The Doctrines of Grace: the History Behind the Controversy

In this series, I define and defend the system of Reformed soteriology known as "the doctrines of grace" (more commonly known as "Calvinism" or "TULIP").

This is part 2 of TBD, in which I provide the historical background behind the theological controversy.

Continued from The Doctrines of Grace: Introduction

Introduction

Many people think of the five points of Calvinism as being a negative attack on historic evangelical soteriology. There is a common idea among non-Calvinist Christians that Calvinism is a dissent from traditional Christian doctrine. This is largely in part to the fact that, in modern western Christianity, Reformed theology is not the popular opinion. The majority of confessing evangelical Christians would not classify themselves as Reformed, or even Calvinist. However, that has not always been the case. In order to understand how the doctrines of grace came about and why they were arranged as "the five points points of Calvinism," it is necessary to understand the theological controversy that took place in early-seventeenth-century Holland.

The Arminian Protest

Calvinism was not, in fact, a protest to historic Christian doctrine. In 1610, the followers of James Arminius drafted five articles of faith which were based upon Arminius' teaching. These articles (hereafter, Remonstrance) were drafted as a protest to the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism, which were the official doctrinal statements of the Churches of Holland. In their protest, the Arminians demanded that the doctrinal statements be amended so as to conform to the Remonstrance. The Arminians' Remonstrance objected to the doctrines upheld by the Confession and Catechism related to God's sovereignty, human inability, sovereign election, the intent/extent of the atonement, and the perseverance of faith among the saints. It was regarding these specific issues of theology that the Arminians wanted the Churches of Holland's revision.

This Remonstrance contained five articles of disagreement, which can be summarized as:

1. God elects (or reprobates) on the basis of foreseen faith (or unbelief).
2. Jesus died for all men without exception.
3. Man is corrupted by original sin, but not to the point that he cannot savingly believe the gospel.
4. Man is never so controlled by God that he cannot resist the gospel.
5. It is possible for a truly regenerate believer to lose his faith, and therefore his salvation.

The Rejection of Arminianism

In 1618, a synod was called to meet in Dort to examine and evaluate the views of the Armininan movement in the light of Scripture. This synod met on November 13, 1618. There were 154 sessions held during the seven months in which the synod met to evaluate Arminian doctrine, the last of which was on May 9, 1619.

Upon carefully examining the merit of the "five points" of Arminianism in light of Scripture, the synod overwhelmingly and unanimously rejected them. The synod, however, felt that simply rejecting the five points of Arminianism was not a sufficient response. So they set out to define the true Calvinistic teaching on the matters which the Remonstrance addressed. This Calvinistic response to the five Arminian articles has since been known as "the five points of Calvinism."

Augustine vs. Pelagius

Despite common misconception, John Calvin and James Arminius did not invent the theological systems which bear their names (Calvinism and Arminianism, respectively). The basic concepts of each system can be traced back hundreds of years before Calvin and Arminius lived. For example, the basic Calvinistic position was argued by Augustine in the fifth century against Pelagius.

Pelagius denied that original sin had corrupted the human race. He argued that the only negative thing that flowed out of Adam's transgression in the garden of Eden was the poor example that it set for the remainder of the human race. Pelagius' most basic concept was that man has absolute, autonomous freedom; therefore, man is capable, within his own power, to believe the gospel and obey God's law.

Augustine, however, argued that man has been so corrupted by Adam's original sin that he is, in himself, completely incapable of both believing the gospel and obeying God's law. Augustine taught that divine grace is absolutely essential for the salvation of men, and that this effectual grace is only extended to those men whom God has, in his mercy, predestined for adoption as his sons. The act of faith, Augustine taught, does not come from the freedom of man's will (contra Pelagius), but rather from the freedom of God's grace to grant faith to those whom he has elected for salvation.

Semi-Pelagianism

Augustine's argument so drastically devastated the Pelagian position that it was fully discredited and eliminated as a possible view for the thinking Christian. Soon after the demise of Pelagianism, however, a new system appeared. This new system, promoted by Cassian, taught that man, with his own natural powers, is able to make the first step toward his conversion, and that this first step merits the Holy Spirit's assistance. This middle-way between Pelagianism and Augustinianism was called Semi-Pelagianism, and it took in elements from the two opposing views which it attempted to mediate. Cassian, with Augustine, taught that Adam's original sin corrupted the nature of the human race. But, with Pelagius, he taught a system of universal grace that is extended equally to all men without exception, making the final decision in man's salvation the exercise of that man's free will. Modern day Arminianism is not far removed (if at all) from pre-Reformation Semi-Pelagianism.

Conclusion

History makes it clear that the five points of Calvinism, as drafted by the Synod of Dort in 1619, were in no way a confessional statement, making a full and complete case for Reformed theology. Rather, they were simply the response of the leading Protestant theologians to the objections of the Semi-Pelagian followers of Arminius. The five points of Calvinism drafted by the Synod of Dort were in no way a new system of theology. Rather, they were simply a denial of the new Arminian system and a affirmation of historic Protestant doctrine dating back hundreds of years.

The issues involved in this great historical controversy are, in fact, extremely important issues to discuss, for they explicitly shape the Christian's concept of God, sin, and salvation. J. I. Packer explains that,

The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God Who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view [Calvinism] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view [Arminianism] gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the ‘five points,’ as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance. (J. I. Packer, "Introductory Essay," John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, pp. 3-4)

BY HIS GRACE (1 Cor 15:10) – FOR HIS GLORY (1 Tim 1:17) 

[NOTE: The purpose of this article is simply to provide a brief history of this theological controversy. No attempt has been made to defend the truthfulness of the doctrines of grace. This will be done in the following articles, now that the historical foundation has briefly been laid.]