Search

John Goodwin (1594-1665) is said by his biographers to have converted from Calvinism to Arminianism, in a matter of months, in the year 1647. Thereafter Goodwin went on to write several Arminian works, including Redemption Redeemed in 1651. In this dissertation it is argued that his conversion was neither as rapid nor radical as has been argued hitherto. Progressively and with increasing clarity of expression he rejected the hypothetical universalism imbibed during his formative years, particularly what he perceived to be its deterministic component. 'Calvinism' is a misnomer for what he rejected. His theological development, discernible from a diachronic consideration of his earliest extant sermons and writings from the 1630s and early 1640s, was towards a soteriology wherein God's grace and a man's free will work concurrently, but wherein every stage of a man's conversion and perseverance is ultimately determined by man himself. His theological trajectory, therefore, was away from something akin to hypothetical universalism and towards this principle of humanly determined concurrence. The dissertation focusses on the doctrine of perseverance in particular, and considers the array of discrete arguments that Goodwin makes in Redemption Redeemed for the possibility of total and final apostasy by true believers. It is shown that the whole panoply is consistent with and underpinned by this humanly determined concurrence principle. The analysis of these arguments is then used to make a systematic comparison with some important prior Arminian works on perseverance, in order to draw conclusions concerning his contribution to the advancement of the Arminian cause. John Owen (1616-83) responded to Goodwin's work by publishing The Doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance in 1654. From the context and content of Owen's response to Goodwin's arguments, it is shown that Owen's arguments reflect a divinely determined concurrence principle. He teaches that God's grace is effectual in every stage of a man's conversion and perseverance, such that God is the ultimate arbiter of man's destiny; but that his grace never operates in such a way as to compel a man to believe or persevere against his will. This analysis is then used to make comparisons with Goodwin's work, and with influential prior Reformed works on perseverance, from which conclusions are drawn concerning Owen's distinctive contribution to the perseverance doctrine. By comparing Goodwin's position and Owen's in terms of these two underlying principles, it is shown that there is a material difference between the anti-Arminian case that Goodwin proceeds to rebut and the anti-Arminian case that is in fact made by Owen. In important respects, Goodwin's argument does not engage with the position contended for by Owen and the antecedent authors whose works are considered herein. While this does not necessarily detract from the internal logical coherence of Goodwin's positive case, it does expose a lacuna in his negative case as expressed in Redemption Redeemed. It is a lacuna that undermines the claim that it was 'Calvinism' that Goodwin rejected, or even 'destroyed', as some have suggested - at least in so far as the term 'Calvinism' is understood as referring to the theology of Owen. Either because Owen wrote second, or because he had well understood the Arminian case from Goodwin and his antecedents, there is not a corresponding dramatic lacuna in Owen's anti-Arminian case.

This study focuses on John Edwards of Cambridge (1637-1716) and the broader Reformed tradition within the later Stuart Church of England. Its central thesis is that, contrary to the claims of older scholarship, Edwards was not a marginalized figure in the Church of England on account of his 'Calvinism'. Instead, this study demonstrates that Edwards was recognized in his own day and in the immediately following generations as one of the preeminent conforming divines of the period, and that his theological and polemical works, despite some Arminian opposition, enjoyed a very positive reception among significant segments of the established Church's clergy, many of whom shared his Reformed doctrinal convictions. Instead of a theological misfit as he has often been portrayed, this study contends that the Reformed polemicist Edwards was a decidedly mainstream figure in the established Church of his day. Overall, this study makes a substantial contribution to the largely uncharted field of later Stuart and early Hanoverian Church of England theology, and demonstrates that future accounts of the established Church in this period will have to afford both Edwards and his numerous Reformed contemporaries a considerably more prominent place than has hitherto been the case. It not only confirms Stephen Hampton's work on the persisting vitality of Reformed theology within the established Church during this period, but substantially develops it by demonstrating that Hampton's revisionist thesis significantly underestimated Edwards' stature within the Church as well as the strength and numbers of conforming Reformed divines between the Restoration and the evangelical revivals (1660 - c. 1730). Finally, this study problematizes scholarly depictions of the later Stuart Church of England as having developed a fairly homogeneous 'Anglican' theological identity, and argues instead that the established Church in this period was rather variegated in terms of theological doctrine, churchmanship, and politics.

This thesis analyzes modes of engagement with the Dutch Remonstrant tradition by Arminian conformists of the later Stuart and early Hanoverian Church of England. It argues that several of the period’s fiercest theological controversies arose from what traditionalist divines took to be the uncritical appropriation of that tradition by their fellow churchmen. It shows that many Arminian conformists credited Remonstrant ideas with facilitating the emergence of an intellectually robust Unitarianism, and that such divines accentuated identifiably Reformed emphases in an unprecedented display of disambiguation from the Remonstrant tradition. In brief, the thesis contends that later Stuart and early Hanoverian conforming Arminianism cannot be seen as a monolithically antipodean reaction to Reformed theology without obscuring the negative consensus that united Reformed and Arminian against the alleged heterodoxy of the Remonstrants and those who propounded their views in England. In this way, the thesis challenges the notion that a broadly unified Arminian consensus emerged at the Restoration, on the basis that the Arminian reaction to interregnum Calvinism produced divergent and sometimes incompatible positive theological agendas. It argues that soteriology is an insufficient criterion for judging ecclesial theological integrity, correcting an overemphasis on soteriological controversy by showing how debates over grace and predestination intersected with other debates over reason and revelation, faith and obedience. In applying this method of analysis to the appropriation of Remonstrant ideas by Arminian conformists, the study provides a fresh perspective on the Arminian theological tradition in the political, confessional, and educative contexts of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century England. Among its more surprising conclusions is the discovery that the association of Remonstrant theologians with Socinian heterodoxy came often from leading Arminian churchmen themselves, and that the doctrinal emphases of such churchmen were not as comprehensively opposed to those of their Reformed contemporaries as has previously been thought.

This thesis examines a series of polemical writings in Latin which William Ames (1576-1633) produced against Arminianism during his life as an English exile in the Dutch Republic. Through these writings, Ames quickly established himself from being an obscure military chaplain to being a champion of Reformed orthodoxy who 'with his sharp pen plucks out [Remonstrant teaching] from the root' and 'its filaments cuts to pieces'. This reputation led him to be appointed as a theological advisor to the president of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), and subsequently to be nominated for a newly established chair of practical theology at Leiden University. Indeed, Ames was perceived as 'given by England' as a precious gift, according to the Dutch Reformed theologian who compiled Ames's Latin works. However, Ames's significant Latin corpus remains largely unexplored by modern scholarship, which tends to rely only on his major work, The Marrow of Theology. This results both in lack of knowledge about where Ames's specific contributions to the Arminian controversy lie, and in the misconception that Ames was somehow sympathetic toward Arminianism. Thus, this study seeks to uncover where Ames's theological contributions are in each of the central theological issues of the Dutch Arminian controversy. It also seeks to provide correctives to current readings of Ames's theology by highlighting links between his neglected polemical writings and relevant passages in his better-known work, The Marrow of Theology. Apart from the Introduction, the chapters of this thesis are structured according to the main theological issues: whether the act of divine predestination is absolute (Chapter 2); whether Christ's work of redemption is particularly intended only for the elect (Chapter 3); whether the nature of grace is irresistible (Chapter 4); whether perseverance of the saints is total and final (Chapter 5). In the face of Remonstrant teaching which tended to compromise divine sovereignty at the cost of human freedom, Ames made serious efforts to maintain the supremacy of God in his works of predestination, redemption, conversion, and perseverance, while at the same time establishing human freedom. Through these efforts, Ames vigorously defended the Reformed tradition against common charges. To do this, he appropriated various medieval scholastic distinctions. Some of these distinctions were already established in the Reformed tradition: even when supremacy of divine will in God's work of predestination is maintained, there is no contradiction within God as the conditional nature of the revealed will derives from his hidden will; God is not author of sin because he does not will it in the active sense but only in his permissive sense. The use of other distinctions, such as those used for explaining the compatibility between the irresistibility of grace and human freedom, appear to have been pioneered in Reformed thought by Ames. In his Latin polemical works against Arminianism, Ames not only defended his own tradition but also effectively attacked his opponents. This included offering both philosophical and theological critiques of the concept of middle knowledge, the philosophical basis of the Remonstrant teaching of predestination based on foreseen faith; and exposing a clear synergistic tendency hidden behind the often ambiguously articulated theological statements of his opponents. In all of this, Ames was not, as previous scholarship has argued, making a compromise or softening Reformed thought by finding a needed corrective in Arminianism, but rather steadfastly defended his own Reformed tradition against Arminianism without being blind to new philosophical and exegetical challenges. That was precisely why Ames could be regarded by contemporary admirers as 'a gift from England'.

This thesis is a study on the theology of an Anglican bishop, John Davenant (1572-1641), in the context of the early modern era. In particular it focuses on his understanding of the extent and intent of the atoning death of Christ. Davenant played an important role in the development of early orthodox Reformed theology, especially on this controversial doctrine. Some scholars have claimed that Davenant's position was a forerunner of Amyraldianism in the seventeenth century. Others have argued that his view was different from Amyraldianism. However, no scholar has substantiated the latter argument based on Davenant's extensive writings as to how far Davenant's view on the extent of the atonement was distinct from the position of John Cameron, the Father of Amyraldianism. The contention of this thesis is that Davenant's views of predestination, the atonement and free-will were the main factors that affected his twofoldintention view, and they differed from the positions of John Cameron. The exposition of those doctrines by John Davenant both in his various writings and in his testimony at the Synod of Dort serve as the object of the investigation. Cameron's writings are also selectively investigated and his views on those doctrines are compared with Davenant's positions. The Canons of Dort are analysed in order to examine whether Davenant's doctrinal position is situated within the confessional orthodoxy in the early seventeenth century. Davenant's position on the universal aspect of the atonement was based on the universal proclamation of the Gospel. Davenant stressed the immutability of God's will for the elect. Cameron's view on the universal aspect of the atonement depended on the divine will for the salvation of every individual which could be frustrated due to human free choice. Since the decree of sending Christ preceded the decree of election according to Cameron's view on the order of the divine decrees, Cameron's view was different from Davenant's. Cameron held to a distinction between moral and physical ability and intellectual persuasion of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind. These things were not shared by Davenant. The conclusion arrived at is that Davenant's twofold-intention view was distinct from Cameron's hypothetical universalism. Thus this study substantiates the claim that Davenant was not a forerunner of Amyraldianism and his view was situated within the boundary of confessional orthodoxy codified in the Canons of Dort.

Since the time of the early Church, doctrinal evaluation has been a necessary part of keeping a pure church. Creeds and doctrinal statements, as they reflect the teaching of Scripture, have long been an objective means by which heresy has been evaluated and orthodoxy has been established. In the last century, many doctrinal battles have been fought and the cause of orthodoxy advanced. One such doctrinal battle has surfaced in the last twenty-five years, and this battle concerns the movement known as Open Theism. The open view of God seeks to challenge the classical view of God's attributes, and extends the boundaries of orthodoxy as espoused in traditional Arminian doctrine. The present thesis is endeavoring to develop a theological grid from previous creeds and statements. The paper will then apply the grid to the open view; in doing this, this paper will evaluate the doctrinal nature of Open Theism. After the introductory matters, this thesis will spend a chapter defining key terms in the discussion. The next chapter will analyze previous creeds and doctrinal statements; it then will draw out specific principles and motives to apply in developing a theological grid. The next chapter will illustrate the application of this grid on known heretical movements. The last two content chapters will identify the key theological pillars of Open Theism, and using the established grid, analyze them against the backdrop of traditional Arminianism. The final chapter offers a conclusion to the work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This thesis identifies a church’s lack of theological awareness of biblical soteriology, investigates the literature for solutions to the ministerial problem, implements the review of literature into a course with curriculum, and the influences on the congregation’s beliefs. The church was a hodgepodge of soteriological beliefs. More specifically, the congregants purported to believe in Calvinism, Arminianism, and Semi-Pelagianism but could not accurately define, adequately describe, or appropriately defend said beliefs. A review of literature led this student to be selective of the soteriological literature known to exist. Simply, the ministerial problem was not because of a lack of literature but because of a lack of application. Surveying the selected literature, this student found several common themes associated with the above soteriological schools. These themes included the historical positions, the theological precepts, the biblical precedents, the exegetical problems, and the contemporary perspectives. These themes, following an exegetical study of Romans 9 for the theological foundation and finding known examples where courses were effective at distributing the information for the theoretical foundation, were implemented with curriculum in a classroom. The course, spanning seven days for an hour each day, presented the review of literature using the themes to distinguish the days. A survey and two identical questionnaires, one given before the course and one given after the course, were used to collect the quantitative and qualitative data. This data revealed that the course was effective at confirming, challenging, and changing the congregation’s soteriological beliefs by bringing theological awareness to biblical soteriology.

Presents a thesis entitled "When Calvinist and Arminian Beliefs Collide: Facilitating Communication Between North American Professors and Russian Bible Students," submitted to the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in May 1998. Calvinism among North American visiting professors in Russia; Arminian beliefs of Russian evangelicals; Ethnographic interviews of Russian Bible students and North American professors; Need for professors to understand the beliefs of Russian students; Orthodox influence on the Arminianism of Russian evangelicals; Influences of paganism and Western Protestants; Strategies for communication and accommodation.

Presents the dissertation entitled "A Biblical and Theological Comparison of the Calvinist and Arminian Positionson Perseverance of the Saints." Statement of the purpose of the thesis; Overview of Calvinism as it relates to perseverance of the saints; Overview of Arminianism as it relates to perseverance of the believer.

Presents the thesis "John Owen's 'A Display Of Arminianism': A Study Of The Theological Opposition between Puritans And Laudians Over The Calvinist Doctrine Of Grace.' Owen's relationship to Puritanism; Calvinist doctrine of grace; Relationship between Dutch Arminianism and the theological tension between the Laudians and Puritans.

Evidence is examined concerning the coherence of divine foreknowledge as defined by Arminianism and Molinism. Arminianism argues that God has complete and infallible knowledge of the future, and attempts to simultaneously maintain a strong view of libertarian freedom. Molinism agrees with the Arminian stance on foreknowledge and human freedom, but argues that middle knowledge must also be posited for God to have strong providential control over His creation. It is argued that Molinism better accounts for the biblical data and provides a more coherent theological and philosophical position, since Arminianism cannot provide a strong theory of providential control. Subsequently, a defense is given for Reformed Molinism, which combines Molinism with Robert Kane’s event-causal version of libertarian freedom.