The Clark–Van Til Controversy: The Text of a Complaint and The Answer to a Complaint

In order to help our understanding to the historic watershed that split the Reformed faith into two camps, one can read The Complaint (scanned document), The Text of a Complaint Against Actions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia In the Matter of the Licensure and Ordination of Dr. Gordon H. Clark. As a complaint to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church against the ordination of Dr. Clark, this was filed by Dr. Van Til and the WTS faculty on October 6, 1944.

As a respond to a complaint filed by Dr. Van Til and the WTS faculty, one can read The Answer (scanned document), The Answer to a Complaint Against Several Actions and Decisions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia Taken in a Special Meeting Held on July 7, 1944. As an answer from the Presbytery of Philadelphia of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church to denies the complaint and to sustain the ordination of Dr. Clark.

In conclusion, the Presbytery denies that the meeting of July 7, 1944, was illegal and that its actions are thus void. The Presbytery judges that the Complaint fails to prove that Dr. Clark's thinking “bears all the earmarks of rationalism, humanistic intellectualism . . . vicious independence from God” (P. 10, 2; O. 40). The Presbytery denies “that various views of Dr. Clark as set forth in that meeting, and with which this Complaint is concerned, are in error and in conflict with the constitutional requirements for licensure and ordination, and that, therefore, the decision to sustain his theological examination, the decision to waive two years of study in a theological seminary, the decision to proceed to license Dr. Clark and the action of licensing him, the decision to deem the examination for licensure sufficient for ordination, and the decision to ordain Dr. Clark, were in error and unconstitutional, and are, therefore, null and void” (P. 15, 3; O. 61). The Presbytery urges the complainants to study this answer to the Complaint; to acknowledge that they have misrepresented Dr. Clark's views, and that they have wronged him in charging that “Dr. Clark studiously avoided answering” (P. 8, 1; O. 30) a question asked him during his examination; and to desist from their Complaint.

The scanned document of original transcripts, The Complaint and The Answer taken with permission from God's Hammer blog by Sean Gerety. The typed text from original transcripts, The Complaint and The Answer taken with permission from Reasonable Christian blog by Charlie J. Ray.

I corrected some typo and compiled it in two texts. I hope these texts can be used for further study on The Clark–Van Til Controversy. Especially to clarify some misunderstanding and caricature from both side for future discussion on this issue.

Righteousness of Saving Faith

Righteousness of Saving Faith: Arminian Versus Remonstrant Grace

By John Mark Hicks

First published in the Evangelical Journal 9 (1991) 27-39

Arminianism, as a theological system, derives its name from Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).[1] He served first as a pastor for the Reformed church in Amsterdam (1587-1603), and then as Professor of Theology at the University of Leiden (1603-1609). Much to his own dismay, he became the center of a beginning controversy in Dutch Protestantism. As a result, it is his name that has come down to us in history with such significance.

Immediately after his death, some leading ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church presented a “Remonstrance” to the States of Holland (1610). After this group was excluded from the state-controlled church in the aftermath of the Synod of Dort, they organized themselves into the Remonstrant Brotherhood and established their own theological school in Amsterdam.[2] Remonstrantism, then, is more associated with an historical group than a theological system.

The leading theologian of the Remonstrants, however, was Philip van Limborch (1633-1712).[3] He was raised as a second generation Remonstrant, and the great-nephew of Simon Episcopius who was the “successor” of Arminius. In 1667 Limborch became Professor of Theology at the Remonstrant theological institution. At the request of the Remonstrant church, he wrote a comprehensive theology. It became his magnum opus. He completed Theologia Christiana in 1686 and it went through six editions.[4] Since its publication it has been known as the “most complete and best known exposition of [early] Arminianism.”[5]

Arminianism and Remonstrantism have often been linked together as if they represented the same theological viewpoint. This linkage has been made by both Arminian[6] and Calvinist[7] writers. However, this coupling is theologically misleading. Arminianism, as understood in the sense of the theology of Arminius, is not Remonstrant in character. Arminius and Limborch stand as far apart theologically as do Wesley and Latitudinarian Anglicanism. It is the difference between evangelicalism and Pelagianism, between the Reformation and the Enlightenment.[8]

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the difference between evangelical Arminianism and rationalistic Arminianism by examining the righteousness of justifying faith in the thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch. The two systems are radically different, and if we are to retain the name “Arminian” in its historical character, then we must reserve the name “Remonstrant” for the theology which Limborch expounded. The differences between these two theologies of grace can be seen by outlining their respective doctrines of atonement and faith. In the wake of such an examination, it will become apparent why it is important to maintain both an historical and theological distinction between these two systems.

The Nature of the Atonement

Arminius’ doctrine of atonement is often linked with either explicitly or implicitly with the governmental theories of Remonstrant thought.[9] One recent expositor, H. D. McDonald, continues this linkage by placing Arminius’ understanding of atonement in the context of Socinian and Remonstrant theorists.[10] Arminius, according to McDonald, deviated from Reformed thought by arguing that “Christ’s expiatory sacrifice was not an equivalent for the punishment due to sin.”[11] God’s law was relaxed or modified so as to accept a lesser payment for sin than what the rigor of divine justice required.

However, these assessments ignore an important passage in the discussion between Arminius and Francius Junius.[12] Arminius maintains that the death of Christ was a full and complete satisfaction for sin according to the rigor of divine justice. The law of God is fundamentally “inflexible.” It was not a relaxation or modification of the law. Rather, the wisdom of God found a way to both satisfy the rigor of justice and at the same time offer mercy to humanity. The satisfaction for the justice of God was not based on some kind of relaxation of the law, but was executed according to the “the inflexible rigor of divine justice displayed, which could not grant, even to the intercession of His son, the pardon of sin unless punishment had been inflicted.”

This was effected through the penal substitution of Jesus Christ. God’s justice, according to Arminius, could be satisfied by either punishing the sinner or “by the exaction of the same punishment from Him who has offered Himself according to God’s will as bail and surety for sinners.” He suffered both the eternal and temporal penalties of sin in our place.[13] He suffered the punishment due to sinful humanity. God imposed “upon his Son the punishment due from sinners, and taken away from them, to be borne and paid in full by Him.”[14] His death earned a real merit which is bestowed upon believers in justification.

Arminius’ doctrine of atonement is fundamentally the same as that of the Reformers except that he gives an explicit universal potential to the benefits of Christ’s death.[15] These benefits are universal in potential but not in actuality. They are actually applied to believers only. Christ is the potential substitute for everyone, but the actual substitute for those whom God has elected in Christ as believers. Yet, even this wording differs little from Reformed formulations of the time except for the phrase “elected in Christ as believers.”[16]

Limborch, however, maintains that the death of Christ is regarded by God as a satisfaction for sin according to grace, but not according to the intrinsic merit of the death itself. The death of Christ is meritorious for universal redemption only because God’s will has determined to regard it as such.[17] The intrinsic value of Christ’s death, according to the rigor of divine justice, is insufficient for the redemption of all humanity. “Christ did not suffer eternal death,” and therefore did not suffer the “punishment due to our sins.”[18] Thus the satisfaction which was rendered for sin was not full and complete.

Rather, God was satisfied by the determination of his own will rather than by the demands of his justice. Limborch is, in this context, voluntaristic.[19] God only punishes sin if He so wills, and the “retributive justice” of God is not an “essential attribute” of his nature so that he must punish.[20] While the death of Christ exhibited God’s wrath and did pay the temporal penalty of sin, it did not satisfy the retributive justice of God. Rather, God regards Christ’s death as a substitute for us even though it is a substitute which is insufficient according to the rigor of divine justice. The mercy of God moderated God’s wrath so that it was not inflexible with regard to our sin.[21]

Consequently, the death of Christ did not fulfill God’s just demands, but relaxed God’s demands upon humanity. This relaxation of the demands of the law has universal consequences so that anyone who has never heard the Gospel (the conditions of the New Covenant) may be saved by meeting the demands of the law according to the revelations available to them.[22] The effects of Christ’s death are universally applied without faith, that is, God’s law now stands relaxed for everyone. The gift of righteousness is given when one meets the demands of that relaxed law whether by the light of nature or on the grounds of the terms of the New Covenant.

The difference between Arminius and Limborch is the same difference which exists between Calvin and Grotius.[23] It is the difference between the penal theory of atonement and the governmental theory. According to the former, Christ paid the full penalty of sin as a substitute for us. According to the latter, Christ simply relaxed God’s laws so that we would be able to effectively accomplish them. For Arminius, the law remains intact and inflexible, but fulfilled by Christ in his life and death. For Limborch, the Law is moderated and relaxed, and the related demands of the law are then met by us for our salvation. The ground of salvation in Arminius is a just and real fulfillment of the law’s demands which is given by imputation, but in Limborch it is an abrogation of the just demands of the law. The difference between Arminius and Limborch here is the difference between what Christ has done for us and in our stead, and what we must do for ourselves in addition to Christ’s work in the actual accomplishment of redemption. It is the difference between God imputing Christ’s righteousness to the believer and the believer receiving the righteousness on the ground of his own act of faith.

The Merit of Faith

Arminius explicitly declared that he found himself in “complete agreement” with the Reformed and Protestant churches on the topic of justification by faith.[24] His agreement is so thorough that he is willing to ascribe to all that Calvin said on the subject. Arminius writes:

Yet my opinion is not so widely different from his as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand in subscription to those thins which he has delivered on this subject, in the third book of his Institutes; this is I am prepared to do at any time and to give them my full approval.[25]

Nevertheless, Arminius has often been accused of heterodoxy on this point, and such accusations continue. For example, Praamsma argues that Arminius taught that “man is justified before God not on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ but by the human act of believing which constituted his righteousness before God.” Praamsma adds that this contradicts the answer to question sixty-one of the Heidelberg Catechism.[26] But when Arminius was questioned about his doctrine of justification at The Hague in 1608, he replied by quoting the answers to questions sixty and sixty-one of the Heidelberg Catechism as his own opinion.[27]

According to Arminius, the righteousness which man receives in justification is wholly external to himself. It is, in fact, the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to him. As he stood before the States of Holland at The Hague, Arminius offered this succinct statement of his views:

I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons sins of believers and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law.[28]

Thus, the ground of our justification is that God “bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes his righteousness and obedience to us.”[29] At the heart of this concept is Arminius’ doctrine of atonement. It is, like that of his Reformed critics, both substitutionary and penal in its nature. The merit of Christ is imputed to the believer as the ground of justification. He believes that “God reckons the righteousness of Christ to have been performed for us and for our benefit.”[30] The critics of Arminius believed that he attributed merit or righteousness to the human act of faith, and the charge continues.[31] This misperception is rooted in Arminius’ understanding that faith is both an act and an instrument. It is an act of the human will which has been graciously enabled by the work of God’s Holy Spirit. Faith is an act of the human will, but an act that is rooted in God’s prevenient grace. God grants both the ability and the will to believe, but the act of faith itself is a matter of cooperative grace.[32]

Faith, however, is also passive. First, the act of faith never arises out of the human subject alone. The grace of God not only precedes, but accompanies and follows any good that man accomplishes.[33] Second, the act of faith has no inherent merit. Arminius attempts to make this clearer:

Christ has not obtained (promeritum) by his merits that we should be justified by the worthiness and merit of faith and much less that we should be justified by the merit of works: But the merit of Christ is opposed to justification by works; and in the Scriptures, faith and merit are placed in opposition to each other.[34]

Faith is the instrumental cause of justification. It receives the gift of righteousness. It does not, as an act, contain within itself saving righteousness. The righteousness of justification is the righteousness of Christ which he earned in his life and death and is bestowed upon the believer as if he were personally righteous. Faith is the condition for the reception of that righteousness, but it contains no merit within itself. It receives all merit from outside of itself and does not constitute its own righteousness.

Arminius illustrated the active nature of faith and yet the passive reception of external righteousness by the metaphor of a beggar who received wealth from a rich man. “Does it cease to be a pure gift,” he asks, “because the beggar extends his hand to receive it?”[35] Consequently, faith receives the righteousness which Christ earned. Interestingly, Reid explains Calvin’s view of the nature of faith in similar terms. Just as for Arminius, faith is the instrument by which “the sinner lays hold upon Christ’s righteousness freely offered to him in the Gospel.” Or, to use the analogy that Reid employs, “it is the empty outstretched hand which receives by imputation the righteousness of Christ.”[36] Whether one refers to “laying hold” or “holding out an empty hand,” the point is that faith is a human act enabled by grace and it contains no merit within itself. Calvin and Arminius are agreed on these points.

On the contrary, Limborch explicitly rejects the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. “Nowhere,” he writes,” “does Scripture teach that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.”[37] This, of course, is an implication of his rejection of penal substitutional atonement. But this immediately raises the question: “From where, then, does justifying righteousness come?”

According to Limborch, the righteousness which man receives in justification is partly based upon his own imperfect, yet righteous, act of faith. It is partly his own righteous act and partly a righteousness which God grants independently of the righteousness of Christ. Faith does not contain within itself a justifying righteousness according to the rigor of divine justice, but it does contain a righteousness which God graciously regards as justifying. Limborch explicitly denies that this is an imputation of Christ’s righteousness. In Limborch’s system, God is willing to declare man righteous because of what Christ has done and because of man’s faith.

He argues that God has willed to show his mercy by two means (media): “one is outside of us, and another is in us.”[38] The external medium is the redemptive act of Christ on the cross and the internal medium is the act of human faith.[39]The redemption of humanity depends upon the righteousness of Christ only in the sense that his blood opened the way of salvation by the propitiation of God’s wrath. His righteousness, then, may be considered an “external means” in that it established a new covenant between God and us, but it is not an “internal means” in the sense that we are considered righteous by virtue of his righteousness through our acceptance of God’s gracious offer in the gospel.[40] Rather, our own faith is the internal means of achieving righteousness. With this structure, Limborch is able to argue that one is justified both on account of (propter) Christ and on account of (propter) human faith. This is clear in his definition of justification itself:

Justification is a merciful and gracious act of God by which sinners who truly repent and believe are fully absolved from all guilt through and on account of (propter) faith in Jesus and that same faith is graciously imputed for righteousness.[41]

Consequently, the death of Christ and human faith stand on equal footing. Just as the death of Christ earned or merited something for us, we earn or merit something for ourselves by faith. Neither merits anything according to the rigor of divine justice, but in God’s voluntaristic gracious accounting both have a meriting function.[42]

However, all that Christ did was to relax the law so that what we do God can regard as righteousness.[43] Faith becomes an act of human righteousness which meets the demands of the relaxed law. It is accounted righteousness graciously because Christ’s work relaxed the law, but it is true righteousness in that it does meet the actual demands of the unrelaxed law. Yet, even the work of Christ is based upon a relaxation of the law rather than a real fulfillment of its demands. Christ did not pay the penalty of sin according to divine justice, but God accepted a lesser payment for the real one. Thus, the ground of salvation is two-fold: Christ’s work and man’s faith. Though the former precedes the latter, the faith actually earns the righteousness by which we stand in the presence of God. This is not simply because faith is the mere instrument or receptacle by which righteousness is received from Christ, but because it is itself a work of righteousness and forms the foundation of God’s accounting us righteous. In other words, we must be righteous according to the relaxed demands of the law, in at least this real sense, before God can count us as perfectly righteous. Indeed, technically, God does not graciously count us as righteous since by faith we are, in fact, righteous in that we have met the actual demands of the relaxed law. It is imputed to him or counted as his only in the sense that man needed the work of Christ to relax the law. This is the “gracious” accounting in Limborch’s theology of grace.

Thus, according to Limborch, we become righteous by the righteousness inherent in faith rather than by a righteousness that is given external to faith. This is consistent with his principle that there is no righteousness but what is personal.[44] Thus, we are righteous by the righteousness inherent in our own act of faith rather than by something external to ourselves.

The difference between Arminius and Limborch at this point is of paramount importance. It is the difference between an external gift of righteousness and an internal or inherent righteousness. Limborch holds that God graciously regards our own act of faith as righteousness itself based upon our true accomplishment of the demands of the law. His concept of grace is rooted in God’s relaxation of the demands of the law. Arminius holds that God counts faith as the condition for the reception of righteousness external to personal faith. This grace is a free gift of true merit given to believers. Limborch regards faith as containing merit (in the sense of the relaxed law) but Arminius excludes merit from faith. Limborch denies that righteousness is extra nos, but Arminius affirms the Reformation dogma of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the ground of acceptance before God.

While Limborch and Arminius may sometimes write with similar terminology (such as the “act of faith”), their presuppositions and framework for understanding faith give an entirely different sense to their words. In a similar way, Limborch’s use of the terms “propitiate,” “satisfy,” and “redeem” in reference to the work of Christ does not imply that he meant the same thing that his contemporary opponents among the Contra-Remonstrants meant. Presuppositions determine the meaning which is attached to a particular term. This is certainly the case between Limborch and Arminius. While they often use similar terminology, they mean very different things. It is, therefore, improper to read Limborch’s understanding of the merit of faith into Arminius’ description of faith as an act. Faith for Arminius is only a receptacle for the gift of righteousness. It is not a meritorious act. But for Limborch the death of Christ and the act of faith are meritorious in exactly the same sense, that is, God graciously accepts them as sufficient for redemption even though neither measure up to the rigor of divine justice.

The Significance of Arminianism

The distinction between Arminius and Limborch, between evangelical Arminianism and Remonstrantism, is significant both historically and theologically. It is historically significant because the term “Arminian” has become synonymous with “opposition to Calvinism.” Consequently, theological systems dubbed “Arminianism” have ranged from Wesleyan to Socinian, from Catholicism to naturalistic Pelagianism. “Arminian” has become a historically imprecise appellation.

The differences between the two systems demonstrate that the two cannot be regarded as the same nor construed to be logically related by implication. Arminius’ theology constantly emphasizes grace while Limborch’s constantly emphasizes human ability. The presuppositions from which they approach the theology of grace are radically different. Thus, the two systems must be distinguished in the historical categorization of theology.

In one sense, Arminianism and Remonstrantism can be classified together. They both adhere to certain points which give them a common heritage: universal potential of the atonement of Christ, the election of believers in Christ, and the resistibility of grace. These are sine qua non principles of Arminianism though one Arminian system may interpret them differently and set them into an entirely different framework. Yet, there is some justification for placing Arminianism and Remonstrantism into this broad category. However, this classification does nothing more than distinguish it from pure Augustinianism. This is merely a category of anti-Calvinism since one may place Socinians, Pelagians, and other groups into this same broad category.

Therefore, while these common principles may mean that both Arminianism and Remonstrantism share a common anti-Calvinist posture, they do not provide a useful historical classification. Arminius may be called an “evangelical Arminian,” “early Arminian,” or “low Arminian” in distinction from Remonstrantism which may be called “liberal Arminianism,” “later Arminianism,” or “high Arminianism.”[45] But these categories are not useful since “Arminian” here simply means anti-Calvinist, and may even presuppose some logical development from one to the other. Instead of seeking some overarching principle which unites Arminius and Limborch against Calvinism, it is best to view Arminianism and Remonstrantism as two separate theological systems because even the principles they share are absorbed into the respective systems so differently. The categories of “Arminian” and “Remonstrant” represent the historical roots more accurately and provide a clearer theological distinction between them.

Historical theologians must, therefore, be more careful in the discussion of Arminianism because the theological distinction is real and important. It is a distinction between evangelical and non-evangelical theology, between evangelicalism and legalism or moralism. As historians of theology, we owe it to those who have preceded us to carefully understand and categorize their thought. The Arminian tradition is the historical line of Arminius and Wesley. The Remonstrant tradition is the historical line of Grotius, Limborch and Latitudinarianism.

Recent research bears this out in the study of nineteenth century Methodism where there were Methodists who represented both the Arminian and Remonstrant positions.[46] The Restoration Movement of the Disciples also represented this Arminian-Remonstrant tension in the nineteenth century.[47] The danger of any development which leaves evangelical theology is represented in both of these historical movements. The movement will either find a dead-end in the moralism of religious pluralism, or frustrate itself with a legalism that subtly looks to the sinner to save himself.

The distinction between Arminianism and Remonstrantism is, more importantly, theological significant. It is a watershed issue for evangelicalism. It is the watershed issue of the Reformation itself. If Arminianism is to remain evangelical, it must take seriously the importance of its doctrine of atonement and justification. From where does justifying righteousness come—extra nos or intra nos? Is righteousness a gift wholly external to ourselves, or is it show inherent within the act of faith?

The righteousness which is imputed, according to Arminianism, is the righteousness which Christ merited through his obedience. The righteousness which is imputed, according to Remonstrantism, is God’s gracious estimation of the human act of faith. This is no mere semantical difference. It is a fundamental disagreement concerning the ground of grace itself. It is the difference between being clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness and being clothed in our own partial righteousness graciously estimated by God to be perfect. It is the difference between a real righteousness forensically imputed to us and a fictitious righteousness voluntaristically (i.e., “graciously” in Limborch’s terminology, but not true righteousness according to divine justice) imputed to us. It is the difference between righteousness being wholly derived from Christ’s work or righteousness partially derived from our own faith.

Faith is trusting in the merits of Christ. Faith is trusting only in Christ’s merits.[48] Faith remains a human act, yet an act that is responsive to and enabled by God’s grace. Faith is a human act, but it receives all its saving merit, all its saving righteousness, from outside of itself. Faith is a receptacle for God’s gift of righteousness which Christ earned for us in our stead. It is not a human act of merit which arises out of man’s natural ability and meets the demands of the law of God. It is an outstretched and empty hand that looks only to God to provide the righteousness by which redemption is secured.

This is the message of the gospel itself. The distinction that Paul draws in Philippians 3:9 is the distinction between Arminianism and Remonstrantism. Paul yearns to be found in Christ, “not having a righteousness of my own that come from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.” Remonstrantism, as any legalism, is a righteousness that is derived from law; a righteousness that is earned by meeting the demands of law, whether it is relaxed or not. Arminianism seeks a righteousness from God through faith so that the ground on which we stand before God is Jesus Christ and his righteousness rather than our own.

The theological distinction between Arminianism and Remonstrantism, then, is rooted in the understanding of the ground of grace—in the nature of the gospel itself. In particular, their differing views of the atonement of Christ result in differing views concerning the nature of faith. The result is that while Arminianism receives the external gift of righteousness by which we stand perfect in God’s sight, Remonstrantism looks to the believer to measure up to a relaxed standard of righteousness which God accepts in the place of actual righteousness. The latter is a fiction, but the former is the perfect righteousness of Christ.

Conclusion

Arminianism, as represented by Arminius and Wesley, does not contain a substantial departure from the theology of grace in the Reformers. In particular, the theology of Arminius is fundamentally Reformed in character.[49] Arminianism holds to the Reformation doctrines of penal substitution and extra nos righteousness.

Remonstrantism, however, involves an acceptance of certain premises which are destructive of the theology of the Reformation. In the development of Remonstrant thought one finds the spirit of the Enlightenment. Living in the ‘age of reason,’ the Remonstrant leaders, and Limborch in particular, became one of the major forces in the undermining of evangelical theology. Frederick Platt concluded that “Arminianism [i.e., Remonstrantism] was the medium by which the humanistic spirit of the Renaissance was translated into the theological and exegetical sphere. Its great men—Grotius, Episcopius, Limborch, Brant, Le Clerc—are all men of literary faculty and humanistic temper.”[50]

Arminianism, therefore, stands with the theology of Reformation while Remonstrantism represents the breakdown and disintegration of that theology. Arminianism is fundamentally evangelical while Remonstrantism is humanistic. The difference is the difference between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The church was moving into a new age, and as it moved, its theology changed. This change not only affected Dutch Arminianism but Swiss Calvinism[51] and English Anglicanism.[52] It was reflective of the age in which reason dominated, and faith in Scripture was slowly being eroded by the rise of autonomous philosophy and science.

It is even now reflective of the modern struggle of evangelical Arminianism to find some sort of self-definition. Any definition of Arminianism will ultimately look back to both Arminius and Wesley, and when it does not find itself there, it may discover that it is not Arminian after all. It might be, in fact, Remonstrant.

[1] The definitive biography is Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, 1985).
[2] For a history of the Remonstrantsch Broederschap, see Lucie J. N. K. van Aken, De Remonstrantsch Broederschap in verleden en heden, historische schets (Arnhem, 1947) and G. J. Hoendeerdaal, “Remonstrantie en Constraremonstrantie,” Nederlands Archief Kerkegeschiedenis 51.1 (1970), 49-92.
[3] The definitive biography of Limborch is P. J. Barnouw, Philippus van Limborch (Leiden, 1963).
[4] Limborch, Theologia Christiana, ad praxin pietatisac promotionem pacis christianae unice directa (Amsterdam, 1686, 1695, 1700, 1715, 1730, 1735). It was abridged, translated into English and revised “with improvements from Bishop Wilkins, Archbishop Tilloston, Dr. Scott, and others” by William Jones, A Complete System, or Body of Divinity (London, 1713). All translations from this work are mine. The 1700 edition is utilized.
[5] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, 1943) 1:87.
[6] For example, D. D. Whedon, “Arminianism and Arminius,” Methodist Quarterly Review 61 (July 1879): 405-426.
[7] For example, James Meeuwsen, “Original Arminianism and Methodistic Arminainism Compared,” Reformed Review 14.1 (1960): 21-36.
[8] See my dissertation, The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism (Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985). Other similar studies include Carl Bangs, Arminius, pp. 332-349; Moses Stuart, “The Creed of Arminius,” Biblical Repository 1 (April 1831) 226-308; and Howard A. Slaate, The Arminian Arm of Theology: The Theology of John Fletcher, First Methodist Theologian, and His Precursor, James Arminius (Washington, D. C., 1977).
[9] One older example is J. A. Doner, History of Protestant Theology, trans. George Robson and Sopia Taylor (New York, 1970 reprint), 1:423. An example of implicit linkage is Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1977 reprint), 3:185-187.
[10] H. D. McDonald, The Atonement of the Death of Christ in Faith, Revelation, and History (Grand Rapids, 1985), pp. 199-201. For a response, see the review article by William S. Sailer, “H. D. McDonald, The Atonement of the Death of Christ. A Review Article,” Evangelical Journal 4.1 (1986) 29-36.
[11] McDonald, p. 200.
[12] Arminus, “Francius Junius,” XX, in The Writings of James Arminius, London Edition, trans. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, and with introduction by Carl Bangs (Grand Rapids, 1986 reprint), 3:194-195.
[13] Arminius, “Apology,” IX, in Writings, 3:766-770. The detractors of Arminius only accused him of teaching that Christ did not bear the temporal punishment of sin, but admitted that he did teach that Christ rendered satisfaction for eternal punishment.
[14] Arminius, “Junius,” XX, in Writings, 3:195.
[15] This is the burden of Arminius’ discussion with Perkins at many points. See Writings, 3:323-338.
[16] See the discussion by W. Robert Godfrey, “Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal 37.2 (1975) 133-171.
[17] Limborch, Theologia, III, xxii, 5. In his commentary on Romans 3:25, he writes: “non rigori justitiae, sed voluntati divinae justae simul ac misericordi satisfecerit (Commentari in Acta apostolorum et in Epistolas ad Romans et ad Hebraeos [Rotterdam, 1711]).
[18] Limborch, Theologia, III, xxi, 6.
[19] Limbroch, Theologia, II, xii, 24-26.
[20] Limborch, Theologia, II, xii, 27.
[21] Limborch, Theologia, II, xii, 2; xiii, 1.
[22] This is expressed most clearly in a letter to John Locke, March 16, 1697, in The Correspondance of John Locke, edited by E. S. de Beer (Oxford, 1976), no. 2222: “If this is stated I think that it can be explained on what ground, the principles stated above being preserved intact, those who have heard nothing of Christ, not even by hearsay, can be saved by Christ: [it is] surely because God attaches the grace obtained by Christ to those who (as this author says on p. 292 [Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity]) by the instinct of the light of nature fly for succour to his grace and mercy, and repent of [their] misdeeds, and humbly ask pardon for them; and grants them for Christ’s sake the remission of sins, and imputes righteousness to them; and so through the gracious imputation of God, who can spread his favours and benefits more widely than the words of the promises prescribe, those without direct belief in Christ, who has not been preached to them, may attain the benefit which, where Christ has been preached, cannot be obtained except through direct belief in him. So that the salvation of all mean is thus founded on the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.”
[23] See for example, McDonald, pp. 187-195, 203-207.
[24] Arminius, “Declaration of Sentiments,” IX, in Writings, 1:695.
[25] Ibid., 1:700. Of course some of Arminius’ contemporaries as well as modern scholars doubt his sincerity or candid nature. See, for example, A. A. Hodge, Outline of Theology (London, 1879), p. 105; A. Warburton, Calvinism (Grand Rapids, 1955), p. 6; Pieter Geyl, The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century. Part One: 1609-1648, 2nd ed. (New York, 1961), p. 45 and John R. de Witt, “The Arminian Conflict and the Synod of Dort,” in The Manifold Grace of God (Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1968), p. 10. For a response, see Carl Bangs, “Arminius and the Reformation,” Church History 30.2 (1961) 156-157. F. Stuart Clark, “Arminius’ Understanding of Calvin,” Evangelical Quarterly 54.1 (1983) 25: “It is an accusation easy to make and hard to refute, because of the practice of the theological professors of the time, including Arminius, of boarding students in their own homes and giving them private teaching, but if it is true, there is no point in studying Arminius’ published view of Calvin or of anyone or anything else. My own position is that it would have been psychologically impossible to express the full-blooded views of grace etc. that Arminius did, while privately believing the wishy-washy Pelagianism that this view would attribute to him.”
[26] Louis Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy (1586-1618),” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, ed. Peter Y. DeJong (Grand Rapids, 1968), p. 55. Contrast Slaate, Arminian Arm, p. 55: “The Arminian view of justification by faith is basically that held by the Refomers.” My dissertation upholds Slaate’s conclusion (Hicks, pp. 70-110).
[27] Bangs, Arminius, p. 298.
[28] Arminius, “Declaration of Sentiments,” IX, in Writings, 1:700.
[29] Arminius, “Private Disputations,” XLVIII.v, in Writings, 2:406.
[30] Arminius, “Letter to Hippolytus,” V, in Writings, 2:702.
[31] Meeuwsen, “Original Arminianism,” pp. 31-32.
[32] See his discussion in “Nine Questions,” VIII, in Writings, 2:270.
[33] Arminius, “Apology,” XVI-XVII, in Writings, 2:16-20.
[34] Arminius, “Private Disputations,” XLVIII, Corollary iii, in Writings, 2:408.
[35] Arminius, “Apology,” XXVII, in Writings, 2:52.
[36] W. Stanford Reid, “Justification by Faith According to John Calvin,” Westminster Theological Journal 42.2 (1980) 295-296.
[37] Limborch, Theologia, VI, iv, 25.
[38] Limborch, Theologia, VI, iv, 20.
[39] Limborch, Theologia, VI, iv, 21-22.
[40] Limborch, Theologia, III, iii, 15.
[41] Limborch, Theologia, VI, iv, 14.
[42] Limborch, Commentarius, cv. Romans 3:25; also cv. Romans 6:23.
[43] Limborch, Theologia, III, xi, 25. F. A. O. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis, 1950 reprint), 2:239, recognized that the Remonstrants made “Christ a new Lawgiver” since their “position amounts to saying that Christ demands less by way of works than Moses to obtain salvation.” See Richard A. Mueller, “The Federal Motif in the Seventeenth Century Arminian Theology,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkegeschiendenis 62.1 (1982) 102-122 for a discussion of Limborch’s covenantal theology.
[44] Limborch, Theologia, IV, iv, 1. Cf. Commentarius, cv. Rom. 5:18: “The sins of every man are certainly personal actions which do not reach any farther and neither are they capable of being passed from one man to another.”
[45] See the terminology used, for instance, by R. L. Dabney, Systematic and Polemic Theology, 6th ed. (Richmond, 1927), p. 579 and Wiley, 2:107.
[46] Elden Dale Dunlap, “Methodist Theology in Great Britain in the Nineteenth Century, With Special Reference to the Theology of Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, and William Burt Pope,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1956) and Robert E. Chiles, Protestant Transition in American Methodism, 1790-1935 (Washington, D.C., 1983). This is even reflected in the way in which John Wesley was interpreted in the nineteenth century until the “rediscovery” of evangelical Arminianism by G. C. Cell, The Rediscovery of John Wesley (New York, 1935).
[47] This is indicated by several factors, but most importantly by the diverse views of the nature of the atonement and the almost universal denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. One example is an article by Clement, “The Atonement,” The Lard’s Quarterly 5 (April 1866) 158-193 where the governmental theory of atonement is defended and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is denied. See the discussion of C. Leonard Allen, The Cruciform Church: Becoming a Cross-Shaped People in a Secular World (Abilene, 1990), pp. 113-148.
[48] Alan C. Clifford, “The Gospel and Justification,” Evangelical Quarterly 57.3 (1985) 254.
[49] Slaate, P. 23: “James Arminius was simply a left-wing Calvinist!” Stuart, however, belived that Arminius was “merely a moderate Calvinist; and moderate too in a very limited degree,” p. 304. This is the burden of Carl Bangs, “Arminius and Reformed Theology” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958).
[50] Frederick Platt, “Arminianism,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by. J. Hastings (New York, 1908), 1:814.
[51] Richard C. Gamble, “Switzerland: Triumph and Decline,” in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, ed. by W. Stanford Reid (Grand Rapids: 1982), pp. 55-71.
[52] Geoffrey F. Nuttall, “The Influence of Arminianism in England,” in Man’s Faith and Freedom, ed. by Gerald O. McCulloh (Nashville, 1962), pp. 46-63; Gordon S. Wakefield, “Arminianism in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review 185 (1960) 253-258; and T. M. Parker, “Arminianism and Laudianism in Seventeenth Century England,” in Studies in Church History, ed. by C. W. Dugmore and Charles Duggan (London, 1964), 1:20-34.

The Reformed Faith and Arminianism

By John Murray
From a series which appeared in The Presbyterian Guardian in 1935-1936.

Arminianism derives its name from James Arminius, a minister of the Reformed Church in Holland who lived from 1560 to 1609. He became Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden, in 1603. It was particularly during the period of his professorial activity at Leyden that he gave expression to the departures from the Reformed Faith that have ever since been associated with his name. Arminius died in 1609, but he left behind him disciples who continued to teach and develop his tenets.

In 1610 a document known as the "Remonstrance" and frequently spoken of as "The Five Arminian Articles" was signed by forty-six ministers and presented to the civil authorities of the United Provinces. These articles set forth the doctrine of the "Remonstrants" or Arminians, as they came to be called, on the subjects of predestination, the extent of the atonement, the cause of saving grace, and perseverance. These articles were both negative and positive - they denied one doctrine and affirmed another.

In the early stages of the controversy the precise hearings and implications of some of the points had not become explicit, but, as the conflict precipitated by the Remonstrants developed, it became evident that the five points of the Reformed Faith which the Arminians were particularly insistent upon denying were unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. These Calvinists affirmed, Arminians denied.

These five points do not define for us what the Reformed Faith or Calvinism is. The Reformed Faith is a system of truth and is much more comprehensive than any five points that might be enumerated, however important in it or essential to it these five points might be. In these five points attacked by the Arminians, however, the system of truth known as Calvinism may said to be crystallized. They express what this system is in opposition to the Arminian system or any other system that, in similar fashion, is opposed to it. They ever continue to be the decisive points at which conflict is joined with any system of thought that is moved by an Arminian bias and directed by the same underlying principles.

Neither are we to think that the error of Arminianism is confined to these five points. Arminianism is a theology and the difference between this theology and the theology of the Reformed Church comes to expression at many other points. The error of the Arminian theology is, however, summed up in these five points and so the greater part of the controversy in the past is quite justifiably found to concern the doctrines enunciated in them. What is true in reality has been demonstrated by history.

Unconditional Predestination

The first article of the Remonstrance of 1610 concerned predestination. All of the early Reformers were substantially at one on the doctrine of predestination. It is in the Reformed Church alone, however, that the doctrine of absolute predestination held by Luther as well as by Calvin continued to hold sway and came to its rights. What does it mean?

In answering we cannot do better than quote the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter III:

"i. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

"iii. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

"iv. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

"v. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the word was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or anything in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace."

This statement of the doctrine was framed by the Westminster divines in 1645, but it is just the well-articulated creedal expression of the doctrine held by the early Reformers, conserved in the Reformed Church, and attacked by the Arminians. The import of the first section quoted is just this: that the whole sweep of universal history from the beginning to the end, in all its extent and minutest detail, is embraced in the plan and decree of God, that all that comes to pass, great or small, good or bad, God from eternity immutably determined would come to pass.

It is not, however, in connection with the all-comprehensive decree of God that the conflict with the Arminian in the first instance is joined. It is as this decree comes to bear upon the destinies of rational beings and more particularly upon the destinies of men, in other words, as the decree becomes operative in the predestination to life of some of mankind and the foreordination to death of others. But the doctrine of the general decree bears directly upon the question of the destinies of men. If God freely and unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, and if it comes to pass that some men are saved and some perish, then surely He has freely and unchangeably ordained these facts as well as others. If the Arminian denies the latter he must also deny the former.

Predestination to life and foreordination to death mean substantially that from all eternity God sovereignly, according to the counsel of His will, chose or elected a definite number of the human race to everlasting life, that He elected them as individuals, and that in making this election He was not conditioned by His foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in both, but that the election was determined by that sovereign good pleasure which finds its whole ground and explanation in Himself and in nothing else. In other words, God by an absolute, unconditional, and unchangeable decree determined the salvation of certain persons out of free grace and love, and that in accordance with that decree He executes the purpose of His grace and love. The others not elected, by the exercise of the same sovereign good pleasure He decreed to pass by and ordain to everlasting destruction as the reward of their sins.

It is this doctrine Arminianism denies. In the words of James Arminius, "God has not absolutely predestinated any men to salvation; but that he has in his decree considered them as believers." It is peculiarly important that this fact should be appreciated. The fundamental principle of Arminianism on this article of faith is denial of the doctrine set forth in Reformed Standards. Too often the significance and seriousness of this is obscured by appeal on the part of Arminians to the positive side of their teaching. We must not allow this obscuration. Arminianism starts with negation, the denial of the doctrine of sovereign unconditional election. However much truth the more positive elaboration of the Arminian position may embody, it in no way ceases to be Arminian as long as the denial of unconditional election remains, for this is the crux of the question. Everyone who denies unconditional election denies an aspect of truth that is of the essence of Reformed doctrine.

The Arminian position involves, as we have already hinted, more than negation. The Remonstrance reads thus: "Article I. That God, by an eternal unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through his grace, even to the end."

On superficial examination it might appear that there is no essential difference between this and the position set forth in the Reformed Standards. Does it not speak of an eternal and unchangeable purpose of God by which He determines to save all who believe on His Son and persevere to the end? It certainly does this, and no one in this controversy will deny that what is said is as such true. God does eternally and unchangeably determine to save all who believe and persevere in holiness to the end. But there is a chasm of difference between what the Arminian here affirms and what the Calvinist affirms.

The difference is just this. The Calvinist affirms that God eternally and unchangeably decrees the salvation of certain persons whom He sovereignly distinguishes by this decree from those who are not appointed to salvation. In pursuance of this decree of salvation He decrees the ends towards its accomplishment, and so decrees to give faith and perseverance to all those predestined to salvation. The Arminian denies any such decree bearing upon the salvation of individuals, and what he affirms in its place is that God decrees or purposes to save all who believe and persevere in faith and obedience to the end. In the former case there is the eternal destination to salvation of persons who are the objects of God's sovereign election; in the latter case there is the divine purpose to save the class characterized by faith and perseverance. In the ultimate analysis the former is the election of persons, the latter is the election of qualities with the provision that all who exhibit these qualities will be saved.

Some Arminians under the stress of the argument, and also on exegetical grounds, perceive the inadequacy of the foregoing position, and so they say that God not only decrees to save all who believe, but that He also elects all who believe. There is therefore, they say, an eternal unchangeable election of individuals whose number is certain, an election indeed of all who are to be ultimately saved. Some may be disposed to say that this is exactly the teaching of the Reformed Standards. A little investigation will expose the fallacy of this.

The hallmark of Calvinism is unconditional election and that is exactly what this highest type of Arminianism vigorously denies. It professes indeed fixed and unchangeable election of individuals. But what is meant is, that, since God decrees to save all who believe and since He knows perfectly beforehand and from eternity who will believe, He on the basis of that foresight as ground and cause elects these individuals to eternal life. God elects all whom He foresees will believe and persevere to the end. His election then is determined by His foresight of some difference that comes to exist among men, a difference which He Himself does not cause but which in the final analysis is due to sovereign choice on the part of the human will. The determining factor in this type of election then is not the sovereign unconditioned good pleasure of God but the decision of the human will which God from eternity foresees. Election is not the source of faith, but faith foreseen is made the source or condition of election.

On close examination it should be evident that this is not divine election at all. The sovereign determination of God is ruled out at the vital point, for the ultimate determinant of the discrimination that exists among men is made to be something in men and not the sovereign good pleasure of God. Indeed this type of Arminianism that at first appears to approach so closely to the Reformed position only serves to show more clearly the total difference between the two systems. The election taught in the Reformed Church is election to salvation and eternal life and therefore also to faith and all other graces as the means ordained of God to the accomplishment of His sovereign decree. Election is not then conditioned upon faith, but faith is the fruit of election. God sovereignly works faith in men because He has in His eternal counsel appointed them to salvation. Faith is not the logical prius of election, but election is the eternal prius and source of faith. Arminianism at its best denies all of these propositions.

The denial of unconditional election strikes at the heart of the doctrine of the grace of God. The grace of God is absolutely sovereign and every failure to recognize and appreciate the absolute sovereignty of God in His saving grace is an expression of the pride of the human heart. It rests upon the demand that God can deal differently with men in the matter of salvation only because they have made themselves to differ. In its ultimate elements it means that the determining factor in salvation is what man himself does, and that is just tantamount to saying that it is not God who determines the salvation of men, but men determine their own salvation; it is not God who saves but man saves himself. This is precisely the issue.

Limited Atonement

The second article of the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610 concerned the question of the extent of the atonement. It reads as follows: "Article II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16. . . . . And in the First Epistle of John 2:2 . . ." This is an emphatic statement of what is known as the doctrine of universal atonement, and is in its essence that Christ died for all men alike and procured for them equally and without distinction redemption and forgiveness of sins. The atonement as such, it says in effect, has as its intention the provision of salvation for all, the making of the salvation of all men possible, the placing of all men and every man in a salvable state or condition.

In opposition to this the Reformed Faith affirms the doctrine of what is known as limited atonement. What does it mean? Perhaps the best answer that can be given to this question is to set forth the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter VIII, section V.

Redemption Purchased for the Elect

"The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." This definitely states that reconciliation and an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven is purchased for all those given to the Son by the Father. Who are they? In section 1 of this same chapter we are told that they are the people given to Christ from all eternity to be His seed and "to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified." The people given to Christ are surely the same as the people chosen in Christ - the form of expression used in chapter III, section v - and they are simply those of mankind predestinated unto life, namely, the elect. With respect to them the Confession continues: "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation." (III.vi.) It is for the elect, therefore, for the predestinated to life, for those given to Christ by the Father, for those chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, that reconciliation and an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of heaven is purchased. It is they who are redeemed by Christ. Thus teaches the Confession, and so the difference has already become apparent.

Purchase and Application Co-extensive

"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same." (VIII.viii.) The import of this cannot be controverted. It is that the extent of the purchase of redemption is exactly the same as the extent of actual salvation. If Christ purchased redemption for all, then all will have that applied and communicated to them. If only a certain number of the human race are ultimately saved, then only for that number did Christ purchase redemption.

So explicit is the above statement that it needs no confirmation. But in order to show that this is not a random statement but a determining principle of the Confessional teaching it can be shown by an entirely distinct line of argument. "Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf." (XI.iii.) Those for whom Christ discharged the debt and made satisfaction to justice are then the justified. But all who are justified are also effectually called. "Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth." (XI.i.) And effectual calling expounded in chapter X refers us back to predestination. "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ." (X.i.) And again: "God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification." (XI.iv.) The upshot is plain - predestination to life, redemption, effectually calling, and justification have identical extent; they have in their embrace exactly the same persons.

The Exclusiveness of Redemption

That the non-elect, those who do not become the actual partakers of salvation and are therefore finally lost, are not included within the scope of the redemption purchased by Christ, we may and must even from that which we have already quoted infer to be the teaching of the Confession. But it is interesting to observe that not only does the Confession imply this; it also expressly states it. "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (III.vi.) The Confession is using the phrases "redeemed by Christ" and "purchased redemption" synonymously. Here it is said that redemption by Christ or the purchase of redemption is for those who as a matter of fact are saved and for those only. It is exclusive of those who are not called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved. Redemption is defined not only extensively but exclusively.

If we may recapitulate then, the teaching of the Confession can be summed up in these three propositions. (1) Redemption is purchased for the elect. (2) Redemption is applied to all for whom it is purchased. (3) Redemption is not purchased for those who finally perish, for the non-elect.

Atonement is defined therefore in the Confession in terms of sacrifice, reconciliation, redemption, satisfaction to divine justice, discharge of debt, and states clearly that atonement thus defined is for those whom God hath predestinated to life, namely the elect. They are saved because Christ by his redemptive work secured their salvation. The finally lost are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that which secures it, namely the redemption wrought by Christ. It is just here that the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be most plainly stated. Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? Arminians profess the former and deny the latter; our Standards in accordance, as we believe, with Holy Scripture teach the latter.

Objections Answered

The term "limited" atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Some for this reason may prefer the terms "definite" or "particular" atonement. But what we are particularly insistent upon defending is that which the term historically used connotes, and so if the disuse of the term "limited" is calculated to create the impression that we have renounced the doctrine of which the term is the symbol, if in other words the disuse is calculated to placate the enemies of our Reformed Faith, then we must resolutely refuse to refrain from its use. The atonement is limited, because in its precise intention and meaning and effect it is for those and for those only who are destined in the determinate purpose of God to eternal salvation. We may well bless God that this is not a meager company, but a multitude whom no man can number out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue.

Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. In B. B. Warfield's words, "the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference." (The Plan of Salvation, p. 122.) What we mean is, that unless we resort to the position of universal restoration for all mankind - a position against which the witness of Scripture is decisive - an interpretation of the atonement in universal terms must nullify its properly substitutive and redemptive character. We must take our choice between a limited extent and a limited efficacy, or rather between a limited atonement and an atonement without efficacy. It either infallibly saves the elect or it actually saves none.

It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction. The doctrine of limited atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally proffered flows. If we may change the figure, it is upon the crest of the wave of divine sovereignty and of limited atonement that the full and free offer of the gospel breaks upon our shores. The offer of salvation to all is bona fide. All that is proclaimed is absolutely true. Every sinner believing will infallibly be saved, for the veracity and purpose of God cannot be violated.

The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ's name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that he is an object of God's redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus.

Total Depravity

The third of the five points of Arminianism concerns the question of original sin or human depravity. In several of the formal statements of the Arminian position as it bears upon human depravity, the real import of that position is not readily detected. As William Cunningham points out, the controversy when it arose, especially as it was conducted on the Arminian side, did not give the prominence to this aspect of the debate. Yet, as he proceeds to show, "it really lies at the root of the whole difference, as was made more palpably manifest in the progress of the discussion, when the followers of Arminius developed their views upon this subject more fully, and deviated further and further from the doctrine of the Bible and the Reformation on the subject of the natural state and character of men." (Historical Theology, 2:392.)

Arminians do in general terms assert the depravity of fallen human nature. But a merely general statement of the fact does not touch the heart of the question. The real question is the seriousness with which the general statement of the fact is taken and the willingness there is to appreciate all the implications of it. In a word, it is the question of the totality or entirety of this corruption.

Our Confession of Faith says with respect to our first parents and their sin in eating the forbidden fruit: "By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." (VI.2-4.)

"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." (IX.3.)

These are highly compressed and succinct statements of total depravity, and their meaning and consequences ought to be carefully weighed. They are peculiarly offensive to every view that hangs on to any vestige of optimism with respect to the qualities or potencies inherent in human nature as fallen. Indeed they must arouse the opposition and emphatic protest of every view that suspends any hope on the autonomy of the human will. It is just because the Arminian does in the last analysis place the determining factor in the individual's salvation in the free choice of the human will, that he has taken such unrelenting issue with the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

The Confession does not, of course, deny to men what we may call natural virtue or civil righteousness. It affirms that works done by unregenerate men may, as regards the matter of them, be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others. Neither does it say that all men are equally depraved, or to put it more accurately it does not say that this corruption "whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil" receives the same degree of development and expression in all. What the Confession does is to set forth the teaching of Scripture with respect to the moral and spiritual condition of men as they stand in the pure light of the divine standard and judgment. Judged by that norm they are dead in sin and wholly defiled.

Irresistible Grace

As is apparent from the foregoing discussion it is in connection with the operations of God in His saving grace that the implications of the affirmation or denial of the doctrine of total depravity come to light. The question here is: What is the mode of the divine operation of the Spirit of God in bringing men to faith and repentance? All are agreed that men are saved through faith. But the difference arises when we come to explain the fact that, of those who indiscriminately receive the overtures of grace in the gospel, some believe and some do not. The question is not in general terms that of grace. Arminians concede that men cannot be saved apart from the gracious operations of the Spirit of God in the heart. The question is: What is the nature of that grace? What is the cause of faith? Why is it that some believe to the saving of their souls and some do not? Is that grace of God given to all indiscriminately, or is it a grace given only to those who believe? Is it a grace that may be resisted, or is it always efficacious to the end in view, and therefore incapable of being frustrated?

Arminians though exhibiting certain differences among themselves are agreed that sufficient grace, whether it be regarded as a natural possession or a gracious bestowal, resides in all, and therefore that all men have the ability to believe. The explanation of the fact that some believe and some do not rests wholly in a difference of response on the part of men. This difference of response may be stated in terms of co-operation with, or improvement of, the grace of God. But in any case the explanation of the difference lies exclusively in the free will of man. For the difference of response on the part of the believer as over against the unbeliever he is not only wholly responsible but he, in the exercise of the autonomy that belongs to his will, is the sole determining factor. God does not make men to differ. He operates no more savingly and efficaciously in the man who believes than He does in the man who does not believe. For this indiscriminateness in the saving operations of God, the Arminian is exceedingly jealous; he demands that what God does for and in one He does for and in all equally. In the ultimate, then, the issue of salvation rests with the sovereign determination of the human will. Men make themselves to differ.

Now it is easy to see that , if man is thus able to co-operate with or improve the grace that is common to all, there must remain in man some vestige of good. Indeed, so decisive an element of ability to good survives that it determines the exercise of the most important event or series of events in the history of the individual. And this is exactly where the Arminian position impinges not only upon the sovereignty and efficacy of God's saving grace but upon the total depravity of sinful man.

In magnificent contrast with this denial of the sovereignty and efficacy of the saving grace of God is the teaching of our Confession. It reads: "All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it." (X.1-2.)

In these sections the faith that embraces Jesus Christ to the saving of the soul is referred to the sovereign predestination of God as its source, and to the regenerative operation of God in the heart as its cause. God is sovereignly pleased to impart His efficacious grace, and it is the enablement that comes from this sovereign bestowal of the grace of the Holy Spirit that leads to faith. The person effectually called is altogether passive therein until renewed by the Holy Spirit. A new heart has been given him and a right spirit created within him by the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit; and because he has a new heart and a right spirit his response to the call of the gospel cannot but be one of loving reception and trust. Just as the reaction of the carnal mind cannot but be one of enmity against God, so the reaction of the mind of the Spirit cannot but be one of faith and trust. It is the very nature of the new heart to trust God as He is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ.

We have here in our Confession a rather neat statement of the relation of faith to regeneration. In this realm of theological debate our position can very readily be tested by our answer to the questions: Does God regenerate us because we believe, or do we believe because God has regenerated us? In other words what has the causal priority, regeneration or faith? There are many evangelicals who will say that faith is the means of regeneration, that God regenerates those who believe and because they believe. They thereby, whether wittingly or unwittingly, place themselves in the Arminian camp and in the most decided opposition to Reformed doctrine. Logically they place themselves - perhaps with good intentions - in a position that leads to the wreck and ruin of true evangelicalism.

We are, of course, using the term "regeneration" in the restricted sense of the new birth, and in this sense the very hallmark of Calvinism as of Augustinianism is that faith is the gift of God, because it proceeds from the regenerative operation of the Holy Spirit as its only cause and explanation. God has elected His people to salvation. He has ordained that this salvation become theirs through faith. But because of the total depravity of their hearts and minds they cannot exercise faith; they are dead in trespasses and sins. In order to bring them to faith God implants by the agency of the Holy Spirit a new heart and a right spirit within them, and thus effectually and irresistibly draws them to Christ. They are made willing in the day of God's power. By grace they have been saved through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

The Perseverance of the Saints

In the closest relation to the foregoing doctrine of efficacious or irresistible grace is the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. This doctrine the Arminian bluntly rejects. A true believer, he says, may be in grace and then fall from grace and finally perish. Such a position is in logical coherence with his doctrine of the nature of saving grace. If the determining factor in the matter of an individual's salvation is the autonomy of his own free will, then consistency would seem to be all in favor of regarding salvation as a very insecure and mutable possession. Salvation in this case cannot be any more stable than that which in the final analysis determines it.

But it is just here that the harmony of efficacious grace with the perseverance of the saints comes to light. The Reformed Faith recognizes that God it is who determines a sinner's salvation, and that what He begins He brings to perfection. Salvation rests upon the unchangeable grace of God. He will not forsake the work of His hands, nor make void His covenant. Thus reads the Confession: "They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof." (XVII.1-2.)