Topic:   Theology

Type:   Article

Author:   A. Allison Lewis



Almost everyone knows a little about John Wesley and Methodism. They also hear the term Arminianism applied to Methodism, yet few know anything of the man and his teachings from whom the term Arminianism comes. Many or most people have heard Arminianism strongly condemned. For instance Richard C. Weeks in criticizing the unscriptural Billy Graham Crusade of Chicago in 1962 says about the reason given to justify the compromise that:

This is theology again gone Arminian and experience-centered. This is the establishment of truth on an emotional level. This is the same pathetic position that made Arminian Methodism one of the easy preys for Modernism at the turn of the century. This was also to say, as long as it works and is big and "successful", it must be of God. Here is pragmatism in full-flower operating in religion [Richard C. Weeks. Billy Graham’s Chicago Ecumenical Endeavor, p. 2].

This is harsh indeed. Is such criticism justified? The author of this paper must confess that in studying for this topic he has walked through two doors. For the most part it was a pleasure to read Arminius on the Scripture and his Declaration of Sentiments. On the other hand reading on sin and sinners, and the results of Arminianism was sad and frightening indeed.

In this paper a brief account of the life of Arminius, his teaching on several distinctive and important doctrines, and a review of Arminianism will be given. The review to be given will not be concerned so much with the spread of Arminianism as with the effects or tendency of Arminian rejection of Calvinism.


James Arminius, whose real family name was Herman, was born near Utrecht, Holland in 1560. His father died while he was an infant and his mother, brother, and sister were slain by the Spanish army in 1575 during the Dutch struggle with Spain.

He was very fortunate to receive a good education. A clergyman by the name of Aemilius helped him until he reached the age of fifteen. Arminius excelled in Latin and Greek. From here he went to Marburg in Hessia where he spent about a year. The next year he entered the newly founded University of Leyden where he remained for six years. Now at the age of twenty-two the city of Amsterdam saw great promise in this student; so they undertook to pay his expenses for more schooling provided that he would spend his life in service for that city. He went to Geneva where he studied under Beza, Calvin’s successor. Since he disagreed with some of their philosophy, he was forced to leave. Going next to Basle he studied one year and here turned down the degree of Doctor of Divinity. The conflict having subsided in Geneva (Arminius rejected Aristotle) he returned and continued to study for three years. Leaving Geneva Arminius traveled in Italy.

Arminius returned to Amsterdam in 1587 where he was licensed to preach the following year. Arminius began as a strict Calvinist. He studied under their leaders. It was soon after his return to Amsterdam that he changed his position. At Delft, Holland a man by the name of Coornhert began to oppose supralapsarian Calvinism on predestination and justification, and the punishment of heretics by death. Some Calvinists published a pamphlet defending their sublapsarian views against Coornhert. Arminius was then requested to refute the position of Coornhert. He ended instead by teaching the theological system which now goes by his name.

Arminius married Elizabeth Real in 1590. Of their nine children seven died in their youth.

After his ministry in Amsterdam from 1587 to 1603 with the permission of that city he went to the University of Leyden and became Professor of Divinity. Leyden gave him a Doctor of Divinity degree the same year. His teaching in Leyden soon aroused much opposition both in the University of Leyden and throughout Holland. For a long time he refused to make any defense. Finally he gave three public statements and arguments for his teachings. The first was in a letter to Hippolytus, Ambassador to Holland from the Elector of the Palatine, in 1608. His second defense was An Apology Against Thirty-one Articles. This second one was published in 1609. His third defense was made on October 30, 1608 before the States of Holland in a full assembly at the Hague. This third defense is called The Declaration of Sentiments.

A short time before his death in 1609 he became very sick. He died when yet a relatively young man of only forty-nine. His period of teaching lasted but five years, yet his influence has been felt by all of Protestantism. Sizable portions of Protestantism have followed Arminius’ general principles. The purpose of the following section will be to give a brief outline of Arminius on: The Scripture; the Deity of Christ; Predestination and Providence; Free-will, Grace and Perseverance, Justification and Sin, and conclude with the Five Arminian Articles of 1610.


On the Scripture.

To Arminius the Bible is the only authority for Christian doctrine and practice. The authority of the Bible, he says, depends upon its worthiness or truth. (One might pose the question, May not other books be true?) He writes:

The authority of Scripture is nothing else but [dignitas] the worthiness according to which it merits (1) [fidem] CREDENCE, as being true in words and true in significations, whether it simply declares anything, or else promises and threatens; and (2) as a superior, it merits OBEDIENCE through the credence given to it, when it either commands or prohibits anything [James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, I. p. 396].

If the Scripture is true it merits our obedience. He goes on to show that the truth of anything depends upon its author. This argument he beautifully states when he writes:

The authority of any word or writing whatsoever depends upon its author, as the word "authority" indicates; and it is just as great as the veracity and the power, that is, the auqeutia, of the author. But God is of infalliable veracity, and is neither capable of deceiving nor of being deceived; and of irrefragable power, that is, supreme over the creatures. If therefore, He is the Author of Scripture, its authority is totally dependent on Him alone [Ibid., p. 397].

He makes it clear that only the converted, those who desire to do the will of God, will accept the Scriptures. To the unconverted these things are a stumbling-block and foolishness. He goes on then to say that there are three things which render evident to men the authority of the Scripture. (1) The external testimony of men, (2) The arguments contained in the Scriptures themselves, and (3) The internal witness of God. The first one deals with the testimony of men’s lives changed by the Scripture. The second concerns the perfect agreement of Scripture with Scripture. The last one is the persuasion by God by the witness of the Holy Spirit in the individual.

In his disputation, On the Sufficiency and Perfection of the Holy Scriptures in Opposition to Traditions, he says:

But with this expression we understand a relative Perfection, which, for the sake of a particular purpose, agrees with the Scriptures as with an instrument, and according to which they perfectly comprehend all things that have been, are now, or ever will be necessary for the salvation of the Church [Ibid., p. 411].

His view of the Scriptures seems to be weak on this point. He makes much use of the term "sum or substance of the Law and Gospel." Is there an area in the Scripture not connected with this Law and Gospel? What is relative about the perfection of the Scriptures? It is difficult to follow his reasoning, keeping in mind his definition of authority and God’s power, yet he seems to teach that the "perfection" means that the doctrines necessary to salvation are plainly and perfectly presented in the Scriptures. He apparently leaves room for some things not so perfect in other parts of the Scripture. He emphasizes that nothing is to be added to the Bible or to be taken from it. His emphasis on the things "necessary to salvation" is clearly seen in his works where writes:

. . . three most veritable enunciations: (1) All things which have been, are now, or till the consummation of all things, will be necessary to be known for the salvation of the Church, have been perfectly inspired and revealed to the prophets and apostles. (2) All things thus necessary have been administered and declared by the prophets and apostles, according to this inspiration by the outward word, to the people who have been committed to them. (3) All things thus necessary are fully and perfectly comprehended in their books [Ibid., p. 413].

In the area of interpretation and use of the Scripture Arminius teaches that anything not contained in the Scriptures is not necessary for salvation and what cannot be refuted by Scripture is not heretical [Ibid., p. 423]. He further states that "in her acts of interpretation, the Church is confined to the sense of the word itself, and is tied down to the expressions of Scripture" [Ibid., pp. 132, 139]. In another place he says, "From this sense [historical-grammatical], alone, efficacious arguments may be sought for the proof of the doctrines" [Ibid., II p.22]. His principles for studying the Scripture were very good as can be seen from his statement that:

In the interpretation of the meanings of the words, it must be sedulously attempted both to make the sense agree with the rule or "form of sound words," and to accommodate it to the scope or intention of the author in that passage. To this end, in addition to a clear conception of the words, a comparison of other passages of Scripture, whether they be similar, is conducive, as is likewise a diligent search or institution into its context. In this labor, the occasion (of the words) and their end, the connection of those things which precede and which follow, and the circumstances, also, of persons, times and places, will be principally observed [Ibid., p. 23].

On the Deity of Christ.

There is a tendency in Arminius to subordinationism in the Trinity. He lays great emphasis on the teaching that Christ, the Son of God, is not God of or out of Himself. He says, "For the Son, both in regard to his being the Son, and to his being God, derives his Deity from the Father" [Ibid., I p. 260]. He claims to hold to the teaching of the "eternal generation" of the Son. This is one of the areas in which later followers of Arminius went much further than did he. They have proved to be good soil for Unitarianism.

On Predestination and Providence.

Arminius bases his view of predestination on God’s foreknowledge. His order of decrees is: (1) Decree to provide a savior for sinful man. (2) Decree to receive those who repent and believe (on the merits of Christ) and to leave in sin and under wrath those who do not repent and believe. This decree to receive is only for those who persevere to the end. (3) Decree to provide sufficient means for repentance and faith. (4) Decree to save and damn certain particular persons. God foreknew who would repent, believe, and persevere to the end. These he decreed to save.

Nothing takes place by chance. To him God governs and directs all things in the world. He teaches a "directive" and a "permissive" will of God. He states that, "God both wills and performs good acts," but that "He only freely permits those which are evil" [Ibid., p. 251]. He does not define his use of the word "performs." The question quickly arises, Who performs the evil acts? or Does God perform the good acts any more than He performs the evil?

On Free-will, Grace and Perseverance.

To Arminius free-will is made possible through the operation of God’s grace. Since the fall, as well as before it, understanding, willing, and power to perform the true good is possible only through the help of God’s grace. The aid of God is always essential even after regeneration.

Grace is the free affection of God towards the sinner–God’s love. It is, secondly, the operation of the Holy Spirit in preparing for and carrying out of man’s regeneration. Thirdly, it is the constant aid of the Holy Spirit by which man is made able to do the good. The grace of God can be resisted.

On the doctrine of perseverance of the saints Arminius expresses his doubts in the following paragraph:

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of Scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine of unconditional perseverance which are worthy of much consideration [Ibid., p. 254].

On Assurance of Salvation and Perfection.

Arminius does hold that the Christian can–"it is possible"–have assurance of his salvation. This assurance is from the testimony of the Holy Spirit and our conscience as a result of the fruits of our faith.

Of perfection he holds that it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin, but he adds in a quote from Augustine that "man does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of Christ to perform, either because that which is good escapes his observation, or because in it he places no part of his delight" [Ibid., p. 256].

On Sin and Justification.

On sin he teaches that our first parents alone bear the guilt of their sin, but because of the covenant which God made with them their children would not have original righteousness and thus be liable to sin. Arminius equates original righteousness with the gift of the Holy Spirit–the grace of God [Ibid., II p. 79]. This lack of original righteousness is sufficient to produce all actual sins. Original sin itself condemns no one and therefore infants who die will be saved. He takes this position to be consistent and yet get infants into heaven. He states that "God will bestow further grace upon him who profitably uses that which is primary" [Ibid., I p. 329]. Even the pagan who never heard the Gospel if he responds to the knowledge he has of God he will somehow be given sufficient grace to be saved. This is not the usual means. He maintains that the grace of God is absolutely essential to salvation. Apparently Arminius maintains that everyone at some time or another is given sufficient grace that he may either accept or reject the salvation offered by God. If he does not do this then he still has failed to explain God’s justice in punishing Adam’s descendants with lack of original righteousness. [This may be a way to justify God but it is not Scriptural. God would be just if he condemned both Jew and Gentile, adult and infant to hell. As to what He does with infants who die He does not give any separate, special revelation, however, the Scripture is plain in its teaching that children enter the world with a guilty sin nature and therefore in need of the new birth]. On original sin and actual sin Arminius is followed by the Methodists (such as Richard Watson). In one place Arminius speaks in traducian terms and plainly states that "in Adam ‘all have sinned’ [ROM. 5:12]. Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity" [Ibid., p. 486]. Arminius’ ambiguity is quite evident at this point. Arminius claims to hold to the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession (1561), yet to do so would necessitate a reinterpretation of "original sin" and the phrase from the confession which says that original sin "is sufficient to condemn all mankind" [Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, III, p. 400]. would have to be explained away.

Of Justification he maintains that it is by the grace of God alone. In one place he wrote:

My desire indeed is, to appear before the tribunal of God thus, (with this confidence or trust in Christ, as a propitiation through Faith in his blood) and "to be graciously judged through mercy from the throne of grace." If I be otherwise judged, I shall be condemned [Arminius, op. cit., I, p. 362].

The Five Arminian Articles, AD 1610

The year after Arminius died those who agreed with him drew up a statement of faith known as The Five Arminian Articles. These articles were condemned by the Synod of Dort in 1619. From the Canons of the Synod of Dort it is evident that those who held to these five articles also embraced other doctrines which conflict with the Reformed faith. The Five Arminian Articles read as follows:

Article I

That God, by an eternal, 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 II

That, agreeably thereto, 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: "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 III

That man has not saving grace of himself, not of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and 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 power, 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 IV

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 co-operative 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 as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.

Article V

That those who are incorporated into Christ by a 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 beginnings 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 minds.

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 [Schaff, op. cit., pp. 545-549].

The Twenty-five Articles of Religion drawn up by John Wesley for the American Methodists (1784) is an abridgment of The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. The strong Calvinistic elements are omitted (Articles 3, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36 and 37). On original or birth sin and free will he wrote:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he can not turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will (Articles VII and VIII) [Ibid., pp. 808, 809].

There is nothing else in these Twenty-five Articles that even hints at the teaching of The Five Arminian Articles. What The Twenty-five Articles do is omit the strong statements of Calvinism. The Calvinistic element though not rejected in their creed is rejected in their writings.


The one good effect of Arminianism is from Arminianism as molded by John Wesley. Wesley's stress on regeneration and evangelism has been of tremendous good to eighteenth and post eighteenth century Christianity. His influence in this area has been felt by all true Christianity. Of Arminius and Arminianism aside from their effect on Wesley little real good can be found. This is a sad commentary indeed.

Ambiguous Arminius, so guarded in his statements, is hard to follow and one wonders when he is through just what he did believe. Strong in discussing Arminius on sin says:

The expressions of Arminius himself are so guarded that Moses Stuart (Bib. Repos., 1831) found it possible to construct an argument to prove that Arminius was not an Arminian. But it is plain that by inherited sin Arminius meant only inherited evil, and that it was not of a sort to justify God’s condemnation [Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 602].

Saying that he held to The Heidelberg Catechism and The Belgic Confession must have been done with "mental reservations". In his preface to his Declaration of Sentiments he clearly indicates the guarded way he writes. Neve says that the same thing is true of the other molders of Arminianism (Arminius’ co-workers and immediate followers):

The Remonstrants in their "Five Articles" of 1610 had moved in very guarded statements. In the minds of their subscribers there was much more than was there expressed. If this was not yet completely developed, it was clear to the Synod of Dort in 1618 as may be seen from the many rejectory statements attached to its "Canons." We learn it especially also from the Confession which was prepared, 1622, by Episcopius for the Remonstrants after their condemnation at Dort [J. L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, II, p. 22].

The theological leaders of Arminianism after the death of Arminius were: Uytenbogaert (1644), Vorstius (1622), Episcopius (1643), Grotius (1645), Curcellaeus (1659) and Van Limborch (1712).

History shows Arminianism to be good soil for liberalism. This is not to charge Arminius, John Wesley and a host of other Arminians as being such themselves. In no sense is this true, yet their emphasis on man and the attempt to show God’s justice in condemning man opened the door for rejection of the doctrines of the Scripture. (NOTE: The present sad situation among the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches is another illustration of the results of the rejection of their Calvinistic roots–their doctrinal statement IS Calvinistic).

We can see this effect at work in England. For instance Neve asserts that:

. . . with the coming of Arminianism to England we soon see in that country a gradual rationalizing of its Calvinistic theology in ever-growing circles. It progressed to such an extent that "Latitudinarianism" as a general condition of England’s theology was a result. Together with other influences, especially from philosophy, it created an atmosphere for the propagation of the radical rationalism that appeared in the English Deists and in the Unitarians of England and America [Ibid., p. 27].

Geffrey F. Nuttall, an Arminian himself, says of England: "In England--as is well known--the same [as in Wa1es] steady movement of those Dissenters who had espoused Arminian tenets towards Arianism and Socinianism took place throughout the eighteenth century" [Gerald O. McCulloh, Man’s Faith and Freedom, p. 53]. Sheldon in dealing with the Baptists in England points out that the General or Arminian Baptists split in 1770 because of Arianism. The orthodox party withdrew to form the New Connection of General Baptists. Of the Particular or Calvinistic Baptists he says that they remained rigid doctrinally. It was this latter group from which such well known Christian leaders as John Gill, Robert Hall and William Carey--the father of Modern Missions--came [Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 279].

Another place, which from its founding was uncompromisingly Calvinistic, was New England. What does history reveal here concerning Arminianism? One may ask (when Arminians are charged with being good soil for heresy) 'What about the notorious Unitarianism which developed in eighteenth century, Calvinistic, New England?' History supplies an unpleasant answer for the Arminians. Fisher in dealing with New England says:

But there was an increasing intercourse and interchange of thought with the "mother country." The eighteenth century brought in the Arminian theology, which had spread among Dissenters as well as Churchmen in England. The Arminian writers, Whitby, John Taylor, Dr. Samuel Clark, were imported and read. What was called Arminianism, coupled with tendencies toward Arian and Socinian opinions, gradually superseded the old creed in the minds and in the teachings of many, especially in eastern New England [George P. Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 394, 395].

Of the same thing Sheldon gives another report when he writes:

The first stage of the Liberal movement showed Calvinism giving way to Arminianism. In the second, the Calvinism vanished, the doctrines of the Trinity and vicarious atonement slowly followed, reason grew bolder and bolder, and at last the Liberals became Unitarians, and organized themselves as a new sect. They were still sincere Bible men [? - aal]. Reason and Revelation were their equal watchwords. The worth of the Bible to them, it is true, lay largely in its vagueness, its multiplicity of meaning, the room they thereby got for thinking far and freely without fear. It lay much more largely in this vagueness than they knew (Wm. C. Gannett, Life of Ezra S. Gannett) [Sheldon, op. cit., pp. 266, 267].

From this we see that even in Calvinistic New England, Arminianism appears as the source of their Unitarianism and radical unbelief.


The work of James Arminius in his brief lifetime has had tremendous influence on Protestantism ever since. He sought to soften the harshness of Calvinism. Arminius himself and some of his followers were quite orthodox in doctrine. They were weak in some points. The most of their good effects came through Wesleyan Methodism with its emphasis on regeneration and evangelism. Sheldon sums up quite well this aspect of Arminianism when he says:

…it [Methodist Arminianism] must be taken rather from the founder, James Arminius. The spirit and intent of Methodist theology, if not all of its details, find in him a pretty fair exponent. Its aim was to escape the harsher pecularities of Calvinism, while yet a strong doctrine of grace was maintained. It was shaped by a warm, evangelical piety, and bears the impress at once of a deep sense of dependence upon God, and of an earnest, practical regard for human freedom and responsibility [Ibid., p. 263].

On the whole, history shows quite clearly that Arminianism is good breeding ground for heresy. Harsh though Weeks may seem in his comment on Arminian Methodists he has the support of history. It was the Methodists who in America were first swallowed up in Modernism. Schaff sums it up when he says, "Calvinism represented the consistent, logical conservative orthodoxy; Arminianism an elastic, progressive, changing liberalism" [Schaff, op. cit., I, p. 509].


Arminius, James. The Works of James Arminius, D.D., Formerly Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden. Translated from the Latin in three volumes by James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall (III); 1853, Buffalo: NY, Derby, Miller, and Orton, 1853.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. 1953, New York: NY, Harper & Brothers Publishers.

McCulloh, Gerald O. (Editor). Man’s Faith and Freedom--The Theological Influence of Jacobus Arminius. 1962, Nashville: TN, Abingdon Press.

Neve, J. L. A History of Christian Thought. Two volumes; 1946, Philadelphia: PA, The Muhlenberg Press.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Revised and enlarged, eight volumes, 1910, Grand Rapids: MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Sheldon, Henry C. History of Christian Doctrine. Two volumes, fourth edition, 1906, New York: NY, Eaton & Mains.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Three volumes in one, 1907, Philadelphia: PA, The Judson Press.

Watson, Richard. Theological Institutes: or, A View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity. 1875, Nashville: TN, A. H. Redford.

Weeks, Richard C. Billy Graham’s Chicago Ecumenical Endeavor. Reprint, 1963, Greenville: SC, Bob Jones University Press.

Fisher, George Park. History of Christian Doctrine. 1896, New York: NY, Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Return To Main Page

This Page Last Updated: 12/09/98 A. Allison Lewis