[This Article Is Part Of The Freedom Incursion Series]
Let me put my cards on the table. I am firmly in the Wesleyan-Arminian theological camp, which is about as opposite to Reformed theology (sometimes referred to as Calvinism) as you can possibly get. I have nothing against Reformed theologians, and there are some brilliant thinkers in that camp who I learn from and look forward to reading or listening to. Additionally, I have numerous friends who are very Reformed in their thinking and are beautiful, ethical, Godly individuals. This is not an argument against Calvinists, but rather the implications of the framework which establishes the basis for Reformed theology. Simply put, it leaves us with an image of God that is dark, morbid, and exceptionally cruel. As I unpack this, I am well aware that a number of my readers are, in fact, Reformed theologians. Therefore, if I misrepresent this theological construct in any way, I encourage you to leave your thoughts in the comments section and help me to better understand.
The Tenets Of Calvinism
The five points of Calvinism (typically remembered by the acronym TULIP – total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints) flow into one another logically, and together paint a picture of a sovereign God who reigns over a world where free will is only an illusion. The reason it is only an illusion has to do with the the concept of total depravity, the first of the five points of Calvinism.
Total depravity claims that every individual is so consumed by sin that there is nothing good left in them, that every one of us are utterly incapable of any good thing, and that this inability to even choose the good also extends to our inability to choose to yield to Christ as our savior and Lord. (Read my thoughts on total depravity) As a result, we are incapable even of responding to God’s grace.
This naturally leads into the next point: unconditional election. If we are incapable of choosing any good thing, if we are even incapable of choosing to yield to the Lordship of Christ, then this means that salvation can in no way be based on anything we do. Thus, our salvation is “without condition.” In fact, Christian salvation is entirely based on God and what God does… to the point where some are chosen by God for salvation (or “elected”), and others are chosen for eternal condemnation. This choice is, again, without condition, and is simply based on who God chooses.
This logic naturally leads into the next point, then. The Reformed doctrine of limited atonement suggests that the atoning work of Christ was not for all people, but only for those whom God has elected to be saved. Thus, the atonement is limited in its efficacy for all humanity.
These points ultimately converge in the concept of irresistible grace. Irresistible grace contends that, because we are incapable of choosing any good thing and because salvation is dependent simply on God’s choosing us, that God will therefore override our free will in electing us for salvation. In other words, God has decided that we are going to serve Him as Lord whether we want to or not – or, perhaps better phrased, God will simply make us want to serve Him.
The fifth and final point culminates the entire argument, and it is one that everybody likes. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints simply claims that, since salvation is entirely dependent on God and in no way dependent on us, there is nothing we can ever possibly do to lose our salvation (including choosing to willfully reject Christ, since we never really chose to follow Him in the first place – God made that decision for us). Ironically, a number of Christian traditions will eagerly eschew the first four points of Calvinism, but cling to the fifth and final point as a security blanket. Hopefully by now, however, we can see how it is dependent on the preceding elements.
Why Reformed Theology Is A Problem
Ultimately, here is my issue. I agree, without doubt, that we are incapable of saving ourselves. Our redemption is entirely dependent on the grace of God extended to us as a gift, and in no way relies on our ability to earn it. However, in extending His grace toward us, I contend that God does not eradicate our free will. Every call for salvation throughout the pages of Scripture include the need for a response on our behalf – sometimes that is a call for repentance and baptism (Acts 2), sometimes a call for confession (Romans 10), and sometimes a call for faith (Ephesians 2). Consistently, however, it requires us to make a choice. A choice cannot be made if our will to make that choice is stripped from us.
It goes deeper, however. Assume, for a moment, that these five pillars are accurate. What does this tell us about God? Salvation and condemnation are no longer issues of sin. In fact, sin is irrelevant at this point, because the “chosen” are just as sinful as the rejected. Eternal torment is no longer something that we bring on ourselves (read my thoughts on hell), but something God chooses to inflict on His children simply because He can. The arbitrary selection of the “cool kids” who get to hang out with God for eternity while the rest sizzle and pop in unending torture is incoherent with a God who is merciful, just, patient, long-suffering, and defined chiefly by love.
Under this way of thinking, salvation is no longer an issue of redemption, unless one understands it as redemption from a God of cruelty who saves us by forcing us against our will to “hang out at His house.” Forever.
A Better Picture?
This means that the two possible outcomes for our eternal fate fall squarely between torment and enslavement. Is this what Scripture really teaches?
I don’t believe that this in any way reflects the behavior of a God who is willing to become a member of His own creation in putting on human flesh, in suffering, in dying, in descending into hell, and in resurrecting so that we may be saved. I don’t believe that this reflects the heart of a God who “does not want anyone to perish” (2 Peter 3:9) or who “demonstrates His own love for us in this: in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). I don’t believe that this reflects the character of a God who dug His toes into the sand when fashioning humanity, who began His redemptive work in clothing Adam and Eve even before they left the garden, and who established a saving covenant with Abraham that ultimately manifested in Jesus. I don’t believe that this reflects the ethics of a God who calls us to love others as He loves us, who calls us to carry the good news of freedom in Christ to every nation on the earth, and who overturns social orders in teaching His followers to love the “least of these.”
In other words, I don’t believe that this reflects the God of Scripture. What do you think?
Do you agree? Disagree? Tell us about it in the comments…
Image Credit: Pink Sherbet
Tim February 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm
One comment on free will that I think helps the logic of Calvinism flow more (at least in my head). I am a Calvinist, reformed believer, whatever you want to call it and I think the term “free will” is a misnomer.
Romans 3 and 6 tell us that we are totally incapable of doing good and pleasing God and we’re defined as “slaves to sin”. The way I see free will is that our wills are free in the sense that we are free to choose whatever sin we wish. The human heart is so inclined to sin that it permeates every thought, word, and deed. That’s why Martin Luther proposed that our wills are in bondage to sin. We feel the illusion of free will because sin is the only thing we know how to do. Like when Morpheus says to Neo in The Matrix, “You think that’s air you’re breathing?”
We are sinners by nature AND by choice, we actively choose sin every day so we are accountable for the sins we do and are justly condemned by them. I propose that only in Christ when we are made a slave to righteousness are our minds and wills truly free. In Christ we have the power and the ability to choose to sin and to choose obedience and righteousness by the power of the Holy Spirit. There can only be freedom when there are multiple choices to be made, but even still, it is the Holy Spirit inside us giving us the ability to choose obedience, it is not our own power.
So in electing some for salvation, God isn’t being unfair to one group who don’t get saved, He is letting them get what they deserve for their lifetime of willful sinning. Those who receive mercy are chosen for reasons unknown to us but God has a plan. He chooses to have mercy on some while the rest don’t. Is that unjust of God? In fact, His justice is upheld for both groups of people. Your sins are either paid for by yourself in hell or they are paid for by Jesus on the cross. Either way, no sin is left unpunished.
Just some things to think about.
T. E. Hanna February 22, 2013 at 12:47 pm
So would you say that we have the ability to choose or reject Christ, or that God makes that decision for us?
Carl February 28, 2013 at 2:50 am
That has been my main concern with that explanation of Calvinism before. Personally, it only convoluted the issue more, or at least cleared it up in my mind that I couldn’t find it to be a logical position.
If you say that we have freewill, but we can only choose to sin, and our freewill is practiced in which sin we want to commit, that is not freewill at all. We are still wholly unable to come to Christ under that reasoning, at least not without God choosing me. Regardless of whether I choose to tell lies or murder my family, I’m still unable to turn to and accept the Gospel of my own accord and deal with the sin. The “degree” of sin is not the issue at all, but the fact that this proposed freewill is not freewill at all.
As you noted, with this form of reasoning, if I end up separated from God until the day I die, I have not missed out on eternity with God because I chose to rebel against Him, but instead, it is everyone else’s fault. It’s Adam’s fault for sinning and giving me this proposed total depravity that keeps me from even desiring God in the slightest. I never asked for that. It was forced upon me. I never asked for a heart that couldn’t accept God if I wanted to. And above that, if I end up estranged from God on the judgment day, this 5-Point Calvinism reasoning put’s God at fault, not me. He was the one that could save me and He consciously chose to not do that. It would be like me placing my son into a pit against his will with no provisions, and them blaming him as he withered away without food. This is not the God I find within the scripture.
Zania Spence February 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm
I haven’t studied much into Soteriology but I would agree with you. Calvinism doesn’t match my relationship with God and who I know him to be. I grew up in the Seventh Day Adventist church and am now in a non-denominational church where both implicitly take an Arminianism stance without really formalizing or venerating it.
I think the biggest problem overall is reconciling free will and the sovereignty of God. Both hyper stances contradict each other. One one end absolute free will is anarchy and on the other end God wants people to choose to love him. If following Christ isn’t completely free how then will we fulfill the greatest commandment of all(Matt 22)? So we don’t want anarchy or to become puppets.
The best explanation to reconcile God’s sovereignty with our free will it’s like this. God has set up the system and rules. He’s orchestrated a 24 day, a 7 day week cycle, that gravity is 9.8/m second. He knows the very hairs on our head (Luke 12:7). He has set up the world like a function with an input of our choices with his mapping of potential outcomes. (Sorry, I have a math & science background..LOL). There exists a function for everyone that leads to the outcome of salvation. So it’s not true that some don’t have a function that leads to salvation. Because he said that he’s not willing for anyone to perish (2 Peter 3). When he calls everyone, however he calls (“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, John 6:44, NIV1984″), and we say yes then we’re using the function that leads to salvation.
Let me just say this last thing. Both Calvinists and Armianists evangelize it’s just that Calvinists do it in the premise that they hope to convict the set of the elect while Arminianist hope to convict the set of all people. I’m just glad everyone is still spreading the gospel.
Heidi Viars February 22, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for your inspiring thoughts. While it is important to make an intelligent defense for our beliefs, we must tread carefully trying to make sense of a God who has given us a limited mind to understand all that He is and all that He thinks. He told us very clearly that His thoughts and ways are not ours.
How can He harden Pharaoh’s heart, and yet give Him a choice? How can He be omniscient and yet ask us to chose Him? How can He create with His breath and bring into being things that have not existed in the material realm? I do not know!
I think we must carefully take in consideration that we have potential to stray away onto our own paths and lean on our own understanding.
It makes me sad, that the church throughout history has put certain man on pedestals and followed ideas, rather than the Holy Spirit. People call themselves “Lutherans”, “Calvinist”, and “Wesleyans”, when even Paul warned us to do so. I think we want to belong and be able for people to identify with us. Following people has caused split in churches and much harm in the past.
I do not have a degree in Theology nor have I been to Bible College. I look at the Bible for today. Living in Christ is a daily deal, a constant awareness of His presence and a belief of His power for us in the day to day. God made us for relationships with Him others, to be aware that we are fully known and deeply loved and show others that truth.
Are these discussions necessary to make us better Christ-followers? Is it edifying the Body? Or, is it giving the enemy ammunition to fling mud on the Bride’s dress? Does this not make us question other’s deeds and motives and the works, which the Bible so clearly calls us to do.
YES, sound doctrine is important, especially as times get worse. I think should focus our energy on the lost, who do not know Christ and will be in hell for eternity. Maybe our focus should shift from talk to action. We need bonding discussions rather than those, who by their very nature divide, because there is still a mystery to our God, not all can be explained.
You encouraged me to post this on my blog… http://heidiviars.com/2013/02/22/pardon-me … something I wrote some time ago, but only kept in my drafts. Maybe it would encourage us all to stay focused on the task.
Thanks so much for posting and making your reader think. It surely did this for me today!
T. E. Hanna February 22, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Heidi, I don’t think we are trying to “follow” certain men rather than Christ, I think we identify ourselves as Lutherans or Wesleyans or Calvinists in order to more easily communicate the way we understand central aspects of the Christian faith – aspects that have immediate implications for how we live as Christians and how we understand this divine-human relationship that we have been invited to partake of.
So, yes, I think these discussions are very necessary, and very edifying to the body of Christ. I don’t think it needs to divide us, but I do think it needs to be engaged.
Heidi Viars February 22, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Thanks so much for your time to reply and for all the work you do for Jesus. We can always finish this discussion in heaven one day, I know I will see you there for sure
I pray He blesses your minstry and opens door for you in the days ahead!
HV
Andrew Bernhardt February 22, 2013 at 9:13 pm
I don’t consider myself a Calvinist or Arminian… maybe I’m something in between (like maybe a 3.5 point Calvinist).
I had studied the issue of predestination/election vs. free will some time ago from both sides, and while I never came up with a polished conclusion, I do recognize the Bible supports both concepts. I don’t know the details of how it all works out, but I don’t have to. God has it all figured out!
One conclusion I’ve come to is that God does not prevent anyone from coming to ‘saving faith’. Salvation is available to everyone (and so I disagree with limited atonement). I think what keeps man from repentance and faith is fallen man’s own free will. I don’t think anyone naturally wants to give up their freedom to think and act their own way.
When God hardens someone’s heart, He is just pushing the person in the direction he naturally wants to go anyway, like He did with Pharaoh. For those of us who have been saved, it is only by God’s grace that He rescued us away from that mindset.
T. E. Hanna February 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm
I would agree with most of this I think. Even in the case of Pharaoh, we see God hardening a person’s heart after they have established a pattern of sin and willfully resisting the work of the Holy Spirit. I think that process of hardening is a pattern we still see today
Jack February 27, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Andrew and I seem to be on the same page on this Calvinist versus Arminian issue. Like him, I’m in-between both camps theologically. And, I don’t believe in limited atonement either. Christ died for all men, It is HIs will that all men come to a saving knowledge of Him.
As a United Methodist myself, I come from a Wesleyan tradition. And when we look back into America’s First Great Awakening, who is considered one of the major, if not the major leader of that revival in the American colonies? None other than George Whitefield, a Calvinist. On the other hand, John Wesley was an Arminian. God used both men in a mighty way.
What we all need most is a burden for souls, like those great men of God had.
melanie jean juneau February 22, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Calvinism not only does not reflect scripture, it does not reflect my experience with God or people I know. The mercy of God is unlimited, forgiving 7×7 or innumerable times. To me Calvinism is a man’s flawed thinking , almost sophistry and does not reflect the heart of God.
Lana February 23, 2013 at 2:24 am
I am one of those former Calvinists. I left, not because it failed to make sense from scripture, but because I got exhausted trying to justify how a loving God could willing send people to hell when he could have chosen to draw them too. That said, I don’t agree with arminians either. I think one day, all people will be saved, or at least I hope so.
T. E. Hanna February 23, 2013 at 12:54 pm
I think Arminian theology certainly leaves room for a sense of universalism, and it has been argued for in ways that are still faithful to Scripture. Having said that, I tend to lean towards an eternal heavenly kingdom whose central defining element is love and an eternal kingdom of darkness whose central defining element is self-inflicted suffering. I see the latter as the direction we tend to gravitate towards ourselves, and the former the result of God’s purposes for us played out when we respond to His intervention for our salvation.
Brian Swope February 23, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Good post T.E. I think there has to be some middle ground here. I am more inclined to call myself Calminian in a theological sense. The real issue in this debate comes down to the sovereignty of God. The staunch Calvinist is adamant (in most cases) that any attempt to give man free will to choose impinges on the sovereignty of God. I disagree. We should not view God’s sovereignty in light of what he can do, but rather what he chooses to do. Tim, the problem with Calvinism is that when you take it to its logical conclusion, a Reformed view of the sovereignty of God will ultimately lead to the conclusion that God is responsible for sin. The argument for this is long and drawn out so I won’t post it here. Here’s my point if I can make it though.
God’s ultimate will is that he be glorified. As such, even if man is given free will, God will be glorified. If we choose to sin and face his righteousness and judgment, then he remains sovereign. If we experience his grace and mercy, he still remains sovereign. In either case, God is glorified. I wrote a paper on this very subject last year. I will post it to my own blog so you can read it. http://www.progressingbackward.com. Either way, our free will is necessary, but the extent to which we choose is based on the degree to which God has revealed himself to each one of us. Like I said, hard to explain here. Check out my blog and I will post the paper along with all of the sources I used for the research.
T. E. Hanna February 23, 2013 at 1:37 pm
That’s a great summary, and I think your point is valid: God choosing to give people free will is ultimately an expression of His sovereignty, not a rejection of it.
Brian Swope February 23, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Posted the paper I was talking about. Feel free to read and comment.
Jack February 23, 2013 at 8:59 pm
I have been on both sides of the theological fence on this Arminian/Calvinist dispute, For the first two years of my Christian life, I was an Arminian. However, I often struggled with it. Some of it I agree with, such as the free will of man. However, I did struggle with the issue of losing one’s salvation. I was in a constant state of torment, always afraid God would hit me over the head with a big sledge hammer when I did something wrong. Arminianism caused me to get bound up by legalism. This was some forty years ago. (I became a Christian when I was 17-years old.)
Anyway, when I went to college I started attending a church where practically every Sunday, I heard the message of God’s grace. Little by little, God started setting me free from my legalistic bondage. I also heard the other side of salvation — that you can’t lose it. What did I do? I started asking God which one was true. I wasn’t in any sort of spiritual or emotional crisis. I simply wanted to know which way to believe.
To make a long story short, I came to understand that the doctrine of losing one’s salvation went against the doctrine of God’s grace. Hebrews 6 was often shown to me in my early Christian years as proof you can lose it. However, I will point out one thing that writer said. In Hebrews 6:4, he says that “it is impossible to renew again to repentance those who were once enlightened.” Since it’s impossible, this tells me that if someone backslides or becomes an apostate, there’s no more hope for him/her. And yet, I have known people who have backslidden, and later repented and are now totally sold out to the Lord.
Much, much more could be said about Hebrews 6, but I’ll leave it there. For me, Hebrews 6:4 pokes a hole in Arminius’ argument about losing your salvation. If a person loses their salvation, they can never come back, according to that verse. And yet, like I earlier stated, I’ve known people who have repented, My view is that the writer of Hebrews was only using a hypothetical argument in this chapter regarding salvation. His main emphasis was on Christian growth.
All this having been said, I will also add that I am not a five-point (TULIP) Calvinist, either. I believe the truth actually lies somewhere between what Arminius and Calvin taught.
Anyway, that’s my two-cent worth to this interesting discussion.
T. E. Hanna February 23, 2013 at 9:32 pm
You make a good point, Jack. I don’t think we can “lose” our salvation in a passive sense. I do think, however, that just as we made active choice to yield to Jesus as Lord, we can also make an active choice later to reject Him. Saul is an example of this, as is Judas – both accepted the call to follow God, both later rejected Him. I think of Jesus’ parable of the sower, and the seed that fell on shallow soil, sprouting quickly and then fading away – a metaphor for those who accept God’s word and eagerly follow, only to fall away later.
I think this is different than backsliding, however. Consistent, unrepentant sin creates a deadly pattern in our lives which harden our hearts towards God and His Spirit… left to fester long enough, these patterns of rebellion can result in a heart hardened enough to actively reject God and His salvation.
I don’t think that we “lose” our salvation so much as we choose to abandon it.
Jonathan February 27, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Thank-you for posting this!
I do have a theory on this “elite” form of Christianity (Calvinism). Even though some, if not all, tenets of TULIP originated with St. Augustine, they really didn’t hit the fan until John Calvin came around. This begs the question, “Why?” My theory is that it has something to do with the culture milieu of Calvin’s day. Around this time, we see the emergence of the Puritan/Protestant Work Ethic. According to this view, poverty was akin to godlessness and prosperity to godliness. Therefore, if one was wealthy, they clearly were favored by God over those that were poor/impoverished. Therefore, according to some “mystery” of God, His favor rested on some and not on others. Within this cultural mindset, it’s not hard to see why the doctrine of unconditional election generally met with such wide acceptance, since it matched up with how they believed God operated in regards to humanity (some were clearly marked out by God for salvation, and some were not).
The popularity of Calvinism today (especially in regards to TULIP) has more to do with the power of culture than it does with being actually true to what the Bible has to say.
This is my current view on things.
T. E. Hanna February 27, 2013 at 2:12 pm
Actually, TULIP didn’t arise with Augustine OR Calvin. It actually came about from the synod of dort that met in 1619 and drafted these 5 points in response to the 5 remonstrances of Joseph Arminius, and then posthumously attributed to John Calvin.
Jonathan February 27, 2013 at 2:35 pm
I know TULIP was in response to the 5 remonstrances. I guess, by “tenets of TULIP”, I was referring more to the foundational flow of thought to Calvinism. I also meant more the belief that God chooses who will believe and be saved.
Trey Jasso March 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm
It would be good if you interacted with Reformed sources.
T. E. Hanna March 4, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I interact a great deal with reformed sources and reformed theologians, both in terms of written material and in personal conversation.
I’d be very open to correction, however. Did I misconstrue 5 point reformed theology in any way?
Trey Jasso March 4, 2013 at 3:42 pm
In your description of TULIP for example. You never use the definition from the Canons of Dort. What are your sources for defining each of those doctrines as you have. I think it would be more helpful if you would have cited CD 1.2, 3 etc. Rather than giving a definition but I don’t recognize where in any of the Reformed or Presbyterian confessions those definitions are provided.
T. E. Hanna March 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm
So it’s not the definitions you have issue with, you would just like better citations from original source material? That’s fair. I can pull that later tonight when I’m home, or maybe tomorrow. To be fair, tho, this was more of a reflection than an essay. In your understanding, did I misrepresent reformed theology? If so, how?
Frank Angus March 12, 2013 at 12:57 pm
This discussion is so helpful to me and I am grateful for all the comments expressed as well as the original article. This forum is so helpful to me right now and I want to let everyone know that but this issue is something I really am struggling with and I hesitate to comment because I am so confused. I can only make an empirical comment and that would be I believe in free will for all mankind and the sovereignty of God and, in a way I don’t understand, they are not mutually exclusive. I guess I am just defining the problem but for me it is a starting point. Thanks everyone.
HeRoseFromTheDead March 13, 2013 at 8:37 am
Predestination does not preclude free will. GOD forensically forgives all through the cross, but can only save those whom he foreknew (because of man’s free will). This suggests that there are those whom he did not foreknow, and consequently, who are not his. Jesus said certain people in his day could not hear his words because their father was the slanderer. So then there are two families on earth. If GOD foreknew his children, it is not at all implausible that those children also know who their father is, and respond when they hear his voice. They choose through their own free will to obey. Likewise, those who are not foreknown, have no longing to be reunited with the Father (because he is not their father), and choose the world, through their own free will, instead.
T E Hanna March 13, 2013 at 3:33 pm
What do you mean by “forensically forgives”?
And I would agree that divine foreknowledge does not equate with the removal of free will. I am not disputing predestination, I am disputing the Calvinist definition whereby free will is removed and God arbitrarily selects some for salvation and others for condemnation.
The central distinction between Arminian theology and Calvinist theology is that Arminian theology says that we must make a choice, Calvinist theology says that choice is made for us
HeRoseFromTheDead March 13, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Forensic: I’m referring to the legal aspect of our forgiveness. We have been declared righteous by the king, but the full actualization of that pardon has not yet occurred. We lay hold of it through faith and endurance. Those who endure sanctification will be spared; those who don’t, won’t.
It almost seems that Calvinism considers men to be puppets.
Fergus Davar April 11, 2013 at 6:51 am
Brother Hanna you say you are a Wesleyan-Arminian and you also say elsewhere that the founding Fathers were Agnostics and Diest. So I would like to ask you if you are able to trace this Wesleyan Arminian Church back to the days of the early Church and then to Christ and from there to the Old Testament right up to Adam?
The reason I am asking you this is because Jesus Christ said in Mat 28:20 that he would be with His Church till the end of the age that was His promise. Even the Salvation of the Old Testament Saints was accomplished on the Cross, so they too are the Church i.e. the body of Christ’ believer. However concerning the Wesleyan Arminians, it implicitly seems that God did not remember His promise to His Church over a certain period until the Wesleyan Arminian following came about. Christ never forsook His Church for Him to start one anew!
T E Hanna April 11, 2013 at 9:31 am
Wesleyan-Arminian is a theological tradition, not another religion. I am a Christian first and foremost, and I can trace that back to Jesus.
Your question, however, is whether the cornerstone of Wesleyan-Arminian theology – human free choice – can be traced back to teh early church. Yes, it can. Even as early as Origen, and Chrysostom, and Augustine, and Aquinas, and on and on it goes. Human free choice has a long heritage in historically orthodox Christian theology, as opposed to, says, unconditional election which rises up in the 1700s.
Jack's Notebooks and Journals April 11, 2013 at 3:27 pm
I might add, though, Brother Hanna, that Origen did have some serious errors in his doctrine: a) that Christ was subordinate to God the Father, 2) that the soul was pre-existent, and c) he believed in the restoration of all spirits.
Augustine agreed with Calvin that man’s will was so totally depraved that he could do nothing to save himself, and that salvation was a result of God’s irresistible grace. So I respectfully disagree with you about Augustine and Arminianism. His theology was such that both Protestants and Catholics can look to him in different ways. The Catholics see him as a forerunner of Roman ecclesiasticism because of his emphasis on the Church as the means of being saved — the Creed, the Sacraments, the visible institution.The Protestants look at him in in the light of his belief in original sin, etc. In essence, Augustine belongs to both “camps” of Christian thought.
I have been enjoying your blogs immensely. Very thought-provoking!
T E Hanna April 11, 2013 at 5:43 pm
I would agree with that, Jack. Origen is generally very well regarded as a church father, but some of his views were later deemed heretical.
Augustine, however, unpacks his view in his treatise ‘On Free Will’ where he argues for the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and free human will. He also lays the foundation for original sin, which later developed into total depravity.
It should be noted, however, that his views on free will also bore significant influence on Pelagius, who took free will to such an extreme so as to suggest that we are responsible for saving ourselves. Pelagianism was obviously a heresy and went way too far, but it is important to note that Augustine’s arguments for free will were compelling enough that Pelagius built an entire theological framework off them.
T E Hanna April 12, 2013 at 12:11 am
Just to clarify… I am not arguing that Augustine was in any way Pelagian.
Augustine argues that we have will, and even that we are still capable of good, but that even our “good” is tainted by sin.
God therefore must encounter us with His grace. We then respond in faith. Augustine adds baptism as well.
Pelagius, on the other hand, emphasized a strict moralism and the ability to be empowered by God so as to save ourselves. This built on some of Augustine’s arguments in “On Free Will”, but then went a different direction with it.
Augustine then spent much of his life arguing AGAINST Pelagius. We do not save ourselves. God seeks us out. God initiates. God offers grace. God saves.
All we have to do is respond in faith. This then marks the beginning of the Christian life.
T E Hanna April 11, 2013 at 9:33 am
One other brief side note… the article on twitter about the fathers being agnostics and desists was a tongue in cheek title of another article I referenced to. The point was ultimately that, of the 56 founding fathers, 54 were orthodox Christians. Unfortunately, the link to the article broke, so all anyone was left with was the title. I apologize for that.