# Calvinism and Arminianism â€” One-sided Theologies?



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2005)

C. H. Mackintosh

We have lately received a long letter, furnishing a very striking proof of the bewildering effect of one-sided theology. Our correspondent is evidently under the influence of what is styled the high school of doctrine. Hence, he cannot see the rightness of calling upon the unconverted to "come", to "hear", to "repent", or to "believe". It seems to him like telling a crab-tree to bear some apples in order that it may become an appletree.

Now, we thoroughly believe that faith is the gift of God, and that it is not according to man's will or by human power. And further, we believe that not a single soul would even come to Christ if not drawn, yea, compelled by divine grace so to do; and therefore all who are saved have to thank the free and sovereign grace of God for it; their song is and ever shall be, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth's sake".

And this we believe not as part of a certain system of doctrine, but as the revealed truth of God. But, on the other hand, we believe just as fully, in the solemn truth of man's moral responsibility, inasmuch as it is plainly taught in Scripture, though we do not find it amongst what are called "the five points of the faith of God's elect".

We believe these five points, so far as they go; but they are very far indeed from containing the faith of God's elect. There are wide fields of divine revelation which this stunted and one-sided system does not touch upon, or even hint at, in the most remote manner. Where do we find the heavenly calling? Where, the glorious truth of the Church as the body and bride of Christ? Where, the precious sanctifying hope of the coming of Christ to receive His people to Himself? Where have we the grand scope of prophecy opened to the vision of our souls, in that which is so pompously styled "the faith of God's elect"? We look in vain for a single trace of them in the entire system to which our friend is attached.

Now, can we suppose for a moment that the blessed apostle Paul would accept as "the faith of God's elect" a system which leaves out that glorious mystery of the Church of which he was specially made the minister? Suppose any one had shown Paul "the five points" of Calvinism, as a statement of the truth of God, what would he have said? What! "The whole truth of God"; "the faith of God's elect"; "all that is essential to be believed"; and yet not a syllable about the real position of the Church "” its calling, its standing, its hopes, its privileges!

And not a word about Israel's future! A complete ignoring, or at best a thorough alienation, of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David! The whole body of prophetic teaching subjected to a system of spiritualizing, falsely so called, whereby Israel is robbed of its proper portion, and Christians dragged down to an earthly level "” and this presented to us with the lofty pretension of "The faith of God's elect"!

Thank God it is not so. He, blessed be His name, has not confined Himself within the narrow limits of any school of doctrine, high, low, or moderate. He has revealed Himself. He has told out the deep and precious secrets of His heart. He has unfolded His eternal counsels, as to the Church, as to Israel, the Gentiles, and the wide creation. Men might as well attempt to confine the ocean in buckets of their own formation as to confine the vast range of divine revelation within the feeble enclosures of human systems of doctrine. It cannot be done, and it ought not to be attempted. Better far to set aside the systems of theology and schools of divinity, and come like a little child to the eternal fountain of Holy Scripture, and there drink in the living teachings of God's Spirit.

Nothing is more damaging to the truth of God, more withering to the soul, or more subversive of all spiritual growth and progress than mere theology, high or low "” Calvinistic or Arminian. It is impossible for the soul to make progress beyond the boundaries of the system to which it is attached. If I am taught to regard "the five points" as "the faith of God's elect", I shall not think of looking beyond them; and then a most glorious field of heavenly truth is shut out from the vision of my soul. I am stunted, narrowed, one-sided; and I am in danger of getting into that hard, dry state of soul which results from being occupied with mere points of doctrine instead of with Christ.

A disciple of the high school of doctrine will not hear of a world-wide gospel "” of God's love to the world "” of glad tidings to every creature under Heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect. On the other hand, a disciple of the low or Arminian school will not hear of the eternal security of God's people. Their salvation depends partly upon Christ, and partly upon themselves. According to this system, the song of the redeemed should be changed. Instead of "Worthy is the Lamb", we should have to add, "and worthy are we". We may be saved to-day, and lost to-morrow. All this dishonors God, and robs the Christian of all true peace.

We do not write to offend the reader. Nothing is further from our thoughts. We are dealing not with persons, but with schools of doctrine and systems of divinity which we would, most earnestly, entreat our beloved readers to abandon, at once, and for ever. Not one of them contains the full, entire truth of God. There are certain elements of truth in all of them; but the truth is often neutralized by the error; and even if we could find a system which contains, so far as it goes, nothing but the truth, yet if it does not contain the whole truth, its effect upon the soul is pernicious, because it leads a person to plume himself on having the truth of God when, in reality, he has only laid hold of a one-sided system of man.

Then again we rarely find a mere disciple of any school of doctrine who can face Scripture as a whole. Favorite texts will be quoted and continually reiterated; but a large body of Scripture is left almost wholly unappropriated. For example, take such passages as the following, "But now God commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). And again, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2). So also, in 2 Peter, "The Lord ... is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (chapter 3:9). And, in the very closing section of the volume, we read, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely".

Are these passage to be taken as they stand, or are we to introduce qualifying or modifying words to make them fit in with our system? The fact is, they set forth the largeness of the heart of God, the gracious activities of His nature, the wide aspect of His love. It is not according to the loving heart of God that any of His creatures should perish. There is no such thing in Scripture as any decree of God consigning a certain number of the human race to eternal damnation.* Some may be judicially given over to blindness because of deliberate rejection of the light (see Romans 9:17; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-27; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; 1 Peter 2:8). But all who perish will have only themselves to blame. All who reach Heaven will have to thank God.

If we are to be taught by Scripture we must believe that every man is responsible according to his light. The Gentile is responsible to listen to the voice of creation. The Jew is responsible on the ground of the law. Christendom is responsible on the ground of the full-orbed revelation contained in the whole Word of God. If God commands all men, everywhere to repent, does He mean what He says, or merely all the elect? What right have we to add to, or alter, to pare down, or to accommodate the Word of God? None whatever.

Let us face Scripture as it stands, and reject everything which will not stand the test. We may well call in question the soundness of a system which cannot meet the full force of the Word of God as a whole. If passages of Scripture seem to clash, it is only because of our ignorance. Let us humbly own this, and wait on God for further light. This, we may depend upon it, is safe moral ground to occupy. Instead of endeavoring to reconcile apparent discrepancies, let us bow at the Master's feet and justify Him in all His sayings. Thus shall we reap a harvest of blessing, and grow in the knowledge of God and His Word as a whole.

A few days since, a friend put into our hands a sermon recently preached by an eminent clergyman belonging to the high school of doctrine. We have found in this sermon, quite as much as in the letter of our correspondent, the effects of one-sided theology. For instance, in referring to that magnificent statement of the Baptist in John 1:29, the preacher quotes it thus, "The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the whole world of God's chosen people".

But there is not a word about "God's chosen people" in the passage. It refers to the great propitiatory work of Christ, in virtue of which every trace of sin shall yet be obliterated from the wide creation of God. We shall only see the full application of that blessed Scripture in the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. To confine it to the sin of God's elect can only be viewed as the fruit of theological bias.

* It is deeply interesting to mark the way in which Scripture guards against the repulsive doctrine of reprobation. Look, for example, at Matthew 25:34. Here, the King, in addressing those on His right hand, says, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". Contrast with this the address to those on His left hand: "Depart from Me ye cursed [He does not say 'of My Father'] into everlasting fire, prepared [not for you, but] for the devil and his angels". So also, in Romans 9. In speaking of the "vessels of wrath", it says "fitted to destruction" "“ fitted not by God surely, but by themselves. On the other hand, when speaking of the "vessels of mercy", it says "which He had afore prepared unto glory". The grand truth of election is fully established; the repulsive error of reprobation, sedulously avoided.

From Miscellaneous Writings, by C. H. Mackintosh. (About 1850-60)


http://plymouthbrethren.com/chmm604.htm


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 25, 2005)

That Mackintosh guy doesn't sound like he did his homework. No Calvinist I know of actually believes that "the 5 points" make up the entireity of "the faith of God's elect"! On the contrary, it would be more accurate to say that there are literally _hundreds_ of points of Calvinism. But the Remonstrants (Arminians) just rejected 5 of those points, and then came the Synod of Dort, and the rest is history.

Guys like Mackintosh irk me. First the Arminians make a big deal out of rejecting 5 core points of the Christian faith, so true Christians responded by defending them. Then, hundreds of years later, guys like Mackintosh accuse the *orthodox* Christians of *creating* this "5 point" system in the first place, as if they thought it was the entireity of Christianity! Nonsense!

As for reprobation, Mackintosh should have taken a closer look at Jude 4: "For certain persons . . . were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation . . ."

What did you think of Mackintosh's article?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 25, 2005)

I thought he was arguing by using emission. I found it completely silly.


----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 1, 2005)

Arminians accuse Calvinists of paying mere lip service to man's responsibility, i.e.., "free will", and Calvinists accuse Arminians of paying mere lip service to the doctrine of election. The question to be asked is "does the Bible give a clear detailed teaching on either of these?" and the answer, of course, is yes to election. 

Man's responsibility is nowhere delineated in scripture as to highlight ultimate human self-determination. On the other hand, we have many passages of scripture going out of their way to highlight the doctrine of predestination/election. It seems to me that any doctrine of human responsibility must be subordinate to the clear teaching on election.

What is the practical teaching to be derived from Romans 8:28-30 in the Arminian scheme? Does predestination serve any purpose, or is it completely irrelevant? "God knows what we are going to do". Now that is profound. At least Calvinists are willing to give an honest answer as to where responsibility fits in, but Arminians can not apply any purpose whatsoever to predestination/election.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 1, 2005)

Mackintosh (1820-96) was a old-time Plymouth Brethren writer. He was a close contemporary of J.N. Darby (1800-82), one of the principal founders of that movement and proponent of the earliest form of dispensationalism. The Brethren have always been a little insular--a crucial tenet of Darby's philosophy was the utter corruption of the institutional church in his day. Naturally, the result of this mindset was a view of the most extreme points of the doctrinal spectrum as "typical views" of their opponents.

We find the same sort of attitudes today in people and movements with no true perception of Church History. "Joe Piscopo" starts a church. Now he knows the men who taught him how to do Bible-study, or the 7 Fundamentals, or whatever. But he doesn't know or care about history. He imagines himself (and his church) to be among a "string of pearls" held by an invisible strand. He's heard of the persecuted Anabaptists, the Waldensians, and the Albigenses (three groups in history with little in common but struggles with the Church). And he says, "A ha! The True Church. That's me. That's us." What they believed is immaterial. "It must have been the truth, because they were hounded and persecuted. And I know what I believe is the truth, so that's what they believed."

Mack, up there, is venting against a (hyper)Calvinism, real or imagined, one that reduces all theology to a narrow compass. Mack neither cares to comprehend the totality of the Reformed Faith, nor can he, for to do so would be to call into question the whole schismatic movement of which he is a part. Darby's attitude is eerily parallel to that of Harold Camping and the Campingites of today--unique hermeneutical methods and categories and an anti-church attitude.

Apparently Spurgeon was charitable enough toward Mack (never to Darby though) to commend his _Notes on the Pentateuch._ F.F. Bruce was a modern Ply. brother. who had a hearty enough spirit to fit into the broader church world, and whose writings we can also generally commend.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Mackintosh (1820-96) was a old-time Plymouth Brethren writer ....
> 
> We find the same sort of attitudes today in *people and movements* with no true perception of Church History. "Joe Piscopo" starts a church. Now he knows the men who taught him how to do Bible-study, or the 7 Fundamentals, or whatever. But he doesn't know or care about history. He imagines himself (and his church) to be among a "string of pearls" held by an invisible strand. He's heard of the persecuted Anabaptists, the Waldensians, and the Albigenses (three groups in history with little in common but struggles with the Church). And he says, "A ha! The True Church. That's me. That's us." What they believed is immaterial. "It must have been the truth, because they were hounded and persecuted. And I know what I believe is the truth, so that's what they believed."



How true. Until 1 year ago today, I was part of such of a movement for 9 years (GGWO). It is dispensational (in the line of Darby, Scofield, and Chafer) and focused on the leadership and "spirituality authority" of its founder and leader: Carl H. Stevens, who claimed a "liquid waves of love" experience very similar to Finney's.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 3, 2005)

what a bunch of doctrine don't matter hocus-pocus


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> what a bunch of doctrine don't matter hocus-pocus



Ryan,

Could you clarify what you are referring to here?

Peace,


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 3, 2005)

I actually have his Notes on the Pentateuch in perfect condition, minus one volume of Deuteronomy. If any is interested we can debate a price.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 4, 2005)

... picking up from: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=10766 which is now locked.

Joseph,

I agree complete with Robin that "the burden of proof is upon the Arminian to demonstrate from Scripture the doctrine in question.".

The Ariminian must demostrate two major axioms from Scripture in order for their premise to hold up.

1) That God is not completely sovereign - at least to the extent that He grants man the "final decision" in salvation. Of course this is connected to the (Scripturally deficient) Arminain view of the impact and extent of the fall.

2) That God consistenently forsees faith and/or obedience in those whom He selects.

I too was an "Arminian" (yet I mostly would not have claimed to be either Arminian or Calvinist) until 1 to 2 years ago. Although the majority of "Arminains" are very sincere, their basic problem, is one of a human proposition and viewpoint. In their quest to define and defend\"the justice of God" most simply cannot believe that God is totally sovereign in His elective decree. They just don't think it's fair because in the final analysis they are subjecting God to the bar of human conceptions of fairness. This colors their preception of the 100\'s of Scriptures that defy their convictions.

A GREAT resource for all of this is the DVD Amazing Grace by The Apologetics Group.

[Edited on 7-4-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------

