Calvinism and early Brethren Movement - Reply to Johnson C. Philip (Part 2)

 Part 1

Johnson C. Philip in his book has repeatedly stated that the Doctrines of Grace (called Calvinism) was an alien doctrine to early Brethren and it crept into the assembly during 1960s.[1] But this claim is false. Many (almost all) early Brethren were Calvinists. "At the level of theology," says Brethren historian H. H. Rowdon, "the earliest Brethren were Calvinists to a man."[2] This is echoed by one of the earliest Brethren, J. G. Bellett, who was beginning his association with the Brethren when his brother George wrote, "for his views had become more decidedly Calvinistic, and the friends with whom he associated in Dublin were all, I believe without exception, of this school."[3] To establish this fact, we shall examine five prominent first generation Brethren leaders: John Nelson Darby, B. W. Newton, Anthony Norris Groves, J. G. Bellett, George Müller; and one second generation leader: C. H. Mackintosh.

J. N. Darby and Calvinism

John Howard Goddard observes that Darby "held to the predestination of individuals and that he rejected the Arminian scheme that God predestinated those whom he foreknew would be conformed to the image of Christ."[4] In his "Letter on Free-Will," it is clear that Darby rejects this notion.

“All men who have never been deeply convinced of sin, all persons with whom this conviction is based upon gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers. But this idea completely changes all the idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it…………. If Christ has come to save that which is lost, free-will has no longer any place. Not that God hinders man from receiving Christ—far from it. But even when God employs all possible motives, everything which is capable of influencing the heart of man, it only serves to demonstrate that man will have none of it, that his heart is so corrupted and his will so decided not to submit to God (whatever may be the truth of the devil’s encouraging him in sin), that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord and to abandon sin………….. If, by liberty of man, it is meant that no one obliges him to reject the Lord, this liberty exists fully. But if it is meant that, because of the dominion of sin to which he is a slave, and willingly a slave, he cannot escape from his state and choose good (while acknowledging that it is good, and approving it), then he has no liberty whatever. He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; so that those who are in the flesh cannot please God……….For myself, I see in the word, and I recognize in myself, the total ruin of man…… I believe we ought to hold to the word; but, philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory.”[5]

Because Darby held to “the bondage of the will”, he logically follows through with belief in sovereign grace as necessary for salvation.

“Such is the unfolding of this principle of sovereign grace, without which not one should would be saved, for none understand, none seek after God, not one of himself will come that he might have life. Judgment is according to works; salvation and glory are the fruit of grace.”[6]

Further evidence of Darby's Calvinism is that on at least two occasions he was invited by non-dispensational Calvinists to defend Calvinism for them. One of Darby's biographers, W. G. Turner spoke of his defense at Oxford University:

“It was at a much earlier date (1831, I think) that F. W. Newman invited Mr. Darby to Oxford: a season memorable in a public way for his refutation of Dr. E. Burton's denial of the doctrines of grace, beyond doubt held by the Reformers, and asserted not only by Bucer, P. Martyr, and Bishop Jewell, but in Articles IX—XVIII of the Church of England.”[7]

On other occasion Darby was invited to the city of Calvin—Geneva, Switzerland—to defend Calvinism.[8] Darby was awarded a medal of honor by the leadership of Geneva.[9]

Still yet, when certain Reformed doctrines came under attack from within the Church in which he once served, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles"[10] on the subject of election and predestination.

“For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the views it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation. I believe therefore that those who are endued with so excellent a gift of God, are called according to His purpose working in due time; that they obey the calling through grace; that they are freely justified; that they are adopted to be children of God; that they are made conformed to the image of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ; that they do walk holily in good works; and that at length, through the mercy of God, they do attain to everlasting felicity.”[11]

Also, Darby did not believe that Christ bore, as a substitute, the sins of all people. He wrote,

“I can address all, and declare to them that this satisfaction [for sin] has been made… But I cannot say to all that Christ bore their sins, because the word does not say it anywhere. If He had borne their sins, they would certainly be justified.”[12] Darby explained how this impacted his preaching, “I can say to all, that propitiation has been presented to God. They have but to look there, and going to God by that blood they will be received; they have nothing to wait for. They will not go unless the Father draw them, but this is a matter of sovereign grace, with which I have nothing to do in my preaching—in my teaching, yes, but not in my address to unconverted souls.”[13]

It is reasonable to conclude that Darby was a strict Calvinist (a five point one) who saw a particularity in the atonement but did not share the hyper-Calvinist refusal of a universal gospel offer.

Benjamin Wills Newton and Calvinism

Even though B. W. Newton and Darby had differences with respect to their eschatological position, they shared a number of common doctrinal convictions, which included Calvinism.[14] When Newton had opportunity to speak to Darby privately, he put two questions to him that were evidently much debated at the time. The first was whether or not Darby would let the gospel be preached to sinners simply as sinners. Darby’s positive response assured Newton he was no hyper-Calvinist.[15] The second question related to the extent of the atonement and Newton was pleased that Darby did not ‘universalise the Atonement.’[16] This substantiates our previous assertion that Darby was a strict Calvinist.

That Newton also embraced a Calvinistic view of salvation is clear from several of his letters to his mother. For example, in a letter dated September 3, 1827, Newton reveals his predestinarian beliefs by quoting a sermon from the missionary Henry Martyn on the sovereignty of God in salvation.[17]  He was careful to reassure his mother that he had not fallen into extreme Calvinism (Hyper Calvinism). Further, Newton described his new faith as ‘the free unmerited gift of God.’ He asked, ‘Did I deserve the gift [of faith] more than others? No! in no wise. Freely then has he given it to me because it was his good pleasure, therefore he hath elected me to salvation.’[18]  Later he had added:

“Does any one ask me ‘Are you saved?’ I answer ‘Yes.’ Does he enquire ‘Why?’ Because I believe on Jesus Christ, therefore I am regenerate, therefore I am sanctified… ‘Who gave you this belief?’ God, for ‘No one can come unto me except the Father draw him.’… ‘How do you know that you shall continue to the end?’ Because I keep not myself, but Christ keepeth me. Such is the doctrine which I find in the Bible. Such is the doctrine of Augustine, Luther, Ridley, Latimer and all those holy men who bled for their Holy Faith. Such is the doctrine of the inestimable Articles of our Church. But where is that doctrine now? Is is [sic] not become a laughing-stock for fools to scoff at? Nevertheless the counsel of God standeth sure…. No greater blessing do I ask than that I may, in the midst of this crooked and perverse generation be endued with grace to hold up the standard of Gospel Truth.”[19]

He also quoted approvingly John Newton, “‘If any persons have contributed a mite toward their own salvation, it was more than we can do… We needed sovereign irresistible grace to save us or we had been lost for ever.’”[20] Clearly then Newton was a strict Calvinist.

 

Anthony Norris Groves and Calvinism

Like other early Brethren, Groves was also a strict Calvinist.[21] He distanced himself from the antinomianism of Hyper-Calvinism.[22] Yet to reassure his friend that he had not abandoned Calvinism, Groves went on to add:

“Do you think your old friend is from a superlapsarian [sic] Calvinist become an Armenian [sic]? believe it not; the doctrines of grace, in all their fullness, freeness, and particularity, were never dearer to me than now”[23]

The modern Brethren movement was introduced into India (in 1833) by Anthony Norris Groves.

John G. Bellett and Calvinism

Another important leader from the earliest days of the Brethren was John Gifford Bellett (1795-1864). Bellett’s brother George spoke of differing with John in the 1820s over doctrinal points. George wrote, ‘his views had become more decidedly Calvinistic, and the friends with whom he associated in Dublin were all, I believe, without exception, of this school.’[24]

Proof of John Bellett’s Calvinistic views may be illustrated through two of his essays. The first, simply entitled ‘Man’ reveals his belief in total depravity and inability. Bellett repeatedly states that man ‘is incorrigible and incurable’.[25] He further writes:

“It has been said, ‘Man is prone to evil, and this arises from the impotency of the will, which, when it turns to evil, is rather passive than active. Through the grace of Christ alone is it free.’ Very just…Man has shown himself to be in full bondage to sin, so that he will go in the way of it, in defiance of every argument and every influence which may be used with him.”[26]

As a result of man’s bondage to sin, Bellett repeatedly insists that if there is to be any salvation, ‘sovereign grace and power must come in.’[27]

The second essay relevant to our topic is one simply entitled ‘Election’. It reveals Bellett’s Calvinistic views of predestination. Bellett argues that the doctrine of individual election to salvation is meant to be a source of joy and encouragement to the Christian. He writes:

“The truth of the divine foreknowledge of us, of God’s having elected us personally and predestinated us to most blessed destinies, is rather for the saint as he walks in uninterrupted grace before God. It is for the joy of his heart… For it tells us… that we were the subject of the divine counsels—when God was all alone—before the foundation of the world; before the activities, so to speak, of creation began, we were before His thoughts.”[28]

George Müller and Calvinism

In his autobiography, Müller relates how he came to embrace the doctrines of strict Calvinism and the positive affect they had on him. He writes:

“Before this period [when he came to accept Scripture alone as his standard of judgment] I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particular redemption, and final persevering grace. But now I was brought to examine these precious truths by the Word of God. Being made willing to have no glory of my own in the conversion of sinners, but to consider myself merely an instrument; and being made willing to receive what the Scriptures said, I went to the Word, reading the New Testament from the beginning, with a particular reference to these truths. To my great astonishment I found that the passages which speak decidedly for election and persevering grace, were about four times as many as those which speak apparently against these truths; and even those few, shortly after, when I had examined and understood them, served to confirm me in the above doctrines. As to the effect which my belief in these doctrines had on me, I am constrained to state for God’s glory, that though I am still exceedingly weak, and by no means so dead to the lusts of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, as I might be, and as I ought to be, yet, by the grace of God, I have walked more closely with Him since that period. My life has not been so variable, and I may say that I have lived much more for God than before.”[29]

C.H. Mackintosh and Calvinism

Charles Henry Mackintosh (1820-96) was a second-generation leader among the Brethren.

In terms of soteriology, Mackintosh was a strict Calvinist. Even though Mackintosh strongly rejected hyper-Calvinism, He believed in the five points of Calvinism as he said in his book: “we believe these five points, so far as they go.”[30]

 

References:

1.     Darby, J. N., The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten,   Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 3, 10.

2.     Stevenson, Mark R., EARLY BRETHREN LEADERS AND THE QUESTION OF CALVINISM, Brethren Historical Review 6: 2-33. (An abridged version of this paper was originally presented at the 2008 Doctoral Colloquium of the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit in Leuven, Belgium.)

3.     Ice, Thomas D., The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism, May 2009, Liberty University. (Article Archives, Pre-Trib Research Center).

Part 3

---

[1] Johnson C. Philip, Calvinism! (e-book), p.2, p.5

[2] Harold H. Rowdon, Who Are The Brethren and Does it Matter? (Exeter, England: The Paternoster Press, 1986), p. 35.

[3] George Bellett, Memoir of the Rev. George Bellett (London: J. Masters, 1889), pp. 41-42, cited in Max S. Weremchuk, John Nelson Darby (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1992), p. 237, f.n. 25.

[4] John Howard Goddard, "The Contribution of John Nelson Darby to Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology," (Th. D. Dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary, 1948), p. 85.

[5] J. N. Darby, "Letter on Free-Will," in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten,   Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 10, p. 185.

[6] J. N. Darby, "Notes on Romans," in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten, Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 26, pp. 107-08.

[7] W. G. Turner, John Nelson Darby: A Biography (London: C. A. Hammond, 1926), p. 45.

[8] Ibid., p. 58.

[9] Rowdon, Who Are The Brethren, pp. 205-07.

[10] John Howard Goddard, "The Contribution of Darby," p. 86.

[11] J. N. Darby, "The Doctrine of the Church of England at the Time of the Reformation," in The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby (Winschoten, Netherlands: H. L. Heijkoop, 1971), Vol. 3, p. 3.

[12] [Darby], Letters, vol.1, p.98.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Burnham, Story of Conflict, p.xv.

[15] Notes and Jottings from Various Meetings with J. N. Darby, 1 vol. edn (Kingston-on-Thames, n.d.), p.355.

[16] Fry MS, p.236.

[17] Ibid., p.109

[18] Ibid., pp.127-128

[19] Ibid., pp.143-144, dated 13 January, 1828.

[20] Ibid., p.150.

[21] ‘Coast of Malabar, Oct. 22nd, 1833’, Groves, Memoir, p.249.

[22] Ibid., p.250.

[23] Ibid., pp.250-251.

[24] George Bellett, Memoir of the Rev. George Bellett, M.A. (London, 1889), pp.41-42, cited in Max. S. Weremchuk, John Nelson Darby (Neptune, New Jersey, 1992), p.237 n.25. Weremchuk comments, ‘Darby was certainly one of the Dublin friends mentioned above.’

[25] J.G. Bellett, ‘Man’, in Miscellaneous Papers (London, n.d.), pp.104, 105, 107, 108.

[26] Ibid., pp.104-105

[27] Ibid., pp.107; cf. pp.104, 108.

[28] J.G. Bellett, Showers upon the Grass (London, 1865), p.103.

[29] Autobiography of George Müller, compiled by G. Fred Bergin (1905) rpt (Denton, Texas, 2003), pp.33-34.

[30] ‘One-sided theology’, in [Mackintosh], Miscellaneous Writings, vol.5, p.167.