Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part two

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch theologian from the end of the sixteenth century.  His remarks in a paper published after his death were highly critical of certain aspects of what was becoming the Calvinist doctrines in the Dutch Reformation.  The Synod of Dordt was convened to deal with the Arminian problem, and the resultant Canons of Dordt contain the Five points of Calvinism.  Interestingly enough, Arminius’ document is called the Five Articles of the Remonstrants.  Since I plan to discuss the full Canons of Dordt in the future, this particular discussion will center on Arminius’ work, and the direct Calvinist rebuttal, without diving into the full set of doctrines for either side.

While it would be perhaps easy to label Arminius a heretic, Luther thought it important that there be a distinction between being in error over a particular doctrine and being a heretic.  Even if, as in the case of Arminius, you follow his error to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion is a heresy, this is not the same as being a heretic.  This distinction is thought to be very important.  At the end of the discussion, I will come back to this point so as to come as close to an ecumenical position as can be made.

Having said that, the Synod of Dordt declared the Five Articles of Remonstrance heretical.  Remember first, that the Remonstrants were reacting to the Calvinist doctrines of the Belgic Confession.  Therefore, they already had the Calvinists in a foul mood by complaining.  Secondly, this is all happening in the shadow of Trent, which occurred fifty years prior to 1610, when these Articles were published.  Therefore, many of the Reformers were clearly not in the mood to give ground back to Rome on any issue.  And so, without further elaboration, let’s discuss the specifics.

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 believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Nice.  At first glance, this doesn’t look that bad.  But if you will remember the recent post that I made about “only” being an important word, look where that word is importantly missing from this article.  First, there are conditions applied here.  Whereas Calvin would say shall believe only, Arminius says believe and persevere in faith.  This is a dangerous precipice on which he has moved.  To persevere implies activity or work on the part of the individual.  While Calvin talks about perseverance of the saints in that Jesus will persevere in the shepherding of His flock, Arminius has turned this into individual humans persevering in their faith.  In other words, although he states that through grace we receive faith, it is by our own works that we maintain it. 

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 believes 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.”

More of the same.  We need to address the Article first and then 1 John 2:2.  Arminius specifically states that Christ died for every man.  This means that the resurrection is not sufficient for salvation for some men.  He requires a work from man.  He has turned belief and faith into a work, rather than a gift of grace received from the Holy Spirit.  Arminius actually contradicts himself from the first article.  The theological difference between Jesus having died for all men, but it wasn’t effective for some, and Jesus having died for His elect, and it was completely effective for them all, is huge.  Can you really worship a god who is ineffective in achieving his ends?  Or rather, do you believe that God accomplished exactly what He set out to accomplish?

1 John 2:2 is a huge passage.  When reading a verse that seems to say something out of step with the rest of the gospel, a good rule is to go back and put the verse back into context.  Look instead at the first paragraph of 1 John 2.  This looks a little different when you read the next four verses.  In the context of the whole letter, it is clear that there are schisms within the early church that John is addressing.  If Salvation was for everyone, much of the rest of this letter would not make any sense.  It makes far better sense that the phrase the sins of the whole world means that these Christians to whom John is writing are not the only Christians for whom the resurrection was effective.  The Christians in the whole world, both of that time and of all times, are the beneficiaries of the propitiation earned by the resurrection.  This is every much as vast and sweeping a statement in terms of numbers and future without compromising the rest of the letter or the Gospel.  Remember, any sentence removed from context is vulnerable to manipulation of its meaning.  This sentence makes perfect sense within its context in 1 John without attempting to apply meaning other than that which John intended.

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 anything 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.”

This one is interesting.  This is the idea of prevenient grace that you may hear about.  More on this is coming in the next article.  The Romans talk about the same thing in a slightly different way.  What is meant here is that fallen man needs a push.  The grace that saves sort of cleans the slate for you, but then you are on your own for the rest of your life.  So, we need Christ to teach us what is good, but after we are born again, we know what is right.  What this does is say that the curse of Adam is lifted in terms of the condition of sin, and yet we still suffer the wage of sin at death.  It is a truly remarkable contradiction for which no explanation is offered.  The only workable solution is that perfection is required to avoid death, but not for salvation.  I’m not finding any passages that make that work.

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; inas­much as it is written con­cerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost.  Acts 7 and else­where in many places.

This article that discusses prevenient grace again explicitly denies the doctrine of irresistible grace.  But that is logical to Arminius, isn’t it?  If you do not believe that Romans 3:1-20 means that man’s condition is completely hopeless without Jesus, and do believe that everyone is the beneficiary of the resurrection, then it makes sense that people have to be able to say NO to God.  This is exactly backwards from Calvin.  Calvin thinks that God sees the world as a vast graveyard, and then God stoops down and saves a lot of us.  Arminius thinks that God saves everyone, but we have the ability to turn our backs on God.  Which God sounds worthy of worship to you:  God who does exactly what He sets out to do and is completely effective doing it, or god who tries to save everyone, but many humans are able to resist and defy him?  This is a Holiness of God problem.  Surely, Arminius had a higher view of God that this.

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.

Clearly John 10:28 is a difficult passage for Arminius.  He tries to explain it away.  Essentially, he has to do great violence to the verse in order to make his theology fit.  A rule of thumb: theology flows out from the text; theology is not imposed upon the text.  Arminius is determined to elevate man to the level of God, with just a little hand up from God. 

This is what we are being sold in the church today.  Whenever we are asked to make a decision for God, we are being asked an Arminian question.  Calvin and Luther wouldn’t ask for altar calls because altar calls flow from either Arminian or, worse, Pelagian theology.  The style of worship is a necessary outflow from theology and doctrine.  When we change the way we worship, we are signaling a change in doctrine.  That should always get our attention.

Is Arminius a heretic?  He clearly errs.  The similarities to Pelagius are striking.  But Arminius maintains a small semblance of grace in his theology.  He at least requires Christ to wipe the slate of sin clean for us.  We are at liberty to muck it up again.  Finally, Arminius runs head long into John 10:28, by his own admission, and just tosses out the verse.  It is a difficult call, but many Calvinists would call many Arminians brothers in Christ.  That will break the tie for now.  In the end, it will not be us who decides.  We are not, after all, given the ministry of fruit inspection.

--Troll--

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part one

One of the more difficult parts about writing this sort of blog is that my readership is from a variety of backgrounds.  While some can quote chapter and verse from the Bible, others can discuss the nuances of theology.  All have some combination of the two that ranges from weak in both to strong in both.  Therefore, while some posts are necessarily redundant for some, the same post can fly over heads of others.  This is a difficult balancing act, and I beg for your indulgence as I launch into this topic.

Jacobus Arminius lived at the end of the theological century, the sixteenth century.  He was a Dutch theologian who challenged some of the positions of the Reformation, particular those enumerated in the Belgic Confession, a document that I will likely review over the summer unless I do Luther or Heidelberg first.  In any case, the Canons of Dordt contained the five points of Calvinism which were drafted to deal with Arminius’ theology and controversy.  Arminius had written the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, published after his death, to which the Dordt Synod was responding.    

Therefore, it is historically accurate to state that these are theologically opposed perspectives. In other posts, I have highlighted and explained the five points of Calvinism.  They are found under the Building Blocks tab on the right, or by clicking on March, for they were all done in the last ten days of March.  But for this particular post, I have some of the typical questions that are asked about Calvinism.  They are a useful framework for this debate.  Therefore, I’ll give the stock answers from the point of view of Calvinism. 

Since God made man in His image, called his creation "Good", and gave us dignity, is Calvin's Total Depravity literal ?   Perhaps “Total Inability” is a more apt expression. 

This seems like the best place to begin.  In the Building blocks section, I have written a more lengthy discussion on Total Depravity, but let us try just this.  Paul believes that the Law is meant to convict us, to show us what is expected of us, and then to demonstrate that we fell completely short of the mark on every count.  Total depravity does not mean that everyone is equally evil.  This does not mean that the reprobate are incapable of civic righteousness.  Oprah Winfrey does wonderful things for many people, but few, only the most liberal, would confuse her with being a Christian.  Total Inability, although certainly true in the sense of what is intended in terms of works righteousness, also fails to make this distinction.  This is a Two Kingdom issue.  While we may do good deeds and help many people, our motives are tainted by the condition of sin.  Therefore, these deeds fail utterly in satisfying the just wrath of God.  This is about the extreme Holiness of God.  We must be perfect to satisfy the Law.  Anything short of perfection is failure in the eyes of God.  This is why we need a Savior. 

Is there a connection between Calvinism and Determinism  -- the idea that what you do is determined by external things like environment & genes, but not by your free will so that you are not really responsible or accountable?

Responsibility and accountability is exactly the problem.  The idea that God is offended by sin, such that God condemns all sin with the death penalty, is often lost in this debate.  Original sin is the idea that all aspects of humanity are tainted by that original sin.  Unless you understand this concept, the rest will not make any sense.  It is pointless to argue about free will without an understanding of Original sin.  Free will is tainted by sin.  We are able to choose on the horizontal plain of man in this world to do what we like, but all of those decisions, in fact all of the observations and conclusions that we make that form the basis of those decisions, are tainted by sin.  Therefore, we are unable to make a decision in the vertical direction of God, a direction that requires perfection.  That is why it is necessary for God to condescend to us.  He must come down to us to save us.  He gave us the Law to try to make us understand this.  He became incarnate to accomplish this. 

What about people around us who are predestined to be excluded from the "elect" and whose souls are condemned to eternal apartheid ?    Why would God bring a soul into this world inherently condemned to eternal damnation with no ability or possibility to believe in Christ? 

Predestination is very often the stumbling block for this debate.  The concept of election is foreign to many, particularly Americans.  Americans have a particular “can do” arrogance about us.  Many think that Franklin’s quip that God helps those who help themselves is actually Biblical.  Obviously, this is not the case.  We must imagine this problem, not from our own perspective, but from the perspective of God.  God looks upon humanity and sees an ocean of lost souls, completely corrupted by sin.  In His goodness and mercy, God sets about the greatest rescue mission in history.  He will save more souls than can be counted.  He will select those whom He will save and leave the rest.  Therefore, from His perspective, we earn eternal damnation by our own doing, but we receive Salvation by His Grace.  As to why not save everyone?  Who can speak for God?  Some things remain hidden from us.

Calvin seems stern & grim.  He emphasized that Christ took on the penalty of sin.  But redemption also makes us Sons of God, like jewels in which God delights, like a spouse.  We're more than ex-cons pardoned from prison;  The Bible tells us God paid double: Christ took on our sins and He imputed His spotless record on to us.

We are Christ’s elect to be sure.  He will not lose one of us whom He has claimed as His own.  That is what is called the perseverance of the saints.  But we are nothing without Him.  We are doomed without the Righteousness given us by Jesus in His vicarious atonement, with the imputations to which you refer.  There were three great imputations.  Adam's sin is imputed to man.  The sin of Man, elect, is imputed to Jesus.  Jesus' righteousness is imputed to the elect, so that we may stand in judgment on the Last Day, confident in the not guilty verdict.  I do not understand how this message is stern and grim.  This is the Gospel message, and it is the greatest news we can ever hear.  Calvin explains to us that regardless of our imperfection, God has reconciled us to Him.  Propitiation and imputation are not excluded by Calvin; they are embraced by Calvin as the essential components of justification.  That is the Gospel, according to Paul.

We will explore this more as needed.  I'll post specifically on Arminius this week.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 9-14, Original Sin and Justification

From the prior post, we left with the idea that works righteousness may be a part of the belief set due to the last 3 lines of the Athanasian Creed.  In these next six articles of the 39, we will be dealing with the meat of the faith.  Starting with original sin and free will, we will then look at justification and finally works.  This section is what being a Protestant is all about.  Let’s see how the 39 Articles handle the topics.

IX. Of original or birth sin. 

Original sin stands not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and 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 is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserves God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature does remain, yea in them that are re­generated; whereby the lust of the flesh called in Greek fronema sarkos (which some do expound, the wisdom, some sensuality, some the desire of the flesh) is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle does confess that con­cupiscence and lust has of itself the nature of sin.

This is classic Original sin.  Not only that, but Article 9 goes on to describe the Romans 6-8 situation of Paul simultaneously regenerated and sinful.  This is great stuff and full of all the classic Reformation categories.  Pelagius is even called out parenthetically.  The logical follow through on the next two points will be very satisfying.

X.  Of free Will.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good 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.

Here we have it.  Free will is corrupted as well by the fall.  There is no room even for Arminians here.  One suddenly wonders how the Anglican clergy can be characterized by the Puritans as being Arminian after reading Articles 9 and 10.

XI. Of the justification of man.

We are accepted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.

Obviously, the Homily of justification will need to be inspected.  Still, the words here come down squarely on the side of the imputed righteousness of Jesus rather than a works based righteousness.  It remains to be learned how this will be reconciled with those points 41-42 of the Athanasian Creed.

XII. Of good works.

Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of Gods judgment:  yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and holy faith, in so much that by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Once again, a truly classically reformed view of works after justification being consistent with the good fruits of the Spirit. 

XIII. Of works before justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the scholar authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather for that they are not done as GOD has willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

More reformed doctrine is revealed here as works done without the person being regenerated in Christ remain tainted by original sin and therefore completely unsatisfactory in satisfying the just wrath of God.  Great stuff, but no clarity is offered yet on the points of the Creed.

XIV. Of works of supererogation.

Voluntary works besides, over and above Gods commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake then of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ says plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We be unprofitable servants.

On this topic finally, I have hit a wall.  This concept is foreign to my reading.  So, let’s develop the two areas that raised questions.

The Homily of Justification seems to be the Homily on Salvation.  This is from the first Book of Homilies, Homily number 3.  This is hard reading in Old English, but what it represents is a very classically Reformed discussion of Justification.  There is absolutely no room for justification based upon works.  The works done after regeneration are done because we are bound and by our duty.  Anglicans will be familiar with the term bounden duty.  This concept leaves no room for antinomians, who are called here acting in carnal liberty.  This is completely different from the notion of Christian Liberty that is freedom from the rabbinical law.  Finally, there is a discussion of true faith.  Anglicans view the moment of regeneration to be Baptism, but understand that there needs to be true faith that justifies.  This true faith is said to be a gift of God.  In the Trinitarian view of these articles, this would be meant to say that the Holy Spirit as a true and vital part of that Trinity does accomplish the giving of this justifying faith.  We will return to this website later for the second book of Homilies, which are listed here.

Supererogation is action above and beyond what is expected.  This is a part of the Roman Catholic system of works righteousness, and is bound up with the system of indulgences.  Since Anglicans are talking about a faith alone system of salvation, it would stand to reason that the 39 Articles would call out Supererogation and therefore also indulgences as anathema.  These systems of works righteousness were well hated by Europeans of the sixteenth century.  The Reformers regarded this as fraud, and since it was fraud under the guise of Christianity, perpetrated by the Church, this was a most heinous system.  As recently as 2002, Pope John-Paul declared a year of indulgences.  To the Protestant ear, this rings foreign since we are so removed from it.  But if you turn on TBN and hear the televangelist talk about money in terms of seed faith, you will have a good notion of how indulgences work.  I don’t want to dwell on this as it is not a part of the Anglican system.  What is important is that Article 14 specifically denies its validity.

In summary, it would seem that the justification of the Anglican 39 Articles is based on faith alone, a faith that is a gift from God.  There is absolutely no room for a works based righteousness; in fact, the Roman Catholic system is specifically denounced.  In a very indirect way, this also denounces the modern theology of glory or prosperity gospel that so infects our Evangelical churches.  We still have to sort out some minor Creed irregularities, but the doctrines are very clearly set forth.

In the next section, Articles 15-18, we will be going through some more heavy reformed doctrines: sin, election and salvation.

--Troll--

St. Patrick's Day thoughts

Not for the first time, our Tuesday homily was about a saint, this time about the patron saint of Ireland, St. Patrick.  We learned some very interesting facts about Patrick.  To begin, Patrick wasn't Irish.  It seems that he was abducted from England by Irish raiders while a young teen and help captive in Ireland for six years until making his escape at the age of about 20.  But I do not wish to focus on Patrick.  His parents are far more interesting.


The history of the church in the British Isles is germaine to all Anglicans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, as we trace our roots back to those islands.  Patrick was Roman.  His parents were Romans sent to England to deal with the Pelagian heresy by the church in Rome.  This is all taking place in the fifth century.  The great debate between Augustine and Pelagius and its aftermath subsequent to Pelagius' death was burning strongly in Rome.  The fact that Patrick's parents were sent to England for this reason speaks to just how widespread this problem had become for the church.  This heresy that infests the protestant churches of our time was the reason for Patrick's presence in Ireland in the first place.  It is shameful that we have come to the point that history has erased the most important legacy of Patrick's family, that of putting down the Pelagian heresy.


Happy St. Patrick's Day.  Isn't it nice to know that God chose you?

--Ogre--

The Heretics: Pelagius

The details of the Pelagian heresy are very involved, but I will try to walk through his arguments first. Afterwards, I will present the Augustinian rebuttal. Finally, we will look at the differences between Full Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and the presence of both in the modern church. Pelagius was a fifth century monk. He had many detractors, but history records the debate between Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. The main issues are original sin, free will and salvation.

Let me begin by saying that any argument that is not from scripture will be categorically dismissed by Troll. In order to understand reformed doctrine, the five solas must be considered. To refute any doctrinal position, it is most effective to do so within the hermeneutic of the system that holds the position in question. Does the doctrine stand up to its own internal hermeneutic? The corollary to this statement is that any argument that begins with the supposition that Paul’s writings do not belong in the canon as a defense of Pelagius have been categorically discarded. If the integrity of scripture is your argument against Christian doctrine, then you cannot consider yourself Christian. At least have the honesty to admit this basic assumption: to be Christian has to be based upon something, and we hold the integrity of scripture to be that something.

Original Sin. Pelagius viewed Adam in a much different light than Augustine. Pelagius contended that Adam would have died whether or not he sinned. The argument is that the natural characteristic of man is to die. Genesis does not specifically state that Adam was created immortal. Therefore, death was not the result of original sin, but a natural part of creation.

Pelagius also believed that Adam’s sin convicted only him, not all of mankind. Pelagius denied the federal headship of Adam. The argument is that the OT is full of examples of sin being unique to an individual with no inheritance of sin in any direction of the family. It is said that Jesus never mentions Adam specifically, or speaks of the fall. Therefore, the federal relationship between Adam and mankind is not specifically Biblical in Pelagius’ mind. He goes so far to say that infants are born untarnished by sin, in the same condition as Adam at creation. Therefore, mankind is essentially good, not evil. Adam becomes nothing more than a bad example.

Grace. The role of Grace in Pelagius mind was different than that of Augustine. There is a Roman Catholic term that owes its origin to this debate. This concept is called prevenient grace. The point is that man has a fallen will until God intervenes with Grace that truly frees the will of man allowing him the ability to choose to follow Jesus. This prevenient grace was bestowed on all of mankind by Jesus. This was the action of Jesus on the cross, to make man able to exercise free will in a way to follow Christ.

Free Will. Logically, then, free will begins uncorrupted by Adam. Jesus buys for mankind the ability to have uncorrupted free will once again. Therefore, all people are born with uncorrupted free will and may choose to follow Christ as they will.

Salvation. Following through to his logical conclusion, Pelagius argues that salvation is based upon the meritorious efforts of the individual. Morality and the following of the Law is the key to salvation. After bestowing prevenient grace on the free will of mankind, the role of Jesus is the example of perfection to which man is to aspire. The Law is the pathway to salvation.

Augustine and the Reformers. Going point by point through these arguments again, let’s look at the doctrine as spelled out by Augustine, and later, the reformers.

Original Sin. Pelagius’ argument from silence concerning the term original sin in Genesis is a paper tiger. As always, one needs to be careful when arguing from silence. To say that Genesis failing to specify man’s condition concerning death prior to Adam’s sin necessarily proves that man was created with a shelf life ignores the obvious. Genesis also fails to point out a shelf life for man existing prior to Adam’s sin. An argument from silence only works if the same argument cannot be used against your argument. What Genesis does say is that Adam sinned. The doctrine of original sin is spelled out through many OT and NT passages and is given the label original sin. The word Christian appears nowhere in the Bible either, and yet we accept that the Bible describes what it is to follow Christ. This is a hollow argument that ignores vast amounts of scripture (for instance Psalms 14 and 53, Isaiah 28, 53 and 59, Jeremiah 6, and Exodus 6,) which I will develop in detail in a Building Blocks post in the near future.

The federal headship of Adam is an argument heavily steeped in covenant theology. It is interesting that all groups that hold to the doctrine of original sin will accept this federal relationship of Adam to mankind, but then many will fail to follow through with the covenantal relationship of the rest of the OT to redemptive history. Nonetheless, concerning original sin and Adam’s representation of mankind, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Paul in Romans 3 are the key starting points. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but rather this is a starting point for reading about the condition of man and in particular the inner qualities of the heart of a fallen mankind.

Grace. The role of Grace in Salvation is a look at the five solas of the Reformation as well as the five points of Calvinism. The work of Jesus on the Cross has to accomplish something for mankind, or else God is a cruel and unjust God. The question is for whom did Christ die, and for whom has He risen. Once we establish this, we can discuss who gets the Grace and what does it do. The concept of Jesus’ remnant or elect runs all through the OT and NT. There is clearly an indication that not all people will be saved. So, did Christ die to give us a choice? Is Grace resistable? Or instead, is God sovereign, the Almighty, who decides who will be His. If you accept the idea of Original Sin, then all men are already dead in their sin. Therefore, God in His mercy selects a vast number, too numerous to count, to be His people. Grace is then God through the Holy Spirit opening the minds and hearts of His elect so that they will hear His call. If you are called, it is the demonstration of the Grace of God. In this perspective, Grace cannot be resisted, nor is Grace revocable. Both of those possibilities would damage the sovereignty of God. Therefore, the Resurrection was for all of Christ’s people, but not for all people.

Free Will. Free will is another term that does not appear in the Bible except in the OT context of freewill offerings. There is a large difference between that concept and the idea of free will enabling man to participate in his own salvation. Everyone recognizes that we make decisions every day. If you consider the world in which we live in a horizontal plane, and the Kingdom of God a higher horizontal plane, and interactions with God in a vertical line between them, then it is clear that we exercise free will within the horizontal plane of this world, but vertical interactions between these two planes are the issue. The tower of Babel is a good example of our vertical efforts: futile. Our attempts to fulfill the Law: futile. Our efforts at works: futile. Jesus provides the vertical connection between the planes. He condescends to our plane and He is the ladder between the planes. But only through Him can we ascend. As it turns out, Jesus has better technology in the New Covenant than Jacob. It isn’t a ladder, it is actually an escalator. We don’t even step onto the escalator. The Holy Spirit places us on the escalator. That is how effective our free will is without Grace.

Salvation. Pelagius would have man building the ladder, climbing the ladder and reaching the top, using the blue print of Moses and the example of Christ. We know the futility of building towers and ladders to God from the OT. We need Christ to provide the means, the motive, the Grace, the power, the whole enchilada. Salvation is by Faith alone, in Christ alone, by Grace alone to the Glory of God alone as testified to us in Scripture alone, the five solas of the Reformation.

Semi-Pelagianism vs Full Pelagianism.

The Semi-Pelagian viewpoint is neither Pelagian nor Augustinian on the issue of original sin.  People are born neither good nor bad, but neutral.  Adam damaged the condition of mankind, but did not corrupt it, as Augustine would argue.  The Semi-Pelagian viewpoint of salvation is different in that the resurrection provides the possibility for salvation for all of mankind. It is not an irresistible Grace as in Augustinian or Calvinist thought. There is still a synergism or cooperation between God and man, rather than the monergism of Augustine or Calvin. If man takes one step or half the steps, it is still synergism. Free will is intact in this system. Faith, rather than being a gift, actually becomes a work of man in the exercise of free will. Election, then, becomes a matter of God knowing in advance how each person is going to respond with their free will to the offer of Salvation from Christ. There are similarities between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, the contribution of man being a matter of degree.

Modern Protestant Liberalism and Evangelicalism

If you have ever attended these types of churches, there is a lot of the following language. There are altar calls in which people are asked to make a decision for Christ. Ask God into your life. Make Jesus your Lord and Savior. All of these notions are Pelagian in nature, whether semi or full Pelagian depends upon the means of sanctification. It is striking just how Roman Catholic these so called Protestant denominations have become. When the addition of spirituality and mysticism is added to the brew, you have moralistic churches with leaders who invent scripture on the fly without even the scholarship and theology of the Roman Catholic church. There is no one in the church to point out the obvious to the Emperor. This is the logical outcome of this unbiblical theology. Paul, who wrote about half of the New Testament, is either discredited, disregarded or twisted. Law passages get plucked out of context without the indicatives that ground the imperatives. This is the state of the American church.

Summary. It is easy to say that Pelagius lost the battle, but won the war. Augustine, Luther and Calvin would not recognize most of our American churches today, but would consider the vast majority to be either pagan or heretical. The American culture is so rooted in individual rights, freedom and the “can do” attitude, that the Gospel is completely scandalous and offensive. Romans 3 and 9 are so completely foreign to us that we end up shouting that God is unfair. We actually believe that somewhere deep down inside of every person, there is a good and righteous person, and that God will see that goodness and the sincerity of that person’s belief. Belief is no longer in something specific, you just have to belief in something, and that’s good enough. Pelagius was a better Christian theologian than most of the modern liberal thinkers, but he still got it wrong. Pelagianism is the scourge of the American church today.

--Ogre--

The Devil Made Me Do It

Thanks for the title goes to an email.  This is a follow up to the last post.  The issue to discuss is the concept of the active agent in a work.  To begin this discussion, we should start with the concept of free will.  As I developed last week, free will, when viewed as an inseparable part of man, was corrupted by the fall.  If free will is nothing more than the decision process made by the evaluation of perceived data, then the decision is based upon the ability of the body and mind to sense and collect data.  Since this aspect of the process is clearly dependent upon a flawed data gathering system, the evaluation and decision process is likewise flawed.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion of a human initiated work is sin.  While it is obviously possible to perform a work that has civic value without being a Christian, this earns no value in redemption terms as some aspect of the work will be tarnished, either by motive or secondary gain or some other less than noble facet.  This is basic first point in building the argument.

Next, we need to discuss the only two humans who have actually had the opportunity to exercise uncorrupted free will: the two Adams.  The first Adam allowed the Devil to corrupt his judgment and accordingly he and we suffered the fall.  The second Adam, Jesus, resisted the Devil and maintained His unadulterated will.  So, in a manner of speaking, through federal inheritance of the curse of the fall, when a person says that the devil made them do it, they are in a sense speaking the truth.  The only possible outcome of a work done outside of the Covenant with Jesus in terms of redemptive value is sin.  The Covenant of Works in Adam based on natural revelation condemns us to death.  The Law is a reflection of God and therefore good, but it convicts us by pointing out our sin.  The Law only leads to death as we proved incapable of following the Law.

But the second Adam offers us a different sort of Covenant.  The Covenant is based on Special Revelation, the Gospel.  While the natural revelation is imprinted in our hearts, and we do not need to be made aware of it to recognize in a general sense right and wrong, special revelation is foreign to us.  The Gospel is not intuitive.  The Gospel is scandalous and difficult to accept.  Because of the alien nature of the Gospel, we will not stumble upon the Gospel or come up with it by introspection.  The New Covenant in Jesus introduces foreign concepts and ideas.

The significance of Baptism is that we die with Christ in the water, and then we are raised with Him reborn.  The significance of this second birth is not trivial.  The Baptismal seal is made by the Holy Spirit who indwells us from that moment forward.  We are dead to sin, and we are alive through the Spirit.  The fact that we remain in these earthly bodies until our death is the paradox or tension of being dual citizens in this present evil age and the Glorious age to come.  At death, we leave this body behind and join with Christ in Heaven awaiting His second coming when we will receive our resurrected bodies.  When body and soul are reunited at that time, we will be in Christ without the stain of the curse, having been resurrected with Christ.

So, what can we say about the actions and works of the redeemed person who is still alive in the age?  This person is by definition indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  This person is now a new creation in Christ.  This person is dead to sin.  This freedom from the burden of facing Judgment on our own allows us to consider our actions in a different light.  Our will, being infused with the Holy Spirit, is now free of the bondage of sin.  We are capable of doing works out of genuine love of God and love of our neighbor.  We are able to view the needs of people and act to address these needs free of ulterior motive.  This is one of the Gifts of the Spirit. 

At this point, I want to briefly digress into a side issue that was central in the Turk/Horton discussion last week.  I believe they are saying the same thing, but it is a matter of emphasis that can lead to theological neophytes like us behaving badly.  The point made by James is that faith without works is a dead faith.  Paul goes into less detail on the issue, but clearly agrees with James on the point.  The apparent disagreement between these two Apostles pointed to by some people is likely the result of the isogesis of a works salvation theology on the text.  The point is that good doctrine will lead to good works.  Frank would say that it not only leads to good works, but good doctrine absolutely requires it.  This is Luther’s third use of the Law and it bears a complete understanding.  A regenerated person will necessarily want to do good works and obey the Law out of gratitude for his salvation, and he will act accordingly.  Good works is the mechanism by which the world will recognize a regenerated person.  This is not to say that regenerated people will be perfect.  In Romans 7, we see Paul struggling with the paradox of still being in Adam through his earthly body.  The difference is that the regenerated person recognizes the problem and the struggle, and yet he genuinely desires to do good works.

And so finally, why cannot we accept the credit for these good works?  There is much debate on this last topic.  There is clear scripture that seems to apply Law passages to regenerated people in terms of Judgment.  2 Corinthians comes to mind as well as James.  It is important to keep the issues of Justification and Sanctification clear and separate from this discussion.  These good works are not tallied in terms of Judgment because that verdict was based upon the works of another, Jesus Christ in His work on the Cross.  So, why care about them?  Because true faith recognizes the awesome richness and depth of the Resurrection.  We are grateful for this Gift and we seek to obey due to this gratitude.  The obedience to His will is accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling, without Whom we would be incapable of pulling it off.  Because we are free of the bondage of sin, we are capable of true obedience to His will.  We are free to obey.  This means an action.  This means good works.

It is the desire at Judgment of all the redeemed in Christ to hear these words, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.” God has already done everything for us; therefore, we are free to act accordingly.

--Troll--

Foundational Elements

Astutely, one recent email I received pointed to Original Sin and Free Will as the hard problems.  Absolutely, I agree.  In truth, the whole essence and fullness of the Reformed doctrines of Justification and Sanctification hinge upon these two elements.  If you get Original Sin wrong, or if you gut it of its fullness and the depth of its despairing nature, then you will not in turn receive the fullness and height of the Gospel.  Contrast is important.  Contrast and extremes help to give some just cause for the extreme measures of the Cross.  I have spoken on these issues before, but let’s go in greater depth.

Can one understand Original Sin without "believing in" Adam and Eve?  Indeed, was there a historical Adam?  In my piece on Genesis and Framework theory, I mentioned the idea of a literary genre that we can call creation genre.  If the framework theory is correct, the historical model of creation is what is at issue, not the primary fatherhood of Adam.  The Bible has more than one purpose in naming a primary genetic father.  The first is the selection of a federal representative of man.  But for all intent and purpose, Adam can be the prototype man without being the primary genealogical man.  In Romans, Paul suggests that not only would we have made the same mistake as Adam, but that we were there with Adam and did make that mistake.  The Original Sin is thus inherited genetically, federally and actually by commission by all man.  But the historic Adam is also important in establishing the human line that will become the royal family.  Abram is a direct descendant from Adam and these genealogies are important in the Old Testament as they lead to the connection to Jesus as shown in Matthew 1.  But since the Matthew 1 genealogy begins with Abraham, it can be argued that Adam's primacy in this regard is less important.  The conditional covenant with Adam is not the covenant of Grace that begins with Abraham.  Therefore, the genealogical ties of Jesus to Adam are less important than those same ties to Abraham, with whom the Covenant of Grace was cut.  Whether you believe in the primacy of Adam is not nearly as important as accepting the federal representation of Adam in the creation story.

The free will question becomes one of definition.  We all know that we make decisions.  Our days are full of decisions from the mundane to the relatively important.  A decision is an exercise in selection based upon our mind assessing the best option.  The criteria for this decision are evaluation of the options based upon moral and secular values as well as any other determinant known to our minds.  The issue then is one of defining the mind.  If the mind is inseparable from the body both physically and in our definition of what it is to be human, then free will is nothing but the exercise of making a decision.  The moral scale and values upon which a decision is made are determined by the perception of what is moral or what has secular value by the mind.  Since the mind is inseparable from the body in the condition we call human, then free will is also bound up in this formula.  If the body and therefore also the mind are contained with the set of things that are human, then they along with free will are in the set of things human that are in Adam.  This is how reformed theology views free will.  Because the basis of the exercise of free will is the constructs that are formulated from observation by the mind, then the decision process that is free will is also within the boundaries of what is human, and therefore subject to being in Adam and under the curse.

The Law is considered as being imprinted upon us by natural revelation, which is that all men have an inherent knowledge of morals and the Law.  This is why Adam can be said to be in Covenant relationship with God in Eden.  The Law is known to all man without having it specifically spelled out to him.  The Law is a conditional covenant that Adam breaks in Eden.  Adam was made capable of fulfilling the Law.  In fact, it can be said that Adam, and through Adam all men, experienced the only moment of uncorrupted free will in history.  But Sin does enter the world through Adam. 

There is an inherent relationship between creator and creature that the creature must obey the creator.  Disobedience is breaking of the inherent Law covenant between them.  The creature is created fully capable of fulfilling the Law, but fails.  Because Adam is prototype, or federal representative, we all fail.  The Law that is written into the heart of man is articulated at Sinai, which is actually just a reiteration and documentation of natural revelation.  Special revelation is used for the Gospel or Covenant of Grace.  Special revelation implies that it is not inherently known to all man, but instead must be learned specifically.  This has particular importance to the whole formula of redemption.  While all man may exercise free will, and choose to ignore or suppress God, as these are the only options he can make on his own after the fall, special revelation allows man to receive the gift of Grace.  God through the Holy Spirit actively chooses some for election by special revelation while passively passing over others who remain dead in natural revelation and sin.  Therefore, the active agent in salvation of the elect is the Holy Spirit, while the active agent in the reprobate is the free will of man.  This is as close as I can come to Luther’s position on this, and I think that it still reflects the reformed position as well.

This whole post is going to get the hackles up of literalistic interpreters of Genesis 1-3.  This insistence upon a young earth literalism that drives the dispensational view of the Bible runs aground in several places in the discussion of eschatology.  Kim Riddlebarger develops this theme quite thoroughly in his book A Case for Amillennialism.  The argument that is made is that only a literalistic handling of this passage preserves the authority of scripture.  Most Reformed theologians do not view it this way.  Since it is doubtful that first century Jews viewed their oral history in this manner, it does seem logical to view the text as creation genre which is more consistent with the oral tradition as discussed by Jewish scholars.  The authority of scripture is not compromised because the presentation is intended to accomplish giving a federal account of the fall of man.  This is all that I believe this passage attempts to do and therefore its authority is completely intact.  You can get lost in genesis 1-2 arguments, and many people do.  The whole summer on the blogosphere seemed dedicated to this debate.  In the framework theory, the big event is not the nuts and bolts of creation, but the order in creation.  By this, I do not mean chronological order, but order in opposition to chaos.  This leads to the big event, the fall, in Genesis 3.  How you view Genesis 3 and 15 will determine how you read the rest of the Bible and how you construct your theology.

And so we come to the final question, has Troll quickly dismissed free will as corrupt?  No, I don’t think that man comes to the necessary revelation of this corruption easily.  One of the great moments in the New Testament is Paul discovering that his self righteousness as a Pharisee is a mere shadow of the righteousness required by God for salvation.  The idea that the heart is corrupt is a thread throughout the whole Old Testament and particularly the Prophets.  But Paul brings this down like a 16 ton weight in Romans 3.  There is no conclusion possible concerning free will except that free will is corrupted by the fall after reading this passage.  No, dear reader, Troll did not accept this knowledge easily.  The full measure of the 16 tons was required to bring that home. 

--Troll--

Free Will

Yes, this post is about freeing Willy, well, in a manner of speaking.  Free will.  It is what makes an Arminian instead of a Calvinist.  Let’s start from the beginning and build up to this most important of issues.  Adam had free will.  Look what Adam did with his free will.

Let us consider Romans 5 for a moment.  In this passage, it is clear that Adam represents man federally and genetically.  His sin has the consequence of a condition of sin for all mankind.  We inherit this sin from the moment of conception.  The concept of free will is bound up in the identity of man.  Free will is a part of man, it is inseparable from man.  Therefore, free will is flawed by sin as are all parts of man.  Can we choose God on our own?  Is it possible for a man to have done otherwise in Eden?  Paul says no to that in Romans 3, a quote from a number of OT sources including Psalms 53:3.  So, if a man’s free will is corrupted by sin, corrupted to the point where he cannot choose God, does not want to choose God, what good is free will?

Freed Willy?

A better question is what is the true state of our will.  Our will is in bondage to sin.  Our minds, bodies and souls are in bondage to sin.  That was the curse of Adam.  The wage of sin is death and we have earned it federally through Adam and specifically with our own deeds.  Every effort we make is corrupted by sin, since we live in the condition of sin.  If we do good works in the eyes of man, that is wonderful.  But these same deeds earn us nothing with God.  Either by motive or consequence, these deeds are corrupted, so that what seems to be a good deed before man condemns us before God.  Even our good intentions condemn us before our Righteous and Holy God.

But God knows our heart.  He just wants us to be sincere.  Try these verses on for size.  Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 7:24, Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21.  Am I just proof texting?  Sure, but it is good proof texting, isn’t it!  And that was just scratching the tip of the iceberg.  The purpose of the law is to point out our sin, to define it, to make it known.  Therefore, who among us is without sin?  Who then has a pure heart, a good heart?  Whose will is free from sin?  None but Christ!

How does man come to believe in God and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  There is only one way.  The Holy Spirit, through the Word and sacraments, enters into the elect and transforms these hearts.  The Holy Spirit at Baptism breaks the bonds of sin, freeing us to be able to obey the Law.  The Holy Spirit points the way to Christ and to obedience to His will.  Because we remain in these earthly bodies that are still under the curse of Adam, we will falter, and we will sin.  But we will recognize the sin for what it is, and we will seek forgiveness.  This is the struggle of Christian living.  This is the struggle that will continue until death.  The resurrected body is not under the curse of Adam.  In that era, in that time, we will be able to live sinlessly for eternity.

Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit unbind the hearts of all men?  God says in scripture that he will keep an elect remnant to himself, more numerous than can be counted, but a remnant all the same.  Scripture says that these elect were predestined before the beginning of time.  Why?  That answer we are not given.  I’ve talked about the fairness issue before, but let’s do it again for us stubborn egalitarian Americans.

Through Adam, we are all doomed to a sinful state.  Through Adam, we all sin.  Due to this sin, we are all worthily, fairly and justly condemned to death.  Proof is available in the local cemetery.  We will all die.  Death and taxes, maybe, but always death.  From this graveyard of humanity, God saves some for Himself.  This is merciful.  This is gracious.  This is Good News!  We are not worthy.  It is not fair.  It is not just.  That’s the purpose of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation on this earth.  His sacrifice makes us worthy.  His sacrifice makes this just.  Don’t ask for fair.  You don’t want fair.  Fair means death.  Fair means the Wrath of God in the form of eternal separation from God.  No one really wants fair.  It is the mercy and Grace of the triune God that we most desire.

Free will?  No, thank you.  I’ll have a bit of that Holy Spirit, trust in Jesus, and enjoy my Gift from God.  Christian liberty means we are free to obey.

--Ogre--