IN HIS essay on "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity" (Calvin and Calvinism, p. 264ff.), B. B. Warfield points out that Arminians have usually held to a very low view of the Trinity. This in an interesting point. It runs counter to our usual modes of thought. Ordinarily we say that all evangelical Christians agree on the basic doctrines of Christianity. We are accustomed to think of the differences between evangelicals, such as Calvinists and Arminians, as coming in only when such doctrines as election and free will are discussed. It would then seem as though Arminians and Calvinists could build their theological house together except for the top story.
If, however, Warfield is right it may be necessary for us to revise our usual way of thinking on these matters. If it be true that Arminians have usually held a low view of the Trinity it would seem that Calvinists must build the whole of their theological house by themselves. Perhaps we have still to learn the simple truth that if we wish to build the third story of a house aright we must see that the first story and even the foundation is built aright.
The Reason Why
Now we shall not question the truthfulness of Warfield's statement that Arminianism and a low view of the Trinity have usually gone together. We believe he adduces sufficient evidence to prove his point. But we do wish to ask whether there is a reason for this.
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to note the starting-point from which Arminians begin their reasoning about any doctrine and, therefore, about the doctrine of the Trinity. That starting-point is the "free will" of man. Arminians hold that man can initiate action independently of the plan or counsel of God. God must wait to see what man will do before He can make up His mind as to what He will do.
This being the starting-point of Arminianism, the whole of its theology becomes a theology of claims and counter-claims. The claims and counter-claims are made, to be sure, by an infinite God and finite man. Accordingly, God will no doubt have larger claims than man. Yet God will never have more original claims than man.
If Rockefeller wants to buy up a large area of ground, one acre of which is owned by me, I may frustrate his plans by simply refusing to sell him the one lonely acre I own. It is in some such way as this that the God of Arminianism can never quite do what He wants to do. He is at every point dependent upon man and the created universe.
This last sentence will seem to some to be an overstatement of the case. Even some who hold the Reformed system of doctrine may think that I am at this point too hard on the Arminians. "Do not Arminians hold to the creation doctrine?" they will ask. And is not God absolutely original when He creates man, even according to the Arminian? How could anyone hold to the creation doctrine and at the same time hold that God was at that point dependent on man? Surely you are unfair to the Arminian at this point. You cannot fairly say that the Arminian teaches error at every point of doctrine.
Arminianism and the Creation Doctrine
In the book under review we have an illustration of the fact that when an Arminian thinks consistently he virtually denies the creation doctrine. No, the creation doctrine is not openly denied. Quite the contrary is true. Yet it might just as well have been openly denied. What is openly denied is the conception of a God who existed as a self-sufficient being apart from the universe. And what is openly affirmed is that God needed the universe which He created. We quote Dr. Bartlett's words on this:
"Are we not warranted in thinking of creation—which IS not static and complete, but dynamic and continuous—as the self-giving of God as energy? Whether the physical universe is eternal or temporal iS a debatable question which we are not competent to solve. But it is at least conceivable that just as the physical life of man requires a body to indwell and animate, God as infinite energy may demand an eternal material universe as the only adequate field for His infinite physical creativity. The principle of reciprocal self-fulfillment through self-surrender on the part of both the infinite. and the finite, to which we have previously alluded, may indicate that just as the finite requires the infinite as its ground of existence, so the infinite requires the finite as a field of expression” (p. 153).
The quotation we have given expresses the sentiment of the book throughout. There is a constant emphasis on the essential correlativity between God and His created universe. According to Dr. Bartlett, the universe not only needs God for its existence but God needs the universe for His existence.
Arminianism and Sin
We do not need to be surprised therefore that when an Arminian argues consistently he will virtuaIly deny the Biblical doctrine of sin as he virtualIy denies the Biblical doctrine of creation. We again quote Dr. Bartlett:
"Let us again pick up our favorite thread of reasoning from the human to the divine. Crises rouse the best within us. We do not really know what we can do until we are driven to the wall. Necessity wakens buried and unsuspected potentialities. Within the very essence of Deity may there not exist an analogous something subconsciously requiring a universe abounding in obstacles that nothing short of the exercise of His infinite powers can overcome and bring into line with His holy purposes? If this be so it has a most intimate bearing upon the existence of evil in a world subject to His rule” (p. 117).
On the following page, still speaking of God, the author continues this line of thought in these words:
"His subconscious perfections flower out into conscious self-recognition through the activities involved in the shaping of more or less refractory material into an ever closer resemblance to the divine original" (p, 118).
The Trinity
It would seem apparent from these quotations, which are but fair expressions of the thought of the book, that we face here a very serious compromise of Christianity with non-Christian thought. Scripture is sufficiently plain in its teaching of God’s free creation of the universe. God did not need man or the universe. It is hard to conceive of a doctrine that has more far-reaching consequences than the doctrine of God's free creation of the universe and man in the universe. It is the first main mark of distinction between pagan and Christian thought. If one believes in a God who needs the universe one has no more than a finite God. Dr. Bartlett does not wish to have a finite God. Yet a finite God is all he makes provision for in his theology.
As to the doctrine of the Trinity, which is the particular doctrine discussed in the book now under review, we believe it to be basically erroneous. There are no doubt many fine passages in the book which, if taken by themselves, are true. But the value of the discussion of the Trinity is vitiated by the principle that God needs the universe. A truly Biblical discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity would require that we consider first what God is in Himself. Theologians speak of this as the ontological Trinity. It is only after we have discussed the Trinity as it exists in and for itself that we can turn to the question of how the trinitarian God stands in relation to the universe which He has freely created. This theologians speak of as the economical Trinity. Dr. Bartlett has failed to make the necessary distinction between these two.
Arminian Reasoning
Dr. Bartlett would probably object to this interpretation of his views by saying that he has merely reasoned from the human to the divine and that no one can do anything else. He might say that he has merely used "the lamp of analogy" (p. 95). To this we would reply that if the "lamp of analogy" be placed under the bushel of correlativity it will shed no light. The author's Arminianism requires him to think of God as dependent upon man much as man is dependent upon God. But this makes for an identity of conditions that control God and man. Arminianism snuffs out the lamp of analogy. For that reason it is unsound in its every doctrine and not merely on the doctrine of election and free will. There is a good logical reason why, as Warfield points out, Arminians have historically held to a low view of the Trinity. It is the basic error in their mode of reasoning that accounts for all the errors they hold. We would that our Arminian brethren might see the error of their way and turn from it. It is in the hope of winning them to a more truly Biblical view that we must point out the seriousness of their mistake.