Calvinism and Arminiunism

Lesson 2

Free Will and Original Sin

Context of the time – The Dutch Reformation:

The religious reformation in the Netherlands was cradled in the arms of the political fight for freedom. The political revolution was basically a revolt from the oppression of Catholic Spain. The two great antagonists in this struggle were Philip II of Spain and William the Silent. Philip‘s objective, keeping in mind that the Netherlands comprised part of his domain, was the supremacy of Spain and the extirpation of heresy, especially of the Anabaptist and Reformed varieties. On the other hand, William‘s twin ideals were love of freedom and hatred of oppression. It was not patriotism, but pity, not love of what he was defending, but hatred of what he was attacking that made him a liberator. As a man of tolerance he allowed liberty of conscience to every man.1

…

In the course of history, a polarity was to develop in the Dutch Reformed Church. The antagonists were to be Arminius and his disciples, and on the other side, the ―orthodox‖ Calvinists. It culminated ten years after Arminius‘s death. On April 24, l619, the ―Synod of Dort‖ (Dordrecht) sat for the l54th, and last time. Ostensibly summoned to resolve differences between Dutch Remonstrants (Arminians) and ContraRemonstrants within a context of Calvinist theology, in reality it pronounced predetermined decrees on Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Total depravity, Irresistable Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. In connection with the proceedings of the Synod of Dort, Jan Oldenbarnevelt, the Arminians‘ protector, was found beheaded on trumped-up charges. Remonstrants were denounced as heretics and banished. Some two hundred Remonstrant ministers were imprisoned. Hugo Grotius, one of them, managed to escape. As Peter DeJong, a Reformed historian, summarizes, ―the Synod of Dort marks the close of the first period in the history of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.

[JERRY SUTTON Academic Dean Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary]

Three types of free will:

Absolute free will

Bound free will

Compatible free will

Which would most closely describe Adam in the Garden? Why?

What limits would you put on that?

Arminius and Free Will:

In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatsoever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ said, ―without me ye can do nothing.2

Which view of free will does Arminius hold?

What are the implications of this type of free will?

Luther and Free Will:

From the epistle of Romans, Luther declares first the doctrine of man's depravity. Quoting from Paul, he declares together with the apostle that the wrath of God is directed against all men. According to Luther, all men without exception are sinners. Taking his cue from Romans 1:18, Luther explains that for man to be a sinner means that he is ungodly and unrighteous. And because of his hostility and wickedness, God shows his wrath against all mankind. There are three important truths regarding man and free will that Luther brings out from this text. The first is that all are without exception sinners. Secondly, he defines sin as basically ungodliness and wickedness. Thirdly, he points out that man's wickedness brings out the wrath of God. Fourthly, he adds that the best of men are "ungodly, wicked and deserving of the wrath of God."3 This is unlike Erasmus and many other evangelical leaders today who are afraid to make the slightest mention of God's wrath for fear that they might offend men. Lastly, he points out that because everyone is given to such wickedness, there is no possibility that man is able freely to will and do that which is good. He concludes his exegesis of this text with these remarks,4

“Therefore, Paul in this passage lumps all men together in a single mass, and concludes that, so far from being able to will or do anything good, they are all ungodly, wicked, and ignorant of righteousness and faith.”5

Read Romans 3:10-12, John 6:44

Do Luther and Arminius agree on the free will of mankind before the activity of the Holy Spirit?

Who does the passage in John 6:44 apply to?

Having read what we have concerning free will, what is necessary for a person to be saved?

Read Romans 5:16-17, John 3:17-19, Ephesians 2:4-6

Why did Jesus not need to condemn the world?

How can one man condemn a world or save it for that matter?

How are we seated with Christ in heavenly places?

Calvin’s view of total depravity:

There is, e.g., the distinction which is sometimes made between total depravity and absolute depravity. This distinction is intended to mean that while man is totally depraved, he is not absolutely depraved. The following quotation will serve to elucidate what is meant by this distinction. (It is taken from The Banner and is found in an article which is explaining the Canons of Dordt, especially Canons III & IV, Article 4.)

The result of the fall is total depravity or corruption. By this is meant that every part of man is rendered corrupt. The Canons say that man "became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, obdurate in heart and will and impure in his affection." There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word "total" must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be. Article 4, which we hope to consider more fully later in this series, speaks of "glimmerings of natural light which remain in man since the fall." God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy; and the good he does is done for God and for His glory. 6

Based on this, how would you say that Arminius viewed free will and original sin?

Does it compare with Calvin’s view of Total Depravity?

1 http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sutton.-Arminius-and-the-Dutch-Reformation.pdf

2 Arminius, Writings (American Ed.), 1:565.

3 E. Gordon Rupp, P. Watson, Luther And Erasmus: Free Will And Salvation (The Westminster Press, 1969), p.

4 Fook Meng Cheah, A Review of Erasmus and Luther: Free Will and Salvation, Protestant Reformed Churches of America, https://www.prca.org/prtj/nov95b.html

5 Ibid Rupp

6 Herman Hanko, Homer Hoeksema, and Gise J. Van Baren, The Five Points of Calvinism, Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1976