To say that Pelagianism is heresy, is to stand in the broadest stream of the Western Church. It is not a narrow, bigoted position, at least not as seen from the perspective of the historic Western Christian tradition. [R. Scott Clark, Pelagianism, http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Pelagius.htm]

Pelagius (380--410)

Although the controversy over election and predestination bears the names of Calvin and Arminius, it began in Egypt over a thousand years before either of them.  A British monk in Carthage took issue with a statement Augustine had written in his Confessions in 397: 

"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." 

Pelagius apparently had been promoting withdrawing from the world as a means to righteousness [Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul vol. 3].  He figured that since God demands our absolute obedience, it's only logical we must also have been given the capability to obey.  Morally responsible men must possess the moral ability to do so [R. C. Sproul, Augustine and Pelagius, http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html].

This idea directly attacked the Church's basic doctrine of original sin--that man is born with a sin nature because Adam sinned and we inherited his fallen nature.  Pelagius argued that Adam's sin must have only affected Adam; therefore, newborn infants are sinless--just like Adam before the Fall.  Since mankind is not inherently sinful there's no compelling necessity of God's grace in salvation.  Grace certainly helps, Pelagius believed, but isn't really necessary.  Man actually can achieve righteousness without God's help because man's nature is indestructively good [R. C. Sproul, Augustine and Pelagius, http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html].  At best, thought Pelagius, God's grace brings out our own natural abilities.  [R. Scott Clark, Pelagianism, http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Pelagius.htm]

Unsurprisingly, Pelagius was excommunicated for this hearsay.  His doctrine was condemned by four regional councils, one ecumenical council, and at least one Roman Catholic council:

Later, the doctrine was almost universally condemned by Protestants too:

Aurelius Augustine (354--430)

As early as 396, Augustine had been teaching that all mankind was a massa peccati (lump of sin)--the doctrine of Total Depravity, or Total Inability.  In Confessions he reasoned that all humans are born sinful because all humans were "in Adam" when Adam sinned.  His famous formula--posse peccare, posse non peccare, non posse, non peccare (possible to sin and possible to not sin before the fall; not possible to not sin after the fall)--was the historical position of the orthodox Christian Church.  This total inability to not sin, according to Augustine, requires God's prevenient grace (external grace which acts first) because all humans [by their very nature] are totally incapable of willing to choose to believe. 

Augustine believed fallen man had a liberium arbitrium (free will), but because of Adam's sin mankind had lost all moral libertas (liberty).  Therefore, fallen man was unable to refrain from sinning--but still completely able to choose anything he desires.   A modern theologian would mean the same thing in saying that although man has will to choose, his will isn't free and his choices are limited--because man is bound by his own fallen nature.  In such a situation, fallen man would never desire the righteousness required by God, and could never--of his own will--choose to be saved. 

Just as God is bound by his intrinsic nature to desire only righteousness and justice, mankind is likewise bound by his own sinful nature to desire only unrighteousness.  Augustine argued that whatever freedom remained within fallen man always leads to sin.  That's why he had written, "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire."  Natural (fallen) man is incapable within himself of fulfilling--or even wanting to fulfill--God's commands.  Therefore, God must empower him to do so. 

Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace. [R. C. Sproul, Augustine and Pelagius, http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html]

Augustine responded to Pelagius' attack in 412.  He based his rebuttal on the Scriptural statements of the fallen nature of mankind particularly found in Romans.  He established the fairness of God's punishment because "in Adam" all sinned!  Since mankind cannot exercise any moral will--being spiritually dead--God's grace must be both necessary and unmerited:

[R. Scott Clark, Pelagianism, http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Pelagius.htm]

In 415 Augustine wrote On Nature and Grace, Against Pelagius; in 426 he expounded his ideas further in A Treatise on Grace and Free Will:

When God says, "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,"62 one of these clauses-that which invites our return to God-evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. Here, possibly, the Pelagians think they have a justification for their opinion which they so prominently advance, that God's grace is given according to our merits. In the East, indeed, that is to say, in the province of Palestine, in which is the city of Jerusalem, Pelagius, when examined in person by the bishop,63 did not venture to affirm this. For it happened that among the objections which were brought up against him, this in particular was objected, that he maintained that the grace of God was given according to our merits,-an opinion which was so diverse from catholic doctrine, and so hostile to the grace of Christ, that unless he had anathematized it, as laid to his charge, he himself must have been anathematized on its account. He pronounced, indeed, the required anathema upon the dogma, but how insincerely his later books plainly show; for in them he maintains absolutely no other opinion than that the grace of God is given according to our merits. Such passages do they collect out of the Scriptures,-like the one which I just now quoted, "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,"--as if it were owing to the merit of our turning to God that His grace were given us, wherein He Himself even turns unto us. Now the persons who hold this opinion fail to observe that, unless our turning to God were itself God's gift, it would not be said to Him in prayer, "Turn us again, O God of hosts;" and, "Thou, O God, wilt turn and quicken us;" and again, "Turn us, O God of our salvation," -with other passages of similar import, too numerous to mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says: "No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Johannes Cassian (365--433)

This contemporary of Augustine was educated in a monastery at Bethlehem, and later spent seven years living with hermits in Egypt.  Like Pelagius, Cassian was disillusioned with any possibility of attaining peace and safety within mainstream society, and founded two monasteries in Massilia.  He was essentially responsible for introducing Eastern monasticism in the Western Church. 

Cassian was educated in a theological system quite different from Western (Augustinian) theology.  Like Pelagius, he could not accept the doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace; however, his theological views were not so extreme as to place him in the same category as Pelagius.  Actually, he had opposed Pelagianism in such writings as De Incarnatione Libri VII.  But because he held a position somewhat between the historic Christian orthodox view and the Pelagian view Cassian is considered by church historians as founder of semi-Pelagianism [http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/cassian.html].

Semi-Pelagianists admit to to the fallen (sinful) nature of man.  However, they believe man still retains sufficient goodness within himself (while still in his unregenerate state) to willfully claim the grace and promises extended by God to all-men-without-exception.   In this view, grace not only facilitates virtue (as in the Pelagian view), it is also absolutely necessary (as in the Augustinian view).  Man's nature is not so immutable--as Pelagius stated--that it cannot be changed; it was changed by Adam's sin.  But, in Semi-Pelagianism man still retains moral ability which remains unaffected by the Fall. [R. C. Sproul, Augustine and Pelagius, http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html]  With this moral ability, and in conjunction with God's prompting, man can volitionally choose righteousness while yet a sinner. 

Council of Orange (529 A.D.)

The 25 Canons of Orange (relying heavily on Augustine) soundly repudiated both the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian doctrines.  If Augustine had poured the footings, the Canons of Orange laid the foundation which John Calvin would build on a thousand years later:

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism - if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6).

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. [THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE ]

It is ironic that having rejected both versions of Pelagianism as hearsay, the Roman Catholic Church later condemned Augustinianism as well!  They eventually returned to the semi-Pelagian doctrine of Cassian--where they remain today.  By retreating from their original position of salvation by God's grace alone they essentially assured themselves an eventual Protestant reformation.  Arminianism is basically the semi-Pelagian (Roman Catholic) view with a new name; Calvinism expresses the beliefs of the Protestant Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

The subjective principle of Protestantism is the doctrine of justification and salvation by faith in Christ; as distinct from the doctrine of justification by faith and works or salvation by grace and human merit. Luther's formula is sola fide. Calvin goes further back to God's eternal election, as the ultimate ground of salvation and comfort in life and in death. But Luther and Calvin meant substantially the same thing, and agree in the more general proposition of salvation by free grace through living faith in Christ (Acts 4:12), in opposition to any Pelagian or Semi-pelagian compromise which divides the work and merit between God and man. And this is the very soul of evangelical Protestantism. [Phillip Schaff, HISTORY OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY Volume VII, http://www.bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf144.htm]

"Free will, after the fall, even when doing the best it can, commits a mortal sin."--Martin Luther

All the Reformers were originally Augustinians at heart.  They believed in original sin, the total depravity/inability of man, and complete dependence upon the sovereignty of God.  They realized a totally depraved mankind could do nothing but fall on God's mercy for salvation.  Martin Luther, himself, was an Augustinian Monk.  He inferred from God's attributes of omnipotence and omniscience that all things happen "by necessity"--no autonomous freedom exists in creation because all mankind is bound by their own sin nature.  He illustrated this by comparing human will to a donkey or horse--like the beast of burden, the human will goes only where it's rider directs it.  For Luther, that rider must be either the Devil (for all fallen men) or God (for those God has redeemed):  "Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it." [Luther, De Servo Arbitrio, 1525]. 

 "The Scripture exhortations to repentance and holy living must not be understood seriously, but ironically, as if God would say to man: Only try to repent and to do good, and you will soon find out that you cannot do it" [Phillip Schaff, HISTORY OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY Volume VII, http://www.bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf144.htm].

He stated during the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518,

"Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin" and "The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty." [http://www.augustana.edu/religion/lutherproject/HEIDELBU/Heidelbergdisputation.htm].

Luther was such an outspoken advocate of salvation by God's mercy apart from any participation on man's part that he became a target of the well-known humanist-theologian of his time--Desiderus Erasmus.  Erasmus attacked Luther's Augustinianism in De Libero Artitrio (On Free Will) in 1524. Luther responded furiously with De Servo Arbitrio (On Enslaved Will) (Bainton 186-7).

God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, "Free-will" is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert "Free-will," must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them....

...all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He foresees and wills....

The will of God, nevertheless, which rules over our mutable will, is immutable and infallible; as Boëtius sings, "Immovable Thyself, Thou movement giv'st to all." And our own will, especially our corrupt will, cannot of itself do good....

If God wills any thing, that same thing must, of necessity be done; but it is not necessary that the thing done should be necessary: for God alone is necessary

...how can you be certain and secure, unless you are persuaded that He knows and wills certainly, infallibly, immutably, and necessarily, and will perform what He promises?

"Who (you say) will endeavour to amend his life?"—I answer, No man! no man can! For your self-amenders without the Spirit, God regardeth not, for they are hypocrites. But the Elect, and those that fear God, will be amended by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unamended....

"Who will believe (you say) that he is loved of God?"—I answer, no man will believe it! No man can! But the Elect shall believe it; the rest shall perish without believing it, filled with indignation and blaspheming, as you here describe them....

And as to your saying that—"by these doctrines the flood-gate of iniquity is thrown open unto men"—be it so. ...by the same doctrines, there is thrown open to the Elect and to them that fear God, a gate unto righteousness...

when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by any thing contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell; but it still goes on to desire, crave after, and love that which is good; even as before, it desired, craved after, and loved that which was evil.

In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led captives by him at his will, as Paul saith. (2 Tim. ii. 26.) So that, we cannot will any thing but that which he wills....

"Free-will," without the grace of God is, absolutely, not FREE; but, immutably, the servant and bond-slave of evil; because, it cannot turn itself unto good. This being determined, I will allow you to make the power of "Free-will," not only a certain small degree of power, but to make it evangelical if you will, or, if you can, to make it divine: provided that, you add to it this doleful appendage—that, without the grace of God, it is ineffective. Because, then you will at once take from it all power: for, what is ineffective power, but plainly, no power at all?

...we do all things from necessity, not from "Free-will:" seeing that, the power of "Free-will" is nothing, and neither does, nor can do good, without grace....

"Free-will," or the human heart, is so bound by the power of Satan, that, unless it be quickened up in a wonderful way by the Spirit of God, it cannot of itself see or hear those things which strike against the eyes and ears so manifestly, as to be as it were palpable by the hand? So great is the misery and blindness of the human race!

Wherefore this small part of the Disputation I conclude thus.—By the Scripture, as being obscure, nothing ever has hitherto, nor ever can be defined concerning "Free-will;" according to your own testimony. Moreover, nothing has ever been manifested in confirmation of "Free-will," in the lives of all the men from the beginning of the world; as we have proved above. To teach, then, a something which is neither described by one word within the Scriptures, nor evidenced by one fact without the Scriptures, is that, which does not belong to the doctrines of Christians, but to the very fables of Lucian. Except, however, that Lucian, as he amuses only with ludicrous stories from wit and policy) deceives and injures no one. But these friends of ours, in a matter of importance which concerns eternal salvation, madly trifle to the perdition of souls innumerable.

if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no "Free-will"—in man,—in angel,—or in any creature! [Luther, De Servo Arbitrio, 1525].

In terms even stronger than Augustine or Calvin, Luther categorically denied salvation originated or is completed outside God's sovereign will.  He never retreated from this position.  Twelve years afterwards he thought De Servo Arbitrio was one of his very best books. [Phillip Schaff, HISTORY OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY Volume VII, http://www.bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf144.htm]

Desiderus Erasmus (1466–1536)

During those critical years of the Reformation in Germany (517--1521) Erasmus lived in Louvain maintaining a tremendous volume of correspondence with parties on both sides of the dispute.  Erasmus was both highly educated and well-traveled--having lived in England, France, Germany, Belgium, and other places within Europe.  He was quite the cosmopolitan man for the 16th century, and he tried to maintain the aloofness required of a man owing allegiance to no country or king.  He was a key figure among the humanists of his day, and both the Catholics and Protestants sought his endorsement (he honestly tried to remain neutral).  Eventually, however, he was pressured by the Roman Catholics to attack Martin Luther on the doctrine of Justification by Faith.  In 1524 Erasmus vollied with De Libero Artitrio (On Free Will).  [Who's Who In Christian History - Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. - J. D. DOUGLAS http://www.tlogical.net  Copyright 2003 © John M. Fritzius]

Erasmus premised that salvation was based on deeds of love.  He defended free will by arguing that human moral action would have no meaning if Luther's doctrine of justification by grace alone--and its implicit belief in predestination--were true.  [David W. Koeller,1996-1999,. dkoeller@northpark.edu].  He concluded that anyone denying man's freedom of the will would make God responsible for sin--this would be inconsistent with God's righteousness and goodness.  He reasoned the very demands of God upon mankind assumed man's freedom to choose!  He defined religious "freedom" as the power to receive or reject eternal salvation [The Free Will Controversy, http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hte99.shtml].

Erasmus obviously relied on exactly the same argument Pelagius used a thousand years earlier, and the same argument modern Semi-Pelagians would argue 500 years later!   

He is truly a theologian who teaches not with syllogisms and contorted arguments, but with compassion in his eyes and his whole countenance, who teaches indeed by the examples of his own life that riches are to be despised, that the Christian man must not put his faith in the defenses of this world, but depend entirely upon heaven--Erasmus

John Calvin (1509-1564)

"French theologian ...was, after Martin Luther, the guiding spirit of the Protestant Reformation. If Luther sounded the trumpet for reform, Calvin orchestrated the score by which the Reformation became a part of Western civilization" [Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, John Calvin].  

Calvin was eight years old in 1517 when Martin Luther tacked his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg door.  He wasn't even a Christian when Luther and Erasmus were debating salvation.  He was saved sometime between 1526--1531 and studied Law, Literature, and Theology in Paris--receiving a master of arts degree in 1528.  He left France in 1535 because of religious persecution and moved to Switzerland. 

In 1536 Calvin published a small tract --Institutes of the Christian Religion.  The primary purpose of this writing was to defend persecuted Protestants in France: 

"First, to vindicate from undeserved insult my brethren whose death was precious in the sight of the Lord, and secondly, since the same sufferings threatened many pitiable men, that some sorrow and care for these should move foreign peoples." [McNeill, Calvin, John]

This short work detailed Calvin's view of election and predestination based upon the Augustinian view of human sinfulness and God's sovereign mercy.  He continued revising and expanding this throughout his lifetime; his first edition contained only six brief sections--but by 1559 it had grown to 79 full chapters! 

Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of piety, dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils, especially by those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain, that both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as dependent on the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before His eyes, so that to His knowledge nothing in future or past, but all things are present; and present in such a manner, that He does not merely conceive of them from ideas formed in His mind, as things remembered by us appear present to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually placed before Him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world, and to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself what would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death. [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Paul Halsall June 1998, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predest.html].

In 1538 Calvin was expelled from Geneva in the midst of religious and political turmoil, but returned in 1541 after things had settled down.  He helped write the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of November 1541 creating a code of rules for behavior in Geneva, and a body of governing ministers and city elders (the consistory) which held court weekly to enforce discipline.  Discipline in Geneva was severe, but evenly applied to all citizens regardless of rank and social standing.  Crimes of gambling, drunkenness, dancing--even singing "frivolous" songs--evoked strict penalties.  However, the more serious infractions were handled by the city council.  Although Calvin became, over time, the unofficially acknowledged leader of the Geneva church it is important to remember that Calvin NEVER held any official capacity on either the consistory or the city council. 

"During the next 14 years his reforms met stiff resistance. Some Genevans then, and many critics later, considered Calvin's morality absurdly severe, with its banning of plays and its attempt to introduce religious pamphlets and psalm singing into Geneva's taverns. ...Finally, the libertines blundered in 1553 by offering backhanded support to the heretic Michael Servetus. Servetus was condemned to death by burning, and by 1555 the city belonged to Calvin." [Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, John Calvin].  

 ...One heretic, the renowned Spanish anti-Trinitarian, Michael Servetus, was burned at the stake (1553). He had clashed with Calvin long before, written against him, and engaged in controversial correspondence with him. He came to Geneva when Calvin's position seemed weak. Calvin had indicated earlier that if Servetus should come there he would do what he could to prevent his getting away alive. Servetus was brought to trial, during which Calvin sought the penalty of death by the sword rather than the flames; the council, however, ruled otherwise. ...There was perhaps no spot in Europe where Servetus would have been safe, yet Calvin's reputation justly suffers from his part in the affair." [Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, John Calvin].  

One black mark on Calvin's otherwise exemplary character was his part in the execution of Michael Servetus.  Servetus was a former Roman Catholic turned heretic who denied both the trinity, and the deity of Jesus.  By most accounts he was argumentative, confrontational, anti-Christian, and a hunted man in Spain, France, and other countries before arriving in Geneva.  Calvin served as the "expert witness" at the trial which convicted and executed Servetus for heresy. 

Present-day critics wrongfully accuse Calvin of executing Servetus for disagreeing with Calvin's doctrine of Predestination, but Servetus was convicted--by the council, not Calvin--for being the heretic he was.  Heresy carried the death penalty in many countries at that time (and for many years afterwards)--any one of which would have been glad to execute Servetus!  While by present standards the punishment seems overly harsh, that was the law in the 1500's.  Perhaps in another 500 years scholars will look back at our murder of unborn babies with the same repulsion.

Divisions Within Calvinism

Calvin generally taught what is called double predestination, while urging "we ought to be humble and modest in the treatment of this profound mystery," and learn "reverence for the majesty of God" [Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, John Calvin].  This doctrine, as the name implies, was that God not only specifically predestined some souls to be saved, but that in doing so he also specifically predestined all the rest to be damned.  (This is probably most clearly seen in Romans 9.)

But predestination has several versions--all of which tend to be grouped together under the general heading, "Calvinism" even though the roots of this doctrine proceed Calvin by at least a thousand years. Another form of predestination says God predestined some to be saved, but does not commit to specifically predestining the remainder to hell--God just allows them to continue on their merry way and, of course, that's where they end up.  (That would be like the illustration from my pastor friend above.)

Another schism broke out within "Calvinism" over the actual timing of God's election. When did God actually do the deciding on who would be saved?  Did God chose before Adam sinned (supralapsarian, "before the fall"), then permit that fall as a means of fulfilling his decree?  Or, did God elect afterward that some of his fallen creatures should be saved (infralapsarian, "after the fall")--in which case the fall was NOT part of his plan.  Theodorus Beza (a good friend to Calvin who succeeded Calvin in Geneva upon his death) represented the supralapsarian doctrine--that election occurred prior to man's creation and fall; therefore, the fall was necessary to fulfill God's prior decree of election.   However the prevailing view among many Calvinists of that time was infralapsarianism as proposed by Francois Turretin (1623-1687)--that creation and the fall came first, then God chose whom from the fallen he would save [Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, John Calvin] (like my Pastor friend's illustration of picking children to be adopted after the wife divorced him).  Most of Calvin's writings reflect the supralapsarian bias, but sometimes he seems to lapse into the infralapsarian view--so it's hard to classify exactly which view Calvin himself held.

The Belgic Confession (1561)

This confession's primary author was Guido de Bräs, a preacher of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, who was later martyred in 1567.  Bräs used the confession of the Reformed churches in France (written primarily by John Calvin and published in 1559), but the Belgic Confession was not simply a revision of Calvin's earlier work, but an independent work.  This text was revised in 1566 at a synod in Antwerp, and revised again (text only, not content) at the Synod of Dort in 1618-19.  The translation I've referenced is based on the French text of 1619, and can be read in it's entirety at Reformed Network Library.

Article 1: The Only God
Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God
Article 3: The Written Word of God
Article 4: The Canonical Books
Article 5: The Authority of Scripture
Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books
Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture
Article 8: The Trinity
Article 9: The Scriptural Witness on the Trinity
Article 10: The Deity of Christ
Article 11: The Deity of the Holy Spirit
Article 12: The Creation of All Things
Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs....

...nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.

...he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

Matt. 10:29-30

Article 14: The Creation and Fall of Man
Article 15: The Doctrine of Original Sin

...by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.

It is a corruption of all nature--an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring.

Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy-- not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the "body of this death."^30

Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is nothing else than a matter of imitation.

^30 Rom. 7:24

Article 16: The Doctrine of Election

...Adam's descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just.

He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. 

He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.

Article 17: The Recovery of Fallen Man
Article 18: The Incarnation
Article 19: The Two Natures of Christ
Article 20: The Justice and Mercy of God in Christ
Article 21: The Atonement
Article 22: The Righteousness of Faith
Article 23: The Justification of Sinners
Article 24: The Sanctification of Sinners
Article 25: The Fulfillment of the Law
Article 26: The Intercession of Christ
Article 27: The Holy Catholic Church
Article 28: The Obligations of Church Members
Article 29: The Marks of the True Church
Article 30: The Government of the Church
Article 31: The Officers of the Church
Article 32: The Order and Discipline of the Church
Article 33: The Sacraments
Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism
Article 35: The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
Article 36: The Civil Government
Article 37: The Last Judgment

[Reformed Network Library]

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)

One year before the Belgic Confession, and four years before John Calvin died, Jacobus Arminius was born.  Arminius grew up a devout Calvinist in a stanchly Calvinistic Holland which had suffered horrendous religious persecution.  Arminius moved to Geneva where he studied under Theodorus Beza to become excellent scholar.  When Dirk Koornhert wrote a paper attacking Bezra's supralapsarian teaching Arminius was asked to prepare a formal rebuttal.  Unfortunately for Bezra, Arminius--rather than refute Koornhert's arguments--began disbelieving the supralapsarian position!  while not rejecting predestination completely, Arminius decided predestination  was not unconditional.  Rather, he believed election must be based upon God's foreknowledge of man's future faith--in effect, Conditional Election. 

This is a very important distinction.  Arminius did not disagree with predestination per se; he only disagreed about the basis of such an election.  He reached the same conclusions that Erasmus and Cassian before him had reached!  As one studies Calvinism vs. Arminianism the difference is NOT whether there is, in fact, election/predestination--ALL agree on that point.  The dispute arises over the "first cause" of God's decision to save particular individuals--Did God choose first--then cause those he chose to chose him (unconditional)?  Or, did God's foreseeing who would willingly choose him cause him to then save them (conditional)?  Each position has far-reaching ramifications.

Arminian Articles of Remonstrance (1610)

After his death, Arminius' views were popularized and systematized by Simon Episcopius and Jan Uytenbogaert.  In 1610 these were formally presented in five articles called Articles of Remonstrance. 

Article 1 That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2 That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3 That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4 That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can nei­ther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; in as much as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and else­where in many places.

Article 5 That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un­derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv­ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be­coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.  [Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3]

The publishing of these five Articles by men who had publicly affirmed the Belgic Confession, and who held positions of authority within the Church, required a response.  The Reformed Church responded in the Synod of Dort eight years later.

The Synod of Dort (1618-1619)

This synod was convened (after considerable political maneuvering) to resolve the Arminian "controversy" with participants from the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Germany, and Switzerland.  It lasted seven months and failed miserably.  If the Arminians had actually expected an objective forum to present and debate their case they were sadly mistaken; the synod was essentially a tribunal.  After much shouting and arguing the Arminian representatives were condemned, kicked out of the meetings, and their beliefs unanimously rejected.  The only real good to come from these meetings was the formalization of the Canons of Dort (better known as the "5 points of Calvinism") written to refute each of the five points of the Arminian Articles of Remonstrance--and which we today remember by the acronym TULIP--

Total depravity,

Unconditional election,

Limited atonement,

Irresistible grace, and

Perseverance of the saints.

The Synod of Dort, agreed with Augustine that election is the "unchangeable purpose of God whereby He chose some to salvation before the foundation of the world."  The Synod stopped decidedly short, however, of specifically endorsing supralapsarianism.

Westminster Confession (1646)

The ideas first presented by Augustine around 396, which had been endorsed at the Council of Orange in 529 and further articulated by Martin LUther in 1525, John Calvin in 1536, the Belgic Confession in 1561, and the Synod of Dort in 1619 were further refined and restated in the Westminster Confession of 1646:

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death.

These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Whereby they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.^" [www.crta.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/]  

Cambridge Declaration (1996)

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God's grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

THESIS THREE: SOLA GRATIA

We  reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods,techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature. [Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, http://www.alliancenet.org/.]