A pastoral letter on the Five Points... by Pastor Stephen Rees
I’ve been encouraged by some of the feedback I’ve
had about the Sunday morning series that’s just come to an end. It’s the first
time I’ve preached a series on “the Five Points”. I have preached several series going through all
the great doctrines of the Bible. But I’ve never wanted to pick out the five
points particularly. Partly, that’s because I’m aware that some folk have
emphasised them in an unhelpful way. They’ve talked as if the five points are
the most important truths for any believer to grasp.
At times they’ve given the impression that anyone
who has grasped these truths has reached a pinnacle of Christian understanding.
To be a “five pointer” is to have achieved spiritual maturity! I don’t believe
that.
The five points are a great summary of what
the Bible has to say about the way God saves human beings. But the five points
are not the starting point in understanding and worshipping God. Believers
should be more interested in God himself than in what he does for us. God
is worthy to be praised because of who he is: one God in three persons,
“infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness,
justice, goodness and truth”. If I were asked which is the most important
doctrine for Christians to believe, I would say unhesitatingly, the doctrine
of the Trinity: that doctrine underlies all other Christian doctrines,
including the doctrines of salvation. I would prefer to hear believers praising
God joyfully for the love that has existed eternally between the three persons,
than for the mercy we have received from him. Isolating the five points from
the whole biblical presentation of God’s being can be dangerous.
The 5 points: important and providential
And yet the five points are important. They do give
us a clear and systematic overview of what the Bible says about God’s plan of
salvation. And a number of you have said how helpful it’s been to hear the plan
of salvation presented in this systematic way.
How did the five points come to be formulated in
the first place? By a
strange and wonderful providence of God. We only have that five-point outline
because of the attempts of false teachers to undermine the teaching of God’s
Word. By God’s overruling, their attacks on the truth led to this wonderfully
clear summary of the Bible’s teaching on God’s plan of salvation.
Many people assume that it was Calvin who first
listed out the five points (they’re often labelled “the five points of
Calvinism”). But it was
not Calvin who first drew up this 5-point presentation. I have mentioned
several times over recent weeks that the five points were first drawn up at a
great conference of preachers and theologians held in the Dutch city of Dort in
1618/19. That conference was called to answer a group of false teachers who
were spreading their unbiblical ideas into the Reformed churches of the
Netherlands. The false teachers drew up a list of five issues that they wanted
discussed. The church leaders who had gathered took those issues one by one and
answered them under five headings. And Bible-believing Christians have been
using those headings ever since.
Arminius and his followers
We call the false teachers Arminians. They
were followers of Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch minister who was appointed as
professor of theology at Leiden University in 1603. As a minister in the
Reformed church, Arminius had vowed to uphold the teaching of the Belgic
Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism – these were the two documents that
summarised the teaching of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. But
Arminius had come to doubt what those documents teach about God’s plan of
salvation. Those who listened to him preach began to suspect that secretly he
had turned away from the teaching of the Bible and the churches. But he denied
it. When he was invited to become professor at Leiden, again he vowed that he
would be faithful to the Confession and the Catechism. He did not keep that
vow. Rather he used his position to spread the false doctrines that he had come
to believe. He did it in subtle ways, trying to hide just how far he had moved
from the truths he had been appointed to teach. But through his influence,
many of the students who listened to his lectures were persuaded to turn away
from the teaching of the Bible, and of the reformed churches.
As Arminius’s real position became clearer, God
raised up men with the ability and determination to oppose him. But he was
allowed to carry on teaching at Leiden, and spreading his ideas. It was not
until 1608 that he came out into the open and admitted that he he wanted to see
the Confession and the Catechism revised, to accomodate his unorthodox teaching
about predestination.
Arminius died in 1610. But he left behind him a
circle of theologians and ministers who had been persuaded by his arguments –
and were prepared to take them further. Their most outstanding leader was Simon
Episcopius who followed Arminius as professor at Leiden in 1613. Where Arminius
had put forward his ideas cautiously and privately, Episcopius and his friends
were prepared to argue more confidently for those ideas – and to advance even
more radical and unbiblical ideas.
The Synod of Dort
The years that followed were years of bitter
controversy. After Arminius’s death his followers presented a “Remonstrance” to
the civil authorities of the Netherlands. In this document, they laid out under
five headings the views they believed. They argued that the Confession and the
Catechism should be revised to allow for their teachings. And they argued that
the churches should be forced to accept that their views were a valid
alternative to the orthodox position. In the following year, a conference was
held between the Remonstrants – as they came to be known – and the defenders of
the orthodox teaching – sometimes labelled the “counter-Remonstrants”. The
counter-Remonstrants answered the Arminians’ arguments carefully, showing from
the Bible that God has indeed planned salvation, that he chose eternally and
unconditionally those who will be saved, that through Christ he does everything
needed to guarantee their salvation. The Arminians were not convinced, and
the battles continued.
The orthodox party in the Church were eager to hold
a national Synod – a gathering of representatives from all the churches, to
discuss and settle the questions the Arminians had raised. The Arminians were
determined to avoid such a confrontation. They knew that in open debate, their
real positions would be exposed. And they knew that they could not defend them
from the Bible. It was not until November 1618 that a Synod gathered at Dort.
Eighty-four Dutch preachers and theologians were present along with eighteen
observers appointed by the government. Representatives came too from reformed
churches across Europe (including some from England). The synod met for six
months, and included one hundred and fifty-four official sessions as well as
many less formal discussions. Episcopius and twelve of his Arminian friends
were summoned to attend. They were reluctant to come unless they were allowed
to set the agenda and dictate the procedure to be followed. But the civil
authorities insisted that they must attend and present their views for
examination. Reluctantly they set out their views, again under five headings.
The 5 points of the Arminians
What did these Arminians believe?
The first issue they raised concerned the doctrine
of predestination. The Arminians believed that God elected those whom he
foresaw would believe in Christ and persevere. “The election of particular
persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Christ Jesus, and of
perseverance… as a condition prerequisite for electing”.
The second dealt with redemption. The
Arminians believed that Christ had paid equally for the sins of those who will
be saved, and those who will be lost. “The price of the redemption which
Christ offered to God the Father… has been paid for all men and for every man…”
The third dealt with the grace of God. The
Arminians agreed that fallen human beings are incapable of saving themselves
without God’s help. “He is able of himself, and by himself neither to think,
will or do any good (which would indeed be saving good, the most prominent of
which is saving faith…” They agreed that God has to supply grace to sinners
before they can believe – but then they added, “yet man is able of himself
to despise that grace and not to believe…” According to the Arminians, God
gives grace to everyone who hears the Word, “sufficient for promoting
conversion…” but whether it actually leads to conversion depends in the end
on the hearer’s own decision. The sinner has something in himself which can
choose to co-operate with God’s grace.
The fourth dealt with the conversion of man.
The Arminians rejected the idea that God calls sinners to himself with an
irresistible call, making them willing to repent and believe. They talked about
effective – “efficacious” grace, but then they said it might not be
effective, because it could be resisted. “The efficacious grace by which
anyone is converted is not irresistible”.
The fifth dealt with perseverance. The
Arminians taught that believers may forfeit their salvation. “True believers
are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to
persevere and die in them, and therefore finally, to fall and to perish”.
Answers from the Bible
Well, if you have listened through this series of
sermons, you know what the Bible has to say on all these matters, and how the
men who gathered at Dort answered the Arminians. The statement they drew up
(The Canons of Dort) is a wonderful and comprehensive statement
of the Bible’s teaching on human sin and God’s gracious plan of redemption. It
runs to thirty-two pages in the edition I’m using and is packed with Scripture.
Let me just give you a taster.
On divine election and reprobation:
“Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of
the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign pleasure of his
own will, chosen from the whole human race… a certain number of persons to
redemption in Christ…”
On the death of Christ and redemption thereby:
“It was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross… should
effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation and language, all those,
and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by
the Father…”
On the corruption of man: “All men are
conceived in sin, and are by nature, children of wrath, incapable of saving
good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the
regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to
return to God….”
On his conversion to God: “When God
accomplishes his good pleasure in the elect… he opens the closed and softens
the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new
qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, he quickens; from being
evil, disobedient and stubborn, he renders it good, obedient and pliable…”
On the perseverance of the saints: “true
believers… neither totally fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish
finally in their backslidings… with respect to God, it is totally impossible,
since his counsel cannot be changed, nor his promise fail…”
Those are the five points! For my series, I gave them the headings,
Unconditional Election; Particular Redemption; Total Depravity; Effectual
Calling; Perseverance of the Saints. And like most Bible preachers nowadays, I
chose to deal with the third point first (the Synod linked together the
discussion of points 3 and 4). But the truths I preached were exactly the
truths that were hammered out at Dort four hundred years ago.
So what happened next?
The result of the Synod? The Arminian ministers
were dismissed from their pulpits; the Arminian professors were dismissed from
the positions they had held. Indeed, the civil authorities made it their business to send them into
exile. I can’t pretend I think that was right. I don’t believe it’s the
business of the government to judge or punish false teaching in the church. But
I applaud the willingness of the churches to discipline false teachers who
sought to undermine the gospel of grace.
Of course, the Arminians did not give up the
battle. They used every means they could to continue to spread their false
teaching. Some remained evangelical, still teaching that man is sinful and
needs to be saved. (John Wesley, a hundred and twenty years later, was not
afraid to call himself an Arminian). But others moved further and further from
the Bible’s teaching. Many Arminians finished up denying that God knows the
future, that human beings have been corrupted by Adam’s sin, that Christ’s
death truly atoned for human guilt. Indeed some questioned the doctrines of the
Trinity and the deity of Christ.
But at least the reformed churches of the
Netherlands had been rescued from the false teaching that Arminius and his
followers had attempted to bring in.
Lessons from an ancient controversy
There are many lessons we should learn from the
battle that faithful men had to fight against the false teaching of Arminianism
back in the seventeenth century. The methods the Arminians used are no
different from the methods that false teachers have always used, and still do.
Let me list some of them – and of course, there’ll be five in my list!
(1) The false teachers were unfaithful to the vows
they had taken. The
Arminian leaders had all sworn to be faithful to the doctrines of the Belgic
Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. They were appointed as preachers and
pastors on that understanding. Some changed their views after they had been
appointed. But when they found that they no longer believed the truths they had
sworn to uphold, they did not resign. Instead they used their positions to
undermine those truths. Others were more deceitful yet. They made their vows
knowing that they did not believe the teaching of the Confession and the
Catechism, but hoping that they could persuade the Church to change its stance.
Could the same thing happen today? It happens again
and again. Pastors change their views but cling to their positions. I can think
of pastors serving in churches that are committed to the 1689 Confession. That
confession teaches clearly that the revelation gifts of New Testament times –
tongues, prophecy, etc – have passed away. When these pastors were appointed
they held that view. But now they’ve changed their minds. Yet they have not
resigned. Week after week they break their vows. I know too of churches which
have called a man only to discover later that he has never believed the truths
he swore to uphold. A church I know well, committed to the 1689 Confession, was
on the point of calling a man, when at the last moment it became clear that he
did not believe the doctrine of particular redemption. He had kept that fact
hidden.
(2) The false teachers used words in deceitful
ways. When undiscerning listeners
heard the Arminians speak, they heard familiar words and were reassured. What
they didn’t realise was that the Arminians were using those words in misleading
ways. The Arminians talked about efficacious grace. But they didn’t mean
what everyone else meant by those words – grace that actually brings about
infallibly the salvation of sinners. They used the words to mean grace that
could bring a person to salvation if he responded to it rightly. They talked
about Christ’s death as propitiation. But they didn’t mean what the
Bible means by propitiation – a sacrifice that actually turns away God’s wrath
from those for whom it’s made. They meant only that it opened the way
for a sinner to be saved from God’s wrath – providing that he played his part
in repentance and faith. They talked about election, but they didn’t mean what
all the Confessions meant by election – God choosing particular people to save.
They meant only that God had chosen to save a class of people – those who he
foresaw would repent and believe. It took very persistent questioning to force
the Arminians into the open and to make clear the real meaning of their words.
False teachers still use the same way of disguising
what they’re saying. Take a word like “infallible”. If you heard someone say
that the Bible is “infallible”, what would you think they meant? You might
think they’re saying that the Bible is true in all it teaches. That’s the way
the word has always been used by Christians. But no! Nowadays there are many
theologians who want to use the word in a different way. When they say the
Bible is infallible what they mean is that it is true in what it says about
“spiritual” matters – but that it can be full of historical, chronological or
scientific errors.
It’s not enough to ask whether preachers and
theologians are using orthodox words. We have to ask what they mean by those
words.
(3) The false teachers presented themselves as the
moderates, and their views as the centre-ground. They pointed on the one hand to ‘Pelagians’ –
people who taught that man was capable of saving himself without any help from
God. Pelagians, they suggested, stand at one extreme. They pointed on the other
hand to the orthodox Christians who held to the Bible truth that salvation is
God’s work alone. Such Christians, they suggested, stand at the opposite
extreme. And thus they could present themselves as the moderates who avoided
both extremes. Episcopius addressed the synod with these words: “We… have not
sought anything else than that golden liberty which keeps the middle road
between servitude and licentiousness.” Pelagian doctrines, he suggested led to
servitude. The orthodox (Calvinist) doctrines led to licentiousness. But he and
his friends had found the perfect middle road.
Of course this was dishonest. The Arminians
themselves were the extremists, bringing in novel and dangerous views. But they
wanted to present the issues in such a way that their opponents would seem to
be the extremists and that they themselves would seem balanced.
Clever debaters use this trick all the time. And we must learn to recognise when it’s being
used. Take the example again of charismatic gifts – tongues, prophecy, etc.
Some charismatic leaders like to give the impression that their view is the
mainstream position. On the one side, they say, are the extremists who say that
all real Christians speak in tongues. On the other side are the cessationists –
extremists who say that no-one today has a gift of tongues. And that means that
their own teaching – the view that some Christians speak in tongues – is the
moderate, centre-ground position. But of course it’s not true. The mainstream
position, held by the great majority of Bible-believing Christians all down
through the centuries, is that the gift of tongues was a gift for the apostolic
age, and has long passed away. Anyone who suggests that Christians today should
speak in tongues is an extremist following a novel and dangerous teaching.
(4) The false teachers appeared to be spiritually
minded and godly men. As
Episcopius addressed the Synod, he broke out into prayer. “Dear Jesus, from
thy throne, how much hast thou heard or seen against us, simple and innocent
people…” It was hard for the gathered listeners to remember that this “simple
and innocent man” had been systematically breaking his vows and concealing
from questioners what he had been privately teaching his students! They soon
realised however that they were dealing with a clever and devious man. When
Episcopius had finished his opening address, he was asked by the President of
the synod for a copy so that it could be considered more carefully. He replied
that his copy was not neat enough to be read by others. It took a week before
he was willing to hand over a copy – and then the readers found that he had
changed it in significant ways!
The New Testament writers warned their readers
often that false teachers might appear to be the most spiritual of men, full of
fine and gracious words, having the appearance of godliness but denying its
power (2 Timothy 3:5). That warning still needs to be heeded today.
(5) The false teachers tried to capture the minds
of men who were preparing for the ministry. That was their strategy: to gain positions of influence in the
universities which trained men for ministry in the churches. And that has been
the strategy of false teachers again and again. Rather than preaching their
novel views openly in the churches, they teach them privately in university
departments, seminaries, Bible-colleges. Many of the students they teach will
be young, open-minded, ready to explore new ideas, ready to be impressed by the
scholarship and skill of their teachers. The false teachers have two or three
or more years to shape the minds of their students, a captive audience. How
careful churches need to be before exposing their young men to seminary or
Bible-school teachers – even in institutions that have a reputation as being
orthodox, evangelical and reformed. How many churches really investigate what
is being taught in such establishments before sending their future preachers
and teachers there to be trained?
A vital concern
Well, this has been a long letter – and perhaps
heavier reading than most of my contributions to the bulletin. But it’s dealing
with a crucial issue. The New Testament is full of warnings to churches. Again
and again, the apostles warned their readers that false teachers will
surface and attempt to poison the life of the churches. “Fierce wolves will
come in among you, not sparing the flock and from among your own selves will
arise men speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them.
Therefore be alert!” (Acts 20: 29-31).
Few churches escape such attacks. It is more than
likely that we will face them at some point. The leaders of those Dutch
churches four hundred years ago were prepared when the crisis came. Will we be
ready when our time comes?
May God guard this church.
