# Was Hugo Grotius an Arminian?



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 13, 2008)

Sorry for my ignorance, but I know virtually nothing about characters in Dutch Reformed history, except that Arminius started a controversy which led to the Synod of Dort.

So was Hugo Grotius an Arminian?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2008)

Yes, he was. He was imprisoned just after the Synod of Dordt for upholding Arminianism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 13, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Yes, he was. He was imprisoned just after the Synod of Dordt for upholding Arminianism.



I see, did he recant his Arminianism in order to get out?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, he was. He was imprisoned just after the Synod of Dordt for upholding Arminianism.
> ...



No, he was sentenced to life in prison but after serving two years he escaped with the help of his wife and maidservant to Paris.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 13, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



Prisons never work.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 13, 2008)

He was a Calvinist, like Arminius, who became an Arminian. He and Arminius were contemporaries attending the same schools and similar educational backgrounds, the development of Arminianism is derived from one of their professors hostility to Calvinism, although I don't remember his name at present.

He is called the father of juridical apologetics and his work on natural law became the foundation of the theory of the law of nations.

In his discourse with the Socinians defending Calvinism he developed what is called the "Governmental View of the Atonement." This is a perversion of Biblical doctrine based upon framing God's retributive Justice in humanistic terms - although, the foundation of it was his inability to counter the Socinian scriptural argument theologically. His view of the Atonement was championed by Wesley, and in one way or another it affects all of Arminianism and/or syncretic semi-pelaganism to this day.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



While I don't approve of his arminianism, the escape story sounds awesome!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2008)

Spear Dane said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



While a prisoner he was allowed to have his wife share his confinement. He was also allowed to have books in his cell. These were regularly delivered to him by friends in a trunk. That trunk was searched at first but eventually it became so routine that his jailers stopped searching the trunk. His wife came up with the idea to have Grotius put in the trunk and carried out under the unsuspecting eyes of the jailers. She coordinated plans with her maidservant and that's what happened. Grotius spent about 2 hours in that trunk before he was released by the maidservant and helped out of the country. His wife spent 2 more weeks in confinement because the authorities were furious with her but they never put her on trial. The famous Grotius prison escape is alluded to in Alexandre Dumas' _The Black Tulip_.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 14, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



That is a great story. Thanks for your knowledge Andrew.


----------



## BLD (Jan 14, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> In his discourse with the Socinians defending Calvinism he developed what is called the "Governmental View of the Atonement." This is a perversion of Biblical doctrine based upon framing God's retributive Justice in humanistic terms - although, the foundation of it was his inability to counter the Socinian scriptural argument theologically. His view of the Atonement was championed by Wesley, and in one way or another it affects all of Arminianism and/or syncretic semi-pelaganism to this day.



I know Wesley admired him, but could you kindly provide some type of reference supporting Wesley's take on the government theory. I think you may be mistaken here, unless: 1)you not claiming that's *all* Wesley affirmed about the atonement, and 2)you mean the early Wesley only (he changed his views on many things, as is well known).


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 14, 2008)

BLD said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > In his discourse with the Socinians defending Calvinism he developed what is called the "Governmental View of the Atonement." This is a perversion of Biblical doctrine based upon framing God's retributive Justice in humanistic terms - although, the foundation of it was his inability to counter the Socinian scriptural argument theologically. His view of the Atonement was championed by Wesley, and in one way or another it affects all of Arminianism and/or syncretic semi-pelaganism to this day.
> ...



My understanding is that Wesley held to the substitutionary view of the atonement. Charles G. Finney did not and denounced substitution as heresy. The New School Presbyterian Albert Barnes also held to something like the moral government view If I recall correctly.


----------



## BLD (Jan 14, 2008)

That was my understanding as well. I'm nearly certain it's also the understanding of most Wesleyan scholars (Outler, Maddox, etc.). Unless, of course, we're talking about the early Wesley, who was even more confused than the mature one.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 14, 2008)

BLD said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > In his discourse with the Socinians defending Calvinism he developed what is called the "Governmental View of the Atonement." This is a perversion of Biblical doctrine based upon framing God's retributive Justice in humanistic terms - although, the foundation of it was his inability to counter the Socinian scriptural argument theologically. His view of the Atonement was championed by Wesley, and in one way or another it affects all of Arminianism and/or syncretic semi-pelaganism to this day.
> ...



Hello Ben,

It's been quite some time since I've studied these things, and then it wasn't exhaustive, so I may need correction here on how far Wesley accepted the doctrine. I don't know precisely right now where to begin research to back up my claim, but it is my understanding and it's generally confirmed when I talk with Weslyians. Whether it is a pure stand, I don't know, but its presuppositions and thinking is present. However, I think it is important to understand the moral or governmental theory of the atonement uses all of the same language that we do, so it uses the words "substitutionary atonement," but it does not mean penal satisfaction, it is rather a token punishment. 

In essence, Grotius's view is a legal fiction whereby Christ's sacrifice is a demonstration of Justice, not Justice itself, hence Christ provides a means of the legal negation of God's Judgment upon sin, not the satisfaction of His judgment.

So, in this contemplation, a man is thinking he is standing condemned at law, not because he broke the law, but because the law cannot be broken. Christ's sacrifice, then, doesn't restore the sinner, it restores the law - in this paradigm free will is then asserted as the decisive soteriological factor.

I specifically remember that when I started studying these things out my Pastor had said that Grotius developed his view by deferring to civil government as the concept of Justice and then applied it to the Atonement. While this is true, I did not grasp what he meant by that, I suppose I thought it was just a framework of thought in which he framed the argument as an analogy, so when I read it and he used all the same terms - such as substitionary atonement, propiatian - then I didn't interpret it consistent with what he was saying. In other words, I read Reformed definitions into the meanings of those words when I studied out Grotius's teaching. You can't do that - that is not what he means.

If you've read Dabney's Christ our Penal Substitute and he begins by attacking the Socianians civil government argument, he does that because they are arguing that Scripture teaches a standard of Justice for civil government, but our soteriology is inconsistent with it. This was the argument that Grotius was responding to as well, in which he developed his concepts, but completely in terms of their presupposition altering the Calvinistic teaching.

For more on this I would refer you to Charles Hodge's work on the Governmental View, but right now I don't remember the name of his book, as I had borrowed it from my Pastor.

Sorry I can't be of more help in answer to your question.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> For more on this I would refer you to Charles Hodge's work on the Governmental View, but right now I don't remember the name of his book, as I had borrowed it from my Pastor.



Is this what you had in mind (from Hodge's _Systematic Theology_, Vol. 2)?


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 14, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > VirginiaHuguenot said:
> ...



Evidently left of his own free will, heh?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 14, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


----------



## BLD (Jan 14, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> Hello Ben,
> 
> It's been quite some time since I've studied these things, and then it wasn't exhaustive, so I may need correction here on how far Wesley accepted the doctrine. I don't know precisely right now where to begin research to back up my claim, but it is my understanding and it's generally confirmed when I talk with Weslyians. Whether it is a pure stand, I don't know, but its presuppositions and thinking is present. However, I think it is important to understand the moral or governmental theory of the atonement uses all of the same language that we do, so it uses the words "substitutionary atonement," but it does not mean penal satisfaction, it is rather a token punishment.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reference to Hodge. He does summarize the theory quite well (if I'm thinking of what you're thinking of: his systematic theology). Thanks also for the reference to Dabney. I haven't read that but I'll have to check it out soon. 

I took a class on Wesley's thought, which was taught by Alan Padgett at Luther Seminary in St. Paul. Padgett was successful in dispelling a few commonly held misconceptions I had (as it turns out, may Wesleyans hold to many of the same misconceptions!). One of those, BTW, was the idea that Wesley denied the imputation of Christ's righteousness. In fact, however, Wesley denied the conclusions many drew from that doctrine. Moreover, he denied the imputation of Christ's _active_ obedience simply because he saw no reason to separate active from passive, and he thought such a separation led to antinomianism. I wrote a paper about this an my conclusion was that Wesley affirmed something very close to orthodoxy with regards to imputation, but he ripped out the firm footing on which orthodoxy has stood since the earliest days of the Reformation. 

Just one more aside: most believe Wesley' denied the possibility of irresistible grace and sovereign election. Oddly, he believed that he himself was irresistibly drawn to Christ. He just denied that this was how God always did it. (If anyone wants references to this stuff, it's going to take me a while since I just moved to Philly and all my school notes are in boxes somewhere). 

Sorry for the aside. 

I can certainly see why one would think he's very close to Grotius here. He uses the same language games as Grotius when it comes to his universalism. Plus, Wesley's hatred for nominalism caused him to see the law quite differently than most (though that very factor, I believe distanced him from Baxter's and New England's neonomianism and hence many of Jonathan Edwards' opponents), almost as a separate entity existing outside of God himself. So in this way he's similar to Grotius. But I think there are *huge* differences between the two. Notice, I am not saying Wesley is at all orthodox in his soteriology. Far from it!

I think a good place to start, since Wesley is so strange and hard to get a handle on, would be some of the excellent secondary scholarship that's out there. One can do no better than Albert C. Outler, who pretty much started the renaissance in Wesley scholarship I guess. But a couple of other good books are: 
1)Richard P. Heitzenrater, _Wesley and the People Called Methodists_ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995). 
2)Randy L. Maddox, _Responsible Grace: John Wesley's Practical Theology_ (Nashville: Kingswood, 1994). 

The following is from Maddox's treatment (pg. 109, though I've omitted two of the footnotes since I have no idea how to put them in here).


> However many the similarities, there appears to be a significant underlying difference between Grotius and Wesley. While Wesley could fully appreciate the need to uphold the moral order of the universe, he did not assume that our obedience to God's law can ultimatley be grounded in fear, as Grotius' emphasis on deterrence could imply. Rather, he was convinced that our obedience must spring from our love of God and others, and that we can only have such love in response to our awareness of God's love for us.
> But how do we come to be convinced of God's love? Through the Cross! That is, Wesley understood Christ's role in his sacrificial death to be much more than the Representitive of humanity; he was most fundamentally the Representitive of God. In particular, he was the Representative of God's pardoning and restoring love. It is in light of Christ that we sing
> 
> My God is reconciled,
> ...


----------



## JohnTombes (Jan 30, 2008)

Baxter got his defective doctrine of justification from Grotius. Strangely enough, he borrowed the book from John Tombes.  Tombes lived in Bewdley, Baxter 6 miles away in Kidderminster. 

MTR


----------

