grace on the basis of congruent merit; rather, God's decision to award the infusion of grace on the basis of congruent merit was an entirely gracious act on God's part.
Luther's condemnation of "justification by works" clearly condemned Ockhamism. Some proponents ofecumenism argue that the Thomist view of salvation is not opposed to Luther's view of grace, and, since Ockhamism was rejected as semi-Pelagian by the Catholic Church at theCouncil of Trent, theology of salvation need not pose a bar to Protestant-Catholic reunion. (The major streams of modern Catholic thought on the theology of salvation are Thomism andMolinism, a theology developed byJesuit theologianLuis Molina in the 16th century and also held today by some Protestants such asWilliam Lane Craig andAlvin Plantinga.)
However, since the Catholic Church's rejection ofJansenism in the bullUnigenitus (1713), it has been clear that Calvinism could not be accommodated within Catholicism. Arminianism, on the other hand, while it might not square entirely with Catholic theologies of salvation, probably could be accommodated within the Catholic Church, a fact which Arminianism's Protestant opponents have often pointed out. (Augustus Toplady, for example, famously claimed that Arminianism was the "Road to Rome.")
Martin Luther was anAugustinian friar inErfurt. In hisDisputation AgainstScholastic Theology of 4 September 1517, Luther entered into the medieval debate between the Thomists and the Ockhamists by attacking the Ockhamist position and arguing that man by nature lacks the ability to do good that the Ockhamists asserted he had (and thus denying that man could do anything to deserve congruent merit). Modern scholars disagree about whether Luther in fact intended to criticize all scholastics in thisDisputation or if he was concerned only with the Ockhamists. Arguing in favor of a broader interpretation is the fact that Luther went on to criticize the use ofAristotle in theology (Aristotle was the basis of Thomist as well as Ockhamist theology). If this is the case, it is likely that Luther saw Aquinas'fides caritate formata as merely a more cautious form of Pelagianism (or as semi-Pelagianism).[citation needed]
Luther continued to defend these views. In 1520,Pope Leo X issued thepapal bullExsurge Domine, which condemned a position which Luther had maintained at the 1518Heidelberg Disputation, namely that "Afterthe Fall free will is something in name only and when it does what is in it, it sins mortally." Luther subsequently defended the proposition in hisDefense and Explanation of All the Articles Unjustly Condemned by the Roman Bull of Leo X (1520), in the process stating that "free will is really a fiction...with no reality, because it is in no man's power to plan any evil or good. As the article ofJohn Wycliffe, condemned at theCouncil of Constance, teaches: everything takes place by absolute necessity."
Erasmus, though sympathetic to Luther at first, reacted negatively to what he saw as Luther'sdeterminism. In hisDe libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (A Disquisition on Freedom of the Will) (1524), Erasmus caricatures the limitations of free will that he saw Luther espousing. Though at times in the diatribe, Erasmus sounds like an Ockhamist, for the most part he attempts to espouse a middle course betweengrace and free will, attempting to avoid on the one hand the errors of the Pelagians and the Ockhamists, and on the other hand, the "Manichaean" error of Luther and other strict Augustinians.
Luther responded with hisDe Servo Arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will) (1525) in which he argues that man was not free to do good. Rather, man's fallen nature is in bondage tosin and toSatan, 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 inOn the Bondage of the Will became the position adopted by theProtestant movement.
Jacobus Arminius enrolled atLeiden University, and after five years of education he traveled in the early 1580s to study inGeneva, Switzerland.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 fromBasel, 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 Arminius returned toAmsterdam to fulfill his desire to be a pastor.
Arminius' entry into thepredestination debate in Amsterdam was two years after his return, when he was asked by city officials to refute a modified form of Beza'slapsarianism. According to tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to conclude that the Bible did not support Calvinism.[16] Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva.[17] Arminius avoided adding to the controversy apart from two incidents regarding sermons onRomans 7 andRomans 9.
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 theDutch 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 Calvinist predestination andunconditional election made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted God's election was anelectionof believers and therefore wasconditioned on faith. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine ofdeterminism.[19]
Arminius and his followers believed that a nationalsynod 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 theStates of Holland called together the parties, Arminius's opponents, led by his colleagueFranciscus 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, theTrinity, 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, Arminius died.
After the death of Arminius,The Hague court chaplainJohannes Wtenbogaert agreed with Arminius, saying he was one "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, Holland) 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 theHeidelberg 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 aRemonstrance in late 1609 and/or early 1610. The "Remonstrants" highlighted five aspects of their theology: (1) election wasconditional on foreseen faith; (2) Christ's atonement wasunlimited in extent; (3)total depravity; (4)prevenient and resistible grace; and (5) necessity of perseverance and the possibility ofapostasy. The Remonstrants first expressed an uncertainty about the possibility of apostasy.[22] They removed it in the document they presented officially at theSynod of Dort,The Opinion of The Remonstrants (1618), holding toconditional preservation of the saints.[23]
_-_Johan_van_Oldenbarnevelt.jpg)
Forty-four ministers (mostly from the province of Holland) signed 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 theCounter-Remonstrance (from which the name Contra- or Counter-Remonstrants was given them).
Leading influences among Arminius' followers were Wtenbogaert,Hugo Grotius, andSimon Episcopius. Due to the Remonstrants’ view of the supremacy of civil authorities over church matters, KingJames I of England came out in support of the Remonstrance (later he would join with their opponents againstConrad Vorstius). Behind the theological debate lay a political one betweenPrince Maurice, a strong military leader, and his former mentor Oldenbarnevelt, who was the personification of civil power. Maurice, who had Calvinist leanings, desired war with Holland's enemy, Roman Catholic Spain. Oldenbarnevelt, along with Arminius and his followers, desired peace.
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, Holland, 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, allegedly 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 atDordrecht (Dort), was convened. ThisSynod 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 theBelgic Confession andHeidelberg Catechism as its orthodox statements of doctrine. One of the results of the synod was the formation of thefive points of Calvinism in direct response to thefive articles of the Remonstrants.
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]
EarlyStuart society was religious, and religion at that time was political. King James I managed religious conflicts for most of the 1610s, but most Protestants maintained a fear of Catholicism. Though Arminians were Protestant, they were perceived as being less antagonistic to Catholicism than the Calvinists were. James I initially moved to keep them out of his realm and supported the official position of the Synod of Dort.
In 1618, theThirty Years' War began. It was a religious war, and many of James's subjects (particularly in Parliament) wanted his kingdom to go to war on the side of the king's son-in-law,Frederick V, Elector Palatine. James, however, preferred diplomacy. The loudest of the supporters for war werePuritans, a term presenting difficulties of definition but who doctrinally were in general orthodox Calvinists. Some scholars believe that the Arminians' support for the king's efforts to prevent war led to him promoting a number of them in order to balance out the Puritans.[citation needed] Others argue that these promotions were simply the result of meritocratic considerations: 'James promoted Arminians because they were scholarly, diligent and able men in their diocese.'[28]
In 1625, James I died, leaving the throne to his son,Charles I. Charles supported the Arminians and continued the trend of promoting them.[29] The religious changes which Charles imposed on his subjects, in the form ofLaudianism, were identified (rightly or wrongly) with Arminian theology.[citation needed] They brought him into direct conflict with the ScottishPresbyterian Calvinists of theChurch of Scotland. The resultingBishops' Wars were a trigger for theEnglish Civil War, both of them part of the largerWars of the Three Kingdoms which had complex roots, among which religious beliefs were a major factor.
These theological issues played a divisive part in the early history ofMethodism in the 18th century. Heated discussions on Arminianism took place between Methodist ministersJohn Wesley andGeorge Whitefield. From 1740 Wesley broke with Calvinism. His position caused initially the rupture with the WelshCalvinistic Methodists underHowell Harris in 1742–1743; and then the creation of theCountess of Huntingdon's Connexion in 1756, about the same time when Wesley broke withJames Hervey. In the 1770s, a sharp debate occurred between Wesley andAugustus Montague Toplady.[30]
Wesley was a champion of the teaching of Arminius, defending his soteriology in a periodical entitledThe Arminian and writing articles such asPredestination Calmly Considered. He defended Arminius against charges of semi-Pelagianism, holding strongly to beliefs in original sin and total depravity. At the same time, Wesley attacked thedeterminism that he claimed characterized unconditional election and maintained a belief in theability to lose salvation. Whitefield debated Wesley on every point (except for their agreement on total depravity) but did not introduce any additional elements into the Calvinists' conclusions set forth at Westminster.[citation needed]
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
To this day, Methodism and offshoots of the movement:Pentecostals, andThird Wave, along withGeneral Baptists, usually are the ones to subscribe to Arminianism, whilePresbyterians,Reformed Churches,Reformed Baptists, and others subscribe to Calvinism. Largely because of its origins in Germany and Scandinavia rather than theBritish Isles or Holland,Lutheranism was distanced from the dispute, and official Lutheran doctrine does not fully align with either side, preferring instead its own doctrinal formulations about the relation of human freedom to divine sovereignty.
Restorationist fellowships are customarily free will in their soteriology. Within this trend,Churches of Christ are prone to cite Biblical passages in support of the view while often intensely locked in contention with Presbyterians and (usually Calvinistic) Baptists. The doctrinal components, in small towns particularly in the United States, often ally the Churches of Christ with their Methodist neighbors on opposition to"once-saved-always-saved" doctrine despite the similarity between Churches of Christ and Baptists onimmersion baptism.
While most Roman Catholic theologians reject a strict doctrine ofdouble predestination (the Calvinist belief), a minority in the early 16th century saw it as consistent with their Augustinian heritage.[31] Post-Reformation Roman Catholicism has remained largely outside the debate, although Thomist andMolinist views continue within the church.Augustinian theodicy, including those elements wherein Calvin was influenced by Augustine, continues to be the prevalent soteriology in Roman Catholicism. Also, Jansenism has been seen by many as similar to Calvinist doctrine and was condemned as such by the Catholic Church in the late 17th century.
TheSynod of Jerusalem ofEastern Orthodox Churches was called in 1672 to refute attempted encroachments of Protestant Calvinism.[32] The synod strongly rejected Calvinistic formulations and named them heresy. In part, it states,
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 renounces Calvin by name and pronounces an anathema upon anyone teaching that God predestined anyone to evil or Hell.
For He ... gave freedom of will to men, in order that they might worship God not of slavish necessity but with ingenuous inclination....
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)| Background |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Documents | ||
| Doctrine | ||
| Historical theologians | ||
| Modern theologians | ||
| Movements | ||
