Why Calvinists refute Amyraldism and Universalism

Many truly Reformed churches holding to their confessions of faith still exist around the world, although less so in Europe.

The numbers of true Calvinists might be small, but they still hold to their doctrine. Does that mean that Calvinism is ‘wrong’?

Those following Amyraut and Arminius would say yes, however, their theologies flag up ambiguities about Universalism and free will, respectively.

The next two posts will give Calvinist arguments against both these beliefs. Today’s addresses Amyraldism and, by extension, Universalism.

If you’ve been following my study of John’s Gospel in my series Forbidden Bible Verses, you’ll see some familiar verses below.

Martyn J McGeown of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, has written an engaging essay refuting Amyraut’s teachings, excerpts of which follow (emphases mine):

A. The will of God

Amyraut posited a contradiction in the will of God. Amyraut was content to espouse a paradoxical theology:

Although my reason found there some things which seemed to be in conflict, although whatever effort I exert I am unable to harmonize or reconcile them, still I will not fail to hold these two doctrines as true.³⁹

These two contradictory ideas are of course that “God willed the salvation of all men” while at the same time “God willed that only a select few would enjoy participation in this universal salvation procured by Christ”.⁴⁰ To deny such contradictions in God’s decree is to be contemptuously dismissed as rationalistic or scholastic.⁴¹ However, the Bible teaches that God’s will is one: “He is of one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth” (Job 23:13). God does not only have the ability and power to accomplish his will, but He actually does what He wills: “he doeth [not merely, “he can do”] according to his will” (Dan. 4:35). “Our God is in the heavens: he hath done (not, simply, “he is able to do”) whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). “Whatever the LORD pleased, that did he [not, “that he could do”] in heaven, and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places” (Ps. 135:6). “My counsel shall stand and I shall do all (not “some of”) my pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). Finally, “he worketh [not merely “is able to work if he so chooses”] all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11).

Amyraut, who was bound to the creeds, ought to have known better. The Canons state that “the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one“ (Head I, Article 8, italics mine).

Calvin, Amyraut’s “favourite theologian” gives Amyraut no support here …

If God’s word criticizes the double minded man (James 1:8) what are we to make of Amyraut’s double minded god? Is it conceivable that God could have two opposite purposes in the cross of His beloved Son? Turretin [Amyraut’s refuter] certainly viewed such an idea as absurd:

Who can believe that in the one and simple act by which God decreed all things (although we have to conceive of it by parts), there were two intentions so diverse (not to say contrary) that in one manner Christ should die for all, and in another only for some?⁴³

B. The justice of God

Amyraldianism cannot explain how God can be just in punishing unbelievers eternally for the same sins for which Christ supposedly offered Himself. B. B. Warfield asks, “if this obstacle [i.e., their sin] is removed, are they not saved? Some other obstacles must be invented.”⁴⁵ The Amyraldian cannot answer that they are damned on account of their unbelief, for, if Christ died for all their sins, that includes their unbelief.

C. God’s intention in sending Christ

What was God’s intention in sending Christ and Christ’s intention in coming into the world? The Scriptures are clear that God sent Christ into the world with a definite purpose in mind. That purpose was to “save sinners” (I Tim. 1:15) …

The name “Jesus” reveals Christ’s purpose, “to save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). He did not intend to save everyone from their sins, but His own people. In other places Christ is said to have given himself to the death of the cross “that he might redeem us from all iniquity” (Titus 2:14) and in order to “deliver us from this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4). His purpose is very clearly expressed in John 6:39-40:

For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

Christ did not, therefore, come from heaven and suffer on the cross, to attempt to save all men without exception, including those whom God hates and had rejected from eternity, but He came to save a certain definite number of people.

D. What Christ accomplished by His death

What was accomplished by the cross? The Scriptures are clear that Christ did not accomplish the mere possibility of salvation for all without exception but actual salvation for some. Hebrews 1:3 teaches that Christ “purged” our sins. It was an actual purging of them, not a mere potential purging. Acts 20:28 declares that Christ “purchased” His church with His own blood. It was not a potential but a real purchase that Christ made with the result that the Church is His property. Hebrews 9:12 announces that Christ has “obtained eternal redemption for us;” that is a real obtaining. Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 both proclaim that “we have redemption in His blood.” We have it; we do not merely have it hypothetically. I Peter 2:24 teaches that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” that is he truly bore the punishment for them and “healed” us by his stripes. In other places, Christ is said to have “reconciled” us (Col. 1:21), “delivered us” (Gal. 3:13) and “made us nigh” (Eph. 2:13) by His cross …

E. The scripturally-designated objects of Christ’s death

Scripture has various ways of speaking about the objects of Christ’s atoning work. The outstanding passage is John 10. In verse 11, Christ declares that as the good shepherd He lays down His life for His sheep. That not all men are Christ’s sheep is clear from verse 26 where Christ tells the Pharisees in the plainest possible language: “Ye are not of my sheep.” In other words, Christ did not lay down His life for those Pharisees, and by extension, He did not lay down His life for any of the reprobate who are not included in the number of His sheep. In addition, Jesus says in Matthew 20:28 that He gives His life a ransom for many, not all without exception. In Acts 20:28 and Ephesians 5:25 the object of Christ’s redemption is the church. Not all men are part of the church for whom Christ died …

However, Amyraut was not deterred, nor was he bridled by the Reformed confessions. He insisted that the Bible teaches that Christ died for “all men” and the “world.”

F. “Universalistic” language in Scripture

Both Arminians and Amyraldians insist that such texts must mean that every member of the human race without exception is included in the cross of Christ. However, we must identify how Scripture uses the word “world” (Greek: kosmos). If we study the use of this word, we will discover that it has a variety of meanings and does not always refer to the entire human race. In John 7:4, Jesus’ brethren urge him, “Shew thyself to the world [kosmos].” Clearly, Jesus’ brothers did not mean that he should reveal himself to all men without exception. In John 12:19 the Pharisees lament Jesus’ popularity with the people, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world [kosmos] is gone after him.” Jesus was not universally known, and certainly not universally followed.

The word “world” is used in Scripture to describe the objects of Christ’s redemption for two main reasons.

In the first place, the word contradicts the idea of the Jews that God’s love is only for their nation while all other nations lie under God’s curse. For men like Nicodemus, it was inconceivable that God could love Gentiles and send the promised Messiah to save them (John 3:16). Jesus uses the word “world” deliberately to correct his false sectarian ideas in this regard. The New Testament Church is catholic and includes people from every nation, not just Israel. The Jews had to learn this. Even wicked Caiaphas was made to declare this: “He prophesied that Christ should die for that nation, but not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52). The text does not say, “not for that nation only, but for the entire human race or all men without exception.” Jesus died for the Jewish nation (but not every individual Jew) and for all the elect Gentiles who, being Jesus[‘s] “other sheep” (John 10:16), must also be gathered by Him. Similarly, Revelation 5:9 states that Christ “redeemed us to God by [His] blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation.” But this does not refer to every individual member of every nation ...

In the second place, Scripture speaks of Christ dying to save the world because of the organic nature of salvation. Christ’s intention is not to save individuals but an elect human race. Christ has redeemed the entire creation. This was also Calvin’s view …

Similarly the phrase “all men” may have many meanings depending on the context. Often the word “men” is not in the original Greek where a form of the adjective, pas (all) is used. For example, Matthew 10:22, “And ye shall be hated of all [pas] men for my name’s sake,” does not teach that every human being without exception shall hate the disciples. When it is said in Matthew 21:26, “All [pas] hold John as a prophet,” not the entire human race is meant, and the disciples’ remark to Jesus is Mark 1:37, “All [pas] men seek thee” cannot be stretched too far. Examples could be multiplied (John 3:26; 11:48; Acts 19:19; 22:15; Rom. 16:19). The principle is that “all men” in the Bible refers to all of a specific group but rarely the entire human race. An illustration from idiomatic English may be appropriate. If I say, “Everybody is coming to my house for a meeting tonight,” I obviously do not mean by the word “everybody” to invite the entire city, never mind the entire human race.⁵¹ I have a certain group of people in mind and I mean every member of that group. The phrase “all men” in addition means “all kinds of men,” not just Jews or rich people or old people, but people from every part of society and every nation under heaven …

Hebrews 2:9 teaches that Jesus “tasted death for every man.” If the verse is wrested from its context it seems to teach a death of Christ for all head for head. Verse 10 teaches that Christ’s intention as “captain of their salvation” was to “bring many sons to glory.” If we take verse 10 into consideration the obvious meaning is that Christ tasted death for every son whom He brings to glory of whose salvation He is the captain (the word “man” is not in the Greek of verse 9). Christ did not taste death for those who must drink the cup of God’s wrath for all eternity (Ps. 11:6).

G. Calvin’s “universalistic” language

Although Calvin did use universalistic language when speaking of the death of Christ, something modern Amyraldians love to emphasize,⁵² it is necessary to understand what Calvin meant by such expressions. Rainbow [a Calvinist theolgian] has done extensive research on this issue. He writes, “Calvin understood ‘human race’ as the assembly of the elect from every kind of humanity.”⁵³ …

H. Christ’s high priestly office

As high priest, Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for, intercedes for, and blesses His people. Amyraut’s Christ offers Himself for all men without exception, but only intercedes for some (John 17:9). Scripture teaches that Christ intercedes on the basis of His atonement. Romans 8:34 links Christ’s atonement to His intercession: “It is Christ that died … who also maketh intercession for us.” Paul takes it as a settled fact that those for whom Christ died are guaranteed salvation. Otherwise his rhetorical question (“Who is he that condemneth?” [Rom. 8:34]) makes no sense. On the basis of Christ’s death and intercession, there is no charge against God’s elect (Rom. 8:33).

I John 2:1-2 also links inextricably Christ’s atonement and His intercession: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins.” When Christ enters the presence of the Father to plead for His people, He does so on the basis of the accomplished redemption (Heb. 7:25-28, 9:11-12, 24). If Christ died for all men, then He must plead for all men …

Turretin writes, “It is gratuitously supposed that a universal intercession can be granted. For as he is always heard by the Father (John 11:42), if he would intercede for all, all would be actually saved.”⁵⁹

I. The application of the merits of Christ’s atonement

One of the pillars of Amyraldianism is Amyraut’s insistence that “Scripture taught both a universalist design in Christ’s atonement and a particularist application of its benefits.’⁶² That makes nonsense of Paul’s triumphant question in Romans 8:32, “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?” If there are some for whom Christ was delivered up, who nevertheless perish everlastingly, how can he have freely given them all things? The “all things” must include forgiveness of sins, everlasting life, faith, repentance, the Holy Spirit and everything necessary for salvation …

Amyraut dishonours Christ when he says that Christ was given for all men, but that God does not give all men faith. Why would the Holy Spirit not apply the benefits of salvation to all those for whom the Son died? Does the Holy Spirit, who like the wind “bloweth where it listeth” (John 3:8), have a will contrary to the Son? Such an idea is absurd. The Bible teaches that the salvation procured by Christ is applied to all those for whom it was procured. Turretin writes, “It is gratuitous to say that Christ is the Savior of those for whom salvation is indeed acquired, but to whom it is will never be applied.”⁶⁴ And, as has been demonstrated, the Canons of Dordt declare that Christ purchased faith for the elect on the cross, and that it is the will of God that faith be conferred upon them (Head II, Article 8).

J. Sufficient for all; effectual for some?

The constant refrain of Amyraldianism is that Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectually for some. We do not deny that Christ’s atonement, as far as the infinite value of it is concerned, is sufficient to redeem the whole world, but the contention is, what was God’s purpose in sending Christ? …

We have seen that Amyraut was not committed to the Canons of Dordt. Head II, Articles 3-4 do indeed teach, and we affirm, that Christ’s death “is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” The Canons, however, do not mean by this that therefore God intended that the atonement expiate the sins of the whole world, or that it was offered for the whole world. Rather they explain that the atonement is infinite in value because of the dignity of the one who died, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God made flesh. Of course, His death was of infinite value. In addition, none deny that faith is necessary to enjoy the salvation purchased by Christ. But faith is part of that salvation purchased for the elect (Canons, Head II, Article II. 8), not a condition of salvation …

K. The nature of redemption

Amyraldianism is refuted when we consider the words used in theology to describe Christ’s work on the cross. Christ made satisfaction to the justice of God against the sins of all those for whom He died. Christ having died for a sinner, that sinner must be released from the guilt and punishment of sin. If he is not saved then the death of Christ is ineffectual. But such a conclusion is intolerable. If all that Christ did was insufficient to save the sinners for whom He died, what hope is there for any sinner? The Bible makes clear that the death of Christ was effectual. It was the purpose of God that it be effectual …

Tomorrow: A refutation of Arminianism

Weakened Calvinism is no Calvinism: Arminius, Amyraut and the Marrowmen

After John Calvin’s death and the expansion of his theology in France, the Netherlands and the British mainland, theologians began to parse his teachings more closely.

Some reinterpreted parts of Calvin’s Institutes of Religion. Others said that the theology was too harsh. Another group wanted to see a reunification of Calvinism and Lutheranism for occasional public worship as well as a rapprochement between the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches.

In 1540, two decades before the birth of Jacobus Arminius (literally, ‘James, son of Herman’ in Latin, the surname being Hermanszoon in Dutch), John Calvin signed Melanchthon’s revised Augsburg Confession.  Arminius, whose father during his childhood, was taken in by his Dutch Calvinist pastor and sent to school in Utrecht.  Pastor Aemilius died when Arminius was 14. Arminius’s mother died a year later.  Fortunately, another benefactor enabled the lad to continue with his studies, which culminated at the University of Leiden, where he read theology.

Whilst at Leiden, Arminius learned of God’s sovereignty, which some of his professors represented as being arbitrary and unforgiving.  Arminius hadn’t forgotten those messages when he studied under Theodore Beza — John Calvin’s successor — in Geneva in 1582.  Finding his theological views unpopular in the birthplace of Calvinism, he moved to Basel for a time before heading home to the Netherlands.

In 1588 Arminius moved to Amsterdam and served as a Dutch Calvinist pastor.  A few years later, it was apparent to his congregation and other clergy that he was preaching ‘opinions’ about free will, which clearly contradicted Calvin and Beza’s teachings.  The city councillors of Amsterdam — European cities were still run as theocracies at the time — managed to calm everyone down enough to avoid open Protestant conflict.

The plague, running rampant through Europe at the time, brought an opportunity to Arminius.  As some of the professors at Leyden fell victim to this fatal pestilence, the University invited Arminius to teach theology.  His appointment was not approved without controversy among the faculty.  Their difference in religious views also coincided with political partisanship, to the extent that Arminius and his staunchly Calvinist rival Franciscus Gomarus were invited to the Hague to each deliver speeches before the Supreme Court in 1608.  (Politics and Protestant Christianity were closely bound in the Netherlands until the 20th century.)

By the time Arminius and Gomarus were invited back to the Hague the following year for a second conference, their respective viewpoints had begun to split Reformed clergy around the country. Arminius did not last the full duration of the second conference and returned to Leiden because of ill health. He died in October 1609.  However, his legacy of free will theology — as expressed in what he called Arminianism — lives on to the present day, most notably in Wesleyan and Evangelical churches, particularly in the United States.  Arminian followers of the 17th century were called Remonstrants, adhering to a radically revised view of Calvinism — which ended up being no Calvinism at all.

The House of Orange attempted to silence Remonstrants by making their lives difficult, sometimes imprisoning them. The orthodox Calvinist theologians and clergymen at the Synod of Dordrecht upheld the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism.  It wasn’t until 1795 when the Remonstrants received official Dutch State recognition and were allowed to open their own churches.  Their congregations still exist today as the Remonstrant Brotherhood, based in Rotterdam. They align themselves with the European Liberal Protestant Network.

In a stark departure from the Reformed confessions of faith, the Remonstrants adhere to the following five articles of faith (emphases mine to point out fundamental differences between Arminianism and Calvinism):

• that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute;
• that the Atonement is in intention universal;
• that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith;
• that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly in man and
• that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

Meanwhile, in France, Moses (Moïse) Amyraut was just a boy when Arminius died.  Amyraut was born in what we know today as the Pays de la Loire and lived in the Province of Anjou for much of his life.  Even when he left home to study in Orléans and Poitiers, he was never too far from home.

Amyraut was only two years old when the bloody French Wars of Religion ended in 1598. Old, established French families — I’ve known a few quite well — took the decision around this time whether to associate socially with those of another Christian denomination. I know French Catholics who today will not associate with Protestants outside of a work situation.  There are also French Protestants who eschew Catholic friendship. The war was acute in Anjou as well as around Nantes and La Rochelle, further west along the Atlantic coast.

Interestingly, Amyraut’s academic course of study was not unlike Calvin’s. Both obtained degrees in the law and then immersed themselves in theology.  Amyraut studied in the Protestant city of Saumur.  His scholarship was so outstanding that, when it came time to be appointed to a church or to a theological post, he attracted the interest of Calvinists in Rouen and Paris.  In the end, he earned both a pastorate and a professorship in Saumur in 1633.

He and his fellow professors had both studied under the same theologians and became lifelong friends. Amyraut’s published works were prodigious, numbering 32 books.  In 1631, he participated in a conference at Charenton and gave Louis XIII a speech on the violations of the Edict of Nantes, which was to have given Protestants a number of distinct rights and accommodations. Yet, by the time Amyraut presented his oration, a number of Huguenot (French Calvinist) rebellions had already taken place.  Little by little, Louis XIII had refused to renew many of the provisions of the Edict of Nantes.  However, after Amyraut’s oration, the synod at Charenton debated whether to admit Lutherans to the Calvinists’ Lord’s Table. They approved the motion and, although he was absent for it, Amyraut’s star continued in the ascendancy.

In 1634, Amyraut published his Hypothetical Universalism, which, as part of his Treatise on Predestination, understandably, divided many Protestants.  It stated:

God … predestines all men to happiness on condition of their having faith. 

For this, Amyraut was brought up before the national synod on charges of heresy in 1637, 1644 and 1659. They acquitted him all three times.  The University of Saumur gained pre-eminence as France’s Protestant university.

Amyraut was also part of talks attempting to reunite French Catholics and Protestants. Nothing came of them, although he was known for his ‘statesmanship and eloquence’ in the negotiations.

Amyraut suffered a bad fall in 1657, from which he never fully recovered. He died in January 1664.

True Calvinist theologians, however — among them Francis Turrentin — firmly opposed Amyraut’s questionable theology.  In a targeted attempt to reduce the growing influence of the University of Saumur’s theology, a Swiss group of Calvinist theologians devised the Helvetic Consensus in 1675, which denounced heterodoxy, particularly that coming from Saumur, including Amyraldism.  Amyraut maintained that Jesus’s atonement was ‘hypothetically universal’. His closest university colleagues (and friends) denied the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew Old Testament text and maintained that the notion of Original Sin was ‘arbitrary and unjust’.  Although the Helvetic Consensus was binding on Swiss Calvinist clergy, only a  generation later, however, the orthodox doctrine upholding it gave way to the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment and a less doctrinal and more ethics-oriented Christianity in Europe.

For better or worse, Arminianism and Amyraldism made their way across the English Channel at a time when the Churches of England, Scotland and the Independents were contending with each other.  John Davenant (1572 – 1641), a Church of England cleric and Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, provoked the then-Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud, with his unorthodox theological views.  Yet, Davenant represented the Church of England at the Calvinist Synod of Dort in 1618, the purpose of which was to settle the controversies arising from Arminianism.

This is why I was hesitant to list too many 17th century C of E clergy in my list of Calvinists.  It’s quite a complex of people and theological beliefs to untangle. At the same time, whilst I can somewhat appreciate Calvinists’ annoyance with Archbishop Laud, I personally do not dislike the man. He pegged Davenant to a tee, pointing out the contradictions in his theology.  Davenant’s Wikipedia entry explains:

At Dort there were divisions in the Anglican camp:

On the one hand Davenant, Ward and Martinius believed that Christ died for all particular men; Carleton, Goad, and Balcanquhall himself believed that Christ died only for the elect, who consisted of all sorts of men.^[2]

A compromise pursued went in Davenant’s direction. According to one interpretation of Davenant’s views:

Davenant attempted to find a middle road between outright Arminianism and the supralapsarianism which some in England favored. He found in the theology of Saumur such a road and defended the Amyrauldian views of hypothetical universalism, a general atonement in the sense of intention as well as sufficiency, a common blessing of the cross, and a conditional salvation. All these views stood in close connection with the theology of the well-meant offer of salvation to all.^[3]

Other interpretations see Davenant as distinguishing himself from the School of Saumur and from the views of Moses Amyraut.^[4] When French Amyraldians attempted to garner support, citing the views of members of the British delegation to the Synod of Dort, Davenant offered a reply by way of clarification in his tract, “On the controversy among the French divines,” in which he appears to make a distinction between his own views and those of the Amyraldians.^[5]

Davenant sympathised with the aims of John Dury, as far as unifying Protestantism went, and wrote in his favour, a piece subsequently quoted by Gerard Brandt^[6].

On the topic of predestination, he engaged in controversy with the Arminian Anglican Samuel Hoard.

In an undated letter to his friend Samuel Ward, with whom he had served as a delegate to Dort, Davenant endorses the view (shared by Ward) that all baptized infants receive the remission of the guilt of original sin in baptism and that this constitutes their infant baptismal regeneration, justification, sanctification, and adoption.^[7] In his view, this infant baptismal remission, which involves the objective status of the infant apart from subjective operations of grace, will not suffice for justification, if the child does not later come to faith. Nonetheless, he goes on to argue that this poses no contradiction to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as articulated by Dort, since the “perseverance” intended there presupposes subjective grace.^[8]

Davenant sounds as if he was a consummate politician — telling his various theological audiences what they wished to hear.

Then, in 1645, an English layman, thought to be a man by the name of Edward Fisher (1627 – 1655) writing under the thinly-disguised pseudonym ‘E.F.’ penned a work which remains controversial to this day, The Marrow of Modern Divinity.

At a time when many Britons were leaning towards Pietism, particularly Calvinists, this work was considered problematic. Fisher’s intentions appear to have been good — trying to direct his readers to a straight course between antinomianism and the New Testament’s obedience through faith and repentance, which Richard Baxter (1615-1691) advocated. Fisher held a degree from Oxford and had read Church history and classical languages.

Baxter, although the author of inspiring works still read today, subscribed to Amyraldism. His Wikipedia entry summarises his theology as follows:

1. The atonement of Christ did not consist in his suffering the identical but the equivalent punishment (i.e., one which would have the same effect in moral government) as that deserved by mankind because of offended law. Christ died for sins, not persons. While the benefits of substitutionary atonement are accessible and available to all men for their salvation; they have in the divine appointment a special reference to the subjects of personal election.
2. The elect were a certain fixed number determined by the decree without any reference to their faith as the ground of their election; which decree contemplates no reprobation but rather the redemption of all who will accept Christ as their Savior.
3. What is imputed to the sinner in the work of justification is not the righteousness of Christ but the faith of the sinner himself in the righteousness of Christ.
4. Every sinner has a distinct agency of his own to exert in the process of his conversion. The Baxterian theory, with modifications, was adopted by many later Presbyterians and Congregationalists in England, Scotland, and America (Isaac Watts, Philip Doddridge, and many others).

You can see how such beliefs could be misinterpreted and further extended from Amyraldism to Arminianism, especially the final point.

Back to Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, however. The book appears to have been relatively unknown until a copy of it surfaced in Scotland nearly 50 years after Fisher’s death. For the aforementioned theological reasons, the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly duly instructed church members not to read it.  This was in 1719.  Needless to say, after that edict, many ordinary Scottish Presbyterians sought the book out and read it. The Marrow Controversy was born.  Clerics who supported the book at the time were known as Marrowmen.  The last time the book was reprinted was in … 2009!

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia has a lengthy — and fascinating — essay on the Marrow Controversy, entitled ‘Universalism and the Reformed Churches’.  It states, in part:

In view of the debate in the Assembly, the manner in which the formularies were applied in England, the argument of the Schools of Davenant and Amyraut, and the ambiguous system of modified Calvinism since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the question of application of the Westminster formularies to the doctrine of universal redemption as to purchase, and the terms of the Marrow can only be decided by a Declaratory Act of the Church …

The Marrowmen, like their modern counterparts, attempted to hold to the particularism of Calvinism and at the same time preach the gospel in the universalistic terms of the Marrow. They therefore reinterpreted the terms of the book from that of its original context within the School of Davenant, and declared against the obvious, that it did not have reference to universal redemption …

The Marrow theology is thus committed to the following ambiguities:

1. “Christ has taken upon Him the sins of all men,” and being a “deed of gift and grant unto all mankind,” is not a universal purchase of the death of Christ, therefore it logically follows that,
2. He said deed of gift and grant of Christ to all mankind is effective only to the elect, ie., an infallible redemption gifted to all secures only a portion of its objects.
3. A deed of gift and grant to all is only an offer. In other words, Christ is gifted to all, without that He died for them.
4. Since the gift of Christ to all is not a benefit purchased by the atonement, the substance of the free offer of the gospel, does not consist of Christ as redeemer, but only as a friend.

Thus it was the Marrowmen in the first half of the eighteenth century who first injected into the stream of Scottish theology the ambiguous and contradictory system which has been the subtle vehicle or Trojan horse which for two hundred and fifty years has worked to the downfall of the Calvinism of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches throughout the world.

Modern modified Calvinism is but a refinement of the same system. Like the Marrowmen, as demonstrated hereafter, it presents the gospel in universalistic terms. It does so by introducing a system of interpretation of Scripture which brings in a doctrine of divine precepts and decrees, which not only perpetuates the errors of the Marrow, but extends the ambiguities and contradictions of that system.

As previously intimated, modern modified Calvinism is now the received doctrine of most Presbyterian and Reformed Churches which represent them selves as holding to the doctrines of the Calvinistic Reformation.

Professor Herman C Hoeksema, one of the founders of the Protestant Reformed Churches, a North American Reformed denomination, also cited this article, warning people about compromised doctrine.  He:

agreed with Luther in his Bondage of the Will that “merit” is an impious word when used concerning man’s relation to God (including Adam’s relationship to God, but not with Christ’s relationship with God as taught concerning man in Luke 17:10, Jesus says, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”

… In vain does one look in the Word of God for support of this theory of a covenant of works.”^[4]

From 1645 to today, The Marrow of Modern Divinity has helped to shape formerly Reformed churches — the Congregationalists, the United Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA) — into quasi-Universalist and quasi-Arminian institutions that we know of today.

The Anglican Communion has also fallen into two camps — one clearly being Reformed (Lutheran and Calvinist) on the matter of justification by grace through faith and the other clearly Arminian. Whilst the 39 Articles of Religion are not as forensic and thorough as the Reformed Confessions and Canons are, their meanings and intent are clear: there is no place for Arminianism in the Anglican Church.  No doubt this is why copies of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer are no longer available in our pews.  Our postmodern clergy would not like us to read the simple truths of faith whilst listening to their works-based, legalistic sermons.

Tomorrow: More on Calvinist beliefs and the fight against error