CALVIN OR ARMINIUS: WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT REALLY ABOUT?
WHEN TWO REFORMED THEOLOGIANS DISAGREED ABOUT GRACE
The Reformers had challenged the authority of Rome.
They appealed to Scripture.
But they did not agree with one another about everything Scripture taught.
Luther and Zwingli disagreed about the Lord’s Supper.
The Anabaptists challenged infant baptism and the close relationship between church and government.
Now another disagreement developed within the Reformed churches themselves.
It concerned one of the most important questions a Christian can ask:
HOW DOES GOD SAVE A SINNER?
Does God choose particular individuals for salvation before they believe?
Does God give saving grace in a way that certainly brings those individuals to faith?
Can a person resist God’s grace?
Can someone who truly believes later abandon Christ?
These were not merely questions about John Calvin or Jacob Arminius.
They were questions about how to understand the New Testament.
And the disagreement would produce another lasting division within Protestant Christianity.
1. ARMINIUS DID NOT BEGIN A NEW CHURCH
Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) was a Dutch Reformed minister and professor of theology at Leiden University.
He worked within the Reformed tradition but questioned some teachings about predestination that other Reformed theologians defended.
He did not begin by rejecting Scripture, God’s sovereignty, or salvation by grace.
He believed that certain interpretations of those teachings needed to be reconsidered.
Arminius died in 1609.
The following year, his supporters presented a statement of five disputed teachings. It became known as the:
REMONSTRANCE OF 1610.
Those who supported it became known as the Remonstrants.
Notice the order of events.
Arminius died first.
His followers continued the controversy.
The later movement called Arminianism was not identical in every detail to everything Arminius himself had taught.
That distinction matters whenever we study a movement named after a particular person.
2. THE SYNOD OF DORT
The disagreement became serious enough that the Dutch Reformed churches convened a synod at Dordrecht, commonly called Dort.
It met in 1618–1619 and included delegates from several countries.
The synod rejected the Remonstrants’ disputed teachings and issued what became known as the:
CANONS OF DORT.
The Canons addressed five main areas of disagreement.
They later became associated with the familiar five-point summary of Calvinism.
But we should be careful.
The five points were formulated in response to a particular controversy.
They were not intended to summarize every teaching of Calvin or every doctrine of the Reformed churches.
And a church council’s decision does not end our study.
We have already examined that question.
WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?
3. THE FIRST DISAGREEMENT: HOW DEEPLY HAS SIN AFFECTED US?
Paul wrote:
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.”
— Ephesians 2:1, KJV
He also wrote:
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”
— Romans 3:10, KJV
The Reformed position emphasized that fallen human beings cannot bring themselves to saving faith by their own unaided ability.
God must act first.
The Remonstrants also taught that sinful people cannot produce saving faith apart from God’s grace.
That is important.
The disagreement was not simply that one side believed in grace while the other believed people could save themselves.
BOTH SIDES TAUGHT THAT SALVATION REQUIRES GOD’S INITIATIVE.
They differed over how that grace brings a person to faith.
NOW EXAMINE THE TEXT.
Ephesians 2 says we were dead in sin.
But keep reading.
Paul says:
“But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
— Ephesians 2:4–5, KJV
God acts.
Salvation is His gift.
Yet the same passage says:
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.”
— Ephesians 2:8, KJV
The text establishes that salvation is by grace and that faith belongs to receiving that salvation.
But does the description of being dead in sin settle precisely how God enables faith?
Does it establish whether His gracious call can be resisted?
That requires further examination.
We must not make a figure of speech answer questions Paul has not yet addressed.
4. THE SECOND DISAGREEMENT: WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GOD CHOSE US?
Paul wrote:
“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”
— Ephesians 1:4, KJV
The Reformed position expressed at Dort taught that God’s choice of particular people for salvation was not based on His foreseeing that they would believe.
Rather, their faith would itself result from God’s gracious election.
The Remonstrants taught that God determined to save those who believe in Christ and persevere in faith, and that His election of particular believers was related to His foreknowledge of their faith.
Neither side believed people earned salvation by performing good works.
NOW EXAMINE THE TEXT.
Ephesians 1:4 does not stop with:
“HE HATH CHOSEN US.”
It says:
“HE HATH CHOSEN US IN HIM.”
The passage repeatedly directs our attention to Christ.
Paul also says that believers were predestined for adoption and that God’s purpose was to gather together all things in Christ.
Read Ephesians 1:3–14 as one argument.
Then ask:
Does Paul describe God’s decision to save particular individuals before they believe?
Does he describe God’s predetermined purpose for all who are in Christ?
How do those ideas relate?
And how does the passage itself answer those questions?
We should not begin by assuming that either theological system has already supplied Paul’s meaning.
5. THE THIRD DISAGREEMENT: FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?
Jesus said:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
— John 3:16, KJV
John also wrote:
“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
— 1 John 2:2, KJV
The Remonstrants taught that Christ died for all people, although only believers receive the saving benefits of His death.
The Canons of Dort taught that Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite worth and sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, while its saving effectiveness was intended for those God elected.
That is more precise than saying one side believed Christ’s death was valuable and the other did not.
NOW EXAMINE THE TEXT.
John 3:16 speaks of God’s love for the world.
But it also says:
“WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH.”
John 3:17 says God sent His Son so that the world might be saved through Him.
And John 3:18 distinguishes those who believe from those who do not.
We must preserve both statements.
God’s love and the giving of His Son are described in broad language.
The promise of eternal life is attached to believing in Him.
The next question is whether these verses establish the precise extent of Christ’s saving intention or whether that conclusion requires bringing in other passages.
For example, Jesus said:
“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”
— John 10:11, KJV
Does saying He died for His sheep mean He died for no one else?
Or does that verse identify the people being discussed without making a statement about everyone outside that group?
That is a question of interpretation.
A statement about one group does not automatically establish an exclusion of every other group.
6. THE FOURTH DISAGREEMENT: CAN GOD’S GRACE BE RESISTED?
Jesus said:
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
— John 6:44, KJV
The Reformed position taught that God’s inward saving work effectively brings those He has elected to faith.
The Remonstrants taught that God’s grace enables people to believe but can be resisted.
Neither position meant that people could save themselves without God’s help.
NOW EXAMINE THE TEXT.
Read John 6:35–45.
Jesus says that no one can come unless the Father draws him.
He also says:
“Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
— John 6:45, KJV
The Father is active.
People come to Christ.
But how does the Father draw?
What does hearing and learning from the Father mean in this passage?
Does Jesus describe the complete process by which every individual comes to faith, or is He addressing the unbelief of the people standing before Him?
Now compare Stephen’s words to the Jewish council:
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.”
— Acts 7:51, KJV
That establishes that people can resist the Holy Spirit.
But does it settle whether God’s particular saving work in an elect person can finally be resisted?
Not by itself.
Likewise, John 6:44 establishes the necessity of the Father’s drawing.
But does it, by itself, establish every detail of irresistible grace?
We must read each passage in its own context before connecting them.
7. THE FIFTH DISAGREEMENT: CAN A TRUE BELIEVER FALL AWAY?
This is where the disagreement becomes especially personal.
Jesus said:
“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”
— John 10:28, KJV
The Canons of Dort taught that God preserves those He has truly regenerated so that they ultimately persevere in faith.
They may fall into serious sin, but God will not allow them finally to perish.
The original Remonstrance treated the question of whether true believers could finally fall away as requiring further examination.
Later Remonstrant teaching affirmed the possibility of final apostasy.
We should not attribute every later Arminian formulation directly to Arminius himself.
NOW EXAMINE THE TEXT.
John 10:27 begins:
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
— John 10:27, KJV
Then comes the promise that no one will snatch them from Christ’s hand.
That is a wonderful assurance.
But what question is Jesus answering?
Is He promising that no outside enemy can take His sheep away?
Is He also saying that a believer can never cease following Him?
Does this passage directly address that second question?
Now read Hebrews 3:12:
“Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”
— Hebrews 3:12, KJV
The warning is addressed to:
“BRETHREN.”
Then verse 14 says:
“For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.”
— Hebrews 3:14, KJV
And Paul warned Gentile believers:
“Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
— Romans 11:22, KJV
We must take both the promises and the warnings seriously.
Do not weaken Christ’s promise.
Do not empty the warnings of their meaning.
And do not decide in advance that one set of passages must be reinterpreted to fit the other.
8. A WARNING IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A PREDICTION
Here is an important distinction.
Suppose someone says:
“IF YOU LEAVE THIS ROAD, YOU WILL NOT REACH YOUR DESTINATION.”
That is a real warning.
But it does not predict that you will leave the road.
Likewise, the New Testament can warn Christians about falling away without predicting that every Christian—or any particular Christian—will do so.
The question is whether the warning describes a genuine possibility, a means by which God preserves His people, or both.
Different traditions answer that question differently.
The text must determine what we can say.
9. WHAT DID THE TWO SIDES ACTUALLY AGREE ABOUT?
It would be easy to make this dispute sound as though one side worshiped a sovereign God while the other believed salvation was a human achievement.
That would misrepresent the disagreement.
Both sides affirmed that human beings need God’s grace.
Both affirmed that Christ is the Savior.
Both affirmed the necessity of faith.
Both affirmed that salvation is not earned by good works.
Both took biblical language about election seriously.
Their disagreement concerned how these truths fit together.
Does God’s gracious election bring particular individuals certainly to faith?
Or does God’s grace enable a response that can be accepted or resisted?
How does God’s foreknowledge relate to His choice?
And what does Scripture teach about continuing in faith?
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE MUST EXAMINE.
10. WHY DID THIS BECOME A CHURCH DIVISION?
Remember where our larger study began.
Christians were asking who had authority to determine what the church must believe.
The Reformers had challenged the authority of Rome.
But now Reformed Christians themselves disagreed about the meaning of Scripture.
The Synod of Dort issued its doctrinal judgment.
The Remonstrants did not accept it.
The dispute also became entangled with the political conflicts of the Dutch Republic.
Religious and civil authorities were closely connected, and the synod’s decisions had consequences for ministers who rejected its conclusions.
The problem we have encountered before appeared again.
WHEN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE ABOUT SCRIPTURE, WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO SETTLE THE DISAGREEMENT?
A synod can state a position.
A confession can preserve it.
A church can require its ministers to teach it.
But those actions do not eliminate the original question:
DOES THE POSITION ACCURATELY EXPRESS WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES?
11. THE FIVE POINTS ARE NOT FIVE BIBLE VERSES
A theological system can be useful.
It can organize what we believe the Bible teaches.
It can show how different doctrines relate to one another.
But a system is not itself Scripture.
The five points of the Remonstrants were theological statements.
The Canons of Dort were theological statements.
Neither document was written by an apostle.
Both must be examined.
And the same principle applies to every later confession of faith.
We must distinguish between three things:
WHAT SCRIPTURE EXPLICITLY SAYS.
WHAT WE INFER FROM SCRIPTURE.
HOW WE ORGANIZE THOSE STATEMENTS AND INFERENCES INTO A THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM.
The farther we move from the first to the third, the more carefully we must examine our assumptions.
12. WHAT ABOUT OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS?
Perhaps you already have a settled position on election.
Perhaps you believe a Christian can fall away.
Perhaps you believe God will certainly preserve every person He has truly saved.
Perhaps you have never studied the question closely.
Whatever your background, the method remains the same.
Do not begin with a label.
Do not begin with a theological system.
Do not begin with a conclusion inherited from a preacher, professor, or congregation.
Begin with the passages.
Read Romans 8–11 as Paul’s continuing argument.
Read Ephesians 1 in the context of the whole letter.
Read John 6 and John 10 in their settings.
Read Hebrews’ warnings as warnings addressed to real people.
Then compare the passages without forcing one to disappear.
Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.
13. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER DORT?
The Synod of Dort did not end the disagreement.
Reformed churches continued teaching the doctrines expressed in the Canons.
Remonstrant Christians continued developing their own theology and church life.
Later, John Wesley would emphasize teachings about grace, faith, and perseverance that were influenced by the Arminian tradition.
But Wesley did not simply repeat everything Arminius had said.
And the Methodist movement did not arise merely because of the Synod of Dort.
Its own history would come much later.
Before we reach Wesley, however, another branch of the Reformation needs our attention.
It developed in England.
And its beginning raises a very different question.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A KING REJECTS THE POPE’S JURISDICTION BUT DOES NOT INITIALLY REJECT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE?
That brings us to Henry VIII and the English Reformation.
DID HENRY VIII CREATE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND JUST SO HE COULD DIVORCE HIS WIFE?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: DID HENRY VIII CREATE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND JUST SO HE COULD DIVORCE HIS WIFE?