The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Shortly after the Reformation began, in the first few years after Martin Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses on the church door at Wittenburg, he issued some short booklets on a variety of subjects. One of the most provocative was titled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this book Luther was looking back to that period of Old Testament history when Jerusalem was destroyed by the invading armies of Babylon and the elite of the people were carried off into captivity. Luther in the sixteenth century took the image of the historic Babylonian captivity and reapplied it to his era and talked about the new Babylonian captivity of the Church. He was speaking of Rome as the modern Babylon that held the Gospel hostage with its rejection of the biblical understanding of justification. You can understand how fierce the controversy was, how polemical this title would be in that period by saying that the Church had not simply erred or strayed, but had fallen -- that it's actually now Babylonian; it is now in pagan captivity.

I've often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I can't answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church.

Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage Of the Will. When we look at the Reformation -- sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo Gloria, sola gratia -- Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of sola fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone.

In the Fleming Revell edition of The Bondage of the Will, the translators, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, included a somewhat provocative historical and theological introduction to the book itself. This is from the end of that introduction:

Historically, it's a simple matter of the fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the leading Protestant theologians of the first epoch of the Reformation stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points they had their differences. In asserting the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them these doctrines were the very lifeblood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther's works says this:

That is to say, that the faith that receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left for man to fulfill? Do you hear the difference? let me put it in simple terms. I heard an evangelist recently say, "If God takes a thousand steps to reach out to you for your redemption, still in the final analysis, you must take the decisive step to be saved." Consider the statement that has been made by America's most beloved and leading evangelical of the twentieth century, Billy Graham, who says with great passion, "God does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent."

Now, let's return briefly to my title, "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church." What are we talking about?

Pelagius was a monk who lived in Britain in the fifth century. He was a contemporary of the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Church history if not all time, Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. We have heard of St. Augustine, of his great works in theology, of his City of God, of his Confessions, and so on, which remain Christian Classics.

Augustine, in addition to being a titanic theologian and a prodigious intellect, was also a man of deep spirituality and prayer. In one of his famous prayers, Augustine made a seemingly harmless and innocuous statement in the prayer to God in which he says: "O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command." Now, would that give you apoplexy -- to hear a prayer like that? Well it certainly set Pelagius, this British monk, into orbit. When he heard that, he protested vociferously, even appealing to Rome to have this ghastly prayer censured from the pen of Augustine. Here's why. He said "Are you saying, Augustine, that God has the inherent right to command anything that he so desires from his creatures? Nobody is going to dispute that. God inherently, as the creator of heaven and earth, has the right to impose obligations on his creatures and say, 'Thou shalt do this, and thou shalt not do that.' 'Command whatever thou would' -- it's a perfectly legitimate prayer."

It's the second part of the prayer that Pelagius abhorred -- when Augustine said, "and grant what thou dost command." He said, "What are you talking about? If God is just, if God is righteous and God is holy, and God commands of the creature to do something, certainly that creature would have the power within himself, the moral ability within himself, to perform it or God would never require it in the first place." Now that makes sense, doesn't it? What Pelagius was saying is that moral responsibility always and everywhere implies moral capability or, simply, moral ability. So why would we have to pray, "God grant me, give me the gift of being able to do what you command me to do"? Pelagius saw in this statement a shadow being cast over the integrity of God himself, who would hold people responsible for doing something they cannot do.

So, in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam and Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God's law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It's a result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin and by sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is it that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.

This is precisely what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam's sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace -- and here's the key distinction -- facilitates righteousness. What does "facilitate" mean? It helps, it makes more facile, it makes it easier, but you don't have to have it. You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact some people who do it. Augustine said, "No, no, no, no... we are infected by sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being -- so much so that no human being has the moral power to incline themselves to cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is one that Augustine would describe as the inability not to sin. In simple English, what Augustine was saying that in the Fall, man loses his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his own evil inclinations.

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first of three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism -- because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

Now what is called semi-Pelagianism, as the prefix "semi" suggests, was a somewhat middle ground between full-orbed Augustinianism and full-orbed Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism said this: yes, there was a fall; yes there is such a thing as original sin; yes the constituent nature of humanity has been changed by this state of corruption and all parts of our humanity have been significantly weakened by the fall, so much so that without the assistance of divine grace nobody can possibly be redeemed, so that grace is not only helpful but it's absolutely necessary for salvation. While we are so fallen that we can't be saved without grace, we are not so fallen that we don't have the ability to accept or reject the grace when it's offered to us. The will is weakened but it is not enslaved. There remains in the core of our being an island of righteousness that remains untouched by the fall. It's out of that little island of righteousness, that little parcel of goodness that is still intact in the soul or in the will that is the determinative difference between heaven and hell. It's that little island that must be exercised when God does his thousand steps of reaching out to us, but in the final analysis it's the one step that we take that determines whether we go to heaven or hell -- whether we exercise that little righteousness that is in the core of our being or whether we don't. That little island Augustine wouldn't even recognize as an atoll in the South Pacific. He said it's a mythical island, that the will is enslaved, and that man is dead in his sin and trespasses.

Ironically, the Church condemned semi-Pelagianism as vehemently as it had condemned original Pelagianism. Yet by the time you get to the sixteenth century and you read the Catholic understanding of what happens in salvation the Church basically repudiated what Augustine taught and what Aquinas taught as well. The Church concluded that there still remains this freedom that is intact in the human will and that man must cooperate with -- and assent to -- the prevenient grace that is offered to them by God. If we exercise that will, if we exercise a cooperation with whatever powers we have left, we will be saved. And so in the sixteenth century the Church reembraced semi-Pelagianism.

At the time of the Reformation, all the reformers agreed on one point: the moral inability of fallen human beings to incline themselves to the things of God; that all people, in order to be saved, are totally dependent, not ninety-nine percent, but one hundred percent dependent upon the monergistic work of regeneration in order to come to faith, and that faith itself is a gift of God. It's not that we are offered salvation and that we will be born again if we choose to believe. But we can't even believe until God in his grace and in his mercy first changes the disposition of our souls through this sovereign work of regeneration. In other words, what the reformers all agreed with was, unless a man is born again, he can't even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it. Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, "No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father" -- that the necessary condition for anybody's faith and anybody's salvation is regeneration.

Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn't that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of "professing evangelical Christians" in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions -- or let me say it negatively -- neither off these positions is semi-Pelagian. They're both Pelagian. To say we're basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking depth, we could find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We're overwhelmed with it. We're surrounded by it. We're immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man's basic thesis was, we don't need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America's most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they're correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings -- and I say, "I don't see how any Christian person could write this." And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.

One thing is clear: that you can be purely Pelagian and be completely welcome in the evangelical movement today. It's not simply that the camel sticks his nose into the tent; he doesn't just come in the tent -- he kicks the owner of the tent out. Modern Evangelicalism today looks with suspicion at Reformed theology, which has become sort of the third-class citizen of Evangelicalism. Now you say, "Wait a minute, R. C. Let's not tar everybody with the extreme brush of Pelagianism, because, after all, Billy Graham and the rest of these people are saying there was a Fall; you've got to have grace; there is such a thing as original sin; and semi-Pelagians do not agree with Pelagius' facile and sanguine view of unfallen human nature." And that's true. No question about it. But it's that little island of righteousness where man still has the ability, in and of himself, to turn, to change, to incline, to dispose, to embrace the offer of grace that reveals why historically semi-Pelagianism is not called semi-Augustinianism, but semi-Pelagianism. It never really escapes the core idea of the bondage of the soul, the captivity of the human heart to sin -- that it's not simply infected by a disease that may be fatal if left untreated, but it is mortal.

I heard an evangelist use two analogies to describe what happens in our redemption. He said sin has such a stronghold on us, a stranglehold, that it's like a person who can't swim, who falls overboard in a raging sea, and he's going under for the third time and only the tops of his fingers are still above the water; and unless someone intervenes to rescue him, he has no hope of survival, his death is certain. And unless God throws him a life preserver, he can't possibly be rescued. And not only must God throw him a life preserver in the general vicinity of where he is, but that life preserver has to hit him right where his fingers are still extended out of the water, and hit him so that he can grasp hold of it. It has to be perfectly pitched. But still that man will drown unless he takes his fingers and curls them around the life preserver and God will rescue him. But unless that tiny little human action is done, he will surely perish.

The other analogy is this: A man is desperately ill, sick unto death, lying in his hospital bed with a disease that is fatal. There is no way he can be cured unless somebody from outside comes up with a cure, a medicine that will take care of this fatal disease. And God has the cure and walks into the room with the medicine. But the man is so weak he can't even help himself to the medicine; God has to pour it on the spoon. The man is so sick he's almost comatose. He can't even open his mouth, and God has to lean over and open up his mouth for him. God has to bring the spoon to the man¹s lips, but the man still has to swallow it.

Now, if we're going to use analogies, let's be accurate. The man isn't going under for the third time; he is stone cold dead at the bottom of the ocean. That's where you once were when you were dead in sin and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air. And while you were dead hath God quickened you together with Christ. God dove to the bottom of the sea and took that drowned corpse and breathed into it the breath of his life and raised you from the dead. And it's not that you were dying in a hospital bed of a certain illness, but rather, when you were born you were born D.O.A. That's what the Bible says: that we are morally stillborn.

Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will. If you mean by free will the ability for fallen human beings to incline themselves and exercise that will to choose the things of God without the prior monergistic work of regeneration then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to a human being.

The semi-Pelagian doctrine of free will prevalent in the evangelical world today is a pagan view that denies the captivity of the human heart to sin. It underestimates the stranglehold that sin has upon us.

None of us wants to see things as bad as they really are. The biblical doctrine of human corruption is grim. We don't hear the Apostle Paul say, "You know, it's sad that we have such a thing as sin in the world; nobody's perfect. But be of good cheer. We're basically good." Do you see that even a cursory reading of Scripture denies this?

Now back to Luther. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received? Or is it a condition of justification which is left to us to fulfill? Is your faith at work? Is it the one work that God leaves for you to do? I had a discussion with some folks in Grand Rapids, Michigan, recently. I was speaking on sola gratia, and one fellow was upset. He said, "Are you trying to tell me that in the final analysis it's God who either does or doesn't sovereignly regenerate a heart?"

And I said, "Yes," and he was very upset about that. I said, "Let me ask you this: are you a Christian?"

I said, "Why are you a Christian and your friends aren't? Is it because you're more righteous than they are?" He wasn't stupid. He wasn't going to say, "Of course it's because I'm more righteous. I did the right thing and my friend didn't." He knew where I was going with that question.

But he would not agree that the final, decisive issue was the grace of God. He wouldn't come to that. And after we discussed this for fifteen minutes, he said, "OK! I'll say it. I'm a Christian because I did the right thing, I made the right response, and my friend didn't."

What was this person trusting in for his salvation? Not in his works in general, but in the one work that he performed. And he was a Protestant, an evangelical. But his view of salvation was no different from the Roman view.

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.

B.B. Warfield (1851-1921)

The term "fundamentalism" came into existence at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ. These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out.

These ideas had been circulating for some time. The first, verbal inerrancy, had been finely honed by A.A. Hodge, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, and B.B. Warfield, a professor at Western Theological Seminary.

John Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

was a leading and motivating force behind the development of American fundamentalism. Machen made the argument that Christian theologians of his day had abandoned real Christianity and had instead invented a new religion, which he labeled "liberalism." He founded the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1929 after having left the Princeton faculty.

OP, I don't believe you are in the same category as many of the GRPL's. You seem to understand that there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will.

Actually, you mistake me there. I do not believe that "there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will". For that matter, do you believe that "there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will"? Or, is God imperfect in willing to Permit, that which he permits?

I submit that if you believe God's Will in Perfect in that which He ordains to Permit, then God's Permissive Will is (necessarily!) Perfect.

I think that better terminology would be God's "Causative Will" (that which He actually causes to occur by His own action -- i.e., hardening Pharaoh's heart) and God's "Permissive Will" (that which He permits to occur by Men's action -- David's adultery with Bathsheba). Both of which are incorporated into His overall, Perfect Will.

There are some here who actually believe that God not only controls what good happens, but is fully in control and at the helm of everything bad that happens. In other words God's decree extends not only to good, but also to evil.

Well, I do believe that God is "fully in control" of everything that occurs, either by His Causation or by His Permission. Returning to my above two examples:

The Bible does say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart against the Hebrews (Causative Will, direct action).
The Bible does not say that God caused David to commit adultery with Bathsheba and murder her husband, but we do know He allowed it (Permissive Will, indirect action). After all, God could have ordained a banana peel to fall un-noticed on the stairs to the palace roof, such that David would slip and fall and be resting in the infirmary while Bathsheba finished her bath, far from his wandering eyes.

So God is "fully in control" of everything that occurs, including Sin. Before all Creation, God does foreknow what a Man will choose in one certain set of conditions (David will proceed up the stairs, spy upon Bathsheba, and decide to Sin); but before all Creation, God also foreknows what a Man will choose in a different set of conditions (David will slip on the banana peel, proceed rapidly DOWN the stairs, and decide that he should call for his Court Physician!).

And so God, by His total foreknowledge of what a Man will choose in one circumstance, and what a Man will choose differently in a different circumstance, and His total control over exactly WHAT circumstance He will Create -- God has infallibly ordained, by either Causation or Permission but in total control at all times, every single action which occurs at all times everywhere.

Thus every sin that is committed is committed through the active decree and will of God, i.e., that God actually affirmatively WANTS those sins committed. I see a lot of the GRPL's who criticize the (FR 5th's) because the (FR5th's) think that what Adam did in the Garden of Eden was "a good thing." Yet these same GRPL's insist that God created Adam for the specific and sole purpose of having him sin in the garden of eden, thus what Adam did, was literally "good" in God's eyes.

No, you are mistaking here the Evil of Man's action, for the Perfection of God's Plan.

Because God had commanded Adam to not eat the Fruit or Trial, Adam's disobedience was an Evil Act on Adam's part. However, Adam's Evil Act was nonetheless foreknown and permitted by God as part of His Perfect Plan.

"Good" = obeying God's laws.
"Evil" = disobeying God's laws.

Both a man's Good Actions and his Evil Actions are, however, either causatively or permissively ordained by God as part of His Perfect Plan.

There is a paradox there, isn't there OP?

Not one I've ever seen (not being tendentious -- I honestly don't think this stuff is really all that hard, that's all. [shrugs])

How do you solve the paradox and yet keep your high view of God's sovereignty? Is all evil decreed, or is it merely allowed?

I think that's pretty well covered, above. Lemme know any further questions, though; I'm happy to answer when I've the time.

best, OP

For that matter, do you believe that "there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will"?

Yes. God has commanded "Thou Shalt not Murder". That is God's perfect will, that thou shalt not murder. But murder happens doesn't it. God permits men to murder. That is God's permissive will.

God has stated that he wants all men to be saved. That is his perfect will. But just as men commit sin by murdering, they also commit the unpardonable sin by continually refusing to heed the call of the Holy Spirit. God has stated that he does not want either of those events to happen, yet he permits both to happen. God does not make men murder, nor does he make them refuse the call of the Holy Spirit.

God has stated that all things shall work together for Good. Thus by permitting the evil to happen God can and does work it all together for good. But God's statement that he hates sin is clearly inconsistent with any point of view that would make God the cause of the sin.

Absolutely rejected...God is NOT the author of evil.

It is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as existing, in order to have its destiny given to it, And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a pre-requisite of such decree.

It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," Jn. xv: 19, and out of the "same lump" with the vessels of dishonor, Rom. ix: 21. They were then regarded as being, along with the non-elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

Our election is in Christ our Redeemer, Eph. i: 4; iii: 11, which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to be wrought in us by Christ, I Pet. i: 2; 2 Thess. ii: 13.

Election is declared to be an act of mercy: Rom. ix: 15, 16; xi: 5, 6, and preterition is an act of justice, Rom. ix: 22. Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestinated as fallen; and is not permitted to fall because predestinated. The language of Turrettin is informative, Loc. p, Qu. 18, section 5. 1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God's will towards some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God's ineffable goodness.

"It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

"It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination. of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they presuppose their object, do not make it.

"It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent to them: else sin would be on account of damnation, whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

Certainly not in the way you propose. The prevenient grace of God NEVER forces or takes control of anyone against their will. That kind of action, even in a fallen world, is criminal and punishable by law.

And it's not Calvinism, either.

God does not overthrow a man's Will. He monergistically regenerates the man's Fallen Spirit to be Spiritually Alive, such that the man then wants to Repent -- and he thence freely wills to do so!!

God does not "force" or "take control" of the man's Will in His action of regenerating the man's Fallen Spirit. Frankly, the man's Will isn't even consulted on the subject, much less overthrown.

The basic problem is that Arminians insist that Man's Will must necessarily be a Party to the Action of the man's Spiritual Regeneration, when John 1:13 clearly states that Man's Will is not a participant to the Action of the man's Spiritual Regeneration.

Once you accept the express teaching of John 1:13 -- that Man's Will is not a participant to the Action of the man's Spiritual Regeneration -- that pretty much settles the matter.

God NEVER does anything regarding his eternal salvation outside the willful decision of the person. Reason, spin, and whatever, but just t'aint scriptural nor historically in keeping with the most Holy faith once delivered to the Saints.

Sorry, John says you're wrong.

nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,

Man's Will is not Party to the Action of Spiritual Regeneration. John could scarcely be more plain about the matter.

Several years ago I had one of the "C's," a pastor, corner me and explained for quite some time how their "belief" went all the way back to John the Baptist! The one thing he convinced me of was he had a serious need of dealing with Church history.

In that, you are correct. Messianic-Jewish Rev. Steven Schlissel traces it back a good deal further than that.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof... It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a Plan B. He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve - He redeemed them - by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the Sacrament), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word.
~~ Rev. Steve Schlissel, “The Synagogue of Christ”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.