This is an excerpt from a longer article called The Pelagian Captivity of the Church published in Modern Reformation magazine. The article is doctrinal in that it discusses salvation, justification, the righteousness of God, the glory of God, and the human will, from the early days of Church history until the present, all in a 4-5 page document, depending on your favorite text font. If doctrine puts you off, you probably won’t want to read the entire article, nor will you be interested in it if you are spiritual growth comfort zone is akin to the ‘wading pool’ down at the park. However, if you like to treading in deeper waters and love to be challenged in your faith, it’s a must read and worthy of serious discussion. Just click the above link to the Modern Reformation magazine or click here.
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church – R. C. Sproul
God’s Sovereignty in Salvation
This is the issue: Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity’s utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformers’ thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.
And yet this view is the overwhelming majority report today in professing evangelical circles. And as long as semi-Pelagianism-which is simply a thinly veiled version of real Pelagianism at its core-as long as it prevails in the Church, I don’t know what’s going to happen. But I know, however, what will not happen: there will not be a new Reformation. Until we humble ourselves and understand that no man is an island and that no man has an island of righteousness, that we are utterly dependent upon the unmixed grace of God for our salvation, we will not begin to rest upon grace and rejoice in the greatness of God’s sovereignty, and we will not be rid of the pagan influence of humanism that exalts and puts man at the center of religion. Until that happens there will not be a new Reformation, because at the heart of Reformation teaching is the central place of the worship and gratitude given to God and God alone. Soli Deo gloria, to God alone, the glory.
The Battle Cry 
I think reprinting articles like this is considered pelagiarism.
LikeLike
I stand corrected – there is a disclaimer at the end of the article that says you can reprint it. (but my play on words was still pretty funny, I think).
LikeLike
This is an interesting article. The historical aspect of the origins of the reformation movement – particularly of how quickly the chief reformers disagreed with one another (and often killed each other over the disputes) – is an interesting lesson in how the body of believers has so often perverted, and continues to pervert what started out as such a simple mandate from the Christ.
I think these two statements are telling:
1)”This is the issue: Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves?”
2) “Until we humble ourselves and understand that no man is an island and that no man has an island of righteousness, that we are utterly dependent upon the unmixed grace of God for our salvation, we will not begin to rest upon grace and rejoice in the greatness of God’s sovereignty, and we will not be rid of the pagan influence of humanism that exalts and puts man at the center of religion.”
The implication of the first statement is that there is no action required on our part for our salvation; that it is completely and entirely God’s work. The second statements begins with two pre-conditions (actions) that are required before we can ‘rest upon grace’. Specifically, the author suggests that we need humility and understanding.
So we need to be humble and we need to understand God’s plan of salvation before we can rest in His salvation. The inconsistency here is that “no action required” and “action required” don’t work together.
Of course, the focus of this article does not appear to be on obeying the will of God in our lives but in pursuing a “new reformation.” What’s that all about?
While we’re stuck on all this in-fighting, Satan gets his run of the playground. What is the common ground where there can be agreement (or truce) and simply move on to the real battle – you know, the one against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
So, “yes” the church is in bondage. We’re wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct; what’s the correct way to witness; what’s the appropriate method for sharing our faith; what do we now eat/drink; how should we dress; what music/art should we enjoy?
We’re all wrapped up in bondage, and the lost continue to perish.
LikeLike
I think I’m going to Thoreau up.
LikeLike
You know you are here criticizing his doctrine, right?
The do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do escape hatch.
LikeLike
And remind me, what do unbelievers repent of?
LikeLike
@4. Good one. I didn’t think you had a sense of humor.
@5. ??? Whose doctrine?
@6. of or from?
LikeLike
“The implication of the first statement is that there is no action required on our part for our salvation; that it is completely and entirely God’s work. The second statements begins with two pre-conditions (actions) that are required before we can ‘rest upon grace’ Specifically, the author suggests that we need humility and understanding.”
There is no contradiction or inconsistency here that I can see. The issue of ‘works’ and salvation, and the twin needs of humility and understanding for ‘resting upon grace’ are not the same issue. One is salvation itself and the other is ‘resting upon grace’.
When I consider God being in total control of my salvation from beginning to end (even though I chose Christ, God chose me to choose Him) I have the ability to ‘rest in it’. When I thought (and I did, as most do) that it was my decision that ‘cast the deciding vote’ I could not ‘rest in God’s grace and rejoice in His sovereignty (the One who saved me will keep me), knowing that if I ‘decided’ to accept Christ I must be able to ‘reject’ Him if I so choose.
God’s sovereignty in salvation is no small matter of in-fighting, secondary to other types of ‘real’ warfare. It is about the character of God and His attributes as revealed in Scripture; and at the very core of our faith.
LikeLike
“The inconsistency here is that “no action required” and “action required” don’t work together.”
focus.
do not play word games with me. Is ek or apo that you are concerned about? Is there a linguistic distinction you wish to make between the two prepositions in the greek or is there something about the etymology of metanoew you feels needs to be made? Or are you stalling because you know you have said something ridiculous? There is something that was that isn’t after one becomes a believer, what is it?
LikeLike
“There is no contradiction or inconsistency here that I can see.”
Therein lies the problem.
I don’t believe many people made the same error you made (thinking that you cast the deciding vote). I believe there are multitudes that think they have much more say in the matter than they actually do (works plus or minus, etc.).
The character of God being at the very core of our faith…that’s a tough one; something that is very much beyond our comprehension, do we get credit for 1% accuracy? 2%? Although I agree that the character of God is important, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s at the very core – at least from the perspective of our understanding of it.
“do not play word games with me.” why not?
LikeLike
“Therein lies the problem”
You critcized doctrine, and then said it is wrong to criticize doctrine. This is a real contradiction, not a B4D contradiction (read: can’t understand the synthesis of two non-contradictory statements.) You are a hypocrite.
And you are still just dishonestly stalling dealing with your ridiculously abiblical statement about pre-believers and sin. “Character of God”? You asked an insipid question about prepositions, and then just move on.
“why not?”
because you are not able.
LikeLike
When did I criticize doctrine?
When did I say it was wrong to criticize doctrine?
Are you on some kind of mind altering medication?(seriously?)
I am a hypocrite. Duh. we’re all hypocrites.
I’m dishonest?
the insipid question was a serious question – which (again) you haven’t answered.
There is no substance to your responses simply insults and rhetoric. This might have worked in your college debate class but it doesn’t work with me. Why don’t you stop butting into the conversation I’m trying to have with Dan?
Dan, by the way, is someone that I’ve communicated with frequently (and directly) via email. Although we disagree on matters of theology and doctrine, we have at least forged an understanding of the larger picture, and we understand that we’re pursuing the same thing.
I have no idea where you are coming from, Jason.
LikeLike
“We’re wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct;”
What does this mean other than it’s wrong to criticize doctrine, or are there multiple caveats which you desire to add after the fact? And how silly is it that you started off by criticizing Dan’s/Mod.Ref. statement of doctrine and then wrote that?
Your question is insipid because you make no meaningful distinctions, that is, you don’t seem to know what you are asking. I asked for clarification (the NT was translated from Greek, you know) and you simply avoided the need for clarification. The concepts you asked about form within the greek, not english.
Which is still only changing the subject, that is, repentance preceeds being a believer, but one cannot be a believer, that is in Christ, without having repented.
As well, your concerns about insults and rhetoric testifies to your delight in making a break for the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do escape hatch. A little late to whine about it.
And the whine is flowing.
LikeLike
“an interesting lesson in how the body of believers has so often perverted”
is exemplified as much as anything in your free-form, abiblical musings.
“The inconsistency here is that “no action required” and “action required” don’t work together.”
The only inconsistency is in your own theology and teaching.
“2 Peter 1:10-15 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 ¶ Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.”
Four times he says that he needs to remind them of, at the very least their election, something that happened before the world was even created. What would be the deep need of reminding them of something that was as certain as God is certain from before anything at all was created? Do Peter’s thoughts “work together”?
Philippians 2:12-13 12 ¶ Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Both to will and to work, and yet we are to work out something as certain as God making us to will it and to work it. Is Paul inconsistent, or does St. Francis have an aphorism negating Paul here as well?
As long as the gospel according to St. Francis is on the table, the biblical gospel itself indicates something, it does not ask something. Ever. The call to believe is not the gospel, there is a call to believe in the gospel. The gospel indicates what God did through Jesus Christ, that is, he actually, not theoretically saved people. There is no question, there is no presentation, what Paul says in 1 Cor 15 is the gospel. The call to believe in the gospel is NOT the gospel is no more the gospel.
To participate in false teaching, which is as much idolatry as anything, is to be in bondage. Getting it wrong, for whatever reasons, and then wondering why people can’t just get along is ridiculous. You are getting it wrong.
Now, go ahead and criticize my doctrine and contradict yourself again.
LikeLike
I welcome Jason’s contributions to this discussion.
“To participate in false teaching, which is as much idolatry as anything, is to be in bondage.”
Going back to the original point of this post, the bondage of Pelagianism, which is a huge issue, whether it is full blown Pelagianism or the milder ‘semi’ variety. In this matter, correct doctrine is paramount. It’s either monergism or syncretism, you can’t have both. Either God is totally sovereign, or He isn’t. As Dr. Sproul pointed out, even our little 1% addition to God’s 99% perverts the very definition of grace. Grace is no longer grace the moment anything other than the sovereign work of God is added to the ‘process’. That means that although a decision is made, it is even a supernatural work of God to bring us to a point of decision.
I agree with Dr’ Sproul’s assessment of the state of the church. Semi-pelagianism might be an even more insidious form of bondage than the ‘there is no sin nature’ variety (full-blown Pelagianism) because it uses the right ‘words’ in order to be accepted. I also liked Dr. Sproul’s historical perspective on the rise of Pelagianism and the subsequent move to a more ‘palatable’ version that contains elements of truth. Lies always ride in on the back of truth.
Bad, I don’t know how to take your conversation. Do you argue just to argue, or are you confused? The ‘apples and oranges’ point I made about salvation itself and resting in grace not being the same issue as you seemed to say, seems to have eluded you.
Can you see the self-contradiction in this comment of yours?
I don’t believe many people made the same error you made (thinking that you cast the deciding vote). I believe there are multitudes that think they have much more say in the matter than they actually do (works plus or minus, etc.).”
Your thinking that multitudes think they have more to do with their salvation than they do is exactly the same thing as ‘thinking we cast the deciding vote”. In fact, anyone that thinks their salvation comes after a ‘free will decision’ is ‘casting the final vote’ whether they think in those terms or not. The error I made is exactly the error your ‘multitudes’ make on a regular basis (think Arminian).
I welcome Jason’s contributions to the discussion, as painfully direct as they may be to you. I share in his frustration of trying to get some sort of a ‘position statement/stance’ on any doctrinal issue from your comments.
The question at Deb’s concerning is a good example.
Jason – August 18, 2008
If a person has not repented of their sins, are they in Christ?
If a person is in Christ, have they repented of their sins?
66. b4dguy – August 18, 2008
depends.
not necessarily.”
Those answers don’t address the issue raised, true repentance and the condition of being IN CHRIST. How do you defend ‘depends’ and ‘not necessarily’ as viable answers to questions with obvious answers?
LikeLike
“We’re wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct;”
…means we’re wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct.”
“…you started off by criticizing Dan’s/Mod.Ref. statement of doctrine” Modern Reference? What is Mod. Ref.??? I thought I was commenting on an article…Call it criticism if you will; I’m confused, am I for or against criticizing doctrine? The two statements that I pointed out were contradictory were lifted from the same paragraph (as I recall) not just the same article. If they are unrelated why were they presented in the article for comparison? The intent of the author sure appeared to be that the two concepts were related.
“Your question is insipid because you make no meaningful distinctions” – ‘repent of’ to me implies ‘sins’; ‘repent from’ to me implies ‘Sin’. If there’s a better distinction in the Greek I’d love to hear it; or if there is no distinction in the Greek I’d love to hear that too.
“Which is still only changing the subject, that is, repentance preceeds being a believer” – that really wasn’t at issue.
“As well, your concerns about insults and rhetoric testifies to your delight in making a break for the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do escape hatch. A little late to whine about it.” um…not making any breaks for anything, just think it’s a good witness (and reflects common decency) to be nice to each other – even if we disagree. What you interpret as whining I intend as wise counsel. I guess you just didn’t get the hint.
Here’s a more direct one, back up the 2 Peter passage a few verses:
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Goodness, self-control, brotherly kindness, and love. If you don’t possess these qualities you become ineffective, unproductive, nearsighted, and blind.
Wow. You think St. Francis’ aphorism negates Paul?
What of your writings above is your doctrine? I didn’t really see any original thought; or are you just claiming an allegiance to a particular doctrine that you are citing?
I think you said that since I’m wrong that I shouldn’t worry about people getting along. I will continue to worry; since Jesus demands it.
Dan, I agree with most of your last statement. But if the issue is the total sovereignty of God then how can our 1% matter? Our perception of contributing 1%, 10%, 50% -or whatever, is not the reality. If it’s 100% God it’s 100% God nothing else. Anything less and you have the Pelagianic condition the author is writing about.
LikeLike
I think Jason’ point is placing relationships above truth. If we are discussing non-essentials, relationships/unity can be more important, but there are times when truth must rule. A prime example is the tendency not to talk about the attributes of God that are not palatable to the unbeliever (and even believers in some instances), for the sake of the ‘relationship’.
Concerning percentages, you got it. Any work of ours, even a decision, contributes nothing to our salvation. When we are blind, God opens our eyes to see Him. When we see Him and by nature hate Him, he gives us a heart to love and embrace Him through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Because he has regnerated and given life, we then by our new nature love Him. We decide from a supernaturally changed will.
Regeneration always precedes belief because the spiritually DEAD must be given life as certainly as Lazarus’ dead stinking bones had to be regernerated so that he would rise when called out from the grave. The fault of Arminianism is the teaching that regeneration follows our choice to ‘accept’. That means we have something to boast about, even if it is just a decision.
As I said before, we cast the final vote’, have reason to boast (whether we boast or not), and grace is diminished.
LikeLike
Dan,
Maybe it’s a matter of perspective. I’ve never met a boastful (or proud) Arminian; the one in particular I know is extremely humble, but most of them are rather twitchy since they are always on edge on whether they’ve lost their salvation or not (again – based on their effort/lack of effort – which is wrong).
However, I’ve met many Calvinists that I would call boastful and proud – I would use the word arrogant as well to describe them.
My son goes to a church (Apostolic) that prescribes the “formula” given in Acts 2:38. They also teach that order is not essential, but that all the elements are present. That is: repent, baptism in the name of Jesus, receiving of the Holy Spirit (evidenced by speaking in tongues). They would by definition fall into the Arminius camp, but they remind me more of the catholic church with all their rules and [what appears to be] superstitions. They are definitely in bondage – but according to them, we’re the ones (you and me) that are going to hell.
LikeLike
“means we’re wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct.”
dodge. It means you have an opinion about it and it isn’t a good one. Stand up for what you have written. If you don’t like what you have written correct it, but stop dancing about if you actually want to be taken seriously. You used this to build to a bigger point, you used this to say something else, which followed. It’s a shame you can’t follow what you are saying, that would make this so much easier, but, alas…
“I thought I was commenting on an article…Call it criticism if you will; I’m confused, am I for or against criticizing doctrine?”
You wrote that a series of doctrinal statements in the article were wrong in toto, that would be criticism of doctrine, by anyone’s standards, even someone trying desparately to redirect or change the subject. And then you not only lamented that, “We’re wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct” but you then placed this concept appositivly with being in ‘bondage’. That is, you used being “wrapped up in trying to decide which doctrine is correct” as a parallel concept with “bondage”. Do I really need to hold your hand and be your travel agent for your own thoughts? Just think through what you said.
“repent of’ to me implies ’sins’; ‘repent from’ to me implies ‘Sin’. If there’s a better distinction in the Greek I’d love to hear it; or if there is no distinction in the Greek I’d love to hear that too.”
I really wish you had just said this in the first place instead of this semantic duck-duck-gray duck. There is a lot of ground to be covered in such a question, but, apart from “to me” I don’t think such a distinction can be made. The two prepositions, ek and apo, nearly always mean “from” or with apo, “out of”. There are no other prepostions being used, and there is no morphological reason to apply “of” in an english sense. The biggest reason is that the word metanoew necessitously involves movement, whether mental or physical, and one can’t move “of” something, but one can move “from” something, so though we use “of”, it is not an accurate preposition to use. But it works if one presumes the verb means that which the church has taught it to mean since Tyndale. (Jerome infamously translated what should be “repentance” with “do penance”, and so we end up with a thousand years of indulgences, prayers of penance, flogging oneself, monasticism, asceticism, and many other very bad ideas). The idea is the same whether being commanded by John the Baptist or Christ to the church at Pergamum. Noew is “I direct my mind” and meta most typically means either with or after, and the use is overwhelmingly that of after. So I direct my mind after (as in before and after in time). The idea of returning or turning to God comes from the its OT synonym, “Shub”, which can mean to physically or spiritually return, dependent on the context.
“were contradictory were lifted from the same paragraph”
They are not contradictory. You are still using that word incorrectly. You placed your paraphrasing of two ideas next to each other, after you used your words to incorrectly summarize the ideas you delared your straw men to be in contradiction. Explain how the concepts are contradictory using their words, not your convenient, inaccurate, disingenuous reframing of their words.
As well, the two passages I quoted along with Ephesians 1:4-14, Romans 8:28-9:ff demonstrate that they are only contradictory in your head.
Regarding your quote of 2 Peter: did you actually have a point that relates to what has been said so far, or is that as much of a non-sequitur as it seems? Does what is written in 5-9, change, negate, otherwise effect the clarity of the clear refutation of your assertion that the lines from the article that you quoted are not only not a contradiction, but clearly biblical as shown in 10-16?
“not making any breaks for anything, just think it’s a good witness”
If one presumes to speak up and teach at all, as you have, a good witness starts with not being a false teacher, which would be as worthwhile a consideration for you, as long as we are sharing good counsel, and by far your favorite diversionary tactic is do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. If you are concerned about it as a witness, try harder. If one is a sweetheart, but a liar or a deceiver, it doesn’t matter how sweet they may or may not be.
“What you interpret as whining I intend as wise counsel”
This would seem too silly to even address, except there is at least another bottle of whine below.
“Wow. You think St. Francis’ aphorism negates Paul?”
You said, here in this blog, that Paul’s – that’s the apostle Paul, when he explains the gospel he delivered to the Corinthians – take on the gospel in 1 Cor 15 was incomplete, “I think your [Paul’s] definition of the Gospel is incomplete”, your words, and as a corrective to this incompleteness you said, “When I said the gospel is more effective without words, I was paraphrasing St. Francis of Assisi.” That is, you used St. Francis as a corrective to Paul. I don’t think you have already forgotten what you wrote, so more than likely you are intentionally ignoring your own poorly chosen words, once again. Stand up for yourself and the things you write. Again, if you don’t like what you have written, have enough integrity to correct yourself.
“didn’t really see any original thought”
I’m sorry, Mr. Bad, I don’t think you are able to recognize original thought. But even if it was or is unoriginal, this is nothing more than yet another attempt on your part to avoid addressing substance. As an aside, much of your original thought is very wrong – hardly a virtue.
“just claiming an allegiance to a particular doctrine that you are citing?”
Point out where I claimed such an allegiance and a particular doctrine. If you are referring to things I have written before (I am happy to affirm and actually defend what I have written, I have no problems actually affirming I wrote something and defending that it meant something, a characteristic it is time you acquired) you need to do more than whine perpetually and instead address the substance of what was actually said. If you would find the fortitude to do so, I wouldn’t have to write a term paper to get you to say anything at all.
The problem you have is with the Bible, noted well by the utter lack of Scripture. I provided Scripture, and attempted to explain it. You whine. Perhaps another strategy, perhaps employing the use of a point, might be worth a shot.
“If it’s 100% God it’s 100% God nothing else. Anything less and you have the Pelagianic condition the author is writing about.”
God chose certain people to be his people before there were people. Ephesians 1:4. He also established the boundaries, bumpers, paths, entire course of life of those people that he chose, so that the chosing would come to pass when and where he designed, which is the basic meaning of predestined, Ephesians 1:5, . That is 100%. Nothing left to chance, the pattern for all of existence drawn up as so much blueprints, but before even the blueprint paper even existed. The word as used by Paul, and in parallel concepts in the Old Testament involves our entire lives, everything we do. 100%, there is nothing Pelagian about it at all. As well, and as usual, the passages I cited, Phil 2:12-13 and 2 Peter 1:10-16, both involve and exhoration to participate in the realization of our election, even though the bible is clear in saying that if God elects someone, then their election, however it may be used contextually, is certain, it absolutely will come to pass no matter what. One more time for the photographers: This is not a contradiction, this is chronically and overwhelmingly biblical. We are exhorted of the importance of participating in that which has been assured since before the universe was created. Repeat, only a contradiction to you, not in the bible.
A great deal of dishonesty in discourse is the experience of the day. You cannot be depended on to be honest about what you have written nor about what your intentions were in writing. I just realized today that it might be worth taking some time and proving it.
LikeLike
Bad,
It’s not about Arminianism or Calvinism. For convenience I used the term Arminian because of it’s familiarity and Arminiasim’s roots in Semi-Pelagianism.
The percentage of ‘proud’ Arminians to ‘proud’ Calvinists is beyond me and I find it ‘interesting’ that you say you NEVER met a proud Arminian, but have met ‘proud”arrogant’ Calvinists. Anyone who believes their salvation is ultimately based on their ‘free will’ decision is an Arminian by definition and more than likely ‘proud’ (by nature) of their ‘decision’ to follow Christ, knowing that their ‘decision’ is what sealed the deal and that they actually saved themselves, by logical extension! Being able to determine with certainty that any person is ‘prideful’ sounds a bit like a judgment call, and being able to determine that what you are dealing with is Arminian or Calvinistic pride a truly great feat.
The specific issue in all this rhetoric is still the issue of Pelagianism/Semi-pelagianism being a false doctrine that has postmodern evangelicalism in bondage. To re-phrase the question: Forgetting labels for a minute, which view of salvation is correct – monergism or syncretism? You can’t have it both ways. Either God does it all or we help.
LikeLike
I think part of the problem is the labels and the attributes we ascribe to the labels. For example, “Anyone who believes their salvation is ultimately based on their ‘free will’ decision is an Arminian by definition and more than likely ‘proud’ (by nature) of their ‘decision’ to follow Christ, knowing that their ‘decision’ is what sealed the deal and that they actually saved themselves, by logical extension!” – I don’t know anyone who thinks that way. Similarly, my son’s church calls all of us ‘Trinitarians” and claims we are worshipping three Gods. They have an exhaustive “doctrine” that ascribes all sorts of things we teach and preach and think – yet I have never actually met a trinitarian, and I would guess you haven’t either.
Nuff of that. The specific issue of which view of salvation is correct…monergism or syncretism. This is the first I’ve heard of these terms, so let me get back to you on that after I do some research.
LikeLike
“I don’t know anyone who thinks that way”
there you go! sample size of one, case closed.
LikeLike
do you mean “syncretism” or “synergism”? I was reading about monergism on wikipedia and it stated that the opposing view is synergism???
LikeLike
Yep – synergism is the precise word. My bad. Good catch. I actually tossed that in there intentionally to see if you were paying attention – not really. 🙂
LikeLike
Syncretism would be the ‘all roads lead to Rome’ heresy of the emergent movement and an ever growing segment of postmodern evangelicalism.
LikeLike
well, yeah syncretism seemed to be something that would come into the mix but not in direct contrast to monergism.
I’ll keep reading…
LikeLike
You got it, mate! Glad you are reading.
LikeLike
Based on what I’ve read so far I’m not sure I can align myself to either theological label. Couple questions:
What must we do to be saved? That is, must we receive or acknowledge (that is be aware) that we are saved? Are we saved if we don’t know we are saved?
The questions that were asked relating to salvation and repentance seem to imply that there is an action required on our part (repentance). Am I understanding this position correctly?
LikeLike
It’not about labels, but if you are saying that you cannot align with either ‘monergism’ or ‘synergism’in matters of salvation, are you saying that you are not sure of your salvation? I would offer that if anyone thinks he/she is saved, one could/would probably align with one or the other. Either God does works salvation in His sovereignty, or He makes it possible (with Christ’s death) and we help (with our decision).
Repentance is required, and it is, in a manner of speaking, an ‘action’ on our part. Repentance that leads to salvation is not, however, a ‘work’ of our hands in that it is a ‘gift’ granted to us just as our faith (Eph 2:8-9) Scripture that shows that repentance is something granted are:
“And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:24-26).
“And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’” (Acts 11:18).
“What must we do to be saved?”
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:18
In order to believe, we need to be brought to life from our DEAD spiritual condition (regeneration) so that we CAN repent and believe.
Thanks for giving me all the opportunities to explain it. I am not sure how many different ways I have left though.
LikeLike
Bad,
By the way, there is a great series by John MacArthur called The Gospel According to Jesus you can access and download free from OnePlace.com:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Grace_to_You/
It began on the 18th with an introduction on 18 & 19 August. The first specific teaching is posted today and is called the nature of saving faith.
And please don’t think I was judgmental in my last comment, I merely asked a question based on your statement of not sure if you could alogn wither a monergistic or lsynergistic view of salvation.
LikeLike
“are you saying that you are not sure of your salvation?”
Not at all. I am absolutely confident in my relationship (or standing) with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
I’m saying I don’t agree with all of the pieces that each of these theologies present. That is, I don’t believe either one is 100% accurate; there are parts of both with which I agree, but there are points where I disagree.
I agree that the action required on our part is not “works”. I believe that God has provided and paid for all that is necessary for our salvation. No “works” on our part is required. But we do have a choice. I think the word “choice” is at the core of most of the disagreements between the two theological camps. I believe Calvinists refer to “irresistible grace” – that we really don’t have a choice.
Tied to choice is “believing”, “trusting”, “repenting”, “faith”, etc. All these words are verbs or action words.
I don’t believe choice, et. al. has anything to do with works nor do I see this as myself having a role in salvation (and thus diminishing God’s sovereign role) – I simply see it as receiving the gift that has been freely given to me.
Ironically, I was introduced to Jesus (that is, heard the Gospel) through an organization that has its roots in the reformed tradition (Presbyterian to be exact). The way the Gospel was presented to me, and what got my attention, was that I was befriended by several people; they were nice to me and accepted me for who I was, and pursued a relationship with me. At the right time – and it was a somewhat lengthy process – they shared the Good News with me. At weekly meetings I heard stories of how Jesus interacted with people; how he touched them, loved them, accepted them, forgave them, touched them, and so forth.
This method saved me; I have been a disciple of effective evangelism about as long as I have been a believer.
I had never heard of John MacArthur until you mentioned him. Wikipedia says he is a controversial figure, and has been disputed by people whose names I do recognize (and respect). I will give a listen to some of these messages because I like to make my own decisions about the voracity of someone’s teachings. I haven’t checked it out yet, but if there’s audio I will listen some on my morning walks…
And don’t worry, I did not think you were being judgemental – more people should ask the hard questions, like “do you know Jesus as your Lord and Savior?” and not assume that someone is or isn’t a believer based on actions, deeds, words, or appearances.
The telltale sign of course is the secret handshake!!!
LikeLike
“I believe Calvinists refer to “irresistible grace” – that we really don’t have a choice.”
Irresistable grace, yes! Do we have a choice, yes! What you describe is ‘hyper-calvinism’, which is what most folks think of when they hear the big ‘C’, that we don’t have a choice. Irresistable grace doesn’t mean we don’t have a choice. How can it be that we do choose christ, but God alone ‘works’ salvation? Therin lies the conundrum.
“The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.” – from http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html – it’s a good comparison chart, if you haven’t already found it.
Calvin didn’t invent it, and TULIP is a term that came out of the Synod of Dort, which was convened to answer five points articulated by the Remonstrants, disciples of Jacobus Arminius. You may have already discovered that in your reading also.
What matters is biblical doctrine. I don’t understand the mystery of God’s sovereignty and our responsibility. However God is sovereign and man is responsible to believe. Both of those are taught indeniably in Scripture. In the end it comes down to the nature of the human will and the depravity of man (the doctrine of original sin). What is scriptural?
I would suggest you read Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will. A very good abridged version can be found here. http://www.reformedreader.org/bow.htm. It’s not Calvinism v. Arminianism, it’s a question, once again, of what is supported in the pages of scripture. That would be the total sovereignty of God in the salvatin of man.
The denial of original sin is at the core of the Pelagian heresy and the bondage of Semi-Pelagianism (Pelagianism lite) that Dr. Sproul describes (to bring this back on point).
Why is it important? Monergism is God-centered. Synergism is man-centered simply because it’s our choice.
“This method saved me; I have been a disciple of effective evangelism about as long as I have been a believer.”
Methods don’t save anyone, God saves. I mean no disrespect. My entire point is to get the Gospel right and present the right Gospel.
LikeLike
“My entire point is to get the Gospel right and present the right Gospel.”
That’s my point too, Dan. Get the Gospel right, and find the best way to present it to individuals who I encounter along the way. This means different methods, different words, different analogies, different examples – just think of how many ways you’ve tried to describe what you mean.
A significant part of getting the Gospel right – to me, anyway – is finding the most effective means to have someone understand or hear the Gospel. Part of the Gospel message is delivery not just content of the message.
If all anyone is doing is making sure that certain points are conveyed in sharing the Gospel, then I don’t think that’s the right Gospel.
So the irony then is that methods don’t save – only God saves. In that context, it doesn’t really matter how ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ the Gospel is that is presented, since it’s not up to our presentation anyway.
But, I believe Scripture is clear on the responsibility and accountability we have in turning others away from God, or becoming a stumbling block. I find more Scripture warning us of the consequences of ‘getting in God’s way’ – and that has over time become a bigger factor in my view of evangelism.
Loving people; treating them with dignity and respect; helping them to open up to trusting someone other than themselves; walking them throught the pain and suffering of a life without God to the place where they can embrace Him…that is the model of the Christ, and I don’t see that ever becoming a stumbling block to someone (but I guess anything can be corrupted and abused).
I’m glad we are able to have this dialog — I find we are more in agreement on the bigger picture than one might think.
LikeLike
The Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation to evereyone that believes, is the message, not the method. Think 3M – Message, Means, Method.
The message (The Gospel) is 1 Cor 15:1-4. We have to get that right. It’s not everything that is passing itself off as message – like our best life now.
The means is God’s chosen ‘how’ for the message to be delivered. Romans 10:14 says that’s preaching. that necesitates the words of the message spoken on one end and ears to hear on the other.
The right message is paramount. The message must be ‘preached’ WITH words at some point. Then we can talk about the ‘method’ as whatever happens to connect the God sent ‘preacher’ to the Holy Spirit awakened ‘hearer’.
The message IS the ‘points’ as you pur it. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried and on the third raised again, according to the scriptures and then seem by many. Two points, both according to the scriptures, validated in the temporal by attested to burial and resurrection from the dead.
I find the ‘stumbling block’ language in the Bible about relationships between believers rather than evangelistic opportunities.
Just where in Acts did the Apostles use the ‘love’ gospel? Where are instances of prolonged relationship building before delivering the message? When they delivered the message, what was it about? There are about 15 examples. Write down the circumstances of each one, who was involved, and the message transferred/what was spoken about.
“So the irony then is that methods don’t save – only God saves. In that context, it doesn’t really matter how ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ the Gospel is that is presented, since it’s not up to our presentation anyway.”
You are still confusing the approach/method with the message. Methods can differ, the message has to be right.
LikeLike
This is fascinating, guys, keep going!
LikeLike
There’s an awful of “I” in your theology of evangelism, Bad.
LikeLike
Since we’ve been talking about evangelism and gotten away from the main theme of the Pelagian captivity of the church I’m going to start another post focused on evangelism. Further discussion around the question of Pelagianism/semi-Pelagianism and the church is of course welcome, I request that it remain on point and be done with relevant scripture. 🙂
Bring it on!
LikeLike
I think this is an awesome conversation as well and would love to see it continue… 🙂
LikeLike
Dan,
The discussion of evangelism is a significant part of the larger discussion on Pelagianism.
“You are still confusing the approach/method with the message” – It’s not confusing, it’s intentional. What I’m saying is the approach/method is a significant part of the message. I don’t think it’s an absolute ratio – that is, as the Holy Spirit leads there might be more words, fewer words, different words, and so forth
The conundrum (or apparent contradiction) that I’m trying to work through with you is that if monergism says God is 100% responsible for salvation, and we make no contribution, then wouldn’t that extend to any efforts or involvement in evangelism – or contributing/helping with someone else’s salvation?
I think the distinction we’re starting to see is that there is a difference between works that contribute to salvation and actions that move us to God. Actions like belief, repentance, turning away, turning to – however we say it are the thing(s) we must “DO” to receive salvation. This is different from works that help us earn, buy, or otherwise to contribute to our salvation.
I agree that there are many that think that they must do something (in the way of works, right behavior, etc.) to gain (or keepfrom losing) their salvation, and I think that’s wrong.
How does that fit within your definitions of monergism and synergism? Strictly on the issue of who’s got salvation covered – clearly it’s God, so I’m leaning toward monergism. It’s the extra stuff associated with that term that holds me back at this point, but maybe that’s just semantics.
LikeLike
I am still waiting for any scripture.
LikeLike
The methods don’t mean diddly squat if we don’t carry the right message. The topic of this post goes directly to the message we carry. Is salvation of the Lord, or do we help? that’s the discussion. Is justification by faith or by faith plus works, no matter how small the work (our decision).
“Salvation is of the Lord.”—Jonah 2:9. It can’t get any clearer than that and I don’t there is any clearer picture of that than Jonah, who learned it in the belly of a whale.
We responsible to believe, but we are unable to believe, so God enables us to believe and so influences the human will that men WILL come to Christ. (John 6:37/44/65). The clarity of scripture is staggering.
The definitions of monergism and synergism are not mine, that’s just a linguistic issue, terms that, when applied to the matter of salvation, mean something specific. I don’t see a lot of other ‘stuff’ that’s associated with the terms – they mean what they mean.
All I’m saying at this point is that this post was about the message and needs to stay on point. To return to the point:
“This is the issue: Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves?” – Sproul
LikeLike
What amazes me is how Bad figures this:
“then wouldn’t that extend to any efforts or involvement in evangelism”
This is a person who doesn’t understand Christian obedience or even sanctification. Actually I know he doesn’t accept sanctification, I have already had that discussion with him. He has all but denied that Hebrews 12:14 means what it says.
In the same bible, it says that God saves, period, and it says that we are exhort each other to persevere. This would be a Bad contradiction, i.e. not a contradiction. Clearly the Christian is to be encouraging one another in a biblical faith, not to be discouraging one another in some abiblical philosophical labyrinth, as some are doing right now. To rebuke to the point of silencing those who deny a biblical faith is absolutely biblical, Titus 1:10-16, but to go on and on about what one thinks and then to present one’s thoughts in a position of superiority to scripture itself, as Bad has above is, in fact, to work against the Kingdom of God.
So many would make nice with those who put their philosophies above the word of God. Those who know better need to stop playing footsie with these people and start bringing the word not only into the debate but in opposition to those who go onandon about what is going on between their ears.
Enough.
LikeLike
Jason, Because he has a different theological stand than yourself, you have determined he is not fit for any good deed?
1:10 For there are many rebellious people, idle talkers, and deceivers, especially those with Jewish connections, 1:11 who must be silenced because they mislead whole families by teaching for dishonest gain what ought not to be taught. 1:12 A certain one of them, in fact, one of their own prophets, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 1:13 Such testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply that they may be healthy in the faith 1:14 and not pay attention to Jewish myths and commands of people who reject the truth. 1:15 All is pure to those who are pure. But to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 1:16 They profess to know God but with their deeds they deny him, since they are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good deed.
Sorry, Bad, to talk about you as though you are not there.
Talking about the way in which we are saved, discussing the meaning behind the words is not foolish speculations or vain and idle talk. Sincerely not believing the same thing is then characterized as someone who denies Him and is considered detestable, disobedient and unfit for any good deed?? Having had discussions in the past and by that determining you know a person to this degree is harsh, to say the least. Sincerely disagreeing on points of doctrine and terminology used by theologians is how all those Systematic Theology books got written in the first place. Having been a Wesleyan for most of my Christian walk I would have never been moved to rethink my position by such tactics as you have taken. Titus lived among the Cretans and knew full well the type “false teachers” he was up against. Do we really know such things from comment threads? I, personally, have been challenged by this discussion and have yet to find any need to speak in such a condescending and strident manner.
LikeLike
Michelle,
“Because he has a different theological stand than yourself”
There is nothing “theo” about his stand, which is my criticism. My criticism has to to with Bad’s insubstantial ideas, not different theological systems. Once Bad includes Scripture in his cud-chewing, we can get somewhere, but for now, he has chosen to make this a sort of “what I did last summer” for the vaguely spiritual and semantically deceptive.
And he is.
“Talking about the way in which we are saved, discussing the meaning behind the words is not foolish speculations or vain and idle talk.”
It absolutely is, if Scripture is absent. And it is.
This is the core of my criticism and I will not slow down.
Watch and see what comes of it. Watch his language, watch his evasiveness, watch his distaste for saying anything. As evidence I submit his question in the next post.
This is not just a matter of differing theologies, this is a matter of theology springing from one’s own mind or from Scripture.
Were you really edified by his profound evasiveness and pointless attempts at redirection? That is the behavior of one who wants nothing more than to change the subject. Did this not concern you, that one would be so resistant to honestly saying what they mean and being forthcoming about what they are trying to say? Is this crystal clear duplicity to be questioned or not?
“Do we really know such things from comment threads?”
Michelle there are entire M.A. curricula designed with these very problems, errors, and methods of manipulation in mind.
Whatever background or challenges you may have had in matters such as these, i challenge you to look at Bad’s substance, I don’t mean the subjective flow chart in his head, I mean that which underlies his thoughts in this matter, so just watch to see what is or isn’t shown.
Secondly, when you read, for instance, Matthew 5:21-30, do you think that this sort of broad view of sin only applies in matters of sexual sin and murder? I bet you begin to apply it broadly, that is, this method applies in all matters, not just those two things. The eggheads say that this is “paradigmatic” reading, as other legal texts of the time were also written and interpreted. This means, if it said, “don’t take someone’s cow” that did not mean you could take their chicken. It meant you can’t take anything.
And so, there are dozens of passages dealing in specificity with false teaching, and they all are a little different, except for 1. False teaching and 2. dealing with it. One of the consistent messages throughout the bible is the necessity of the purity of the message, and that we are to have zeal to do something about it. I see a lot of talk about what people might perceive to be the purity of the message, but very little concern over the more and more proliferative false messages and, apart from this site, no desire to deal with it.
I am calling his dishonest bluff. I understand that you don’t like my rhetoric, that is fairly common, but I would encourage you to tell Bad to be more clear and forthcoming for his Scriptural bases of his ideas. Being so blunt wouldn’t be necessary if I could get a straight answer, or even a pertinent question.
LikeLike
Jason,
I should not have stepped in to share my opinion. Y’all seem to know one another, have been on many comment threads together. I’m the new kid on the block, trying to figure out what in the world is going on.
Sorry to have intruded. 😳
Carry on.
LikeLike
Not an intrusion at all. Nothing wrong with people keeping me honest.
There is no reason to say “sorry” at all.
Jason
LikeLike
My Dear Michelle,
‘His Crustiness’ needs no apology. There is a work of God going on here and I ain’t gettin’ in the way. You are part of that work. 🙂
LikeLike
You too Jason…..
LikeLike
Morning Miss Michelle: You did nothing wrong sweet…these guys know their stuff and I sit back a little more than I should..huh J? LOL
I’m trying to break that within myself and take a stand..so we ALL have things to work on here…
Morning Dan and J….wonder what today will bring??? 🙂 Love you!
LikeLike
Thanks.
♥ Y’all!
ALL Y’all!!!
LikeLike
Hiya everybody,
“wonder what today will bring???”
Glory and praise for and to our Lord and The God of all, Jesus Christ, because he will make it that way.
fabulous!
LikeLike
With all this argument over the process of salvation perhaps you ought to make sure that you are all talking about the same thing. What is ‘salvation’? (Outside of Biblical catch phrases)
LikeLike
Well, Sir/or Ma’am,
There is no doubt we are talking about the same thing, and I would offer that we are indeed in agreement concerning what IS ‘salvation’. This particular post was discussing a particular matter ‘about’ salvation. Is salvation entirely a word of God, the position Dr. R.C. Sproul vigorously defends, or does our salvation untimately depend on ‘our decision’ – that we contribute something to salvation.
Do you have questions here?
LikeLike
wow, that is really poor.
Anonymous thinks that clarification of terms is the component that’s lacking.
Anonymous can’t say why he/she thinks its lacking, it just makes him/her all upset.
And though the clarification of terms is important to anonymous, it isn’t important enough to actually help, that is, anonymous just wants to change the subject.
I wonder who that could be.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll bite…Salvation is…Righteousness or Justification…Romans 3:24, Romans 4:5, Romans 5:9, Romans 3:21-24, Romans 6: 1-23, Romans 5:19….
Reconciliation – Romans 5:10,11 – 2 Corinthians 5 18:21, Col. 1:21, 22
Santification, and Holiness of Life – again, read Romans 6: 16-19…..
Immortality, and victory over death….and finally glorification…..Romans 8:28-30 and such….
What does that have to do with what is being discussed here? I’m not following….
LikeLike
Not a lot, Debs. This wasn’t about whether salvation itself is totally a work of God, or a combination of God’s work and our decision – monergism or synergism. Great scripture that speaks to what salvation is, though!!!! I agree with Jason – for some reason Anonymous wants to change the subject.
LikeLike
Three of you seem to agree. Not trying to change the subject. Just wondering if different definitions of salvation might suggest different processes.
LikeLike
And to what end, ‘A’? Is this something you care deeply about? Is your soul in peril of eternal destruction?
LikeLike
A, what is your definition of salvation? There is only one process…one way. What are your thoughts on this?
LikeLike
Dan, I don’t think so.
I think there is more than one definition of salvation. What about the salvation of Israel, of the Jews, that the prophets and Jesus (and Paul) talk about? Maybe salvation is more than just individual and personal. And if that is possible then maybe God might require some human participation. Sort of like a cooperative venture between Him and his creation.
LikeLike
These are not definitions, you are using the word incorrectly.
These are contexts in which a word is being used. It doesn’t change the meaning(s) of the word it only changes its contextual application.
“Maybe salvation is more than just individual and personal.”
This is what goes towards demonstrating a diversionary, deceitful, cowardly, anonymous agenda. You are adding multiple things into this of which no one was speaking. So you have your own ax to grind, quite apart from any unforthcoming “definition”.
As well your intellectually disingenuous maybes are really childish. Maybe you are full of crap, but we won’t know until you grow a spine, show yourself, and say something, anything, substantial.
LikeLike
‘A’,
Let me be direct here. Do you Consider yourself a Christian, and on what basis? How were you saved? Dates are immaterial. There should have been a decision about Christ. What did you learn about God, Christ, and yourself that brought about the decision. Did the decision save you, or did God?
LikeLike
I think you are jumping to conclusions here. My testimony is personal and I don’t know you or your readers very well. I don’t think I can do the story justice in the space and time provided. It was not a singular experience like in an altar call or on the Damascus road. It took awhile (sort of they way it took the Apostles some time to ‘get it, much to Jesus’ frustration.)
“All” other scripture? James 2:17 and Phil 2:12
LikeLike
I know that you made was comment between 62 and 63 about Ephesians. What happened?
LikeLike
you use one scripture against another? The context of James is in matter of what a Christian should be exhibiting, not the fact of salvation, nor how it occurs. This is also a context issue. It has to be, otherwise one ends up using one Scripture in opposition to another, as you are doing. Try and put the two together.
Really? Phil 2:12? Is the fact of 12 not dependent on 13? Yes, all Scripture.
If you were interested in what it actually says instead of this acontextual prooftexting.
You have chosen to initiate a game of theological ding-dong ditch. I am presuming you are dishonest because honest people have a point, and stand for it. You stand for nothing, apart from the virtues of innuendo and questions that you yourself are either unable or unwilling to answer, as far as I can see.
LikeLike
‘A’
You offered absolutely nothing in response to any of my questions. You did admit to having contributed your own efforts to ‘working out your salvation.’ By that admission you ar either in violation of Eph 2:8-9, along with a host of ‘justification by faith alone’ passages, or you were playing word games with Phil 2:12, which is not about initial jsutification.
they must have gotten blown away……
LikeLike