The Legacy of Jacob Arminius
In the seventeenth century, there was a debate that would shake the very foundations of all Protestant theology for generations to come. A Dutch theologian living in relative obscurity would take issue with the titan of Reformed theology, John Calvin. His name was Jacob Arminius and his legacy would dramatically change the future of all Protestant theology. In later years the term ‘Arminianism’ would incur some of the most severe condemnations throughout history. In a text written in 1700 by the Puritan, Christopher Ness wrote with fanatical zeal that Arminianism was, “the last and greatest monster of the man of sin, the elixir of Anti-Christianism; the mystery of the mystery of iniquity, the spawn of Popery, and the varnished offspring of the old Pelagians.” John Wesley would reflect sympathetically that; “To say this man is an Arminian, is to say this man is a mad dog.”
Quick View
Why Was Calvin’s Work Significant?
John Calvin was the theological heavyweight of his time. The man who codified the beliefs of the Reformation and thus, several hundred years of Protestantism. He was the spiritual architect of Geneva, a place that would latr be referred to as the ‘Protestant Rome’. His ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’ was widely read and for many, it was a revolutionary tract for theology and church order.
Calvin created a theology largely based on church discipline and strong rebukes against Roman Catholic corruption. At the time, Calvin was motivated by a strong desire for reform. As he became the spiritual leader of Geneva, Calvin began to codify doctrines for civil government. The final revised volume of the ‘Institutes’ reflects this desire. Vol. 4 of the ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’ is largely focused on civil laws, magistrates, mayors, and other governing authorities. Calvin believed that his doctrinal system would be ideal for creating the ‘kingdom of God on earth’ essentially.
It is also important to understand that as of this moment, the Five Points of Calvinism haven’t been codified yet. In an ironic twist, none of this would take place until Jacob Arminius would publicly challenge the tenets of Calvinism, and that would be roughly fifty years after his death. Calvin wasn’t interested in creating easy systems or simply acronyms; Calvin wanted a complete doctrinal system. A sort of answer to Roman Catholicism and its encyclopedic theology for every facet of life.
After the death of John Calvin, Geneva continued to follow the system he had set into place. For decades, Geneva was able to survive as the first Reformed city ever. Geneva retained its independence and remained functional well after the death of Calvin. Certainly an impressive achievement, especially in a time of great social and political instability. In time, Reformed theology spread throughout the world and to many other cities, especially in the Protestant friendly region of the Netherlands. Leading us to the man who would become the most bitter enemy of Calvinism, Jacob Arminius.
Who Was Jacob Arminius?
Jacob Arminius never seemed to have any desire for revolution of any kind. Quite the opposite in fact, Arminus actually spent the beginning of his life as a dedicated Calvinist. In an amusing twist of fate, Jacob was attempting to defend the Calvinist view of Predestination when he first began to doubt the Calvinist viewpoint. As he started going through the Bible, Arminius began doubting whether the foundational tenets of Calvinism were true.
This was a moment that truly changed everything. One of those truly rare moments in history when everything changes, a small point in history that future events hinge on. Not much is known about Arminius’ early life; however, it is known that he was a fairly demure man. Not exactly given to much controversy, having very little desire to ever cause any serious problems anywhere. Some historians view Jacob Arminius as a firebrand and revolutionary, but such an image doesn’t hold up to the real man.
While the circumstances of exactly how Arminius began doubting Calvinism are unclear, his own words, much later, would reflect the nature of his theological issues. “[Predestination] affirms that God has absolutely willed to save certain individual men, and has decreed their salvation without having the least regard to righteousness or obedience.” Arminius also said, “Because sin is called ‘disobedience’ and ‘rebellion,’ neither of which terms can possibly apply to any person who by a preceding divine decree is placed under an unavoidable necessity of sinning.”
This was an important moment in history. Arminius probably never intended to start a counter-movement; he was simply voicing his own beliefs. Arminius gathered such a large following that eventually his name would become synonymous with Anti-Calvinism.
Troubling Questions
As Arminius began questioning the essential tenets of Calvinistic theology, he came to realize that some things didn’t quite add up. Arminius’ main issue had to do with limited atonement and evangelism. If this doctrine really were true, then how could he preach to the unsaved? Moreover, to those who were saved, didn’t Calvinism allow for moral impurity? These were troubling questions. And one that eventually caused him to completely flip from Calvinism.
At first, the position Arminius took didn’t have that much effect. Arminius at the time was a fairly low-key Pastor. Yet publicly disagreeing with Calvin’s theology in the Reformed stronghold of the Netherlands is bound to gain attention. Arminius became known for his impassioned preaching against the core tenets of Reformed theology, specifically total depravity and limited atonement. As he progressed through his ministry, he would also openly preach his beliefs that atonement security was not guaranteed as well. This was bound to get some level of attention, and it certainly did.
The Synod of Dort
Arminius would find himself embattled with the elite Reformed theologians of his day. Despite his ever-expanding popularity, Arminius found himself at odds with the elite of his time. Nevertheless, despite his desire and efforts to remain at peace, Arminius found that he could not avoid the dissension. His followers were becoming fractionated, openly at odds with the church of his time.
In the year 1619, a council was convened called the Synod of Dort. This was one of the first major Protestant theological councils, and the issue that was debated was the issue of whether or not Jacob Arminius was to be deemed a heretic. We should be aware that very few times in Church history have councils ever centered solely around one person. Clearly, this obscure Dutch theologian managed to shake the establishment to the core.
As the Synod of Dort, everything came to a head. The ruling authorities of the day believed that Arminian teachings were dangerous and needed to be condemned publicly. This is one of the more complex moments in theological history, as not everything was as simple as it seemed.
Calvinism and Politics
This would not be revealed until much later, but as Arminian theology grew and became more formidable, the elite Calvinists grew worried. Seeing this new movement as a serious danger to the more established Calvinistic faith. This represented a fairly serious problem because Calvinists had a tight grip on the politics of the day. While some undoubtedly were very concerned with the theological implications of this new rogue faith, most were simply concerned about losing their grip on power. Without delving too deeply into the history, it’s important that readers understand that the Netherlands at the time was the capital of Calvinism, not in a religious sense, but more in the sense of a refuge. Calvinists were the spiritual cousins of the French Huguenot movement; Roman Catholicism did virtually everything to stamp out this movement. There was no action deemed too cruel or violent to stamp out these so-called heretics. Calvin himself had experienced the same persecution, and so passed down those same memories to his followers. As Calvinism grew larger, consolidating political power was about survival, and less about ego trips. Calvinists were still afraid that the Catholic Church would take advantage of any weakness and resume their brutal persecution once more. Obviously, this would be an understandable response given the intense amount of persecution.
Now, perhaps the Synod of Dort will make more sense. Having far less to do with snobbish paranoia of new ideas and a genuine fear of real persecution from the Roman Catholic Church. It is also worth noting that this was a world that remembered the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. At the time, Catholicism was reacting violently to the sudden changes in its power structures. Something the Calvinist movement was all too aware of. The Synod of Dort was a desperate act of survival from a group of theological renegades determined to weather the socio-political storm.
The Origin of the ‘Five Points’
All of which the Arminians were completely unaware of. For the burgeoning Arminian movement, the only concern they had was for theological integrity. Sadly, at the council, virtually every Arminian allowed to attend was restricted from voting. Making their attendance utterly worthless. In a fascinating twist, it was at this very council that the famous five points of Calvinism became codified. John Calvin never had anything to do with the TULIP acronym, and truthfully, may never have approved it anyway. Some famous Calvinists have joked that there should really be about ‘eight or nine’ points. This only serves to underscore the complexity of Calvinistic theology. Rather than being simple, the entire system was never designed in any organized way. Rather, it was constantly revised throughout Calvin’s life, and beyond. Future Calvinistic theologians revised and reworked his various theories. To this very day, Calvinism is still an evolving theology. (The New Calvinism movement being a more recent example.)
What is Wesleyan Arminianism?
As a sort of postscript, what is popularly known as Arminianism ended up diverging into two camps. The first being the more traditional form started by Jacob Arminius. The next came nearly one hundred years later when Puritan John Wesley came onto the scene. Wesley was good friends with another famous Puritan, George Whitefield. Despite being good friends and having a mutual respect for one another, they still had disagreements over Calvinism. John Wesley believed in the tenets of Arminian theology, yet still wanted to retain certain elements of depravity and predestination. For Wesley, the issue was less about aligning himself with Chruch tradition, and more about aligning himself with Biblical truth. Wesley believed that Calvinism had elemnts of truth, but Wesley also believed in obedience and evangelism, therefore he couldn’t condone all of Calvinism. In contrast, Whitefield was a staunch believer in traditional Calvinistic theology. Wesley essentially revised Arminian theology, rejecting limited atonement, but believing in a milder version of depravity and affirming predestination. Today, this is known as Wesleyan Arminianism.
Is Hyper-Calvinism ‘Pure’ Calvinism?
Today, the majority of theologians reject these ideas as ‘hyper-Calvinism’. Many pro-Reformed theologians and teachers believe that this is an extremist version of Calvinism and therefore is to be rejected. However, based on a historical understanding of this monumental debate, disparagingly labelling such ideas as ‘hyper-Calvinism’ appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding. It is clear that Calvinistic ideas are far more in line with so-called ‘hyper-Calvinism’ than mainline theologians wish to admit. The strong condemnation of Jacob Arminius at the Synod of Dort makes it abundantly clear that so-called ‘hyper-Calvinism’ is the historically accurate understanding of Calvinistic ideas and beliefs.
The Eternal Debate
This has been a very complex issue for several hundred years. Today, a significant divide remains between Calvinistic and Arminian theology. Both sides generally present a convincing argument for their case. So, why does this matter to modern-day students of theology? This is at the very heart of serious issues of eternal security and obedience. Small debates and conversations have influenced so much of evangelical thought for a long time.
It is imperative for us as believers today, we affirm and believe that God clearly expects us all to live lives of obedience, in accordance with His commands. These two theologians of the past may have argued sincerely. Nevertheless, it does not matter what the wisdom of man may say. Our only concern is what God expects of us all.
