The Four Major Views of Christian Salvation: Part One
HOW IS A PERSON SAVED?
THE FOUR MAJOR VIEWS OF SALVATION
I. INTRODUCTION
In Christianity, there are few doctrines more important than personal salvation, particularly in the Wesleyan tradition. John Wesley’s oft repeated statement, “I only want to know one thing…the way to heaven” still reverberates among many Christians and seekers of God. Of course the idea of personal salvation raises two intimately related questions: (1) what is personal salvation and (2) how is a person saved?
The content of personal salvation entails a number of ideas: forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God and humanity, deliverance from the power of sin, freedom to be fully human, bodily resurrection from the dead, and a ticket to heaven, to name a view. These are the fundamental ideas behind Wesley’s theology of what salvation entails. However, Wesley’s statement fundamentally addresses the second question – the means or way to salvation. Early in his ministry, more than a decade before his Aldersgate experience, Wesley recognized the end of Christianity, but it would take him years before he recognized the means to that end.
Like Wesley, many people recognize the end of salvation, if only vaguely. With the Early Wesley, they struggle in apprehending and appropriating the means to that end. They wrestle with the question, “How is a person saved?” In the history of Christianity, there have been four primary ways in which the achievement of salvation has been articulated. The purpose of this article is to explore the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Semi-Augustinian, and Augustinian views of achieving Christian salvation. In this post, I will explore the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views. In next week’s post I will develop the Semi-Augustinian and Augustinian views.
II. THE FOUR MAJOR VIEWS OF SALVATION
To begin, while there are four major views on the means of achieving salvation, these views are not monolithic. Each perspective can be nuanced and taught in slightly different ways. For example, while there are certain defining characteristics of the Semi-Pelegian doctrine, there can be many different ways in which this view can be nuanced and taught; there can be disagreements among Semi-Pelegians about specific aspects of their teaching, while still remaining solidly Semi-Pelegian.
Perhaps, the best way to look at the different teachings on salvation is to see them as a spectrum of thought, placed on that spectrum based on how they handle two fundamental and intimately related Christian doctrines: (1) human depravity or original sin and (2) the work of salvation. The first doctrine addresses the degree to which humanity has been affected by original sin. To what extent has humanity been impaired by the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? The second doctrine addresses the relationship of human effort to the work of salvation. Is salvation the work of God, the work of humanity, or some divine-human synergism?
On one end of the spectrum is the view that sees salvation as a human monergism; there is no original sin and salvation is entirely the work of humanity. On the other end of the spectrum is a divine monergism; humanity is completely dead spiritually, possessing no internal resources to contribute to personal salvation. Therefore if humanity is to be saved, God must do all of the work. In the middle are different synergisms; humanity and God working in cooperation with one another. Those synergisms closer to the human monergism side of spectrum will place greater emphasis on what human beings contribute to salvation, while those closer to the divine monergism side will place their focus on divine action.
A. Pelagianism
Pelagianism, which is to be distinguished from the actual teachings of Pelagius, expresses the strongest form of human monergism. As such, it exists at one end of the salvation spectrum. Pelagianism is a view of salvation that rejects the idea of original sin. Each person brought into life exists in the same state that Adam and Eve existed before their sin. Human beings have the same freedom that humanity enjoyed in the Garden. There is no inherited tendency, bent, proclivity or enslavement to sin. The human will is completely free to choose to follow God’s law or not. There is no temptation that can not be overcome through human will power; all divine commands can be fulfilled by a human being. Every human being possesses the necessary internal resource to be an obedient follower of Jesus Christ.
From this perspective, salvation is brought about by following the example and teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the perfect model of how a person should live and his moral teachings provide humanity with the necessary instructions to live as His followers. As such, individuals earn or merit their salvation through their discipleship – imitating the life of Jesus and following his moral commands. Ultimately, a person will stand before God in final judgment and God will decide whether or not that individual’s discipleship merits the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell. Human action is the means by which salvation is achieved.
Pelagianism can take a variety of forms in Christianity. For example, there are many church members, people who attend worship services, and self-described Christians who believe that their good works (their church attendance, church membership, financial contributions to the church, their charitable giving, their acts of obedience in doing good, etc.) will earn them a place in heaven. Similarly, there are people who believe that their good deeds and their bad deeds will be evaluated in final judgment and if their good works outweigh their bad, then, they will earn a place in heaven.
While Pelagianism has been thoroughly rejected and is heresy and while no legitimate denomination or Christian body officially holds to this view, nevertheless it still finds expression in Christianity. Pelagianism can found in many “rank and file” members of liberal mainline denominations, peripheral religious groups like the Unitarian-Universalist Churches, pseudo-religious organizations like Freemasonry, and popular thought in American life.
B. Semi-Pelagianism
Semi-Pelagianism is a synergistic understanding of salvation, with priority given to human effort. As such, this perspective is placed on the spectrum closer to the Pelagian end. Semi-Pelagianism recognizes original sin. All of humanity has been affected by the sin of Adam and Eve. Every human being is born with a propensity or proclivity to rebellion and disobedience to God. Every human being has sinned, because by Adamic nature they are sinners. Obedience to God and holy love do not come easily to humanity. However, the moral image of God, the ability to choose the good, to do the right, has not been completely extinguished in humanity. Humanity still has some internal resources to offer in the work of salvation.
Because of personal sin, human beings stand in need of divine forgiveness and redemption. Human beings can not save themselves. They can not do enough good works and deeds to atone for their sins. If they are going to find redemption, then they must find it in the saving work of Christ in his life, death and resurrection. To appropriate this work, a person must repent of sin, exercise faith in Jesus Christ. The ability to repent and exercise faith is something a person can do. People have the power within themselves to repent and believe any time they choose. When they do this, God responds by forgiving and redeeming people through Jesus Christ.
This is a human-divine synergism. The work of humanity is to repent and believe. The work of God is to forgive and redeem. Priority is given to human beings, not because they do the most important work in salvation, but because salvation begins with the human initiative. God responds when human beings take this initiative. Perhaps the defining mark of the semi-Pelagian perspective is the belief that every human being, though impaired by original sin, has the power to move toward God, to repent and believe the Gospel, at any moment they decide.
Semi-Pelagianism can take a variety of forms in Christianity. For example, is some expressions of Christianity, salvation is achieved through belief in Christ and good works. Good works alone can not save a person, but they do contribute to earning the justifying work of God in Christ. The merits of godly actions by humans, is supplemented by faith in the merits of Christ. As such, both good works and divine work bring about the work of salvation.
While Pelagianism has been rejected by Christianity, Semi-Pelagianism has had a favorable reception in many Christian circles. Historically, the two most dominant expressions of this perspective are found in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, this is the view of most generic evangelicals or this is how most evangelicals function pragmatically.
20 Comments:
Dr. Bounds,
Thought I would weigh in here. It seems to me that the Semi-pelagianistic view still greatly minimizes the act of Christ on the cross and His subsequent ressurection. It assumes that humanity, without the work of God, would choose to have faith. It is not our nature to rely on anything we cannot control, much less a God that is willing to suffer for our shortcommings. That must be a sign of weakness screams our intellect. A willingness to suffer? A willingness to become man? A longing for relationship with His creation? In the eyes of this broken world all are signs of weakness. I cannot wait to read next weeks posts where God gets the credit for what we as humans will never have the capacity to understant, much less fully appreciate.
Peace be with you
Kris
Chris,
Thanks for the comments. Faith is the real issue. Is faith an inherent capacity we have to exercise at any given moment or is it a gift of grace, a work of God in us.
Of course, the Pelagian view has been thoroughly rejected by the Church and while the semi-Pelagian view exists in Catholic, Protestant and evangelical circles, it is not the historic Protestant view and not the view of Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Wesley.
Pax Christi,
Chris Bounds
Dear Once a Wes,
We will see. I have a couple of cards up my sleeve and will discuss the difference between Wesley's view and Wesleyanism.
Thanks for your comments.
Chris Bounds
I fold.....
Chris
I am certainly looking forward to part 2 of your study. Semi-pelagianism is the reason why I stopped identifying myself as a Wesleyan a few years ago. I have met Wesleyan pastors who literally define salvation in semi-pelagian terms who probably never heard of, or who have forgotten what the term means. When I was fresh out of seminary, semi-pelagianism was advocated and taught by Wesleyans. Ask Drury about John Maxwell's evangelistic and church growth impact in the 80's. It was pure "revivalism" and semi-pelagian.
Mr. Moore,
I concur with your disdainful view of semi-pelagianism. To steal a phrase, it smacks of "cheap grace." The same cheap grace that I fell victim to years ago and have just now recently found that grace does have a cost. A dear cost, that neither you nor I could ever pay on our own. A cost that had to be paid for us, and even at that, we still have as humanity a swolled headed view of our part in our own salvation.
I don't mean to sound completely pre-destinist, but I certainly do believe that we cannot make the first move. It is far beyond our fallen state to even acknowledge God, let alone reach out to him in any type of humility or repentant frame of mind.
I'm done rambling now.
Looking forward to Semi-A position..when I bet I'll fall. {your deal}
A clarification on my earlier statement regarding predestinism...
I find it difficult, if not neigh impossible to square the idea of God as loving creator, and in Christ blessed redeemer, with the idea that only a select handful are given the golden ticket.
There has to be some element, however small, that we as humans contribute. I'm not sure what or where exactly, but I do think that God wants all of His children to spend eternity with him. We have that choice obviously so therefor it can't all be 100% God's doing, can it? That was not a sarcastic or rhetorical question. I really wonder that.
Please understand that I am not nearly as educated in the realms of Theology or Philosophy as the vast majority of those who might post here, but I do feel like I have at least a clue. I just need assistance in organizing my brain.
KN
OAW,
After careful consideration, I think I may have found a couple of flaws in the "predestinist" theory.
First: This concept assumes that God meant for Adam and Eve to fall, thus throwing into question the true perfection of His creation.
Second: If God truly has an A list, then why bother following the Great Commision? He'll find a way to get those He wants, right?
Just my thoughts.
OAW
On the subject of Calvinism (let's call it what it really is), I have some more issues with your point of view.
I agree that God is The Sovereign of the cosmos. I also assert that God loving and cares deeply for each of us. I also agree with you that God's grace it that which makes our salvation possible. From prevenient grace to sanctifying grace. I do not agree, however that we have no say or part in whether or not we are saved. God has given us all of the tools needed to do the job, all we need do is pick them up, accept them as the gift they are. If we choose not to, so be it. We have in that instant exercised the free will God gave mankind.
Final point, does God's will determine his nature, of his nature confine his will? I think you know where I stand.
OAW,
Alas, we agree to disagree. I still love you.
KN
I agree that you have a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures from your perspective. I also wouldn't bet against you in a review of Wesleyan doctrine. So on that point I disagree with the right hander.
It is sad that there is such a difference of interpretation, so that as a result there is such a schizm within the Body of Christ.
Go in peace, serve the Lord.
KN
I'll be honest part of me likes the semi-p view. I don't agree with it all the way, but I do have some leanings.
I would like to point out that the Tradition of the church does beleive in free will and Full blown augustinianism (as Beza tought) was condemned by the church corperate.
That being said I also think the Tradition of the church falls squarely on Semi-A .. I say that a bit relectantly.
OAW: Don't act like we can't all proof text our ideas. Statements like this:
"Of course you have to make a good deal of the Scrpture unsay what it clearly says in order to call this just a theory."
Drive me nuts. For you to say it is not God's will for all to get into heaven takes a good bit of "unsaying Scripture" as well.
Dr. Bounds my question is "where is the bounds bounce when you need it?"
OAW: The bounds bounce is a dance move that Doctor Bounds does when he does his lectures on the four major views of Christian Salvation. Ease up man. I wasn't asking for you to be kicked out, you jump to conclusions way too quickly
The council of orange did not condemn semi-p it condemned all out pelagianism .. "look it up" That same council also condemned augustine.
What do you do with texts that say things like "it is God's will that none persish?"
I don't want to get into a debate about God's character with you. But if you truly believe that God arbitrarily hands out salvation with no basis on the response of the individual and God damns some for no other reason than his own glory, then you are far FAR outside what the majority of the church has taught for 2000 years.
"if some people end up in Hell then it pleases God that they end up in Hell and in passing them by or in hardening their hearts it was something that He did."
That is one of the most disgusting and sad statements about the character of God I have ever read. It pleases God that some go to hell? How do you reconcile that with 2 Peter 3:9 (yes I'm going to proof text here) "not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance?"
I do not deny that God is sovereign. Just like a judge is sovereign over the death penalty. But what if the judge chose to not use the death penalty? Does that make him less sovereign? Absolutely not. So what if God chose to give is free will in salvation. To act totally free, not the pathetic "we are free in our natures." Because if we are only free to do what our nature allowed ALL would go to Hell.
What if that Grace was enough to overcome that nature, for one moment. Enough that each man got to choose to react positively toward it or not. And if he did react positively then more grace would come?
If a father put his sons in a room. Then locked the room and filled the room with gasoline, and gave his children matches. When the room caught on fire the father rushed in and grabbed two of his sons, yet he leaves the other too. He could have saved the other two, had all to power to, but chose not too. When asked why he said "for my glory. So you could see my mercy and justice."
That is the picture of GOd you have painted.
I guess one of my questions is, can God limit himself?
While one doesn't come to truth by counting noses, one must at least hope that God in his soviergnty has guided the majority of his church towards the truth.
It's cool how you left out this part of canon 6: If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought;
so no I am not saying any of that happens apart from the spirit.
"CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him;..."
This would seem to say that when men go astray from God's will they "displease him". If you can't do something outside of God's will and he is totally soveriegn how can one do something outside of the will of God?
How about this Gem
"We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."
So people are not foreordained by God to do evil. Then how is it that they do this evil? Is it ... outside of the will of God?
Foreknowledge does not equate prestined. God knows what people have chosen because it is what they did. Not because it is what they are going to do. It happened in his eternal "now" not in some hypothetic future.
I have read edwards, piper, henry, mccaurther and a host of other 5 pointers that I disagree with and find outside of the orthodoxy of the church.
You ask if it can bring a man to a point, what is wrong with it bring a man to full salvation? A grace that cannot be denied at all is fine by me if everyone gets into heaven. Assuming that some do not, I cann buy your view.
Guess I'm out knowed once again. Do you guys in your eternal thought stop to feel? What is it that the Spirit is moving in your heart of hearts. We can debate the nature and sovereignty of God til we're blue in the face, in the ehd what good is it? Do we, as the created, absolutely have to know everything about God and how He works? Is there no room for the idea that we may never know, probably will never know how God apportions His mercy and grace? As long as we continue to lead others to him, I am not so sure the how is nearly important as the FACT that it does occur, whether pre-destined or not, IT DOES HAPPEN. That's all that matters to me.
"Just keep in mind that for every degree that you find God limiting Himself by that much of a degree you are granting that Sovereignty to man." -OAW-
What a black and white line you have painted, full of "if not a, than b", followed by strawmen gallore.
I'd love to write more, but I think I'll skip town before I get hit by these "god-like" carpet bombs. Quit throwing grenades unless the one holding the pin is God Himself.
The labels of "anthropocentric," are really clever as well. Let's be honest, the problem of evil is the central character at this point. Theodicy has driven several of us to our positions on salvation. Why is that? Ooh, I know...because we're human...yup...we tend to think "anthropocentrically." Shame shame all you naughty humans, trying to figure out God. How dare you? Let him just send you to Hell if its his desire. You better clap all the way, or he may just send you to Double-Hell, where all the semi-pelagians, semi-augustinians, and wesleyans hang out and play poker with Hitler. Give me a break!
I'd rather be anthropocentric than preoccupied with damnation. If God is the kind of God you have described OAW, The Father Almighty won't have to work hard to send me to Hell. I'll just volunteer.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
OAW,
I must commend you for taking your lumps here. If only more Christians, Calvinist or otherwise, had such a firm grasp of what they believed. That is the crime of the church today, it fails to instruct its people as to the doctrines to which they can cling when faith is challenged. I would venture to guess that an enormous majority of those who claim Chritianity would have turned tail and run after the first two or three exchanges in this forum.
In addition, a good number of those would probably use it as the springboard into agnosticism. What a shame that the church is so affraid of its own truths that it withholds them "for our own good"
I'm not giving lumps, just sarcasm and cynicism to the debate. That's my role. I'm not taking shots at you OAW, I'm just not happy with the God you have painted. I am not smart enough for you. I'm not logically defending anything. I am but an intellectual peon.
YOU: "He doesn't require us to figure out our elect status but instead points us to the Cross where all those who find themselves burdened and heavy laden can find rest for their souls."
The only problem being, the word "all" in your system of thought doesn't fit. It should read "He doesn't require us to figure out our elect status but instead points us to the Cross where all those ELECTED find themselves burdened...and can find rest..." You can't use the word ALL, unless you want to change the very definition of the word, in which Wormwood would advise us to, that way we can be ensnared by the Devil's schemes. Confuse us on terms, and then they've got us. You can't say ALL...only some.
Post a Comment
<< Home