Navigate Site:  

Soteriology

Home » Blogs » vdewit's blog
Published by vdewit on June 9th, 2009

Soteriology

The first area of study that I pursued in my search for a personal theology is the area of salvation or a soteriological study. There are two main Christian soteriological camps in America today, the Calvinist camp and the Arminian one. First we'll look into what each camp teaches and then do some in depth study on where I stand on these issues.

Calvinists hold to the 5 tenants of TULIP:

  1. Total Depravity
  2. Unconditional Election
  3. Limited Atonement
  4. Irresistible Grace
  5. Perseverance of the Saints

The Arminians also have their tenants:

  1. Total Depravity
  2. Conditional Election
  3. Unlimited Atonement
  4. Resistible Grace
  5. Perseverance in faith


Historically

A historical study will shed some light on exactly where the Calvinist and Arminian viewpoints come from. According to this article the Calvin vs Arminius conflict started around 431 A.D. when the Synod of Ephesus condemned the teachings of Pelagius as heretical. Augustine and Pelagius were born in 354 A.D. 

Augustine's Teachings:

  1. God created Adam good - not neutral.
  2. Adam was not able to choose good or evil but was able to do good.
  3. Adam wasn't able to choose good or evil but was able to sin.
  4. God put the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden to test Adam.
  5. Adam was not created mortal - he would only die if he sinned.
  6. Once Adam sinned his character changed to become evil and completely unable to choose anything good.
  7. Adam and his seed could only be saved by God's grace.
  8. We are all guilty of our own sin and Adam's sin, or original sin.
  9. Only those predestined by God shall be saved from their sin.
  10. There is no salvation for anyone unless God chooses them and acts upon them - no choice on the part of the person.


Pelagius' Teachings:

  1. God created Adam neutral, neither good nor bad.
  2. Adam could choose good or evil and had free will.
  3. Adam was a mortal creature - he could die.
  4. When Adam chose sin he became a sinner - but it didn't affect his mortality.
  5. After choosing sin it became much harder to choose good, but Adam still had a free will.
  6. When Adam sinned he affected himself but not his descendants in the same way that the concept of original sin did.
  7. The general human race is not responsible for original sin and is not inherently depraved.
  8. Children are born neutral and sin by example.
  9. Man can choose salvation for himself and doesn't need God's grace or the Holy Spirit


After the Synod of Ephesus there was concern among some people that the teachings of Augustine were too radical. Pelagius went too far in assuming mans goodness but Augustine went too far with mans 'badness'. A compromise was the teachings of semi-pelagianism. (Actually this term was not used by semi-Pelagians but was a protestant theological term that came much later than the teachings themselves.)

Semi-Pelagianism:

  1. Man's nature is not depraved or good but rather it's sick.
  2. Through the fall into sin man's capacity to choose for good became affected.
  3. Man can still choose good and has free will but only to request God's grace which will then help him overcome sin.
  4. God can only save those who receive Him in faith.
  5. Official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.


When the reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin studied the issue of man's sin and God's grace they rejected the Roman Church's semi-Pelagian teachings and went back to an Augustinian point of view. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) clearly teaches against Pelagian influences. Jacob Arminius was the dutch theologian most responsible for bringing the teachings of Pelagius (semi) back into the protestant churches. The Synod of Dort in 1618 to 1619 was primarily to reject the teachings of Arminius and resulted in the anti-Arminian document, the Canons of Dort.

Synod of Dort

The Calvin vs. Arminius debate can not be understood without a detailed study of the Synod of Dort. It's very hard to find an un-biased account of this synod because the only literature written on it extensively is by people who believe that Arminius was a 'heretic' and his teachings from the 'devil'. (For a clear example of such a summery you should read this summary by professer Herman Hanko.) There is very little humbleness and objectivity to be found on this issue in the Reformed churches and their articles. This makes sense on a certain level, because this fight between Calvinist and Arminian is what defines the very identity of the Canadian Reformed Churches. Without the fight there is no identity - the CanRC would simply be another Reformed church among many others. Fights over identity are always a bit 'over the top' because they become personal very fast and don't stay objective.

Arminius died in 1609 but in 1610 a group of supporters known as the Remonstrants convened in the city of Gouda and wrote up a document consisting of the 5 points of the Remonstrants as opposed to the five points of Calvinism.

Aside: The level of antagonism between Calvinist and Remonstrant makes this issue emotional and full of strong feelings and language. For example I will quote something from the summary of Herman Hanko:

"The Arminians may say that he believes only by grace, but this is more of that terrible subterfuge with which they tried to make their views sound good."

And another quote:

"As so often happens, men who are determined to bring evil doctrine into the Church, try to sound as Reformed and Scriptural as they can."

And still another:

"Only, what they had to say sounds very good. They thought evidently, that at this point they had better hew to the Reformed line lest they arouse undue suspicion."

So even though the Arminians are teaching salvation and a saving faith through grace they are accused of terrible subterfuge? I'm not sure why there is such a strong need to condemn Arminian soteriology to hell? I also don't understand why everything the Arminians did is interpreted as done out of sneaky devilish intentions and why there has to be such an obvious display of defensiveness in the Reformed churches on the issues of TULIP! If the tenants of TULIP are so obviously true then why the need to be so paranoid about any teaching that may sound a bit different? I personally find it childish and immature.

Because the civil government was needed to call a synod in The Netherlands and because the current dutch government was pro-Arminian, there was no synod to deal with the issue of the remonstrants until a new government seized control. Shortly after the new government was in power the Synod of Dort was convened in September of 1618. From December 1618 to January 1619 Arminian theologians were invited to argue their case.

According to the Reformed interpretation of events, the Arminians tried to delay the judgment on their views by appealing to the legality of the Synod proceedings themselves. Finally the Remonstrants were simply booted out of the proceedings and the synod began it's original intended work - to condemn the teachings of Arminius. Eventually the Canons of Dort were written up and signed by the Synod members as church doctrine.

Conclusion on Soteriology

Can two opposing statements be true at the same time? Yes. Take for example the following statements:

  1. God is sovereign and as such is all powerful and can do anything He wills.
  2. God can not commit sin.


These are opposing statements - or so it seems. If you look carefully though, they are not at all opposing! The key thing to notice is the part of the first statement that says, can do anything he wills. Since God's character can not will Himself to sin (because He is perfect), God can not commit sin. Therefore the two seemingly opposing truths are in fact not opposing at all. Now take the following two statements:

  1. Once a man is saved he can not lose his election.
  2. Once a man is saved he must remain diligent in his faith or he will lose his election.


The first statement is the perseverance of the saints as taught by Calvin. The second statement is the teaching of Arminius concerning the salvation of man. Can both of these statements be true? I think so. Let me explain. I think that there are always two points of view to be considered when debating and discussing Christian theology. There is the point of view of man and the point of view of God.

There is a God; you are not Him.

I find it fascinating that when I look into the differences in the soteriology of the Calvinist vs. Arminianist; there is a perspective misalignment involved. The question that I believe we need to ask ourselves is, do we solve our issues from the perspective of God or the perspective of man. Your first reaction is probably going to be "from the perspective of God - of course!". I wonder if this always serves sinful mankind the best? I didn't say the perspective of man shouldn't be a Biblical one. The Bible has both man's and God's perspectives in it and you can clearly see that every time man tries to see things as if he were God he runs into big, big problems! (i.e. David with Bathsheba or Abraham with Isaac were trying to be 'God' of their own destiny - rather than leave their situations up to God and be content to view their lives as sinful men.)

I can appreciate that we make attempts to "get in God's head" in order to get as close to the Truth as we possibly can (this often results in official church creeds and confessions), but we have to be careful! God is GOD ALMIGHTY. He is from everlasting to everlasting. Eternal. Almighty. We are puny little ants next to his infinite greatness and sometimes when we're busy trying to look down on ourselves from God's perspective (i.e. if I'm saved I can stop trying because my salvation can't be lost anyway...) we run into issues of apathy and hyper-Calvinism because we are not God and we do not know in advance what's going to happen or even what exactly has happened already! The Truth is not only one point of view from man's perspective. God's Truth is not always the truth that we can clearly define or even practically benefit from. In regards to the preservation of the saints, man's truth is that we have to respond in faith to God's love and that we can not stop this response. God's truth is that He already knows who will respond for their entire life, who is faking a response and who won't respond at all - it's not a surprise to Him! Both are true, but man does not have access to the truth of his own predestination but only the physical reality of his actions and his neighbors actions. And when we try to comfort ourselves with too many divine truths we very quickly become confused and depressed instead of comforted because our finite minds can not deal with infinite realities. So I would restate the two points on perseverance of the saints as follows:

  1. Calvin: God knows who is elect and He will not condemn any elect person to Hell - no matter what other men may think should happen to that person or what may seem like a loss of faith over time. Once God has made someone elect they do not become 'unelect'.
  2. Arminius: Man can only know his own or his neighbor's salvation by testing human physical actions against the scriptural definition of a faithful Christian. If these actions are not currently present there can be no assurance of salvation, whether they have been proceeded by such actions of faith or not. Trust in God is essential to maintaining one's comfort through times of weak faith - only God knows the heart of man!


And so in my opinion, both Calvin and Arminius are right on the issue of the perseverance of the saints. It just depends whose glasses you happen to be wearing - man's or God's. From God's point of view, He will not 'unsave' His elect people. From man's point of view - we must not waver in our fight of faith but must continue in it as long as we are mentally and physically able to do so. The Bible clearly outlines what the heart of a true believer will look like and unless a man possesses that character he doesn't have assurance of his salvation. Anyone can fake a changed heart for a little while but in the end the truth will catch up to him. He was not assured of the perseverance his elect status because he never had it in the first place.
 
The previous argument also goes hand-in-hand with the concept of irrisistable grace. From God's point of view, His grace is extended and only those whom He wills can accept this grace - and they have no choice over the matter. BUT, at the same time, from man's perspective he has to choose to accept the promises of God. Otherwise we would do nothing on our own but would simply tempt God by waiting around for things to happen to us automatically! Everyone agrees that the Christian has a responsibility to respond to the call of God to repent and believe. This is another perspective difference between Calvinist and Arminianist and if cornered both camps will admit to the other's point of view - but will change the language to make it sound different.

And so I ask; does man have free will or does man have voluntary will? Just like God can not do anything contradictory to his character, so also man can not go against his nature. If man is incapable of choosing for God on his own, but yet God demands that we choose Him, then there must be something in between to mesh the two together. Could it be the Holy Spirit that changes the heart of man to give him the ability to choose God? I like this view point because it accomplishes two things that are consistent with Biblical precedent:

  1. God's sovereignty over man. (i.e. we are not in control)
  2. Man's responsibility to respond to God's call. (i.e. we can not sit back and act like we have nothing to do) 

The fall of Man 

If God created man perfect - why could man choose to sin? I am confused by the Calvinist position on the state of man as summarized in figure 2 of chapter 3/4 article 1 of the Canons of Dort. If man was 100% perfect before the fall and 100% bad after the fall, then I conclude that 1 of 2 things is true: 

  1. The definition of perfect used by Calvinists is different than the perfect holiness used to describe God's character, or
  2. Calvinists are forced to admit that God can sin, because he too is described as being perfect.


Since I am unwilling to accept the second point, I'll go with the first. Man was only created perfect, in the same sense that the angels or the universe was created perfect - it was the work of a perfect creator! God created man with the ability to choose for or against Him. You can call it whatever you want but man was created with the ability to go against his own character, i.e. he was not incapable of sinning - the same way that God is absolutely incapable of committing sin in violation of His own perfect character. God can not violate his character, man could violate his.