What do you think?
Rate this book
CALVINISM AND EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM: COMPARED AS TO ELECTION, REPROBATION, JUSTIFICATION, AND RELATED DOCTRINES.
DURING the temporary occupation of the pulpit of the First Presbyterian Church in this city, a few years ago, some of the young members of that church requested me to instruct a Bible-class, on Sabbath nights, in the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinistic faith. A large number were enrolled, and the understanding was that the members of the class would be entitled to a free interrogation of the instructor. Unexpectedly, from the very first, a large promiscuous congregation attended, and the liberty to ask questions was used by outsiders, the design appearing to be to start difficulties rather than to seek light, and to convert the exercise into a debate. To avoid this result, and to treat objections in a more logical and orderly manner than was possible in extemporized replies to the scattering fire of miscellaneous inquiries, resort ere-long was had to written lectures. Notwithstanding this change, the attendance and the interest suffered no abatement, but rather increased - a fact which seemed to militate against the common opinion that doctrinal discussions would prove dry and unacceptable to a popular audience. The lectures, which were prepared not without painstaking labor, suggested the production of a formal treatise on the subjects which had occupied all the available time-namely, Election and Reprobation, with special reference to the Evangelical Arminian theology. This was done, and a discussion of the doctrine of justification, in relation to that theology, was added.
Another reason which conduced to the preparation of this work was the conviction that there is room for it. A distinguished writer has remarked, that one who solicits the attention of the public by publishing a book should have something to say which had not been said before. This opinion, no doubt, needs qualification; but it applies, to some extent, in the present instance. The ground covered by the controversy between Calvinists and Evangelical Arminians has not been completely occupied. John Owen's "Display of Arminianism," and similar works of the Puritan period, antedated the rise of Evangelical Arminianism. Jonathan Edwards was a contemporary of John Wesley. Principal Hill's comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism had reference mainly to the Remonstrant system, as developed by Episcopius and Curcellaeus, Grotius and Limborch. The same is, in a measure, true of Principal Cunningham's comparative estimate of Calvinism and Arminianism in his Historical Theology. The comparative treatment of Calvinism 'and modern, Evangelical Arminianism, contained in works on Systematic Theology composed in recent times, are, however able, necessarily brief and somewhat meagre. Such works as those of Green, Annan and Fairchild hardly profess to be severely analytical or exhaustive of any one topic. Dr. N. T. Rice's "God Sovereign and Man Free," although a valuable discussion, is brief, and leaves much to be said even in regard to the question it handles. There seemed, therefore, to be room for further discussion concerning the relative merits of Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, and it is hoped that the present attempt will not be considered arrogant on the ground of being superfluous.
Still another incentive leading to the production of this volume has been furnished by the taunt ever and anon issuing from Arminian sources that "Calvinism is dying," and the sneering intimation of recent works-Dr. Miner Raymond's "Systematic Theology," for example-that but few people of sense now pretend to hold some of its peculiar and monstrous tenets. An honest indignation justifies the disproof of such contemptuous allegations; and, however inadequate may be the present defence of the venerable theology thus belittled, it is prompted by the profound conviction that the system known as Calvinism expresses the faith of martyrs, confessors and reformers, the faith in which the majority of Christ's true people have lived and died; that it is the truth of God ; and that, instead of dying, it is as immortal as that Inspired Word which liveth and abideth forever. If opponents deem it to be dying, and imagine that they can hasten its coveted dissolution, they will find its supposed dying-chamber an arena of vigorous contest, and its fancied death-bed a redoubt that neither they nor the powers of hell can carry by storm.
The work does not assume to cover the whole field of the controversy of which it treats, to discuss articulately all the distinctive views of the systems compared. It is its purpose to bring out their radical and controlling principles, in themselves and in their necessary connections, to confront them with each other, and to subject them to a searching examination.
I have endeavored to write in a calm and dispassionate temper, consistent with sincere, brotherly love to those of God's people from whose views I differ; and, in submitting the results of long reflection, embodied in this volume, to the judgment of candid readers, I...
Another reason which conduced to the preparation of this work was the conviction that there is room for it. A distinguished writer has remarked, that one who solicits the attention of the public by publishing a book should have something to say which had not been said before. This opinion, no doubt, needs qualification; but it applies, to some extent, in the present instance. The ground covered by the controversy between Calvinists and Evangelical Arminians has not been completely occupied. John Owen's "Display of Arminianism," and similar works of the Puritan period, antedated the rise of Evangelical Arminianism. Jonathan Edwards was a contemporary of John Wesley. Principal Hill's comparison of Calvinism and Arminianism had reference mainly to the Remonstrant system, as developed by Episcopius and Curcellaeus, Grotius and Limborch. The same is, in a measure, true of Principal Cunningham's comparative estimate of Calvinism and Arminianism in his Historical Theology. The comparative treatment of Calvinism 'and modern, Evangelical Arminianism, contained in works on Systematic Theology composed in recent times, are, however able, necessarily brief and somewhat meagre. Such works as those of Green, Annan and Fairchild hardly profess to be severely analytical or exhaustive of any one topic. Dr. N. T. Rice's "God Sovereign and Man Free," although a valuable discussion, is brief, and leaves much to be said even in regard to the question it handles. There seemed, therefore, to be room for further discussion concerning the relative merits of Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, and it is hoped that the present attempt will not be considered arrogant on the ground of being superfluous.
Still another incentive leading to the production of this volume has been furnished by the taunt ever and anon issuing from Arminian sources that "Calvinism is dying," and the sneering intimation of recent works-Dr. Miner Raymond's "Systematic Theology," for example-that but few people of sense now pretend to hold some of its peculiar and monstrous tenets. An honest indignation justifies the disproof of such contemptuous allegations; and, however inadequate may be the present defence of the venerable theology thus belittled, it is prompted by the profound conviction that the system known as Calvinism expresses the faith of martyrs, confessors and reformers, the faith in which the majority of Christ's true people have lived and died; that it is the truth of God ; and that, instead of dying, it is as immortal as that Inspired Word which liveth and abideth forever. If opponents deem it to be dying, and imagine that they can hasten its coveted dissolution, they will find its supposed dying-chamber an arena of vigorous contest, and its fancied death-bed a redoubt that neither they nor the powers of hell can carry by storm.
The work does not assume to cover the whole field of the controversy of which it treats, to discuss articulately all the distinctive views of the systems compared. It is its purpose to bring out their radical and controlling principles, in themselves and in their necessary connections, to confront them with each other, and to subject them to a searching examination.
I have endeavored to write in a calm and dispassionate temper, consistent with sincere, brotherly love to those of God's people from whose views I differ; and, in submitting the results of long reflection, embodied in this volume, to the judgment of candid readers, I...
- GenresTheology
Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1890
About the author
John Lafayette Girardeau
15 books4 followersJohn Lafayette Girardeau (14 November 1825 – 23 June 1898) was a Reformed theologian and minister in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. He is notable as a Calvinist defender of libertarianism, the teaching that people have free will to choose between alternatives, and that they could have chosen differently than they actually did, rather than a determinist or compatibilist view.
He was a professor of systematic theology at Columbia Theological Seminary in South Carolina.
He was a professor of systematic theology at Columbia Theological Seminary in South Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 23, 2018
It’s not necessarily that I even thought the book was bad - I didn’t. I even enjoyed myself through parts of it. But Giradeau’s style was just not for me and I was confused more often than not.
March 6, 2023
Best I've read on the subject. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is that there is some repetition that could have been eliminated. Essential for distinguishing between Calvinism and the mainstream Arminianism that is the default today.
August 14, 2017
Girardeau builds an irrefutable Scriptural case against every form of Arminianism.
Right at the outset, he highlights something that, I'm sure, swells this volume unnecessarily: which is the non-confessional nature of Arminianism. Calvinism is defined and explained in the Confessions of the Reformation. If you want to learn the “official” Reformed position on Election, Reprobation, the Atonement, Justification, etc., you can go to the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Larger and Shorter Catechsims, etc. If you want the “official” Arminian position on these doctrines: good luck. No confessional statements exist, and the leading proponents of Arminianism are all over the map – for this very reason. As a result, Girardeau has to take on each doctrinal point and refute Wesley, Fletcher, Pope, Raymond, Ralston, Watson, etc.
Another issue that, in my estimation, takes away from the force of the volume is his constant vindication of his Infralapsarianism against Supralapsarianism. I understand why he thinks he has to do so. He notes that the early Arminians geared their anti-Calvinist arguments against Supralapsarianism. True or not, it is beside the point. There is enough common ground in the overall scheme of doctrine between the Infra and Supra positions, that he would have been better employed decimating all Arminian cavils, not just the anti-Infra ones. If Infralapsarians want to avoid the accusation of making God the author of sin, they need another tack than distancing themselves from Supralapsarianism. If what Infralapsarianism teaches is correct, namely that God is free from eternity to create or not to create, and that he created knowing with infallible certainty (decreeing that man should fall), then God should not have created. Thus we see that the Infralapsarians do not escape the reproach of those who want to say that God is the cause of perdition of man and the author of sin. Berkhoff said it best: “Infralapsarianism really wants to explain reprobation as an act of God’s justice. It is inclined to deny either explicitly or implicitly that it as an act of mere good pleasure of God. This really makes the decree of reprobation a conditional decree and leads into the Arminian fold. But infralapsarians on the whole do not want to teach a conditional decree, and express themselves guardedly on this matter. Some of them admit that it is a mistake to consider reprobation purely as an act of divine justice. And this is perfectly correct. Sin is not the ultimate cause of reprobation any more then faith and good works are the cause of election, for all men are by nature dead in sin and trespasses. When confronted with the problem of reprobation, infralapsarians, too, can find the answer only in the good pleasure of God. Their language may sound more tender than that of the Supralapsarians, but is also more apt to be misunderstood, and after all proves to convey the same idea”
I said all that to say this: Girardeau spends an inordinate amount of time defending his Infralapsarianism against Supralapsarianism. This is absolutely unnecessary. His opponent couldn't care less which view one takes. In fact, at the Synod of Dordt, Arminians purposely stirred this very pot in order to deflect attention from themselves.
The strength of Girardeau's book is his treatment of the doctrine of Justification. It is interesting to see the case he builds for the Reformed doctrine, especially in light of the current controversies about this subject in Reformed and Presbyterian circles today. There is absolutely no doubt that he would class all of the New Perspective and Federal Vision folk squarely in the Arminian camp.
Girardeau has an incredible talent for stacking proof upon proof to show that the Arminian position is not only illogical, self-refuting, and internally inconsistent with itself, but (more important that all this combined) completely and utterly unscriptural.
This is a volume all Reformed ministers should have. It can serve as a resource for the most representative Arminian arguments, and the strongest Scriptural refutations of them.
Right at the outset, he highlights something that, I'm sure, swells this volume unnecessarily: which is the non-confessional nature of Arminianism. Calvinism is defined and explained in the Confessions of the Reformation. If you want to learn the “official” Reformed position on Election, Reprobation, the Atonement, Justification, etc., you can go to the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Larger and Shorter Catechsims, etc. If you want the “official” Arminian position on these doctrines: good luck. No confessional statements exist, and the leading proponents of Arminianism are all over the map – for this very reason. As a result, Girardeau has to take on each doctrinal point and refute Wesley, Fletcher, Pope, Raymond, Ralston, Watson, etc.
Another issue that, in my estimation, takes away from the force of the volume is his constant vindication of his Infralapsarianism against Supralapsarianism. I understand why he thinks he has to do so. He notes that the early Arminians geared their anti-Calvinist arguments against Supralapsarianism. True or not, it is beside the point. There is enough common ground in the overall scheme of doctrine between the Infra and Supra positions, that he would have been better employed decimating all Arminian cavils, not just the anti-Infra ones. If Infralapsarians want to avoid the accusation of making God the author of sin, they need another tack than distancing themselves from Supralapsarianism. If what Infralapsarianism teaches is correct, namely that God is free from eternity to create or not to create, and that he created knowing with infallible certainty (decreeing that man should fall), then God should not have created. Thus we see that the Infralapsarians do not escape the reproach of those who want to say that God is the cause of perdition of man and the author of sin. Berkhoff said it best: “Infralapsarianism really wants to explain reprobation as an act of God’s justice. It is inclined to deny either explicitly or implicitly that it as an act of mere good pleasure of God. This really makes the decree of reprobation a conditional decree and leads into the Arminian fold. But infralapsarians on the whole do not want to teach a conditional decree, and express themselves guardedly on this matter. Some of them admit that it is a mistake to consider reprobation purely as an act of divine justice. And this is perfectly correct. Sin is not the ultimate cause of reprobation any more then faith and good works are the cause of election, for all men are by nature dead in sin and trespasses. When confronted with the problem of reprobation, infralapsarians, too, can find the answer only in the good pleasure of God. Their language may sound more tender than that of the Supralapsarians, but is also more apt to be misunderstood, and after all proves to convey the same idea”
I said all that to say this: Girardeau spends an inordinate amount of time defending his Infralapsarianism against Supralapsarianism. This is absolutely unnecessary. His opponent couldn't care less which view one takes. In fact, at the Synod of Dordt, Arminians purposely stirred this very pot in order to deflect attention from themselves.
The strength of Girardeau's book is his treatment of the doctrine of Justification. It is interesting to see the case he builds for the Reformed doctrine, especially in light of the current controversies about this subject in Reformed and Presbyterian circles today. There is absolutely no doubt that he would class all of the New Perspective and Federal Vision folk squarely in the Arminian camp.
Girardeau has an incredible talent for stacking proof upon proof to show that the Arminian position is not only illogical, self-refuting, and internally inconsistent with itself, but (more important that all this combined) completely and utterly unscriptural.
This is a volume all Reformed ministers should have. It can serve as a resource for the most representative Arminian arguments, and the strongest Scriptural refutations of them.
December 19, 2012
Ehhh. Overall, from the Southern Presbyterian tradition, this is a great presentation of their understanding of Calvinism (and the weaknesses of anyone who is not), but I found it to be somewhat uncharitable and to make a lot of leaps that were necessary. Girardeau on Federal Theology is better... but this is a standard text from the American Calvinistic tradition.
March 19, 2013
Girardeau is in many ways the brightest light of the major Southern Presbyterian authors and for whatever reason is the least well-known of the the big 4 of Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer, and himself. This refutation of Wesleyanism is a must read especially in our day. The things Girardeau notes in this work about "Evangelical Arminianism" are prevalent in our own Presbyterian circles.
January 12, 2015
Though a fairly long read (574 pages) and a bit academic (dry), non-the-less I recommend this one. The author does a great job of comparing and contrasting these two doctrines in light of what the Bible says, he also follows the two doctrines to their logical (or illogical) conclusion.
April 13, 2009
Very good.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews