Calvinismo Y Arminianismo. Y LA BIBLIA CINCO SIGLOS DE DINÁMICA TENSIÓN

8/6/2019 Calvinismo Y Arminianismo. Y LA BIBLIA CINCO SIGLOS DE DINÁMICA TENSIÓN

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/calvinismo-y-arminianismo-y-la-biblia-cinco-siglos-de-dinamica-tension 1/21

General Session: Wednesday, February 27, 2002, 9:45 a.m.– 10:45 a.m.

1

CALVINISM, ARMINIANISM, AND THE BIBLE: FIVE CENTURIES OF DYNAMIC

TENSION BETWEEN SYSTEMATIC AND EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY

Dr. David L. Burggraff

Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary

Lansdale, PA

Introduction

As the title indicates, this session primarily focuses on the historical tensions over the

past five centuries. Since this conference is attempting to deal with historical and contemporary

issues in soteriology, this study will endeavor to survey those issues that have created tension

over the past five centuries as well as introduce some of the more relevant issues that are on the

scene today.

Tension Among The Reformers

To fully appreciate the half millennia of tension between Calvinism and Arminianism, it

is necessary to understand the origination of that tension. What led to the intense disagreement

between these parties? What were the issues? Who was involved?

Luther (Study by Clint Banz)

Calvin

John Calvin, often regarded as “the systematizer of the Reformation,” was a second-

generation Protestant Reformer of the sixteenth century who brought together biblical doctrinesystematically, in a way that no other Reformer before him had done. The theology of

Calvinism finds its roots in the writings of John Calvin, particularly as expressed in the Institutes

of the Christian Religion.1

Calvin (1509-1564) was born in Noyon, Picardy, sixty miles northeast of Paris. He

began study for the priesthood at the University of Paris at the age of fourteen, but through a

conflict with the bishop he eventually left to study law. He became proficient in Latin, Greek,

and Hebrew. His conversion occurred through his contact with Protestants, probably in 1533 or

1534. At that point Calvin r3ejected the “superstitions of the Papacy.” He was persecuted for

his faith, imprisoned, but subsequently freed. He found refuge in Basel, Switzerland, where he

began his extensive writing ministry. In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of the Institutes(at the age of 26). The Institutes were originally written in Latin and later translated into French

by Calvin. He constantly revised his writings, expanding the first edition of the Institutes from

1W. S. Reid, “Calvinism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand

Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 186.




2

six chapters to eighty chapters in the fourth and final edition of 1559.2

It was in Geneva, Switzerland, where Calvin was befriended by Guilaume Farel (1489-

1565), a Reformation leader, that Calvin further developed the Institutes and also became a

leader in the Reformation. At Geneva, he and Farel began teaching Reformation theology but

were banished. Calvin went to Strasbourg for three years (1538-1541) as a pastor to Frenchrefugees. A change in the political scene in 1541 enabled him to return to Geneva. Calvin

served as pastor as well as community leader, shaping a union of church and state. Calvin was a

prolific writer, writing commentaries on forty-nine books of the Bible, as well as pamphlets and

the ever-expanding Institutes. From the time that the French edition of the Institutes were

published in France, Calvin was the intellectual master of the Protestant movement in France.

Calvinism was also the predominant faith in the northern part of the Netherlands (modern

Holland). Calvin’s missionary vitality also led to the tremendous spread of Calvinism

throughout Europe and by the 17th

century it superceded Lutheranism as the most vibrant

representative of Protestantism.

Arminius

The term Arminianism comes from Jacobus Arminius who was a Divinity Professor at

Leiden University in Holland in the early seventeenth century. Jacobus Arminius was born in

Holland in 1560,and grew up in a land that jealously guarded the faith for which so many had

shed their blood. By this time, the majority of the Protestants in the Netherlands were Calvinists.

Personal views of Scripture were allowed, but there was little toleration for anything but

Calvinist views to be publicly expressed. But this was also a land where humanistic traditions

from the Renaissance period had never died out and where Anabaptism was widely spread. Some

people felt there needed to be a greater emphasis on the practical aspects of religion, less

emphasis on finely distinguished doctrine, and a more tolerant attitude. Arminius, whoserelatives were killed in the Netherlands' struggle for independence, was educated through the

support of friends, at the University of Leyden.

Later Arminius went to Geneva, where he was greatly influenced by Beza. After Calvin's

death, Beza assumed Calvin's mantle and took full leadership of the Academy at Geneva. It was

Beza who developed the doctrine of predestination a step further than Calvin, in what is known

as the supralapsarian view. This has to do with the order of divine decrees. Did God first

"decree" election and reprobation (who would be saved and who would be damned) and then

permit the fall as a means by which the decree could be carried out (the supralapsarian position,

from Latin supra lapsum literally before the fall), or did he first permit that man would fall and

then decree election as the method of saving some (infralapsarian from Latin infra lapsus, after the fall)?

In 1588, Arminius entered a pastorate in Amsterdam, winning distinction as a preacher

2See the helpful summary of Calvin’s teaching, as well as historical notations in Justo L.

Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought , 3 vols (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 3:120-61.




3

and pastor. Later he was chosen to succeed Franz Junius as professor of theology in Leyden,

where he remained till his death. Dirk Koornhert, a scholarly layman, who wrote against Beza

and all strict predestinarians, rejected the notion of predestination, demanding a revision of the

Belgic Confession (the Netherlands' own reformed confession, similar to Westminster

Confession). Arminius, who was known as a strict Calvinist and an apt scholar, was called to

reply to Koornhert and to defend the supralapsarian position. As he studied the problem,Arminius came to doubt the whole doctrine of unconditional predestination and to ascribe to man

a freedom which, however congenial to Melanchthon (a disciple of Martin Luther) had no place

in pure Calvinism. The essential dispute that Arminius had with Calvinism was regarding the

doctrine of predestination.3 He did not deny predestination altogether, but denied that

predestination was unconditional. A bitter controversy sprang up between Arminius and his

supralapsarian colleague at the University of Leyden, Franz Gomarus, who was later the leading

spokesman for the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort. The conflict between the two men resulted in

a schism affecting the whole church of Holland.

Arminian Articles of Remonstrance

After Arminius' death, his views were championed and further developed and

systematized by two men, Simon Episcopius, and Jan Uytenbogaert. Under their leadership the

followers of Arminius in 1610 set forth their views in five articles called Arminian Articles of

Remonstrance, (a remonstrance is a reproof, to remonstrate is to reprove or correct) which gave

them the name 'Remonstrants'. In substance the articles teach as follows:

I. God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who

through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and

unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's

foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)

II. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has

remission of sin.

III. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born

again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and

his followers were not Pelagians.)

3Gonzalez makes an interesting comment: He states that Arminius “was an convinced Calvinist,

and he remained one throughout his life, although many of the points debated he obviously and

consciously departed from the teachings of Calvin. Therefore, although eventually ‘Arminian’

came to be a synonym of anti-Calvinist, the reason for this is not that Arminius was opposed to

Calvin’s teachings in general, but that both he and orthodox Calvinism so centered their attention

on the issues of predestination, limited atonement, and the like, that they lost sight of the fact that

the controversy, rather than being a debate between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists, was a

disagreement between two groups both of which were deeply influenced by Calvin.” A History

of Christian Thought (Reprint, 1987), 3:280.




4

IV. All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but

his grace is not irresistible.

V. Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through

the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.

The Synod of Dort

The dispute soon became involved in politics. The Netherlands were divided between the

supporters of "states rights", which included the wealthier merchant class (to which most

Remonstrants belonged) and the national party (to which most Calvinists belonged). The

National Party wished a national synod to decide the controversy. The states-rights party held

that each province could decide its own religious affairs and resisted the proposal. By a coup

d'etat the states-rights party was overthrown, Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded and Grotius wascondemned to life imprisonment, from which he later escaped.

The Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy. It lasted

from November 1618 to May 1619, seven months. It was the largest and, next to the

Westminster Assembly, the most imposing of all synods of the Reformed Churches. Besides

representatives from the Netherlands, delegates from England, Scotland, the southern provinces

of Germany, and Switzerland shared in its proceedings. Episcopius was the chief spokesman for

the Remonstrants, the fire-breathing Gomarus led the charge against Arminianism. The

Remonstrants requested an opportunity to discuss their views at the Synod, but were denied the

opportunity. They soon realized that what they thought would be an open forum for theological

discussion was in fact a hearing, and that they were in effect being tried for heresy. They wererequired to submit in writing statements in defense of the five articles of Remonstrance and

points where they disagreed with the Belgic Confession. Finally, when they refused to go on if

not given the opportunity to speak against the convictions of their opponents, the Remonstrants

were expelled, and commanded not to leave Dort. Arminianism was unanimously rejected and

condemned.

The Canon of Dort ("The Five Points of Calvinism"): Calvinism

Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants in a document

known as the Canon of Dort, which declared:

that fallen man was totally unable to save himself (Total Depravity)

that God's electing purpose was not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional

Election)

that Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for the elect

(Limited Atonement)

that the gift of faith, sovereignly given by God's Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the




5

elect (Irresistible Grace)

that those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of

the saints)

These doctrines have been called the five points of Calvinism and are often symbolized by the

well known acronym TULIP. However, by themselves they are not a full exposition of Calvin'stheology. The Canon of Dort is more properly viewed in its historical context as a theological

response to the challenges of seventeenth century Arminianism. These doctrines, together with

the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, became the doctrinal basis of the Dutch

Church. Not so extreme as some individual Calvinists - it did not adopt Gomarus supralapsarian

views - the synod of Dort reached the high-water mark of Calvinistic creed-making. 4

“Not-Without-Controversy”: What Was/Is Real Calvinism?

Although Calvin was the systematizer of the Reformation theology, since his day those

who have accepted his structure of theology have continued to develop many of his ideas.During his own lifetime he himself developed his thought in the successive editions of his

Institutes of the Christian Religion. With the writings of various Calvinistic confessions such as

the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Westminster

Confession and Catechisms (1647-48) additions to and further developments in theological

thought have appeared. Various theologians also during the succeeding years elaborated various

points which Calvin had raised but had not fully examined.

Reformed theology, to which the name “Calvinism” was applied with increasing

frequency, developed differently in various parts of Europe. Justo Gonzalez offers an interesting

historical observation from French Calvinism:

It is a well-known fact that French Protestantism never accepted the strict Calvinistic

orthodoxy of the seventeenth century. . . . In many ways French Protestantism remained

closer to the original theology and inspiration of Calvin than did the Calvinistic

orthodoxy of Geneva and Dort, and that therefore the main reason for its refusal to follow

the route of seventeenth-century orthodoxy was its more accurate understanding of

Calvin’s theology.5

Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), France’s most notable Protestant theologian of the

seventeenth-century, was also the most penetrating student of Calvin in his time, and claimed

that what he was doing was for the most part insisting on Calvin’s teachings over against the

incorrect emphases and interpretations of those who claimed to be more strictly Calvinistic.

4 For refusing to subscribe to the Canon of Dort, some 200 Remonstrant ministers were deprived

of their positions, eighty were banished from the country. Those who continued to minister were

sentenced to life in prison.

5Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought , 3:289.




6

Thus, for instance, he rejected the doctrine of limited atonement, and showed with an abundance

of quotations that Calvin himself never held to such a doctrine, but quite the contrary. And, with

reference to the doctrine of predestination, he insisted that the so-called orthodox Calvinistic

tradition had done Calvin a disservice by attempting to prove predestination by deriving it from

the doctrine of God, and taking it out of a soteriological context in which Calvin had placed it.6

Gonzalez states, “It thus seems clearer that, at least on some points, French Calvinism, which hasusually been interpreted as having abandoned the views of its founder, was closer to those views

than many of the more ardent defenders of Calvinism.”7

The nineteenth century in particular saw a very considerable expansion of Calvinistic

thought under the influence of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck in the Netherlands,

Auguste Lecerf in France, and A. A Hodge, Charles Hodge, and B. B. Warfield in the United

States. The tradition established by these men was carried on in the twentieth century by John

Murray, J. Gresham Machen, and Cornelius Van Til in the United States; Herman Dooyeweerd

and D. H. Th. Vollenhoven in the Netherlands; and many others in various countries around the

world.8

Arminianism

Arminianism views Christian doctrine much as the pre-Augustinian fathers did and as did

the later John Wesley. In several basic ways it differs from the Augustine-Luther-Calvin

tradition. Thus, Arminianism is a distinct kind of Protestant theology for several reasons.

One of its distinctives is its teaching on predestination. It teaches predestination, since

the Scriptures writers do, but it understands that this predecision on God’s part is to save theones who repent and believe. Thus its view is called conditional predestination, since the

predetermination of the destiny of individuals is based on God’s foreknowledge of the way in

which they will either freely reject Christ or freely accept him.

Arminius defended his views most precisely in his commentary on Romans 9,

Examination of Perkins’ Pamphlet , and Declaration of Sentiments. He argued against

supralapsarianism, popularized by Calvin’s son-in-law and Arminius’ teacher at Geneva,

Theodore Beza, and vigorously defended at the University of Leiden by Francis Gomarus,

Arminius’ collegue. Their view was that before the fall, indeed before man’s creation, God had

already determined what the eternal destiny of each person was to be. Arminius also believed

6B. G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism

in Seventeenth-Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 266.

7Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought , 3:290.

8W. S. Reid, “Calvinism,” 188




7

that the sublapsarian unconditional predestination view of Augustine and Martin Luther is

unscriptural. This is the view that Adam’s sin was freely chosen but that, after Adam’s fall, the

eternal destiny of each person was determined by the absolute sovereignty of God.9

Connected with Arminius’ view of conditional predestination are other significant

teachings. One is his emphasis on Human freedom. Here he was not Pelagian, as some havethought. He believed profoundly in original sin, understanding that the will of naturally fallen

man is not only maimed and wounded, but that it is entirely unable, apart from prevenient grace,

to do anything good. Another teaching is that Christ’s atonement is unlimited in its benefits. He

understood that such texts as “he died for all” (II Cor 5:15; cf. II Cor 5:14; Titus 2:11; I John

2:2) mean what they say, while Calvinists taught that the “all” means only all of those previously

elected to be saved. A third view is that while God is not willing that any should perish, but all

should come to repentance, saving grace is not irresistible, as in classic Calvinism. It can be

rejected.

In Arminius’ view believers may lose their salvation and be eternally lost, quoting as

support of this position such passages as I Pet 1:10. While Arminians feel that they have beenrather successful in disinclining many Calvinists from such views as unconditional election,

limited atonement, and irresistible grace, they realize that they have not widely succeeded in the

area of eternal security.10

A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus

many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us.

Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not

have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go to into eternal perdition. Another

spillover into Arminianism is from Baptistic Calvinism which opposes infant baptism. Until

recently the long Arminian tradition has customarily emphasized infant baptism – as didArminius and Wesley (as did Luther and Calvin). It has been considered as the sacrament which

helps prevenient grace to be implemented, restraining the child until such time as he/she

becomes evangelically converted. Another spillover is in eschatological matters. Arminianism

is not dispensationalist as such, has not committed itself to a given millennial view, and has little

interest in specific prophecies (believing God would rather have men concentrate on what was

9In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608), Arminius gave twenty arguments against

supralapsarianism, which he said (not quite correctly) applied also to sublapsarianism.These

include such arguments as that the view is void of good news; repugnant to God’s wise, just and

good nature; and to man’s free nature; “Highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ”; “Hurtful to thesalvation of men”; and that it “inverts the order of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (which is that we

are justified after we believe, not prior to our believing). He said the arguments all boil down to

one, actually: that unconditional predestination makes God “the author of sin.”

10R. T. Shank’s Life in the Son and H. O. Wiley’s three-volume Christian Theology make the best

scriptural case against eternal security form within the Arminian tradition, but the position has

been unconvincing to Calvinists generally.




8

specifically clear in Scripture: Christ’s redemption and a holy life). But many Arminians today

have succombed to the popular prophetic books, and many Arminians are promoting

dispensational theology.

Justo Gonzalez makes a rather interesting observation about Arminianism at the close of

the sixteenth-century that describes how Calvinism and Arminianism were/are viewed by“outsiders”:

The Arminian controversy and the resultant Synod of Dort are another episode in the

process by which the theology of the Reformation was schematized into a strict

orthodoxy. By sixteenth-century standards, Arminius and the Remonstrants would have

been seen as Calvinists by both Catholics and Lutherans. Their eucharistic doctrine, as

well as their understanding of the nature of the church, were typically Calvinistic.11

Doctrinal Tension: What Did They Teach?

Extent of the Atonement

I. John Calvin

The question as to whether Calvin taught the doctrine of a limited or particular

atonement is not so easily settled as some would claim. The principal twentieth-century

monographs on Calvin’s theology have been uniformily silent on this topic,12 whereas

those who have written of late to expound and defend the so-called “five points” of Calvinism have either implied or stated that Calvin taught limited atonement.13 Roger

Nicole and William Godfrey (1945- ) have found limited atonement to be more

compatible with Calvin’s entire teaching. On the contrary, James William Anderson

(1930- ) on the basis of Calvin’s sermons has concluded that Calvin, despite the logical

11Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought , 286-87.

12Adam Mitchell Hunter (1871-1955), The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation

(Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1950); Francois Wendel (1905-72), Calvin: The Origins and

Development of His Religious Thought , trans. Philip Mairet (New York: Harper and Row, 1963);Wilhelm Niesel (1903- ), The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1956); William J. Bouwsma (1923- ), John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century

Portrait (New York:Oxford, 1988).

13Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, pp. 62-77, esp. 62; Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism,

pp. 5-6, 41-55; Duane E. Spencer (1920- ), TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of

Calvinism in the Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 5-7, 35-43.




9

implications of his theology, was favorable to universal atonement,14 and Robert t.

Kendall (1935- ), using the entire Calvinian corpus, has found that whereas Calvin

inclined to universal atonement, he insisted that Christ’s heavenly intercession is “for the

elect only.”15 Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion yields little evidence for the

settlement of the question, whereas his commentaries and sermons provide more data.

Probably the most viable answer stems from the recognition that Calvin did not face thisissue squarely and hence did not provide a definitive answer concerning it. Archibald

Alexander Hodge acknowledged that “Calvin does not appear to have given the question

. . . a deliberate consideration, and has certainly not left behind him a clear and consistent

statement of his views.”16 According to Paul Matthews Van Buren (1924- ), “the tension

arising from the fact that Christ died for all men and the fact that not all believe is left by

Calvin as a tension, resolved neither in favour of universalism nor in favour of a limited

atonement.”17 Robert Arthur Peterson (1948- ) has concluded:

It is a later discussion which belongs to the period of Reformed orthodoxy.

Hence the question of Calvin’s view of the extent of the Atonement is

anachronistic. It is unfair to ask for a man’s position on a matter which only became an issue after his death. . . . [His] commentaries contain some passages

which favor unlimited Atonement, but again the data is [ sic] insubstantial. It is in

Calvin’s sermons that one finds more information bearing on this question. . . .

[Indeed,] from the evidence available, which is not unambiguous, he presented in

his sermons a doctrine of unlimited Atonement.18

II. Theodore Beza (1519-1605)

With Calvin’s successor in Geneva came the explicit teaching of the doctrine of

limited atonement. Beza connected Christ’s death solely for the elect with the eternal

decree of election and regarded his death as making efficacious the salvation of theelect.19

III. Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrant Articles (1610)

14“The Grace of God and the Non-Elect in Calvin’s Commentaries and Sermons” (ThD diss.,

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1976).

15Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979), pp. 13-18.

16The Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 388. First published in 1867.

17Christ in Our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin’s Doctrine of Reconciliation

(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), p. 50.

18“Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1980), pp. 130, 131.

19Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, pp. 29, 31-32. William Perkins (1558-1602) of

England also taught limited atonement. Ibid., pp. 57-58.




10

As a part of his revolutionary rejection of Bezan and Perkinsian Calvinism,

Arminius embraced the doctrine of general atonement. R.T. Kendall finds Arminius and

Calvin having held “in common the belief that Christ died for all,” but having diverged as

to Christ’s intercession inasmuch as Arminius taught that Christ prayed for both elect and

non-elect.20 The second of the Remonstrant Articles, citing John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2,

clearly affirmed that Christ died “for all men and for every man,” thereby obtaining for them “redemption and the forgiveness of sins,” yet only believers enjoy such

forgiveness.21

IV. Synod of Dort (1618-1619)

The participants in the Synod of Dort, or Dordrecht, in framing their canons

utilized Peter Lombard’s distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. “The death of

the Son of God . . . is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins

of the whole world.” The perishing of nonbelievers “is not owing to any defect or

insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross.” It was the “will and

purpose” of God the Father “that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most preciousdeath of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of

justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation.”22

V. General Baptist Confessions of Faith

The General Baptists in seventeenth-century England, whose name was derived

from their espousal of a general atonement, affirmed in their confessions of faith that

Christ died for all human beings. “Jesus Christ, through (or by) the grace of God,

suffered death for all mankind, or every man (Heb. 2:9).”23 “God out of his love sent his

son into the world to be born of a woman, to die for the sins of all men under the first

Covenant (John 3:16).”24

Indeed, “no man shall eternally suffer in Hell . . . for want of aChrist that dyed for them,” unbelief being the cause of the divine condemnation of

unbelievers.25 “Christ died for all men, and there is a sufficiency in his death and merits

20Ibid., p. 149.

21Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:546.

222.3; 2.6; 2.8, in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:586-87.

23

“The Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations” (1651), art. 17, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 178.

24“The True Gospel-Faith Declared according to the Scriptures” (1654), art. 4, in Lumpkin,

Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 192.

25“The Standard Confession” (1660), art. 5, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, pp. 225-

26.




11

for the sins of the whole world . . .”26

VI. Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith and Theologians

English Particular Baptists, whose name was derived from their commitment to a

particular or limited atonement, affirmed Christ’s death for the elect through their firsttwo confessions of faith and in the writings of two of their leading theologians. Christ

died that “through the blood of that Crosse in an acceptable sacrifice, [he] might

reconcile his elect only.” Hence Christ “by his death did bring forth salvation and

reconciliation only for the elect. . . .”27 “The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and

sacrifice of himself . . . hath fully satisfied the Justice of God . . . for all those whom the

Father hath given unto him.” “God did from all eternity decree to justify all the Elect,

and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their

Justification.”28 John Gill’s London congregation declared that “the eternal Redemption

which Christ has obtained by the shedding of his blood, is special and particular; that is

to say, that it was only intentionally designed for the Elect of God, the Sheep of Christ. . .

.”29

Andrew Fuller sought to retain particular atonement while emphasizing that thegospel is to be addressed to all human beings. The “application of redemption” is “the

result of previous design.”

That which is actually done was intended to be done. Hence the salvation of

those that are saved is described as the end which the Savior had in view. . . .

There is no contradiction between this peculiarity [ sic] of design in the death of

Christ, and a universal obligation on those who hear the gospel to believe in him,

or a universal invitation being addressed to them.30

VII. Princeton Theologians

Nineteenth-century Princeton theologians restated the Synod of Dort’s distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. Charles Hodge, while positioning himself in the

26“The Orthodox Creed” (1678), art. 18, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 310. A

similar statement appeared in New England in “A Treatise on the Faith of the Free Will Baptists”

(1834), art. 5, sect. 1, in Lumpkin, p. 372.

27“The [First] London Confession” (1644), art. 17, 21, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith,

pp. 160, 162.

28“The Assembly of Second London Confession” (1677, 1689), art. 8, sect. 5; art. 11, sect. 4, in

Lumpkin, Baptist Confession of Faith, pp. 262, 266.29“A Declaration of Faith and Practice . . .” (1764), art. 6, quoted by Olin C. Robinson, “The

Legacy of John Gill,” Baptist Quarterly 24 (July 1971): 114, 123.

30The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785), 3. (3), in The Complete Works of the Rev.

Andrew Fuller , rev. Joseph Belcher, 3 vols. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988),

2:374.




12

Augustinian tradition, wrote: “He [Christ] was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his

people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world.”31 According to A. A. Hodge,

there “is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of . . . [Christ’s] satisfaction to

accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number,” but the “design of Christ

in dying was to effect what he actually does effect in result,” that is, “the actual salvation

of his own [elect] people, in all the means, conditions, and stages of it.”32

James P.Boyce, following his mentor Charles Hodge, affirmed: “Christ did actually die for the

salvation of all so that he might be called the Savior of all.” “Christ died . . . in a special

sense for the elect, because he procured for them not a possible, but an actual

salvation.”33

Election

Major Viewpoints on Election

I. Foresight Election.

This view holds that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. God looked down

the corridor of time and in His foreknowledge saw who would accept Christ and then

elected them to salvation. This makes foreknowledge foresight without any pretemporal

elective action on God’s part.

“By election we mean that sovereign act of God in grace whereby He chose in Christ

Jesus for salvation all those whom He foreknew would accept Him” (Henry C. Thiessen,

Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], p. 344).

It is probably true to say that the great majority of evangelicals consciously or

unconsciously hold this concept of election.

II. Corporate Election.

A form of this view was held by Karl Barth. He taught that election is primarily

election in Christ, then election of the community, and finally the election of individuals.

Actually, all are elect in Christ, though unbelievers do not yet know that. This is why

Barth’s doctrine of election caused him to be accused of universalism.

An evangelical form of this same concept (maybe in some cases influenced by

Barth and in some cases not) views election as the choosing of the group, the church, in

Christ, but not individuals until after they become members of the group by faith. In this

31Systematic Theology, 2:559.

32Outlines of Theology (rev. Ed.; New York: George H. Doran Co., 1878), pp. 416, 417.

33 Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 340. Boyce’s successor, E. Y. Mullins, however, taught

universal atonement: The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 336.




13

form there is no suggestion of universalism, though the idea of corporate election is

common to both. We cannot speak of individuals being elected before the foundation of

the world but only of the church being so elected in Christ (Eph. 1:4). When an

individual believes in Christ, he is placed in that elect group, and then he can be said to

be elect. Therefore, what did God choose before the foundation of the world? The

church. Not individuals, but the body of Christ.34

III. Individual, Pretemporal Election.

This viewpoint has been clearly stated by Louis Berkhof, where he says that

election is “that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on

account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be recipients of

special grace and of eternal salvation.”35

Thus election is unconditional (i.e., there is nothing in the creature that conditions

God’s choice), pretemporal (before the foundation of the world), unmerited (i.e., of

grace), and the basis of salvation.Those who hold this view also acknowledge that election is in Christ, but they

mean that He is the ground and cause and guarantee of the election of individuals. They

reject the corporate election concept, insisting rather that God elected individuals (and

not on the basis of foresight), and those elect individuals form the group, the church.

Theologically Related, But Opposite Terms

By this is meant the ideas involved in retribution and preterition. Retribution

means deserved punishment, while preterition is usually used to speak of the passing over

of those not elected to salvation. Both terms avoid the concept involved in double

predestination or reprobation which means the foreordination to damnation. None of these terms appear in Scripture (though the ideas are derived from Rom. 9:18, 21; 1 Peter

2:8; and Rev. 17:8).

Thus, theologians often use the term “election” for God’s choice of human beings

to eternal life, the term “reprobation” for the doctrine that God selects from eternity the

nonelect human persons to be damned, and the term “preterition” for the doctrine that by

choosing the elect God passes over or passes by the nonelect so that they are

condemned/punished for their sin/unbelief.

Systematic Theology Questions with Historical Answers

I. Does election necessarily imply reprobation?

34See Robert Shank, Elect in the Son (Springfield, MO: Wescott, 1970), pp. 48-49; and Roger T.

Forster and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1975).

35Systematic Theology, p. 114.




14

This question has been rephrased as follows: Does God have the same relation to

the nonelection of the nonelect as God does to the election of the elect? (i.e., what about

the reprobate?) To this question three answers have been given in history.

A. Some authors have answered clearly and unhesitantly “yes.” Isidore of Seville (c.560-636) declared: “Predestination is twofold, either of the elect to rest or of the

reprobate to death.”36 Martin Luther seems to have held to reprobation inasmuch

as he asserted that God’s foreknowledge is not contingent but necessary, and that

necessity means immutability and moral responsibility, not compulsion. Luther

emphasized God’s hatred of Esau and Juda’s responsibility for his destiny.37

Calvin declared that by “predestination” “God adopts some to hope of life, and

sentences others to eternal death.” “For not all are created in equal condition;

rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others.”38 He

held that “election itself could not stand except as set over against reprobation.”

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no

other reason that that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” Calvin even asserted: “The decree [of

reprobation] indeed is dreadful, I confess.”39 Ford Lewis Battles (1915-79),

Calvin’s modern translator, has commented: “Calvin is awestruck but unrelenting

in his declaration that God is the author of reprobation.”40 Calvin sought to use

Isa. 6:9 to support his teaching that the reprobate were “reprobate by the secret

counsel of God before they were born.”41

John Gill (Particular Baptist) taught both preterition and the “pre-

damnation” of the nonelect to “condemnation for sin,” that is, both angels and

humans,42 and Shedd concluded that “whoever holds the doctrine of election, must

hold the antithetical doctrine of reprobation.”43

36Sententiiarum libri 2.6.1, as quoted in Latin by Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/2, 17.

37On the Bondage of the Will (1525), 2.4, 5, 8; 4.16; 5.7, 10, 11.

38 Institues of the Christian Religion (1559 ed.), 3.21.5 (trans. F.L. Battle).

39Ibid., 3.23.1, 7.

40Ibid., p. 955, n. 17.

41Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (1552), 5.5, trans. J.K.S. Reid (Cambridge:

James Clarke and Co., 1961), pp. 92-94.

42 A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 2 vols., Doct. Div., 2.3 (London: Thomas

Tegg, 1939; 2 vols. In one: Paris, Ark.: Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987), pp. 275-84.

43 Dogmatic Theology, 1:430.




15

B. There have been those who have answered the question about reprobation with

only a probable or tentative “yes.” Augustine of Hippo seems to have been far

less explicit about reprobation that Calvin would later be. Augustine did join his

doctrine of predestination with three related doctrines: the predestined humans as

equal in number to the number of fallen angels; divine grace as irresistible; andthe gift of perseverance as given only to the predestined. But scholars have

answered the question whether Augustine was a determinist variously in the

modern era, and whether he taught reprobation has been both affirmed,44 and

denied.45 Inasmuch as the passages in Augustine that have been identified as

teaching reprobation are upon close examination found to be either inapplicable46

or inconclusive,47 we ought to give heavier weight to his statements in the late

treatise against the so-called Semi-Pelagians, On the Gift of Perseverance, which

seem to affirm preterition.48 Hence we classify Augustine under the probable or

tentative answer.

R. C. Sproul has recently reaffirmed preterition, rejecting the “equalultimacy” of “Hyper-Calvinism” and interpreting God’s hardening of human

hearts as the removal of the restraints to evil.49

C. Yet others have answered the question as to reprobation with a decisive “no.”

The Second Council of Orange (529) in southern Gaul, contrary to what some

were ascribing to Augustine, concluded: “Predestination to evil is to be

anathematized with detestation.”50 John Smyth’s group in Amsterdam also

concluded: “so God doth not create or predestinate any man to destruction.”51

44L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 109-10.

45Robert Lowry Calhoun (1896-1983), Lectures on the History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 225-26,

strongly asserted that Augustine taught only single predestination, for he never taught that God

ordained sin or evil and never clearly articulated reprobation. Calhoun had earlier held that

Augustine taught single predestination throughout most of his life and shifted to double

predestination during the last three years of his life. Also Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of

God , p. 341.

46Tractates on the Gospel of John 43.13; 110.2; The City of God 15.1; Enchiridion 26.

47 Enchiridion 100.

48Chs. 19, 21.

49Chosen by God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Pub, 1986), pp. 141-60, esp. 143, 145.

50As smmarized by Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 372.

51“Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion” (1612-14), art. 25, in

Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 128.




16

John Wesley, who saw preterition as being almost as objectionable as

reprobation, declared that “unconditional election cannot appear without the

cloven foot of reprobation” and “necessarily implies unconditional reprobation.”

Hence he forcefully rejected unconditional election and reprobation.52

II. Is election of particular persons or of a principle through prescience?

The question needs to be stated in greater detail. Does election consist of God’s

choice or selection from eternity of particular human beings for or unto salvation, or does

election consist of God’s establishing the principle that he chooses whoever among

humankind should repent and believe in Jesus Christ, these persons being made known to

God through His foreknowledge?

The Augustinian-Calvinist tradition has answered affirmatively the first half of

the question. For Augustine of Hippo the number of human elect equals the number of

fallen angels. John Calvin argued strongly against any interpretation of election based on

God’s foreknowledge of human merits.53

Several seventeenth-century English Particular Baptist confessions specified that divine election was/is of particular human beings.54

Elelction, according to John Gill, is “the choice of certain persons by God, from all

eternity, to grace and glory.”55 During the nineteenth century James P. Boyce was

insistent that election was not of nations or to church membership but of individuals.56

The Arminian-Wesleyan tradition has answered affirmatively the second half of

the question. The first of the Remonstrant Articles (1610) reads:

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the

foundation of the world hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to

save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the graceof the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this

faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the

incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as

alienate from Christ. . . .57

52 Predestination Calmly Considered (1752), 10-12, 15, 19.

53 Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559 ed.), 3.22, esp. 1, 2.

54

First London Confession (1644), art. 3; Midland Association Confession (1655), art. 5; SecondLondon Confession (1677), 3.3, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, pp. 157, 198, 254.

55 A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, doct. 6.2.5, p. 180.

56 Abstract of Sysytematic Theology, pp. 341-50.

57Schaff, Creed of Christendom, 3:545.




17

Certain English General Baptist confessions during the seventeenth century reflected the

same basic understanding of election, namely, God’s eternal choice of those who would

believe.58

III. Does the doctrine of election hinder or help the proclamation of the Christian gospel to

all human beings?

More specifically the question asks whether the doctrine of election discourages,

inhibits, or makes useless the universal proclamation of the gospel, or encourages,

sustain, or makes meaningful such proclamation.

Certain Hyper-Calvinists59 in eighteenth-century England gave evidence that their

soteriological doctrines, including that of divine decrees, and their reluctance to call

persons to the duty of profession of faith in Jesus Christ seemingly did discourage or

inhibit the more effective and wider gospel proclamation.60 The same may be said of

some Primitive Baptist in the USA during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Among the seventeenth-century Scottish Presbyterians and the eighteenth-century

Dutch Reformed were theologians who interpreted election to mean that it “precluded the

preaching of a gospel offer of salvation to all men.” Rather, the gospel “could be

preached only to men whose lives gave evidence of an operation of divine grace,” that is,

presumably the elect.61 During the twentieth century Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)

rejected the “well-meant offer” by God of the gospel to all human beings on the ground

that the “preaching of the gospel . . . does not offer , but actualizes, the salvation of the

elect – and no less the damnation of the reprobate.”62

58“A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland” (1611), art. 5;

Standard Confession of the General Baptists (1660), art. 8, in Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, pp. 118, 227.

59They have been defined by Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel , pp. 10-11,

as those who deny “that God, in the preaching of the gospel, calls everyone who hears the

preaching to repent and believe,” “that the church should call everyone in the preaching,” and

“that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe.”

60 Notable among the Hyper-Calvinists were Joseph Hussey (1660-1726), a Congragationalist,

John Skepp (?-1721), John Gill, and John Brine (1703-65), all Particular Baptists. In addition to

eternal predestination, which was most often set in a supralapsarian context, Hyper-Calvinists

taught the doctrines of eternal union, eternal adoption, and eternal justification and practiced “nooffers of grace” to those presumably nonelect (Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism

in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London: Olive Tree, 1967), pp. 70-90, 96-103, 108-11.

61As interpreted by James Daane (1914-83), The Freedom of God: A Study of Election and Pulpit

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 22.

62Daane, The Freedom of God , p. 24, an interpretation of Hoeksema.




18

Evangelical Calvinists and Arminians have so interpreted election and its related

doctrines as to sustain and reinforce missionary endeavor. Andrew Fuller is an examplar

of such Evangelical Calvinism in contrast to the Hyper-Calvinists.63 The following is

offered by evangelical Calvinists: first, election “assures us that the purpose of God to

redeem men from sin is the deepest thing in the mind and purpose of God from alleternity.”64 Second, election as a mystery means that human beings cannot predict with

certainty how and in whom God’s electing grace will effectively operate, and hence the

gospel is to be announced to all.

Tension Within Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism

As most of us attempt to establish our theological basis and ecclesiastical relationships,

we use three terms to describe ourselves (or something close to these three categories).

I. Dispensational in theological understanding. [Interpretation of Scripture]

A. A literal/normal hermeneutic. (My hermeneutic is the basis for my theology:

how one interprets scripture determines one's theology).

B. Distinction between Israel and the church.

C. Overall purpose/scheme of history is doxological -- the determinant is the glory of

God, not soteriological or sociological (i.e., not the betterment of mankind and his

social condition).

NOTE: Here is the major theological distinction between us and many new

evangelicals. New evangelicals historically have been reformed and covenantal

in their theology. (Emphasizing their three covenants: covenant of redemption,

covenant of works, covenant of grace.) The result of the emphasis on these

theological covenants puts soteriology and anthropology above doxology in

principle and practice.

II. New Testament in polity. [Baptist polity in practice of Scripture]

Those distinctives that have been labeled as the “Baptist Distinctives” are: Bibleis the only rule of faith and practice (primitivism); priesthood of all believers (soul

63Ralph P. Roberts, “Andrew Fuller,” in Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Baptist

Theologians (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1990), pp. 121-39.

64Conner, The Gospel of Redemption, p. 73.




19

liberty); regenerated church membership (voluntarism); support two church ordinances

(baptism by immersion, Lord's supper); autonomy of the local congregation

(congregational polity); separation of church and state.

III. Fundamental in position. [View of Scripture: supernaturalness, sufficiency, inerrancy]

Keep in mind that historically fundamentalism has been a movement that has

been recognized for its high view of scripture, particularly in relation to supernaturalism

and complete inerrancy -- in all areas. Bear in mind also that over the years

fundamentalism has had within its movement heros of the faith that are both Calvinists

and Arminains.

Tension Over Divine Foreknowledge (Again): Rise of Neotheism

The question of the nature of God’s foreknowledge and how that relates to human

freedom has been pondered and debated by Christian theologians at least since the time of Augustine. And the issue will not go away. More recently, the terms of the debate have shifted,

and the issue has taken on new urgency with the theological proposal known as the openness of

God. This view maintains that God’s knowledge, while perfect, is limited regarding the future

inasmuch as the future is “open” and not settled.

In fact, this view claims to be orthodox but zealously desires to make major changes in

the classical theistic view. Several proponents of this view, including Clark Pinnock, Richard

Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, have collaborated on a volume titled

The Openness of God .65 Other Christian thinkers share similar views or have expressed

sympathy for this position, including Greg Boyd, Stephen Davis, Thomas Morris, and Richard

Swinburne.66

65Clark Pinnock, et al., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional

Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994).

66Those who have written books include Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of

Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001); Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free

Will (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985); Ronald Nash, ed., Process Theology

(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987); Greg Boyd, Trinity and Process (New York: Peter Lang,

1992) and Letters from a Skeptic (Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1994); Greg Boyd, God of

the Impossible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000);

J. R. Lucas, The Freedom of the Will (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) and The Future:

An Essay on God, Temporality and Truth (London: Basil Blackwell, 1989); Peter Geach,

Providence and Evil (Cambridge: University Press, 1977); and Richard Swinburne, The

Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977). Thomas V. Morris, Our Idea of

God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991),

is close to the view. A. N. Prior, Richard Purtill, and others have written articles defending

neotheism. Still others show sympathy to the view, such as Stephen T. Davis, Logic and the

Nature of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) and Linda Zagzebski, The Dilemma of Freedom




20

Neotheists have variously labeled their view “openness of God” or “free will theism.”

Others have called this new form of theism a form of process theology or panentheism because

of its important similarities to this position.67 Yet it seems more appropriate to call it neotheism

for several reasons. First, it has significant differences from the panentheism of Alfred North

Whitehead, Charles Hartshorn, and company.68

Neotheism, like classical theism, affirms manyof the essential attributes of God, including infinity, necessity, ontological independence,

transcendence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Likewise, it shares with

traditional theism the belief in ex nihilo creation and direct divine supernatural intervention in

the world. Since process theology denies all these, it is unfair to list neotheism as a subspecies

of that view.

On the other hand, since significant differences exist between the new theism and

classical theism, neither does neotheism fit comfortably in the latter category. For example,

neotheism denies God’s foreknowledge of future free acts and, as a consequence, God’s

complete sovereignty over human events. These deviations from two millennia of Christian

theology are serious enough to deserve another name, as well as to arouse concern. It seemsappropriate, then, to call it neotheism.

One proponent, Clark Pinnock, correctly positioned neotheism in titling his chapter in

Process Theology “Between Classical and Process Theism.” Whatever it is called, this view is a

serious challenge to classical theism and a serious threat to many important doctrines and

practices built on that view.69 Since they desire to be members of the orthodox theistic camp,

they have understandably cast their view in that direction.70

and Foreknowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).

67

Clark Pinnock, “Between Classical and Process Theism,” in Nash; William Hasker, God, Timeand Knowledge (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989); David and Randall Basinger, eds.,

Predestination and Free Will (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986).

68See Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart: A Handbook of World Views

(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).

69The issue of neotheism is dividing evangelical scholars as to its orthodoxy concerning whether

God knows the future. At the 2001 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Colorado

Springs the Friday before Thanksgiving, the ETS passed a simple resolution affirming God’s

foreknowledge. “We believe the Bible clearly teaches that God has complete, accurate, and

infallible knowledge of all future decisions and actions of free moral agents,” the statement read.

The resolution passed 253 to 66, with 41 members sustaining. This reaffirmation of traditional

belief was provoked by a decade-long discussion of open-theism in ETS. Many members of

ETS believe open theism contradicts the society’s commitment to the inerrancy of the Scriptures,

the sole point of the organization’s original doctrinal basis.

70A recent publication debates the similarities and differences between classical and neotheistic

views. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, editors, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001) with contributions by Greg Boyd (of Bethel




Conclusion

Within our own movement (fundamental, dispensational, baptistic) is the constant debateover Calvinism and Arminianism. These issues have raged for five centuries; surely we are

humble enough to realize that we will not settle them in this conference. Yet too often the

ongoing debate is conducted with emotion, labeling, and the questioning of the other party’s

sincerity of obedience to Scripture. Perhaps if we better understood both the history and the

theological developments of what it is that we are arguing about, we would become a bit more

careful in our definitions and in turn more careful in our labeling and name calling. To that end,

hopefully this session has been profitable.

College: open-theism view), David Hunt (of Whittier College: simple-foreknowledge view),

William Lane Craig (of Talbot School of Theology: middle-knowledge view), and Paul Helm (of

Regent College, Vancouver: Augustinian-Calvinist view).

Calvinismo Y Arminianismo. Y LA BIBLIA CINCO SIGLOS DE DINÁMICA TENSIÓN

Documents

Transcript of Calvinismo Y Arminianismo. Y LA BIBLIA CINCO SIGLOS DE DINÁMICA TENSIÓN

Calvinismo - Prof. Altair Aguilar

Arminianismo e metodismo josé goncalves salvador

CALVINISMO - cheungyclarkenespanol.files.wordpress.com · Arminianismo. Él Dijo que quería mantener un testimonio claro contra el "determinismo", enfatizado en los cursos de psicología

Arminianismo y

Calvino o El Calvinismo

La salvacion calvinismo o armi · 2013. 10. 8. · La salvacion Calvinismo y Arminianismo ¿Existe Terreno Intermedio?-por Jorge L. Trujillo Las Iglesias que se separaron de Roma

ESTUDOS ARMINIANISMO PREDESTINAÇÃO ICONOCLASTIA

Em Defesa Do Arminianismo

Lucas Banzoli-calvinismo Ou Arminianismo Quem Esta Com a Razao

El calvinismo presentation

Calvinismo y Luteranismo

Arminianismo e Metodismo - José Goncalves Salvador

OS CINCO PONTOS DO CALVINISMO · 2015-07-06 · Arminianismo: A obra redentora de Cristo tornou possível a salvação de todos, mas na verdade não assegurou a salvação de ninguém.

Calvinismo Un Peligroso Virus

CONTRA O ARMINIANISMO - oestandartedecristo.comoestandartedecristo.com/data/ContraOAminianismoESeuCdoloPelagianoO... · a respeito de Calvinismo e Arminianismo, pois estas questões

Arminianismo – Wikipédia, A Enciclopédia Livre

TEOLOGIA SISTEMÁTICA - A CRIAÇÃO · 2020. 8. 3. · Apresentação III – “Soteriologia” (Arminianismo ou calvinismo: é possível uma terceira via?) - 23/11 Apresentação

Calvinismo e arminianismo evangelico -john-lafayette-girardeau

Calvinismo Ou Arminianismo - Quem Está Com a Razão

5PUNTOS Calvinismo vs Arminianismo