Thursday, April 28, 2005

A Response to the Five Points of Arminianism

In 1958, J. I. Packer paid homage to his historical hero by writing an Introduction to Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It is, to my knowledge, one of the most famous introductions in history. In fact, it is much more popular and more widely read than the book itself! More than just an introduction to Owen’s book, it is also a wonderful introduction to the debate on Calvinism vs. Arminianism.


Most people don’t know that before there were the “five points of Calvinism” (TULIP), there were the five points of Arminianism—set forth in a document called the Remonstrant Articles. The five points of Calvinism—expressed in the Canons of Dordt in 1618-1619—were actually a response to the five points of Arminianism.


Here is how Packer summarizes the five points of Arminianism and the five points of Calvinism.


The Five Points of Arminianism

(1) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor (2) is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it. (3) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by his foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe. (4) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift): what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. (5) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost.


The Five Points of Calvinism

(1) Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him. (2) God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith, and brought to glory. (3) The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect. (4) The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object. (5) Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory.


I believe Packer is right when he then comments:


Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content.


One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.


One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, all who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that man’s salvation is secured by any of them.


The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man;

one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation;


one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it.


Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the ‘five points’, as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the areas in which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.


For those in the Minneapolis area, I will be teaching a weekend seminar on TULIP: The Pursuit of God’s Glory in Salvation, June 24-25 at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Feel free to join us as we wrestle with and work through these issues.