In my last post in the series, I was trying to bring out the fact that God is sovereign, and He has a purpose it what he is doing… even in the stuff that we don’t really like. Both the Particular and General Baptists believed in that sovereignty, yet they interpreted it’s workings in very different ways. It is necessary to understand that before we go any further, in order to be fair to both historical groups.
Modern pop-evangelicalism gives us no clearly defined understanding of God, His sovereignty, or His nature as revealed in Scripture. Postmodern Christian theology can easily become another stack of self-help, feel-good books at Chapters if we allow it to, and many already have. It’s certainly easier to study on the Prayer of Jabez than it is to read Augustine, Calvin, Wesley or even Scripture itself, and while much of the “feel-good gospel” would appear to be Arminian at first glance, I believe Jacobus Arminius would be horrified at the preaching and teaching that’s being done today, even by those who proclaim agreement with him. Arminius, (and later, John Wesley) confessed a sovereign God who was constantly working in His creation, and the lives of human beings. Yet, the picture that has been portrayed today is this concept of a wise old man, a Santa figure, who has set the world in motion like an incredibly intricate model train set, and now reclines in his rocking chair, watching it run. Sure, he feels sad when a train derails, and happy when something works as he intended, but he doesn’t actually get involved.
This is not the God that Arminius believed in. Arminius believed in a God who was constantly at work in our lives, more than we ever deserve, culminating in the ultimate work of Christ at Calvary. Where he took issue with Calvin was on the relationship between God’s will and the human will in the matters of salvation and perseverance, but not because he thought it was a “divine puppetry” or other such caricatures, but because of what he thought it would mean with regard to human evil. Arminius reasoned that, if God exercised utter sovereignty, even over the wills and desires of man, that would make him sovereign over the wickedness of man as well. From Arminius’ perspective, if God exercised divine sovereignty in this way, it would make him the author of sin. As he, himself, wrote:
Sin is the transgression of the law; therefore, God will be the author of sin, if He cause any man to transgress the law. This is done by denying or taking away what is necessary for fulfilling the law, or by impelling men to sin. But if this “determination” be that of a will which is already depraved, since it does not signify the denying or the removing of grace nor a corrupt impelling to sin, it follows, that the consequence of this cannot be that God is the author of sin. But if this “determination” denote the decree of God by which He resolved that the will should become depraved, and that man should commit sin, then it follows from this that God is the author of sin. (The Works of Jacobus Arminius Vol. 1, Section 3, question II from “The Nine Questions”)
The learned Calvinistic Particular Baptist actually wouldn’t have a problem with that statement in and of itself, though he would obviously interpret it differently than Arminius intended. Interestingly, if one takes the time to read Arminius’ and Calvin’s works, one finds that they aren’t really that far apart in most respects, yet their offspring often seem on extremely opposing sides of a very old battlefield. In fact, I believe that there are many Arminian/Wesleyan Christians today who would accuse Jacobus of being a Calvinist!
Arminius believed that it was noble-minded to study the scriptures daily, testing all things against God’s divine revelations. To Arminius, the scriptures were best understood in their original languages, and yet it is in the Wesleyan tradition that we most frequently find an abandonment of that commitment. John 3:16 is interpreted as “For God loved the world SOOOOOO much,” regardless of the fact that the verse, in it’s original Greek, speaks not to degree, but intention. For many, references to “original language” are considered “elitism,” and all Biblical interpretation must begin with the proto-Elizabethan English of King James’ 17th century authorized translation. Arminius would surely fall to his knees in tears if he knew his name was attached to such illogic.
There can be no argument, however, that Arminius disagreed strongly with John Calvin. In our next instalment, we’ll take a look at what it was that Arminius didn’t like that compelled him to write as much as he did on the subject. It is my hope that, in trying to be fair to both sides, we can gain a newfound appreciation and respect for the individuals and their intentions, rather than blindly condemning either for holding a certain theological view.
We also should also try to set aside any postmodern emotionalism in considering these issues. Just because something makes one “feel good” doesn’t make it Godly. Recognize that the heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9), and there is a way that seems right to a person, but that way can lead to death (Prov 16:25). Paul warns his readers that Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light (2Cor 11:14), and I particularly like how my favourite songwriter, Bob Dylan, put it:
He’s a great humanitarian, he’s a great philanthropist,
He knows just where to touch you, honey, and how you like to be kissed.
He’ll put both his arms around you,
You can feel the tender touch of the beast.
You know that sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.
(B. Dylan, “Man of Peace”)
Â
Â
