Three Questions - Three Watersheds

Having just put down a note on Total Depravity, I thought it worth going slightly further, to look at three questions that mark historical fault-lines in Christendom (at its widest).

1) Who saves us?

a) We do.

Pelagius said that human beings retain enough of goodness and innate ability that we can reach up by our own effort and find God, attaining his standards. (Whether or not Pelagius himself actually said this is a moot point - he may have actually been far closer to later Arminians than his opponents - or even his followers - gave him credit!)

 

b) God does

Augustine said that we are all subject to total depravity and that we are utterly unable to turn to God and reach his standard. 

That question was settled, and the Pelagian view declared heretical, at the Council of Carthage, and, although not an ecumenical/catholic council in the full sense, I understand that the church, both East and West, has been (officially) Augustinian ever since. Any turning to God is understood by all to be the outworking of God's grace - his prevenient (coming-before) grace that enables the exercise of faith. 

 

2) How does God save us? 

a) Through the rites and offices of the church - the sacraments.  

This view dominates the Roman and Orthodox wings of the church. Baptism expunges original sin; penance and the sacrifice of the mass grant forgiveness of on-going sin. The ministry of the word is to lead the faithful to the sacraments. 

b) Through direct faith in Christ by his word and Spirit

This view has always been held by some within the Western church, but came to prominence and dominance in one part of the church especially through Luther and the other reformers. It is the typical view of Protestants, and within that stream, of Evangelicals. The sacraments are physical helps to the ministry of the word.

 

3) Who can be saved?

a) All are equally unable to turn to God by nature, and all are equally addressed and challenged by the gospel; only those in whom God is personally at work by his Spirit actually respond to Christ in faith. This is the Calvinist view. The mixed results of preaching the gospel (some believe, some don't) have their root in God's prevenient grace which is particular to individuals - some receive it, some don't, and all who do come to faith.

b) All are equally unable to turn to God by nature, and all are equally addressed and challenged by the gospel; but God works universally in all (his prevenient grace) in such a way that all have the grace-given ability to choose to place their faith in Christ as they hear. This is the Arminian view. The mixed results of gospel preaching have their root in personal decisions for which we are all equally capacitated by God's universal, prevenient grace. As all receive grace, such grace must be resistible or else all would believe.

 

 

The value of these three questions is that they make clear where the streams of evangelical Arminianism and Calvinism diverge, and that Arminians can affirm absolutely their belief in Total Depravity. Of course, in practice, at a folk-religion level, all branches of the church have shown tendencies to drift back towards Pelagianism – we are all born as Pelagians, our sin manifesting itself as pride which asserts our own capacity to right-ourselves. It may not be unfair to say that some branches of Arminianism have sometimes so emphasised human decision and so failed to teach prevenient grace that they have become practical Pelagians, and this has been most unhealthy.

 

However, at its best evangelical Arminianism exalts the grace of God. Calvinists might feel that Charles Wesley was showing his roots in the 39 Articles rather than his shoots in Methodism when he wrote And can it be, but the fact is that he wrote it and it is unfair to charge him with schizophrenia.

 

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

 

It is only by grace that we see our need of grace;
the more we receive of grace, the more we perceive our need.