Просмотр кода страницы Английская Википедия:History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate

{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}}
{{Short description|Christian theological debate}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2019}}
{{multiple image
| total_width       = 330
| image1            = John Calvin Museum Catharijneconvent RMCC s84 cropped.png
| width1            = 853
| height1           = 1117
| alt1              = 
| caption1          = [[John Calvin]] (1509–1564), from whose name [[Calvinism]] is derived.
| image2            = James Arminius 2.jpg
| width2            = 309
| height2           = 400
| alt2              = 
| caption2          = [[Jacobus Arminius]] (1560–1609), from whose name [[Arminianism]] is derived.
}}
The '''history of the Calvinist–Arminian debate''' begins in early 17th century in the Netherlands with a [[Christian theology|Christian theological]] dispute between the followers of [[John Calvin]] and [[Jacobus Arminius]], and continues today among some [[Protestantism|Protestants]], particularly [[evangelicals]]. The debate centers around [[soteriology]], or the study of salvation, and includes disputes about [[total depravity]], [[predestination]], and [[Atonement in Christianity|atonement]]. While the debate was given its [[Calvinism|Calvinist]]–[[Arminianism|Arminian]] form in the 17th century, issues central to the debate have been discussed in [[Christianity]] in some form since [[Augustine of Hippo]]'s disputes with the [[Pelagians]] in the 5th century.

== Quinquarticular Controversy ==
[[File:Synodedordrecht.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|The [[Synod of Dort]] (1618–1619) in a 17th-century Dutch engraving]]

The '''Quinquarticular Controversy''' is a term used to refer to the purely theological Calvinist–Arminian clashes of the period 1609 to 1618, a time in which the debate had serious political overtones in the Netherlands. This controversy was addressed by the Dutch [[Reformed churches]] at the [[Synod of Dort]] in 1618–1619, a meeting to which Protestant representatives from Reformed churches in other countries were invited. Quinquarticular (i.e. "having to do with five points") refers to points of contention raised by the Arminian party in its publication of [[five articles of Remonstrance]] in 1610. These were rejected by the Synod in the [[Canons of Dort]], the essence of which is commonly referred to as the [[Five Points of Calvinism]].

The Controversy marked the transformation of the Arminian movement into a separate, persecuted church organization in the Netherlands. For Arminians it was the start of full persecution after the imposition of an edict, while for Calvinists it resulted in the settling in clear points of doctrine that were initiated by [[John Calvin]] and clarified by [[Theodore Beza]]. For [[Lutherans]] the controversies saw the ending of any possibility of unification with the Calvinists.{{citation needed|date=August 2011}}

== Theological background ==
===Augustine and Pelagius===
[[File:AugustineLateran.jpg|thumb|upright|Sixth-century portrait of [[Augustine of Hippo]] (354–430) at the [[Basilica of St. John Lateran|Lateran church]]]]
[[Pelagius (British monk)|Pelagius]] was a British [[monk]] who journeyed to [[Rome]] around the year 400 A.D. and was appalled at what he perceived as the improper behavior within churches. To combat this lack of holiness, he preached a Gospel that began with justification through faith alone (it was actually Pelagius, not Luther, who first added the word ''alone'' to Paul's phrase)<ref name=1-Pawson>Pawson, David ''Once Saved, Always Saved?'' (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996) p.&nbsp;89.</ref> but finished through human effort and morality. He had read [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]]'s ''[[Confessions (St. Augustine)|Confessions]]'' and believed it to be a fatalistic and pessimistic view of human nature. Pelagius' followers, including [[Caelestius]], went further than their teacher and removed justification through faith, setting up the morality- and works-based salvation known as [[Pelagianism]]. The only historical evidence of the teachings of Pelagius or his followers is found through the writings of his two strongest opponents—Augustine and [[Jerome]].

In response to Pelagius, Augustine adopted a theological system that included not only [[original sin]] (which Pelagius denied), but also a form of [[predestination]].<ref name="ce-augustine">{{CathEncy |wstitle = Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo | first = Eugène | last = Portalié}}</ref> Some authors maintain that Augustine taught the doctrines of [[limited atonement]]<ref>{{cite book |title= Free Grace Soteriology |last= Anderson |first= David R. |year= 2010 |publisher= Zulon Press |pages= 92 }}</ref> and of [[irresistible grace]],<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=5IoEAAAAYAAJ&q=irresistible+grace+augustine+confessions&pg=PA4 |title= Confessions of St. Augustine |chapter= Introduction |year= 1909 |publisher= Collier & son |editor= Charles W. Eliot |page= 4 |access-date = 2011-02-02}}</ref> later associated with classic Calvinism; however, others insist that Augustine's writings conflict with these doctrines.<ref name="ce-augustine"/><ref>{{Cite web |title=CHURCH FATHERS: Catechizing of the Uninstructed (St. Augustine) |url=https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm |access-date=2023-05-16 |website=www.newadvent.org |at=18 (30) |quote=For He ... gave freedom of will to men, in order that they might worship God not of slavish necessity but with ingenuous inclination....}}</ref> Critics maintain that part of Augustine's philosophy might have stemmed from his expertise in Greek philosophy, particularly [[Platonism]] and [[Manichaeism]], which maintained a high view of a man's spirit and low view of a man's body.<ref name=2-Pawson>Pawson, p.&nbsp;91.</ref> Against the Pelagian notion that man can do everything right, he taught that man could do little right. Thus, he reasoned, man cannot even accept the offer of salvation — it must be God who chooses for himself individuals to bring to salvation.

A group of Italian bishops, led by Julian, defended the Pelagian view against the Augustinian concept of predestination but was rejected by the [[First Council of Ephesus|Council of Ephesus]] in 431. Later a monastic movement in Southern Gaul (modern-day France) also sought to explain predestination in light of God's foreknowledge, but a flurry of writings from Augustine (''Grace and Free Will,'' ''Correction and Grace,'' ''The Predestination of the Saints'' and ''The Gift of Perseverance'') helped maintain the papal authority of his doctrines.

===Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism===
After the death of Augustine, a more moderate form of Pelagianism persisted, which claimed that man's faith was an act of [[Free will in theology|free will]] unassisted by previous internal grace. The [[Council of Orange (529)|Second Council of Orange (529)]]<ref>Second Council of Orange text: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/orange.txt</ref> was convened to address whether this moderate form of [[semi-Pelagianism]] could be affirmed, or if the doctrines of Augustine were to be affirmed.

The determination of the Council could be considered "semi-Augustinian".<ref>"The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity", By Francis Oakley (University of Toronto Press, 1 January 1988), page 64</ref><ref>"An Exploration of Christian Theology", Don Thorsen (Baker Books, 2007), 20.3.4</ref> It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the [[Grace (Christianity)|grace]] of God, enlightening the [[Christian anthropology|human mind]] and enabling belief.<ref>Cf. Second Council of Orange ch. 5–7; [[Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger|H.J. Denzinger]] ''Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum'', p. 375–377</ref><ref>{{Cite book | title = The New Catholic Encyclopedia | chapter = Faith |last= Pickar |first = C. H. | page= 797 | location = Washington D.C. | orig-year = 1967| year = 1981 | volume = 5}}</ref><ref name ="Oxford">Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005</ref> However, it also denied strict predestination, stating, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema." The document received papal sanction.

[[Calvinist]] Reformers used the Council's canons to demonstrate that their formulations of original sin and depravity had already been taught much earlier in the church. [[Arminian]] theologians<ref>{{cite book |last=Olson |first=Roger E. |title=Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities |date=20 August 2009 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |page=81}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Stanglin |first1=Keith D. |title=Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace |last2=McCall |first2=Thomas H. |date=15 November 2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=153}}</ref> also refer to the Council of Orange as a historical document that strongly affirms man's depravity and God's [[prevenient grace]] but does not present grace as irresistible or adhere to a strictly Augustinian view of predestination.

===Middle Ages===
[[File:Gentile da Fabriano 052.jpg|upright|thumb|[[Thomas Aquinas]] (1225–1274) in a portrait, {{circa|1400}}, by [[Gentile da Fabriano]]]]
Augustine's teaching on [[divine grace]] was considered a touchstone of orthodoxy within the western church throughout the [[Middle Ages]].{{citation needed|date=August 2013}} Nevertheless, within an Augustinian context, theologians continued to debate the precise nature of God and man's participation in salvation, as well as attempting to work out a place for the church's emerging system of [[sacraments]] in the overall scheme of salvation.

[[Thomas Aquinas]], the most influential [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[theologian]] of the Middle Ages, taught that, from man's fallen state, there were three steps to salvation:{{citation needed|date=February 2021}}
# Infusion of grace (''infusio gratiae'') – God infuses grace into the human soul – the Christian now has faith and, with it, the ability to do good – this step is entirely God's work and is not done by man, and once a man has faith, he can never entirely lose it – however, faith alone is not enough for salvation;
# Faith formed by charity (''fides caritate formata'') – with man's [[free will]] restored, man must now do his best to do good works in order to have a faith formed by charity; and then;
# [[Condign merit]] (''meritum de condigno'') – God then judges and awards eternal life on the basis of these good works which Aquinas called man's condign merit.

Aquinas believed that by this system, he had reconciled [[Ephesians]] 2:8 ("By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God") and [[Epistle of James|James]] 2:20 ("faith without works is dead") and 2:24 ("by works a man is justified and not by faith only"), and had provided an exposition of the Bible's teaching on salvation compatible with Augustine's teachings.

A second stream of medieval thought, commonly referred to as the [[Occamism|Ockhamists]] after [[William of Ockham]] and also including [[Duns Scotus]] and [[Gabriel Biel]] rejected [[Thomism|Aquinas’ system]] as destroying man's [[Free will in theology|free will]]. The Ockhamists argued that if a man loved God simply because of "infused grace", then man did not love God freely. They argued that before a man received an infusion of grace, man must do his best in a state of nature (i.e. based on man's [[reason]] and inborn moral sense). They argued that just as God awards eternal life on the basis of man's condign merit for doing his best to do good works after receiving faith as a gift from God, so too, the original infusion of grace was given to man on the basis of "congruent merit", a reward for man's doing his best in a state of nature. (Unlike condign merit, which is fully deserved by man, congruent merit is not fully deserved, and includes a measure of grace on God's part. Congruent merit is therefore also sometimes called "semimerit". According to the Ockhamists, a gracious God awards an individual with congruent merit when he or she does the best that he or she is able to do.)

Aquinas’ followers, commonly referred to as the [[Thomists]], accused the [[Occamism|Ockhamists]] of [[Pelagianism]] for basing the infusion of grace on man's works. The Ockhamists defended themselves from charges of Pelagianism by arguing that, in the Ockhamist system, God was not bound to award the infusion of grace on the basis of congruent merit; rather, God's decision to award the infusion of grace on the basis of congruent merit was an entirely gracious act on God's part.

[[Martin Luther]]'s condemnation of "justification by works" clearly condemned Ockhamism. Some proponents of [[ecumenism]] argue that the Thomist view of salvation is not opposed to Luther's view of grace, and, since Ockhamism was rejected as [[Semi-pelagianism|Semipelagian]] by the Catholic Church at the [[Council of Trent]], theology of salvation need not pose a bar to Protestant-Catholic reunion. (The major streams of modern Catholic thought on the theology of salvation are Thomism and [[Molinism]], a theology developed by [[Jesuit]] theologian [[Luis de Molina|Luis Molina]] in the 16th century and also held today by some Protestants such as [[William Lane Craig]] and [[Alvin Plantinga]].)

However, since the Catholic Church's rejection of [[Jansenism]] in the bull ''[[Unigenitus]]'' (1713), it has been clear that [[Calvinism]] could not be accommodated within Catholicism. [[Arminianism]], on the other hand, while it might not square entirely with Catholic theologies of salvation, probably could be accommodated within the Catholic Church, a fact which Arminianism's Protestant opponents have often pointed out. ([[Augustus Toplady]], for example, famously claimed that Arminianism was the "Road to Rome.")

===Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam===
{{Unreferenced section|date=September 2018}}
[[File:Holbein-erasmus.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Desiderius Erasmus]] (1466/69–1536) in a 1523 portrait by [[Hans Holbein the Younger]]]]
[[Martin Luther]] was an [[Augustinians|Augustinian]] friar in [[Erfurt]]. In his ''Disputation Against [[Scholasticism|Scholastic]] Theology'' of 4 September 1517, Luther entered into the medieval debate between the [[Thomism|Thomists]] and the [[Occamism|Ockhamists]] by attacking the Ockhamist position and arguing that man by nature lacks the ability to do good that the Ockhamists asserted he had (and thus denying that man could do anything to deserve congruent merit). Modern scholars disagree about whether Luther in fact intended to criticize all scholastics in this ''Disputation'' or if he was concerned only with the Ockhamists. Arguing in favor of a broader interpretation is the fact that Luther went on to criticize the use of [[Aristotle]] in theology (Aristotle was the basis of [[Thomism|Thomist]] as well as [[Occamism|Ockhamist]] theology). If this is the case, it is likely that Luther saw Aquinas' ''fides caritate formata'' as merely a more cautious form of Pelagianism (or as [[Semipelagianism]]).{{Citation needed|date=September 2018}}

Luther continued to defend these views. In 1520, [[Pope Leo X]] issued the [[papal bull]] ''[[Exsurge Domine]]'', which condemned a position which Luther had maintained at the 1518 [[Heidelberg Disputation]], namely that "After [[Fall of Man|the Fall]] [[Free will in theology|free will]] is something in name only and when it does what is in it, it sins mortally." Luther subsequently defended the proposition in his ''Defense and Explanation of All the Articles Unjustly Condemned by the Roman Bull of Leo X'' (1520), in the process stating that "[[Free will in theology|free will]] is really a fiction...with no reality, because it is in no man's power to plan any evil or good. As the article of [[John Wycliffe|Wycliffe]], condemned at [[Council of Constance|Constance]], teaches: everything takes place by absolute necessity."

[[Desiderius Erasmus]] of [[Rotterdam]], though first sympathetic to Luther, reacted negatively to what he saw as Luther's [[determinism]]. In his ''[[De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio]]'' (''A Disquisition on Freedom of the Will'') (1524), Erasmus caricatures the limitations of free will that he saw Luther espousing. Though at times in the Diatribe, Erasmus sounded like an Ockhamist, for the most part he attempted to espouse a middle course between [[Grace (Christianity)|grace]] and [[free will]], attempting to avoid on the one hand the errors of the Pelagians and the Ockhamists, and on the other hand, the "[[Manichaean]]" error of Luther and other strict Augustinians.

Luther responded with his ''De Servo Arbitrio'' (''[[On the Bondage of the Will]]'') (1525) in which he argued that man was not free to do good. Rather, man's fallen nature is in bondage to [[sin]] and to [[Satan]] and man can only do evil. The only way an individual can be saved is if God freely chooses to give that person the gift of faith. Luther's position in ''On the Bondage of the Will'' became the position adopted by the [[Protestantism|Protestant movement]].

== Jacobus Arminius and the Synod of Dort ==

[[Jacobus Arminius]] enrolled at [[Leiden University]], and after five years of education traveled in the early 1580s to study in [[Geneva]]. [[Theodore Beza]] was the chairman of theology at the university there. Beza later defended Arminius by saying "let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope the best of him in every respect…"<ref name=3-Bangs>Bangs, Carl ''Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation'' (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971) pp.&nbsp;73–74, {{ISBN|978-0-687-01744-7}}.</ref> In late 1587, at the age of 28, Arminius returned to [[Amsterdam]] to fulfill his desire to be a pastor.

Arminius' entry into the [[Predestination (Calvinism)|predestination]] debate in Amsterdam was two years after his return, when he was asked by city officials to refute a modified form of Beza's [[Supralapsarianism|Lapsarianism]]. According to historic tradition, Arminius' study of the Scriptures led him to the conclusion that the Bible did not support Calvinism.<ref name=4-Wynkoop>Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs ''Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology'' (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1967), pp.&nbsp;47&ndash;49, {{ISBN|978-0-8341-0254-5}}.</ref> Other scholars believe that Arminius never accepted Beza's views, even while a student at Geneva.<ref name=5-Bangs>Bangs, pp.&nbsp;138–141.</ref> Arminius avoided adding to the controversy apart from two incidents regarding sermons on Romans 7 and Romans 9.

When Arminius received his doctorate and professorship of theology at Leiden in 1603, the debate over Calvinism came back to life. Conflicts over predestination had appeared early in the Dutch Reformed Church, but "these had been of a local nature, occurring between two fellow ministers, for instance, but since the appointment of Jacobus Arminius as a professor at Leyden University (1603) the strife had moved to the place where the education of future ministers took place."<ref name="Rabbie">{{cite book|title=Hugo Grotius: Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas, 1613.|author=Edwin Rabbie|year=1995|publisher=Brill}}</ref>

Arminius taught that [[Predestination (Calvinism)|Calvinist predestination]] and [[unconditional election]] made God the author of evil. Instead, Arminius insisted, God's election was an [[Conditional election|election ''of believers'']] and therefore was ''conditioned on faith''. Furthermore, Arminius argued, God's exhaustive foreknowledge did not require a doctrine of [[determinism]].<ref name=6-Picirilli>Picirilli, Robert ''Grace, Faith, and Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation – Calvinism and Arminianism'' (Nashville: Randall House, 2002) pp.&nbsp;10–11, {{ISBN|978-0-89265-648-6}}.</ref>

Arminius and his followers believed that a national [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synod synod] should confer, to win tolerance for their views. His opponents in the [[Dutch Reformed Church]] maintained the authority of local synods and denied the necessity of a national convention. When the [[States of Holland and West Friesland|States of Holland]] called together the parties, Arminius's opponents, led by his colleague [[Franciscus Gomarus]], accused him not only of the teaching of the doctrines characteristic of Arminianism as it would become (see below), but also of errors on the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, and works salvation. These charges Arminius denied, citing agreement with both Calvin and Scripture.<ref name=7-Picirilli>Picirilli, pp.&nbsp;11–12.</ref>

Arminius was acquitted of any doctrinal error. He then accepted an invitation to a "friendly conference" with Gomarus<ref name=8-Picirilli>Picirilli, pp.&nbsp;14–16.</ref> but his health caused the conference to end prematurely. Two months later, on 19 October 1609, Jacobus Arminius died.

===The Remonstrants and Calvinist reaction===
{{details|Synod of Dort}}
After the death of Arminius, the Hague court chaplain, [[Johannes Wtenbogaert]], one of the professor's followers "who dogmatically and theologically was on one line with him, but who in the field of Church politics was a much more radical supporter of state influence championed his cause".<ref name="Rabbie"/> This was seen as a betrayal on Gomarus' side, for earlier in his career (as a minister of Utrecht) Wtenbogaert "had resisted state influence with all his might".<ref name="Rabbie"/>

Gradually Arminian-minded candidates for ordination into the ministry ran into ever greater difficulties. In their classes examinations, not only was subscription to the Dutch Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism demanded (which most were willing to do), "but they were asked questions that were formulated in such a way that ambiguous answers were no longer possible."<ref name="Rabbie"/>

In reaction to this growing pressure Wtenbogaert drew up a petition to the State General, called a ''[[Five Articles of Remonstrance|Remonstrance]]'' in late 1609, early 1610. The "Remonstrants" highlighted five aspects of their theology: (1) election was [[Conditional election|conditional]] on foreseen faith; (2) Christ's atonement was [[Unlimited atonement|unlimited]] in extent; (3) [[total depravity]]; (4) [[Prevenient grace|prevenient and resistible grace]]; and (5) necessity of perseverance and the possibility of [[Apostasy in Christianity|apostasy]]. The Remonstrants first expressed an uncertainty about the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Witzki|2009|p= 13}} They removed it latter in the document they presented officially at the Synod of Dort, ''The Opinion of The Remonstrants'' (1618), holding to [[conditional preservation of the saints]].{{sfn|De Jong|1968|pp=220-|ps=. Points three and four in the fifth article read: True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.}}

[[File:Michiel Jansz van Mierevelt (atelier) - Johan van Oldenbarnevelt.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[Johan van Oldenbarnevelt]] (1547–1619), political leader of the [[Remonstrants]]]]
Forty-four ministers (mostly from the province of Holland) signed onto the Remonstrance, and on 14 January 1610 it was submitted to the Grand Pensionary, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. (Due to this document the followers of Arminius became known as Remonstrants.) Oldenbarnevelt held onto the Remonstrance for an unusually long period and it was not until June 1610 that it was submitted in an altered form to the States of Holland. "The States sent the five articles to all classes, forbidding them to go 'higher' in their examinations of ordinands than what was expressed in the articles. Needless to say, most classes did not take the slightest notice of this prohibition."<ref name="Rabbie"/>

In another attempt to avoid a provincial synod, the States held The Hague Conference which lasted from 11 March to 20 May 1611 (with intermissions). It was at this conference that the delegates of Arminius' opponents submitted a response to the Remonstrance, called the Counter-Remonstrance (from which the name Contra- or Counter-Remonstrants was given them).

Leading influences among Arminius' followers (now called [[Remonstrants]]) were Arminius' close friend and [[Roman Catholic]]-turned-[[Reformed tradition|Reformed]] pastor Johannes Wtenbogaert, lawyer [[Hugo Grotius]], and a scholar named [[Simon Episcopius]]. Due to the Remonstrants’ view of the supremacy of civil authorities over church matters, King [[James I of England]] came out in support of the Remonstrance (later he would join with their opponents against [[Conrad Vorstius]]).

Behind the theological debate lay a political one between [[Maurice de Nassau|Prince Maurice]], a strong military leader, and his former mentor [[Johan van Oldenbarnevelt]], Grand Pensionary of Holland and personification of civil power. Maurice, who had Calvinist leanings, desired war with Holland's enemy, Roman Catholic Spain. Oldenbarnevelt, along with Arminius and his followers, desired peace.

Numerous historians hold that many of the civic officials that sided with the Remonstrants did so because of their shared position of State supremacy over the Church and not because of other doctrinal ideas, saying "the alliance between the regents and the Remonstrants during the years of the Truce is merely a coalition suited to the occasion, not the result of principal agreement...the magistracy of Delft was Counter-Remonstrant-minded, but in the States of Holland the city supported Oldenbarnevelt's policy regarding the convocation of a National Synod [to avoid calling one]. Incidentally, suspectedly Calvinistic opinions went together in Oldenbarnevelt's person."<ref name="Rabbie"/>

In the years after Arminius' death, Maurice became convinced that Oldenbarnevelt (and by association, Arminians) had strong Catholic sympathies and were working to deliver Holland to Spain. As insurance, Maurice and his militia systematically and forcibly replaced Remonstrant magistrates with Calvinist ones.<ref name=9-Picirilli>Picirilli, pp.&nbsp;14–16.</ref> Thus, when the State General called for a synod in 1618, its outcome was predetermined. Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius were arrested, and the synod, held at [[Dordrecht]] (Dort), was convened.

This [[Synod of Dort]] included Calvinist representatives from Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and France, though Arminians were denied acceptance. Three Arminian delegates from Utrecht managed to gain seats, but were soon forcibly ejected and replaced with Calvinist alternates.<ref name=10-Picirilli>Picirilli, pp.&nbsp;15–16.</ref>

The Synod was a six versus six style of representation that lasted over six months with 154 meetings. The synod ultimately ruled that Arminius' teachings were heretical, reaffirming the [[Belgic Confession]] and [[Heidelberg Catechism]] as its orthodox statements of doctrine. One of the results of the synod was the formation of the [[five points of Calvinism]] in direct response to the [[five articles of Remonstrance|''five articles of the Remonstrants'']].

Robert Picirilli gives this summary of the aftermath of the Synod of Dort:

{{quote|"Punishment for the Remonstrants, now officially condemned as heretics and therefore under severe judgement of both church and state, was severe. All Arminian pastors—some 200 of them—were deprived of office; any who would not agree to be silent were banished from the country. Spies were paid to hunt down those suspected of returning to their homeland. Some were imprisoned, among them Grotius; but he escaped and fled the country. Five days after the synod was over, Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded.<ref name=11-Picirilli>Picirilli, p.&nbsp;16.</ref>}}

Somewhat later, after Maurice died, the Remonstrants were accorded toleration by the state and granted the freedom to follow their religion in peace, to build churches and schools. The Remonstrant Theological Seminary was instituted in Amsterdam, and Episcopius and Grotius were among its first professors. Today both the seminary and the church have shifted from their founders' theology.<ref name=12-Platt>Platt, Frederic "Arminianism", ''[[Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics]]'', ed. [[James Hastings]] (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.) 1:811.</ref>

== Seventeenth century English politics ==
{{details|Arminianism in the Church of England}}

Early [[House of Stuart|Stuart]] society was religious, and religion at that time was political. [[James I of England|King James I]] managed religious conflicts for most of the 1610s, but most Protestants maintained a fear of [[Roman Catholicism|Catholicism]]. Though Arminians were Protestant, they were perceived as being less antagonistic to Catholicism than the Calvinists were. James I initially moved to keep them out of his realm, and supported the official position of the [[Synod of Dort]].

In 1618, the [[Thirty Years' War]] began. It was a religious war, and many of James's subjects (particularly in Parliament) wanted his kingdom to go to war on the side of the king's son-in-law, [[Frederick V, Elector Palatine]]. James, however, preferred diplomacy. The loudest of the supporters for war were [[Puritans]], a term presenting difficulties of definition but who doctrinally were in general orthodox Calvinists. Some scholars believe that the Arminians' support for the king's efforts to prevent war led to him promoting a number of them in order to balance out the Puritans.{{citation needed|date=August 2011}} Others argue that these promotions were simply the result of meritocratic considerations: 'James promoted Arminians because they were scholarly, diligent and able men in their diocese.'<ref name=13-Schaff>Schaff, Philip ''The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III: The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1889)</ref> In 1625, James I died, leaving the throne to his son, [[Charles I of England|Charles I]].

Charles I supported the Arminians, and continued the trend of promoting them; Charles tended to promote only Arminians.<ref name=14-Carrier>Carrier, Irene ''James VI and I, King of Great Britain'' (Cambridge University Press, 1998), {{ISBN|978-0-521-49947-7}}.</ref> The religious changes which Charles imposed on his subjects, in the form of [[Laudianism]], were identified (rightly or wrongly) with Arminian theology.{{citation needed|date=August 2011}} They brought him into direct conflict with the Scottish [[Presbyterian]] Calvinists of the [[Church of Scotland]]. The resulting [[Bishops' Wars]] were a trigger for the [[English Civil War]], both of them part of the larger [[Wars of the Three Kingdoms]] which had complex roots, among which religious beliefs were a major factor.

== Four-point Calvinists ==
[[File:Richard Baxter Colour.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Richard Baxter]] (1615–1691), father of English [[Presbyterianism]] and the most well-known advocate of four-point Calvinism]]

The so-called "four-point Calvinists" claim that the doctrine of [[limited atonement]] is non-scriptural and that it was never endorsed by Calvin or the Synod of Dort.

The four-point Calvinists, like five-point Calvinists,{{citation needed|date=March 2009}} accept a distinction initially made by [[Peter Lombard]] and subsequently adopted by [[Thomas Aquinas]] that the atonement was sufficient for the whole world but efficient only to the elect. Put another way, Christ's death atones for the whole world (it is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world), but the benefits of Christ's death are applied only to the elect (it is efficient only to atone for the sins of the elect).

The four-point Calvinists argue that Calvin adopted this position when he wrote that "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world.'" They also believe that the four-point position was endorsed by the Synod of Dort under Article 3 of the Second Main Point of Doctrine where the synod proclaimed that "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

This is the position which the leader of the English [[Presbyterians]], [[Richard Baxter]], asserted in his controversy with the leader of the English [[Congregationalists]], [[John Owen (theologian)|John Owen]].

== Early Methodism ==
[[File:George Whitefield preaching.jpg|thumb|upright|[[George Whitefield]] (1714–1770) collaborated with [[John Wesley]] in the founding of Methodism, but remained a Calvinist and broke with Wesley when Wesley became an Arminian.]]

These theological issues played a divisive part in the early history of [[Methodism]] in the 18th century. Heated discussions on Arminianism took place between Methodist ministers [[John Wesley]] and [[George Whitefield]]. From 1740 Wesley broke with Calvinism. His position caused initially the rupture with the Welsh [[Calvinistic Methodist]]s under [[Howell Harris]] in 1742–1743; and then the creation of the [[Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion]] in 1756, about the same time when Wesley broke with [[James Hervey]]. In the 1770s a sharp debate occurred between Wesley and [[Augustus Montague Toplady]].<ref>{{cite DNB|wstitle=Wesley, John}}</ref>

Wesley was a champion of the teaching of Arminius, defending his [[soteriology]] in a periodical entitled ''The Arminian'' and writing articles such as ''Predestination Calmly Considered''. He defended Arminius against charges of [[semi-Pelagianism]], holding strongly to beliefs in original sin and total depravity. At the same time, Wesley attacked the [[determinism]] that he claimed characterized unconditional election and maintained a belief in the [[Conditional Preservation of the Saints|ability to lose salvation]]. Whitefield debated Wesley on every point (except for their agreement on total depravity) but did not introduce any additional elements into the Calvinists' conclusions set forth at Westminster.{{citation needed|date=May 2011}}

== Denominational Views ==

=== Protestant denominations ===
To this day, Methodism and offshoots of the denomination: [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostals]], and [[Third Wave of the Holy Spirit|Third Wave]], along with [[General Baptists]], usually are the ones to subscribe to Arminianism, while [[Presbyterianism|Presbyterians]], [[Reformed Churches]], [[Reformed Baptists]], and others subscribe to Calvinism. Largely because of its origins in [[Germany]] and [[Scandinavia]] rather than the [[British Isles]] or Holland, [[Lutheranism]] was uninvolved in the dispute, and official Lutheran doctrine does not fully support either group, preferring instead its own doctrinal formulations about the relation of human freedom to divine sovereignty. This is also true of [[Primitive Baptist]] belief.

[[Restoration Movement|Restorationist]] fellowships are customarily [[Free will in theology|free will]] in their [[soteriology]]. Within this trend, [[Churches of Christ]] are prone to cite Biblical passages in support of the view while often intensely locked in contention with [[Presbyterianism|Presbyterians]] and (usually Calvinistic) Baptists. The doctrinal components, in small towns particularly in the United States, often ally the Churches of Christ with their [[Methodism|Methodist]] neighbors on opposition to [[Eternal security|"once-saved-always-saved" doctrine]] despite the similarity between Churches of Christ and Baptists on [[Submersion baptism|immersion]] baptism.

=== Roman Catholic views ===
Post-reformation [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] has remained largely outside the debate, although [[Thomist]] and [[Molinist]] views continue within the church. [[Augustinian theodicy#Development|Augustinian theodicy]], including those elements wherein Calvin was influenced by [[Augustine of Hippo]], continues to be the prevalent [[soteriology]] in Roman Catholicism. Also, [[Jansenism]] has been seen by many as similar to [[Calvinist]] doctrine, and was condemned as such by the Catholic Church in the late 17th century.

=== Eastern Orthodox views ===
A Synod of [[Eastern Orthodox]] Churches was called in Jerusalem in 1672 to refute attempted encroachments of Protestant Calvinism. The [[Synod of Jerusalem (1672)]] also referred to as [[The Confession of Dositheus]] in 1672,<ref>"Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine, from the Bible to the Present," John H. Leith (Westminster John Knox Press, 1 January 1982), Page 485</ref> strongly rejected Calvinistic formulations and named them heresy. In part, it stated,

{{quote|We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He hath chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He hath rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause....since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.<ref>The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem: Sometimes Called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden Under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672, (Baker), 1899</ref>}}

In the same document, the synod renounced Calvin by name and pronounced an anathema upon anyone teaching that God predestined anyone to evil or Hell.

== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist}}

=== Sources ===
* {{cite book |first=Peter |last=De Jong |author-link=Peter Y. De Jong|url=http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Opinions-of-the-Remonstrants-1618.pdf |title=Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt, 1618–1619 |publisher=Reformed Fellowship |year=1968 |place=Grand Rapids |chapter=The Opinions of the Remonstrants (1618)}}
* {{cite web |language=en |last=Witzki |first=Steve |year=2009 |website=Society of Evangelical Arminians |access-date=2019-07-25 |url=http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/James-Arminius-The-Security-of-the-Believer_0.pdf |title=James Arminius – The Security of the Believer and the Possibility of Apostasy}}

{{-}}
{{Calvinist–Arminian debate|expand}}
{{Arminianism footer}}
{{Christian theology|collapsed}}
{{Christian History|collapsed}}
{{Portal bar|Calvinism|Christianity|History}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:History of the Calvinist-Arminian debate}}
[[Category:Arminianism]]
[[Category:Calvinist theology]]
[[Category:17th-century Calvinism|Calvinist-Arminian debate]]
[[Category:Salvation in Protestantism]]
[[Category:Protestantism-related controversies]]
[[Category:Jacobus Arminius]]
[[Category:Calvinism in the Dutch Republic]]
[[Category:Philosophy and thought in the Dutch Republic]]
[[Category:Synod of Dort]]
[[Category:Debates]]
{{Навигационная таблица/Портал/Английская Википедия}}
[[Категория:Английская Википедия]]
[[Категория:Википедия]]
[[Категория:Статья из Википедии]]
[[Категория:Статья из Английской Википедии]]