The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism By John Mark Hicks A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy 1985 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard C. Gamble Second Faculty Reader: Mr. David W. Clowney Chairman, Field Committee: Dr. D. Claire Davis External Reader: Dr. Carl W. Bangs 2 Dissertation Abstract The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism By John Mark Hicks The dissertation addresses the problem of the theological relationship between the theology of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and the theology of Philip van Limborch (1633-1712). Arminius is taken as a representative of original Arminianism and Limborch is viewed as a representative of developed Remonstrantism. The problem of the dissertation is the nature of the relationship between Arminianism and Remonstrantism. Some argue that the two systems are the fundamentally the same, others argue that Arminianism logically entails Remonstrantism and others argue that they ought to be radically distinguished. The thesis of the dissertation is that the presuppositions of Arminianism and Remonstrantism are radically different. The thesis is limited to the doctrine of grace. There is no discussion of predestination. Rather, the thesis is based upon four categories of grace: (1) its need; (2) its nature; (3) its ground; and (4) its appropriation. The method of the dissertation is a careful, separate analysis of the two theologians. Chapters two and three set forth Arminius’ understanding of grace. There is considerable interaction with secondary literature in an attempt to come to an informed understanding of Arminius’ theology of grace. Chapters four, fie and six attempt to understand Limborch’s theology of grace. Since secondary literature on Limborch is scarce, this is the most original work of the dissertation where the original Latin sources are brought to bear on the thesis of the dissertation. After careful analysis of the respective theologians in the previous chapters, chapter seven compares the two according to their differences and similarities. They differ on the original state of man, the nature of the fall’s effects, the natural ability of fallen man, the nature of the Spirit’s work, the meaning of the death of Christ, the nature of saving righteousness, and the condition of applied righteousness. Arminius stands with the theology of the Reformation while Limborch’s theology shows the influence of the Enlightenment. While they have some similarities, including conditionality, synergism, and universalism, these similarities are governed by radically different presuppositions as the differences demonstrate. Consequently, it is not the case that Arminianism logically entails Remonstrantism. The dissertation advocates a recognition of the fundamental distinction between Arminianism and Remonstrantism. It argues that the categories of historical theology ought to recognize this distinction. As a result, Arminius ought to be regarded as a theologian of the Reformation, but Limborch, and his Remonstrant brethren, ought to be seen as the advocates of a theology which undermines the distinctives of the Reformation. 3 Dedication Within his loving providence and tender care, God has restored to me the joy of companionship and given me the incomparable love of two children. By the grace of God, I dedicate this work to my caring wife, Barbara Elaine, and my precious children, Ashley Dawn and Joshua Mark. They have given me the strength, will and joy of heart to complete this task. 4 Table of Contents Chapter One. Introduction: Problem, Thesis and Method. The Problem Equation Logical Entailment Radical Distinction Thesis Method Chapter Two. The Nature and Necessity of Grace in Jacobus Arminius Man as Created Fallen Man The Sin of Adam The Condition of Fallen Man The Imputation of Guilt Special Grace The Divine Vocation The Role of the Father and Son The Role of the Spirit and Word The Internal Work of the Spirit The End and Result of the Calls The Efficacy of Grace Sufficient and Efficacious Grace Operative and Cooperative Grace Monergism or Synergism? Conclusion Chapter Three. The Ground and Appropriation of Grace in Jacobus Arminius The Ground of Grace The Atonement of Christ Necessity of Satisfaction Scope of Satisfaction The Priesthood of Christ The Nature of Justification Definition of Justification Faith and Imputed Righteousness The Ground of Justification The Appropriation of Grace The New Covenant Definition and Nature of Faith Nature of Justifying Faith Faith and Works Assurance of the Believer Conclusion 5 Chapter Four. The Nature and Necessity of Grace in Philip van Limborch Man as Created The Psychology of Man The Image of God in Man Fallen Man The Sin of Adam The Effects of Adam’s Sin The Imputation of Guilt The Corruption of Fallen Man The Condition and Punishment of Infants Common Grace The Nature of Common Grace The Mode of Common Grace The Effect and Limitations of Common Grace Special Grace God as the Primary Cause The Mode of the Operation of Grace The Nature of the Operation of Special Grace Conclusion Chapter Five. The Ground of Grace in Philip van Limborch. The Freedom of God The Will of God The Justice of God Implications The Role of the Death of Christ The Socinian Concept of Atonement The Contra-Remonstrant Concept of Atonement Limborch’s Theory of Atonement Faith as Righteousness A Broad Definition of Justification Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness Denied Imputed Righteousness in Limborch Conclusion Chapter Six. The Appropriation of Grace in Philip van Limborch The New Covenant The Old and New Covenants Natural Religion Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants Summary The Law of Faith 6 The Precepts of the New Covenant The Antecedent of Faith The Formal Act of Faith The Consequent Act of Faith The Nature of Justifying Faith Justification by Works, not by Faith Alone Biblical Faith as Obedience Biblical Faith as Merit Biblical Faith as Condition The Problem of Justifying Obedience The Point of Justification The State of Justification The Assurance of Justification Conclusion Chapter Seven. Conclusion: Arminian and Remonstrant Grace The Differences Original Righteousness The Effects of the Fall Ability of Fallen Man The Nature of the Spirit’s Work The Implications of the Death of Christ The Nature of Saving Righteousness The Condition of Applied Righteousness The Problem of Logical Entailment The Similarities The Nature of the Similarities The Problem of Categorization Conclusion Bibliography 7 CHAPTER I Introduction: Problem, Thesis and Method Arminianism, as a theological system, derives its name from Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).1 Born in Oudewater in South Holland, he was educated as a youth in the schools of Utrecht and Marburg. When Leiden University opened in 1575, he enrolled under the patronship of Peter Bertius. In 1581 the Merchant Guild of Amsterdam undertook Arminius' support and sent him to study at the Academy in Geneva. Though at first unable to fit into the Aristotelian setting of Geneva due to his Ramist tendencies, he eventually completed his studies there though he spent some time at Basel. He studied under both Calvin's successor Theodore Beza (1519-1605) at Geneva and the renowned Johann Jakob Grynaeus (1540-1607) at Basel.2 During this period, Arminius sojourned in Italy for seven months in order to hear the philosophical lectures of James Zabarella at Padua and to visit Rome (1586-1587).3 There is uncertainty as to the nature of Arminius' views during his student period. Bangs argues that when Arminius returned from Geneva in 1587 that he had already rejected the predestinarian views of Beza and "probably never had agreed" with them.4 The traditional position, however, is that Arminius changed his position after he had become a pastor in Amsterdam and read the views of Dirck Coornheert (1522-1590).5 Whether or not Arminius changed his views, he soon found himself the center of controversy in Amsterdam. Though Arminius began preaching on Romans in November, 1588 (concluding in September, 1601), it was not until he reached Romans 7 in 1591 that any controversy broke out.6 Discussion continued about his positions until 1593 after he had concluded his sermons on Romans 9. During this period "most of his ministerial brethren inveighed against him" not only because of his views, but because of his rising popularity among Lutherans and Mennonites.7 However, from 1593-1603, the waters of controversy were calm as the attention of the Dutch Church had turned to the Brownists, Anabaptists, political problems and a devastating plague in 1602. During this period, Arminius' views 1 The definitive biography is Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971). Other major biographies are Nathan Bangs, The Life of James Arminius, D.D. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1843); Caspar Brandt, The Life of James Arminius, D.D., trans. John Guthrie (Nashville: Methodist Episcopal Church, 1903); J. H. Maronier, Jacobus Arminius. Een biografie. (Amsterdam: Y. Rogge, 1905) and A. W. Harrison, The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort (London: University of London Press, LTD, 1926). 2 At Basel, Arminius lectured on Romans 7 in Grynaeus' presence and found his approval. Cf. Maronier, Arminius, pp. 60, 61. In fact, Grynaeus was known to have often said: "Let my Hollander answer for me" (Brandt, Arminius, p. 47). Arminius was invited to join the faculty at Basel but declined due to his youth. 3 Brandt, Arminius, pp. 51, 52. 4 Bangs, Arminius, p. 141. 5 Brandt, Arminius, pp. 44ff. Arminius was asked to answer a booklet authored by some Delft ministers in 1589 which advocated an infralapsarianism instead of Beza's supralapsarian. Arminius, of course, eventually rejected both if he had not already.