The history of Christianity is fraught with quarreling, divisions and splintering. Historical review tends to justify some of these divisions as necessary to preserve the clarity of the Gospel message. Consider the reformation movement under Martin Luther, mostly lauded as a great advancement of biblical Christianity. Unfortunately, many of these divisions actually caused more division and introduced heresies that are still with us today. In the area of Soteriology, the study of religious doctrines of salvation, we can look to Calvinism as one notable movement in Church Reformation history. We can see even more general differences in Soteriology between Protestant and Catholic theology.

Divisions based on scriptural differences in interpretation have always plagued the Church and are really a sign of not paying attention to the higher calling: Love One Another. Attempts to elaborate to extreme detail about some of the major Christian Doctrines almost always lead to conflict unless reigned in by Christ’s Love in us. For instance, Paul didn’t elaborate in detail when he said we were “elected”. But Christian leaders since that time have devoted so much writing to what they say was implied by it, and have caused so much confusion and division in doing so. This is notably seen in the Calvinism movement that started in the 1600s and continues with us in many evangelical churches. We need to be constantly reminded that we still “see through a glass darkly” (1Cor. 13:12). And again it is written, “if any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1Cor. 8:2).

Distinguishing between the forest and the trees

Before diving into specific areas of disagreement among Christians, it is useful to start with how one sees the “forest” view first.  Most of these debates center around 2 main ideas about God and Man: synergism (God and man) vs monergism (God alone).

Monergism is the  doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to Christ or holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.” In this view, the new birth (or regeneration) precedes faith, and the individual’s cooperation is a non-factor.  Calvinism has this forest view of things. A monergistic viewpoint tends to result in one “trying to be God ” unwittingly (pardoned sins of ignorence perhaps?) in the sense that they assert that they can see what God sees from an eternal perspective.

Synergism is the doctrine that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom.  There are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate.” In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration). Arminianism has this forest view of things.  Open Theism is a doctrine under the umbrella of Synergism. It states that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, but differs on the nature of the future. Open theists claim that the future is not completely knowable because people have not made their decisions yet, and therefore God knows the future in possibilities rather than certainties. As such, open theists resolve the issue of human free will and God’s sovereignty by claiming that God is sovereign because he does not ordain each human choice, but rather works in cooperation with his creation to bring about his will. This notion of sovereignty and freedom is foundational to their understanding of love since open theists believe that love is not genuine unless it is freely chosen.

Another area that disagreements occur when seeing the “forest” view, is the methodology of studying the Bible.  There are 3 methods of reasoning: Inductive, Deductive, and Abductive.

  • Deductive: goes from the general to the specific: starts with some general statements or hypothesis/theories/premises and then examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion or inference.
  • Inductive: goes from the specific to the general: Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data.
  • Deductive/Inductive: There is a constant interplay between inductive inference (based on observations) and deductive inference (based on theory), until we get closer and closer to the ‘truth,’ which we can only approach but not ascertain with complete certainty. Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
  • Abductive: Usually starts with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations. It is based on making and testing hypotheses using the best information available. It often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation.

The Blind Men And the Elephant  story illustrates the foolishness of men that think they know it all without recognizing their limited, subjective experience in both their “forest” and “tree” views.

Calvinism and Arminianism When we think of Calvinism, we tend to associate it completely with John Calvin. John Calvin was mainly known for his essays, “The Institutes of the Christian Religion“. They mostly focused on Christian creeds, the Sacraments, justification by faith alone, and Christian liberty in the context of opposition to Catholic teachings. It did talk about predestination and election (Book III Chapter 21), but again this was not the central point of his writings, but that would become the central themes of Calvinism as it subsequently evolved among its reformers. Calvinism became very extreme in its emphasis on predestination and election and some of this is still with modern churches today. There are variations of Calvinism today, so it is not easy to identify a single Calvinism movement anymore. Nevertheless, Calvinism theology evolved into focusing on predestination and election and subsequently became very complex but was summarized as the 5 points of Calvinism, referred to as TULIP:

  1. Total Depravity (humans are not able to help themselves spiritually)
  2. Unconditional Election (God chooses us to be saved or damned. It is unconditional.)
  3. Limited Atonement (Christ died only for those elected)
  4. Irresistible Grace (God’s grace cannot be resisted or opposed)
  5. Perseverance of the Saints (those elected will persevere since they are predestined to do so)

Again, the complexities of Calvinism are like going down a rabbit hole.  It can be further broken down into understanding the Logical Order of God’s Decrees, where different “lapsarian” views are expounded: Supralapsarianism, Antelapsarianism, Pre-lapsarian, Infralapsarianism, Sublapsarianism, Postlapsarianism.  Calvinism also led to the 35 Articles of the French Confession of Faith. Rather than diving into all the details of Calvinism, let’s just stick with the 5 major doctrines of Calvinism for now.

Limited Atonement means that Jesus died only for those elected by God before the foundation of the world. As a result it would be evil to tell any sinner that Jesus died for them. The Bible is very clear that Jesus died for everyone, so that anyone can come to be saved.

John 1:29 (ESV) “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”

1 John 2:2 ” And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

As with all “doctrines of men”, they seduce the listener to interpret Scriptures in the light of those doctrines. Ezekiel alone provides many scriptures that refute the position of Calvinists that once a person is truly saved they cannot be lost.

Ezekiel 18: 4 “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:24 “But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.”

Ezekiel 18:26 “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.”

Ezekiel 33:13 “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.”

 

This chapter clearly teaches who is accepted and rejected by God. Those that turn away from God are condemned, and those that turn back to God are accepted. Instead, they have to ruin these scriptures by saying the “death” referred to is physical death (Babylonian attack on Jerusalem), and that the “righteous” mentioned here are self-righteous people not truly righteous ones, although the Lord is clearly contrasting the wicked with the righteous, not the wicked with the self-righteous. They also use John 2:19 to buttress their claim: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Again this is the confusion of men trying to explain salvation in the light of eternity. We will always fail at this attempt while here on Earth during the Evil Age.

Out of this complicated mess comes the simplistic Once Saved, Always Saved motto. Interestingly, these 5 points of Calvinism were originated as a response to the Remonstrants at the “Synod of Dort” in 1618-1619. The Remonstrants were a group that followed the teachings of Jacobus Arminius from where we get “Arminianism”. The Remonstrants argued against the theology of the Calvinists. The 5 points of Arminianism with respect to the 5 points of Calvinism are:

  • Total Depravity (Although man is totally depraved, there is “prevenient grace“, the grace to call upon God)
  • Unconditional Election (This is not knowable so work to show yourself approved to make sure!)
  • Limited Atonement (Christ died for all, not just the elected)
  • Irresistible Grace (God’s grace can be resisted, even to perdition)
  • Perseverance of the Saints (Christians have the responsibility to persevere with the Spirit’s help)

The effects of Calvinism and Arminianism have evolved over the centuries and are still with us today. The George Whitfield/John Wesley debates in the 1700s pitted Calvinism vs Arminianism within the English Methodist society. Later, Matthew Henry, George Mueller, J.C. Ryle, Charles Spurgeon, and Francis Schaeffer would be proponents for less extreme forms of Calvinism, while A. W. Tozer, Charles Finney, C.S. Lewis, R. C. Sproul, and John MaCarthur would associated more with Arminianism. In general, the Calvinism positions are mostly found in evangelical churches, whereas the Arminianism positions can be found in Methodist churches, and evangelical churches to a lesser degree. One way to tell the difference between ardent Calvinists who have extreme ideas on predestination and election and those that oppose them are these concepts:

  • God’s Love Is Unconditional
  • Once Saved, always saved

Extreme Calvinists believe these doctrines are biblical, while those that oppose them believe they are not biblical. Some less ardent proponents of Calvinism like John MaCarthur believe in the “once saved always saved” doctrine, but not the “God’s Love Is Unconditional” doctrine.

So how does one determine truthful doctrine. Is it Calvinism or Arminianism, a mixture of both, or none of either? Consider that like most doctrines that divide people, there are different scriptures used to support both positions on the issues. Hence in a simplistic analogy, Calvinists use scriptures, ABCD, and Arminianists might use scriptures, EFGH. But neither use both: ABCD + EFGH. Use both, and don’t stop there. Use also those scriptures that bring weight to bear on these issues that neither side considers relevant. If you do, you are neither a Calvinist nor an Aminianist. Rather, you are back on a solid Christian doctrinal foundation again relying on all scripture, not just some of it, a true Christian.

Roger R. Nicole is a renowned reformed, respected theologian, who is also a Calvinist. Yet his Calvinistic views are scholarly thought out, and deserve consideration. He refers to what the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly has to say about it in chapter 3, which is devoted to the subject of God’s eternal decrees, in particular, election:

“God, from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author is sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

Notice that it says the will of the creature is not restricted by such election. And again it says that “second causes” are not negatively affected either, where second causes refers to all the elements of circumstances or actions that play out in the manifestation of such election. Therefore, “once saved, always saved” which implies the non-necessity of human will and actions is a violation of such confession, and not part of this type of Calvinist thinking.

By the way this assembly occurred in the mid 1600s and was done in the Reformed Protestant theological tradition, also known as Calvinism. Useful articles on Calvinism and Arminianism:

Soteriology Differences

Soteriology deals with Salvation and Justification.  Christians tend to look at this in 3 different ways:

  • Infused (no distinction between old and  new nature)
  • Imputed (positional standing with God)
  • Imparted (distinction between new and old nature, where focus is on practical outworking of a righteous standing with God)

There are 3 main branches within Christendom: Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.  They can generally be put into these categories regarding Soteriology:

  • Catholics/Greek Orthodox –> justification (imputed + infused) –> justification and sanctification
  • Protestants –> justification (imputed only) –> justification only
  • Protestants –> justification (imparted only) –> subsequent sanctification only

Infused Righteousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infused_righteousness Infused righteousness forms the basis for the doctrine of justification in the Roman Catholic Church and it rooted in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. The doctrine states that through keeping the commands of Christ, regular confession and penance, and receiving the sacraments, God’s grace/righteousness is “infused” in believers more and more over time, and their own “righteousness in the flesh” becomes subsumed into God’s righteousness.

Protestants, however, maintain the distinction between the “imputed righteousness” of Christ which is the basis for justification and the “imparted righteousness” which is the basis for subsequent sanctification.

While this doctrine is rooted in Scripture, it is somewhat problematic for some Christians (notably Calvinists) to call it “imparted righteousness,” for that which is imparted is a righteous principle into man’s nature, not righteousness per se. Care must be taken in using the term imparted righteousness because it is sometimes confused with and sometimes intentionally used to refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness, which in Catholicism is the basis for justification.

Imputed Righteousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness Also called alien righteousness: outside of the body. How can it be explained through 2000 years of church history and the volumes of books written about faith and works (or as many would say, faith vs works) what we really know or have come to know about crucial matters as these? We see the never-ending battle between Catholics and Protestants, and one reputable church theologian against another. And it has spilled down and affected all churches, small and large. The Catholics talk about Christian Infusion: the concept of Christ’s righteousness being developed in Christians to act righteously. The Protestants only talk about a one time experience at conversion where Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. But they err when they attempt to expand on this by making a distinct difference between conversion). Imputed righteousness is contrasted with the Catholic position, going back to Augustine: “In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person.”[1] This concept is referred to as infused righteousness.

Many who hold to the doctrine of imputed righteousness reject the Roman Catholic teaching of gratia infusa (infused grace) because Lutheran and Calvinist anthropology (see total inability) allow no room for the Roman Catholic concept of synteresis (a “spark of goodness”). In other words, the image of God is completely lost as a result of the Fall into sin. In regard to salvation, there is nothing in a sinner that is worth being redeemed by God, if based on the intrinsic merit or worth of the sinner. The necessity of imputed righteousness stems precisely from there being nothing internal onto which God’s grace can be fused. Something altogether more radical must be done to make a sinner righteous; the sinful nature must be killed and replaced by a new nature made by God; “positional sanctification” is achieved through the divine declaration of imputation.

It seems Protestants cannot reckon the acts of the new nature as that part of them that is responsible toward God in cooperating with Him or as Paul says, “those who are led by the Spirit are the children of God”. And again, that we might, “…by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body on the earth.”

Starting with Augustine, the Catholic tradition has understood justification as the entire process by which God forgives and then transforms Christians. Based on their reading of the use of “justification” in Paul’s letters, the Reformers took justification to refer specifically to God’s forgiveness and acceptance. The term “sanctification” was used to refer to the life-long process of transformation. Thus the Catholic term “justification” effectively includes both what Protestants refer to as “justification” and “sanctification.”

Another view against imputed righteousness involves seeing it as nothing more than the remission of sins after repentance.

Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

And this section of Scripture from James:

2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

Imparted Righteousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imparted_righteousness

Imparted righteousness, in Methodist theology, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the new birth which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification. John Wesley believed that imparted righteousness worked in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification (and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection).

Status Justification is a more recent idea about soteriology, of which N. T. Wright is a major proponent.  N. T. Wright, who is one of the best-known advocates of the New Perspective On Paul, sees this reading of righteousness as knocking the props out from under both imputed and infused righteousness. However Wright still sees membership in the covenant community as something that is based on God’s activity, not depending upon a person’s moral quality. The difference is that rather than being based on Christ’s moral perfection credited to the Christian, Wright believes that Paul’s righteousness is a status, of being a proper member of the covenant community. A person is a member of the covenant through faith in Christ. In faith the person is identified with Christ, and participates in Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul sees this as moving the person from the realm of sin to the realm of Christ (although in this life people will still sin from time to time).