Banner
Consolidation, Expansion & Revival (1600-1800) PDF Print E-mail
History - Thumbnail Church History
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Monday, 10 November 2008 08:07

Recovering truth is one thing. Preserving it is quite another. In the Reformation, the great truths of justification by faith and a gospel of sovereign grace were wonderfully recovered. In the centuries that followed, these truths were consolidated, expanded, and, in many cases, set on fire. In other instances, unfortunately, they were dried like pressed flowers and put into a glass case.

Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind . . . For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame -- who set their mind on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself (Phil. 3:13-21).

The issue is always the gospel. The apostle Paul makes clear that as far as he is concerned, the issue is Christ and His cross. But as we shall see, enemies of this message are subtle -- like the serpent. As God grants us wisdom as individuals, an important part of our sanctification is to avoid regression. Sin can certainly be seen in going from righteousness to sin. But it can also be seen in going from maturity to immaturity. As Paul puts it here, we must live up to what we have attained.

The same thing is true of the Church. We can tell if we have unwittingly adopted evolutionary assumptions if we think that we are automatically "more advanced" than our fathers. This is quite simply false. In our culture as Christians, we have not lived up to what we have attained. Our fathers understood many things which we have forgotten. May God show us mercy once again.

Here are some important figures and events from this period. Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) was a Reformed pastor in the Netherlands who came to doubt certain key elements of the Reformed faith. He urged a national synod be called where he could articulate his views. In the midst of that controversy, he became ill and died. In the following year, his followers presented a five point remonstrance, asking to have their views accepted. The Synod of Dordt met and wound up condemning these views in 1618.

The five points of Arminianism were these: 1. Human ability (free will) -- The Fall affected human nature, but not so much that man is completely helpless. Every sinner has free will, and his salvation depends upon how he uses it. 2. Conditional Election -- God's choice of individuals to salvation was based upon His foresight of their response to His calling. 3. General Atonement -- Christ's work on the cross made it possible that anyone could be saved. 4. Resistible Grace -- The Holy Spirit does not regenerate a sinner until he believes, and if he refuses to believe the Spirit's work is thwarted. 5. Possible Loss of Salvation -- Disagreement exists between Arminians on this point, but the more consistent Arminians hold that a true Christian can fall away and be damned.

It is important to emphasize that what many people have come to understand as the ultimate characteristic of the Reformed faith (the five points of Calvinism) were actually a particular response in a particular controversy to the five points of Arminianism. The Reformed faith extends far beyond all this -- but though it is more than this, it is certainly not less than this.

Over against the Arminians, the Reformed affirmed: 1. Total Inability -- The fall of mankind in Adam made it impossible for men to save themselves, prepare themselves to be saved, or cooperate in being saved. They must be regenerated by God first. 2. Unconditional Election -- Before the foundation of the world, God chose His elect and passed by the others, and the reasons for this are to be found in His good pleasure, and not in us. 3. Particular Redemption -- Christ's work on the cross made it certain that the elect would be saved. 4. Resurrecting Grace -- When the Holy Spirit regenerates a man, He moves in a sovereign way, brings the man to life, and then as a result he believes. 5. Preservation & Perseverance of the Saints -- One who is numbered among the elect cannot fall under the final condemnation of God.

One of the apparent ironies of history is that wherever this "grim" and "predestinarian" creed has gone, it has brought civil liberties in its train. This is because if God is ultimately sovereign, no human agency is. And if God has left any gaps in His sovereignty, certain human rulers (civil or ecclesiastical) take it as an invitation to try to fill that gap. This history of how this worked out over the centuries is quite fascinating.

Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) was one key figure in the English-speaking world. Because of the struggle between the Puritans and Anglo-Catholics, England was plunged into Civil War. A young parliamentarian named Cromwell excelled as a military man, and eventually became Lord Protector. Cromwell reluctantly agreed to the execution of Charles I. Cromwell was sincere and incorruptible -- and at the same time misguided and destructive. The saints have often found themselves ruling before they were quite ready for prime time. This happened in the time of Constantine, and also in the time of Cromwell. Nevertheless, the results were good in both instances. The three major factions in England at this time were Independents, Presbyterians, and Anglicans. The most common mistake that is made is that of lumping the Presbyterians and the Independents since both were Calvinistic. But the Presbyterians were Puritans who objected strongly to the execution of the king.

The Westminster Assembly (1643-1647) met during this time. Convened by Parliament, this assembly of theologians has had a monumental impact on the history of the evangelical church -- all denominations -- since that time. The Westminster teaching on baptism, for example, is ignored by evangelical Presbyterians down to the present.

Another important figure was George Whitefield (1714-1770). As a result of the turmoil of the previous century, the state of religion in England was at a low ebb in the 18th century. The "nonconformist" churches were dying. The God who raises the dead moved in an unlikely place -- the Church of England -- by converting a young priest named Whitefield and making him one of the greatest evangelistic preachers the world has ever known. He was a thorough-going Calvinist -- in 1743 John Wesley broke with him over the issue. He was the force behind the Great Awakening in America, and the Evangelical Awakening in England

Whitefield persuaded another priest to join him in open-air preaching, a young man named John Wesley (1703-1791). Wesley was an untiring worker, organizing genius, not too scrupulous, and the organizer of modern day Methodism. The founder of the "Methodist" club at Oxford was Charles Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement was Whitefield, and the founder of the denomination was John. Breaking with Whitefield on Calvinism, the Wesleys developed a position which we may call "evangelical Arminianism." Most evangelicalism today is descended in some fashion or other from the Wesleyan revivals.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Monday, 10 November 2008 08:07
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Bill Harris  Monday, November 10, 2008 1:16 pm
Good stuff. Please do more along this line.
Rob Steele  Monday, November 10, 2008 3:07 pm
Great stuff. It's exciting seeing how it all fits together. The sentence beginning "The Westminster teaching on baptism" doesn't seem to fit in its context though.
Ilíon  Monday, November 10, 2008 4:54 pm
So, the Reformed agree with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?
Ilíon  Monday, November 10, 2008 4:58 pm
"One of the apparent ironies of history is that wherever this "grim" and "predestinarian" creed has gone, it has brought civil liberties in its train."



Might that not be because the Reformed *don't really believe* those five core doctrines? Might it not be because the Reformed reject, with their mouths, the Arminian Remonstrances, and yet by their acts and deeds prove that they accept them with their hearts?
Jane Dunsworth  Monday, November 10, 2008 11:04 pm
Rob, I think that was facetious. There was a great impact, in that we have the Westminster teaching on baptism, so therefore we can ignore it. Had we not been so affected by the Westminster teaching on baptism, we (collectively) wouldn't be so busy ignoring it -- we'd be consciously affirming a teaching that aligns with our actual practice.
Jane Dunsworth  Monday, November 10, 2008 11:06 pm
"So, the Reformed agree with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?"

Huh? The conception of the Lord's mother isn't even mentioned in this post. What are you talking about?

Rob Steele  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:15 am
Jane, I think you're right. I wasn't expecting snark in such a straight piece.
Apodeictic  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:05 am
I would respectfully suggest that your use of the term "Anglo-Catholics" in relation to the English civil war is an anachronism which is best avoided. You seem to be taking the predominant form of "high church" Anglicanism of today (viz. "Anglo-Catholicism") and reading that back into the historical record for the high church party at the time of the Civil War. But the main historical parties of the 16th and 17th century Church of England (Low, Broad and High Church) are not the same as the main groupings of the 19th and 20th centuries (evangelical, Anglo-Catholic and liberal) (and with the current realignment that is under way within world Anglicanism who knows exactly what 21st century Anglicanism will look like). While there is obviously some overlap between the positions of the parties of the 16th and 17th centuries and those of the 19th and 20th centuries, it's not entirely correct to equate them as you have done in the case of the old high church party and the Anglo-Catholics. [cont'd ...]
Apodeictic  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:06 am
The High Church Anglicanism of the 17th Century was *not* the Anglo-Catholicism we know today. That didn't arise until the "Oxford Movement" in the 19th Century. Interestingly enough, like the evangelicals of the day classical (or "old-fashioned") high church Anglicans were also opposed to the popery of the Oxford movement.

Of course none of what I have just said means that the High Church party at the time of the civil war didn't have popish tendencies. But it's not really correct to call them "Anglo-Catholics".

Replace "Anglo-Catholics" with "high church party" or some similarly appropriate term and your analysis still holds good.
David Henry  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:12 pm
One of the apparent ironies of history is that wherever this "grim" and "predestinarian" creed has gone, it has brought civil liberties in its train.
This is because if God is ultimately sovereign, no human agency is.

That is exactly why we have so many civil liberties, especially in this country born of th "Presbyterian War." We believe God is sovereign and too much power in the hands of sinful men, whether sinful magistrates or a sinful people, is declaring them God and will ultimately lead to destruction. That is why representative democracy was created- the selfish people and the selfish government check on eachother and theoretically the evil will of each is cancelled out. This destroys the tyranny of a minority (as in King George) and the tyranny of the majority (as in the French Revolution). This leads to liberty. Giving man the power to judge himself ultimately leads to the opposite of liberty, whether through dictatorship or mob rule.
Ilíon  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:57 pm
Ilíon: "So, the Reformed agree with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?"



Jane Dunsworth: "Huh? The conception of the Lord's mother isn't even mentioned in this post."



What does that lack have to do with anything? And specifically, what does that lack have to do with the reality that human being are free moral agents (or, to use sloppy language, we "have" free-will).



Jane Dunsworth: "What are you talking about?"



I'm talking about logical connections. Have you ever read the explanation/reasoning behind the Catholic doctrine? Immaculate Conception



In a nutshell -- by a special act of God, Mary did not inherit "Original Sin." And we know that Mary did not inherit "Original Sin" because if she had, she'd have been unable to consent to be the mother of Jesus.



This is supremely silly, of course. But, how is it any more silly than the Reformed denial of the reality of human free-will? How is it any more silly than the Reformed trying to convince other men that they do not "have free will" (as the sloppy terminology puts it).



One can convince another of something only if he is *free* to be convinced or to refuse to be convinced.
Ilíon  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:11 pm
For that matter, one can think true thoughs (I mean 'true' in both senses: thoughts that are indeed thoughts, and thoughts which accord to the truth), and one can reason, *only* if one is free to admit or refuse to admit the truth presented one.
Charles Long  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:46 pm
Yes, the whole IM concept is silly. Very. (And why does nobody insist that Mary's grandparents also had to be free from original sin, so that Mary's parents could, so that Mary could, so that Jesus could? Ugh.

[br][br]But to equate this with the biblically declared tension between God's sovereignty and man's liberty is a falacious equivocation, primarily because one is a biblically declared paradox of sorts, and the other is not. 1+1+1=1 would also be supremely silly, had God not revealed His trinitarian nature in scripture. But He has, and so it is not. Buying the biblical paradox doesn't put you into the same catagory as the guy who buys the unbiblical one.

[br][br]But that Mary thing? Yeah, silly.
Charles Long  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:47 pm
That first line should read "that whole IC thing," referring to Immaculate Conception.
Ilíon  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:12 pm
There is no paradox at all between the fact of God's sovereignty and the fact of human freedom to submit to or continue to rebel against his rule.



God upholds *ALL* things in existence -- God is present and active and working in all things -- the good and the wicked, the just and the unjust. All things means exactly ALL things.



Have you *thought* about the logical ramifications of this?



God -- the Sovereign God -- has in some manner humbled himself and put himself, to some degree, into the hands of his creation. And he did this, not merely at Calvary, but in Eden.



And he is still the Sovereign God.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:20 am
There is no paradox between God's sovereignty and human choices to submit or rebel, but since a fallen man cannot choose on his own to submit, the will is not "free" in the sense that your point depends upon. It is constrained by the corruption of Adam.
Ilíon  Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:41 am
My point is that we are indeed free.



My secondary point is that the Reformed -- even as they deny with their mouths that we are indeed free -- betray by their acts, deeds, and arguments that they know that we are indeed free.



If a man does not choose to submit, then he has not submitted. If a man cannot choose, of his own freedom, to submit, then he cannot ever be in the state of submission.



Jane Dunsworth: "... the will is not "free" in the sense that your point depends upon. It is constrained by the corruption of Adam."



If we're not *absolutely* free in every sense and respect -- which would, after all, be impossible even had no sin ever entered the world -- than we're *absolutely* not-free in every sense and respect?
Charles Long  Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:29 am
"If a man does not choose to submit, then he has not submitted."

[br][br]Unless, of course, God had already determined that he would not submit. In which case, he is submitting to God's decretal will, even in his rebellion against His revealed will. But there's a bigger point to be made...

[br][br]"If a man cannot choose, of his own freedom, to submit, then he cannot ever be in the state of submission."

[br][br]Yet this is only true if you accept the underlying philosophical premise that God's absolute sovereignty and man's absolute liberty are mutually exclusive. This is what you have done, and this is where I believe you have erred. It is an extra-biblical premise, and there is no reason to import it into the hermeneutical process, any more than there is reason to introduce mathematical limitations into our attempt to understand the Trinity.
katecho  Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:52 am
Ilíon,


I agree that there is no need for Reformed to convince anyone that man has "no free will". We are not robots. We are personal agents. We have a genuine will, and make genuine accountable choices, and are free within certain boundaries to make them.


The real issue is that our free choices are not what God uses to decide whether or not to redeem us. That's really the crux.


So, for example, if an atheist were to freely choose, of his own sufficient motives, to help a little lady across the street, this action does not undo even one sin, nor does this otherwise good action count as any merit towards redemption. It is not motivated by faith, and whatever is not of faith is sin. Only God can change our motives to that of faith. A bad tree does not produce a good fruit by straining at its will. The necessary regeneration is God's work, aside from the operation of our free will.

Ilíon  Friday, November 14, 2008 2:56 pm
Katecho: "I agree that there is no need for Reformed to convince anyone that man has "no free will"."



Actually, I'm pointing out that the Reformed *do* need to do just that, and that they alway refuse -- and also that it's as logically impossible for them to do that as it is for the atheists/materialists to do it from their particular direction.



The Reformed -- and the atheists/materialists, those trying to be logically consistent, at any rate -- assert that "free will" does not exist. And that is as far as their argument ever, or even can, get. For, before Person A can convince Person B that he "has no free will," it must first be the case that Person B does indeed "have free will." And thus, all anti-free will "arguments" must always peter out into incoherency.
Ilíon  Friday, November 14, 2008 2:56 pm
But, let us pretend that Person A (who is either Reformed or atheist, it matters not regarding this question) does somehow present an anti-free will argument which is more robust than "It is the truth that "free will" does not exist; and you show your moral wickedness by insisting that you possess it." Further, let us pretend that this hypothetical -- and nowhere yet evidenced -- argument is both valid and sound in all its parts, from premise(s) to conclusion. That is, we are pretending that the conclusion is true.



And further, let us pretend that Person B agrees that the premise(s) are true and agrees that the argument is entirely valid and sound, step by step, and that the conclusion follows inescapably from the the true premise(s) and sound/valid argument.
Ilíon  Friday, November 14, 2008 2:57 pm
And yet, Person B *rejects* the conclusion. How is this surprising development to be explained:

0) It is impossible that Person B can reject the conclusion (that is, my statement that he does reject it is logically impossible for me to make), for his response to the argument and its conclusion is determined by the validity and soundness of the argument -- but we all know that this is not true ... and, after all, not one of you Reformed is about to admit that the argument I've presented here proves that "free will" exists and that we are indeed free agents

1) Person B cannot reason properly -- however, we just stated as part of our pretense that Person B *did* reason properly, step by step

1a) That is: Person B's acceptence (or rejection) of the conclusion is not determined by the validity and soundness of the argument, but rather, either is *random* or is determined by something else independently of the argument:

1b) That is: no human being can be known to be able to reason properly ... in any regard, about anything -- well then, there is no point in presenting the hypothetical, non-existent argument, is there?
Ilíon  Friday, November 14, 2008 2:57 pm
2) Sound and valid logic, starting from true premises, cannot actually be trusted to uncover for us the truth of the matter -- well then, there is no point in presenting *any* argument, is there?

3) Person B's acceptence (or rejection) of the conclusion is not determined by the validity and soundness of the argument, but is, rather, a *free choice:*

3a) Person B is, after all, *free* to reject the truth he knows to be true -- but this explanation contradicts our pretense that the conclusion of the hypothetical, non-existent argument is true



The correct explanation is, of course, 3). That is, and contrary to our pretense, Person B is indeed free: which is to say, the conclusion of the hypothetical, non-existent argument is false.



All anti-free will argumentation (I use the term loosely) must always devolve to asserting either 1) or 2) above: either that reason is impossible or that knowing truth is impossible.
Ilíon  Friday, November 14, 2008 3:09 pm
Katecho: "The real issue is that our free choices are not what God uses to decide whether or not to redeem us. That's really the crux."



Not at all. The Reformed deny the "Arminian" points of "Resistible Grace" and "free will" (along with the others); and so the crux of the matter is: "Is it true or is it false that humans are morally free and thus that they are free to reject God's grace?"



God claims that chooses to save us all -- and his choise is what saves us. BUT, some of us appear to reject that offer of salvation.



So, which is the seeming, and which is true?



Does God not really choose to save us all -- even though he says he does?



Or, are we free to reject the salvation he freely offers us?
katecho  Friday, November 14, 2008 5:41 pm
Ilíon,


I'm afraid you've latched onto a caricature of the Reformed view. I was trying to help you understand the view more accurately, but that may be too big of a task for this forum. We may have to just disagree in some points.


Your misunderstandings are fairly common ones, because the TULIP formulation and other mottoes are particularly suited to being misunderstood. Even some Reformed folk get frustrated by this and feel they have to defend the caricatures too.


On the specific "irresistible grace" motto, we have pretty clear Scripture saying that God wanted to gather Israel as a hen gathers her chicks (grace), but Israel was unwilling. So the bare motto is no good. However, it is still the case that the Father gives the nations to the Son as His inheritance (and see Zeph 3:8-9 and Isaiah 9:6-7). God brings this grace not by asking our permission, but by His zeal to redeem. He declares this end result from the beginning. This is the kind of grace that is not ultimately resistible.


Also, I'm not familiar with God claiming to choose to save every last person. God does claim to save the world through His Son, and He will do so irresistibly in history, all while our freedom and accountability operates.

Ilíon  Friday, November 14, 2008 7:37 pm
Katecho: "I'm afraid you've latched onto a caricature of the Reformed view."



And here I was thinking that I'd limited myself to what Brother Wilson has said in this specific entry, concerning the five points of "Arminianism" and the corresponding five denials of "Calvinism."




Ilíon: "God claims that [he] chooses to save us all -- and his choice is what saves us. BUT, some of us appear to reject that offer of salvation."



Katecho: "Also, I'm not familiar with God claiming to choose to save every last person."



What is the moral -- and even explicitly stated by Christ -- to the parable of the lost sheep? (and, for that matter, of the lost coin, and of the prodigal son?)



Matthew 18:14 (NIV) "... In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost."



Or, consider 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) "... [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." And there are other such explicit verses, if one wants to look for them.



And yet, some will be lost.



Might it not be that you're unfamiliar with this explicit teaching because it contradicts your "Calvinism" -- and which, of course, is nothing at all like the caricature of it I've latched onto? Oddly enough, that's always the same thing "Darwinists" say about criticisms of *their* world-view.
katecho  Saturday, November 15, 2008 8:39 am
Certainly it is God's desire to save the whole world, but you suggested that it was His choice to do so. A general can desire to spare the lives of his soldiers while still choosing to send them into battle outnumbered. Don't confuse God's desires with His actual decisions and choices. Desire is not one-dimensional.


What we see is that God has ordained a specific number to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and that number is vast, the whole world.

Ilíon  Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:02 am
I don't "suggest" ... I state. And I stated the truth which is stated in the Bible.



You, however, appear to be playing some sort of "Calvinist" word-game, in which God has "desires" which are not acts the will. Do these "desires" come to God unbidden? Are they random, or is something outside of God implanting them into his psyche?


==========
This is clearly stated: It is contrary to God's will that any perish. It is God's will that none should perish.



This, too, is clearly stated: Yet, some will perish.



How can this be? How is this possible? Is this not a contradiction?



This is not a difficulty nor a contradiction for me, and I don't have to resort to word-games to make the conundrum go away. The conundrum exist only for you who deny the reality of human free-will, who deny that we can say "No" to God.
Ilíon  Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:04 am
And that we can say "Yes" to God.
Charles Long  Monday, November 17, 2008 4:10 am
The conundrum exist only for you who deny the reality of human free-will, who deny that we can say "No" to God.

[br][br]And again you fail to notice that no one in this room denies the reality of human free will. Keep working at it. The fact is that internal tension is going to exist in both your view and katecho's view. The question is merely one of where the tension will be.
Ilíon  Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:58 am
Ilíon: "The conundrum exist[s] only for you who deny the reality of human free-will, who deny that we can say "No" to God. And that we can say "Yes" to God."



Charles Long: "And again you fail to notice that no one in this room denies the reality of human free will. Keep working at it."



Really? No one here is denying the reality of human free will?



The "five points of Arminianism," which Brother Wilson elucidates (to a point, though I think also with a bit of "Calvinist" spin or misunderstanding) in his post, are all about the reality of human free will and the implications of that reality for our understanding of soteriology. And the "five points of Calvinism," also elucidated, are all about denying those "five points of Arminianism."



Charles Long: "Keep working at it."



Oh! I get it: when a position is utterly incoherent, it neither denies nor affirms the point at issue. Put another way, such a position both denies and affirms the issue.



Does not Gentle Reader find it somewhat amusing that Katcho was reduced to calling the "irresistible grace" point of "Calvinism" a mere motto and claiming that to understand it to be saying exactly what it says is "no good?" Does not Gentle Reader find it somewhat odd that I am apparently somehow at fault for not correctly understanding that which, apparently, cannot be understood at face value?
Charles Long  Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:21 pm
You're right, Ilion -- all us Calvinists secretly believe that humans are mere automatons. Robots. String puppets.

[br][br]There. Now all of your comments make sense.
Ilíon  Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:33 pm
Please! I'm quite certain that I distinctly said that your acts and deeds indicates that none of you Calvinists actually believes what you say you believe.



If what you Calvinists assert in the truth about human nature -- though, so far as *I* am aware, never actually get around to arguing -- were indeed the truth, then we *would* be mere automatons. Robots. String (or sock) puppets.
Roy  - Molinism/Middle-Knowledge  Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:10 pm
Anyone ever heard of the "third option" here, namely, the Molinist/Middle-Knowledge position that came out of the counter-reformation? Much philosophical (and now theological) discussion has taken place over this topic during the past half-century, some saying it provides a via media through the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.