An Open Letter to the CGGC on Free Moral Agency
One great strength of the process of revising We Believe is that feedback is encouraged. Because I trust that the Committee is genuinely interested in leading a conversation, I am entering this Open Letter on the blog and sending it to a few members of the Committee.
---------------------
The CGGC in an Emerging World blog has been active lately. Most of the conversation touches on a narrow theme. We have been discussing what we believe about Calvinism and Arminianism. I myself am seasoned in all things CGGC and have remained profoundly silent on specifics but others have been explicit and I thank God for their courage.
In addition to our dialog regarding what we believe, there has also been some discussion about what Arminians and Calvinists believe compared to several statements made by John Winebrenner is his 27 Article manifesto on the faith and practice of the Church of God and in his Popular Treatise on Regeneration and several passages in the proposed revision of We Believe.
For instance, the revision states:
“We believe Humanity has free will. (See “free moral agency.) (p. 21)” and
“We believe by God’s grace that people are free to make the decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord and that same choice remains throughout their lifetime. (p. 22)”
Interestingly, we have some outspoken Calvinists who blog here. We also have some devoted Arminians.
But, one thing we don’t have among this small group of bloggers is anyone who owns up to believing what the CGGC believes.
The discussion led one blogger to ask if what the CGGC believes is Semi-Pelagian.
I have three thoughts about what we have believed and what, according to the proposed revision of We Believe, what we continue to believe.
1. While my knowledge about this issue is far from comprehensive, every attempt I know of to argue for the existence of Free Will, that is, humanity’s ability to achieve faith in Jesus freely on its own and without the grace of God, has ultimately been judged to be heresy. If anyone can cite an exception, I’d be profoundly blessed if you’d point it out to me.
2. Although we think of the Church of God as being an Arminian movement, Arminians have always expressly rejected the notion of Free Will and, therefore Free Moral Agency. The Third of the Five Articles of Remonstrance articulated by the disciples of Arminius at the Synod of Dort could not be clearer about the issue of Free Will. It states,
“…man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."”
We acknowledge Winebrenner’s affinity to the Methodists from his earliest years in Harrisburg. However the Methodists, who were the most effective purveyors of Arminianism, were so adamant in their denial of Free Will that they set aside a separate Article to deny Free Will in their Articles of Religion of American Methodism. Their Article VIII states,
“The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing (preceding) us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.”
Note that in the Articles of Remonstrance and in the Articles of American Methodism being born again precedes believing. It seems that, in CGGC thought, being born again is a result of believing. The difference between what Arminians believe and what we believe is stark and distinct.
Over the years of my participation in the ministry of the CGGC, I have frequently heard the claim that we are Arminian. However, as long as we affirm belief in human Free Will and proclaim the doctrine of Free Moral Agency, we are not Arminian. Arminians deny the ability of human beings to come to Christ through the free exercise of their will.
3. And most compellingly in my opinion, the Word makes it clear that human beings are not capable of coming to Jesus on their own—they are not free to come to Jesus.
In John 6:44 Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me calls him…”
In John 6:65 Jesus repeats the claim of John 6:44: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
As the earliest Arminians stated in their third Article, in John 15:5, Jesus said, “Without me, you can do nothing.”
Paul’s string of Old Testament quotations in Romans 3:10-18 is a powerful argument against the free and unaided ability of a human being to seek God or to do anything that is good.
I come back to one blogger’s bold and honest question and I repeat it: Is the CGGC Semi-Pelagian?
Here’s what I ask of the people who are composing the document that describes what we believe: If, in your opinion, We Believe doesn’t promote Semi-Pelagianism, explain how it doesn’t and how our belief is consistent with the biblical teachings I have mentioned.
posted by bill Sloat at 9:17 AM
12 Comments:
well said, bill. i doubt it means much, but consider this my co-signature of your letter.
something i'd be interested in, though not necessarily something for here, is an arminian and/or cggc understanding of regeneration, what it means and how it happens. i've never heard a solid, Biblical exposition of this doctrine by a non-calvinist.
I hope that this does lead the way for the issue to be discussed among the committee.
I think that 'We Believe' is just not clear enough. It's the statements that are left undeveloped that are concerning, more than what the actual statement says.
I believe in free will or free moral agency. I believe that God created us with freedom to choose (because he chose to not because he had to). In some sense I believe that we maintain freedom even after the fall. If not, how would we be accountable for our sin? However, we are corrupt and unable to choose God, as the biblical narrative seemed to continually show. As Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul says, total depravity doesn't mean that we're as bad as we could possibly be, only that every area of our lives is tainted with sin.
Arminians believe that God's grace (which is mentioned but not developed in the We Believe statement) has given humans, for the first time, a real chance to recieve God's offer/gift of salvation.
Regeneration, which I take to mean a regenerate heart or a real change (rather than forensic justification or the declaration or righteousness in Christ) I believe happens after faith.
If regeneration happens before faith than monergism is required and one is a Calvinist. Unless the understanding of regeneration is different than mine. If by regeneration, you only mean the ability of of the human heart to even have the potential to respond, then I agree that that must precede faith.
I Howard Marshall: “The effect of the call of God is to place man in a position where he can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (which he could not do before God called him; till then he was in a continuous attitude of ‘no’)
from my understanding (whether one would call it classic calvinism or not, i don't know), i would agree with mr. marshall's statement.
i would also consider that the effect of that call (and its accompanying work done by the Holy Spirit), which is the possibility, not only of belief, but of any good work, is regeneration. it is the deadness of man which makes him morally unable to accept the things of God (because he will not), and the spiritual birth of man that allows Him to choose God.
my conception of the irresistible saving grace of God is that, once free to choose, and rightly seeing who God is for the first time (because the veil of the devil's deceit and of the heart's corruption has finally been removed), the regenerate soul will not choose any but faith in God, however weak or imperfect that faith may be. then, by the faithful empowering of the Spirit, the believer continues to work out his faith in his life, in which he will continue to grow, despite whatever stumbling may occur, until Christ calls him home or returns.
as far as i can tell, the resistance to the Holy Spirit, cited by the remonstants in Acts, is resistance to a lesser, general, ineffective calling of God (which goes out to all humanity and which unbelievers reject), and the grieving of the Spirit (cf. Eph. 4) is the stumbling of a believer along the path to conformity to Christ, because God has not yet granted him perfection, nor completely done away with his worldly flesh.
i'm sorry if that sounded a little old-school, but i find that style fitting for such majestic thoughts on God, and easier to accurately say what i mean.
dan, i would be interested in hearing more on what your conception of regeneration is. you say it is "a real change", by which i think you mean an ontological change in the person, not only how God views them, but what is that change? what was changed, and what has it been changed to?
regeneration is equavlent to being 'born again.' This is not something that happens merely in the heavenly realm, but a real life change.
A statement from the We Believe book states it succinctly: “Regeneration is the radical transformation of an individual life from self-centeredness to God-centeredness.”
Regeneration or rebirth is a radical change brought about in the life of a believer, whereby a new life is made possible.
“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new Creation: the old has gone, the new has come.”
Upon reflection I am confident that the CGGC is not pelagian. I just think that our statement on free moral agency is not adequately clear here. Walt has pointed out before that 'we believe' may not always be consistent and he has a point.
On the topic of regeneration though, the ordo salutis (order of salvation) is differnet for Calvinists and Arminians. For Arminians, faith preceded regeneration. Although Bill's letter has seemed to indicate otherwise. perhpaps he'll weigh in.
I recognize that as a poor dumb farm boy I am woefully out weighed ( which is seldom the case for me physically) to enter in to this discussion by the academic intelligences writing in this discussion but I would like to offer my thoughts.
I have a few years of exposure to the underlying debate and have read both Calvin and Arminius extensively. And have both in my library. My academic background has placed me in a plethora of late night discussions and debates. However, for this time and place I would rely heavily upon a recent book recommended by the CGGC: Roger Olsen’s Armenian Theology Myths and realities.
I find myself in agreement when he says: “The widespread misrepresentations of Armenian in the context of the continuing evangelical debate over predestination and free will is a travesty.“ He goes on: “The most common root of confusion in theology is misunderstanding terms.“ That is not to say this is simply a matter of semantics. Rather it is a concern we have a common agreement concerning the terms used in the discussion. One of the very first rules of debate is a clarification of the terms.
I would also agree with Olsen that classical Arminianism is significantly different from the modified and sometimes distorted understandings being postulated today under the heading of Armenianism. Just as any attempt to define “Presbyterial Polity” by current practice in CGGC would be miles away from that understood by our church fathers, so it is with the subject at hand.
The crux of the issue, it seems to me, is often missed in our discussions. Foundational to the issue is the question of whether our salvation is to use Olsen’s terms is a synergism or a monergism. That is to say: “Is there any human agency in the process. I am aware of the inherent danger, fallen into over the centuries by many, of the synergistic position leading into semi-pelagian and/or pelagian heresy. The “Social Gospel” of the last century that endures even now followed that path. The danger is not unavoidable. The path to that heresy is not the only or inevitable one.
I submit Classical Armenianism is neither. They are, again to use Olsen’s term, evangelical synergistic.
Monergism, espoused by the Calvinist position also has inherent dangers. Viewing salvation as totally independent of a human agency leads to the U in the TULIP. Unconditional election is a denial of man’s free moral agency in regard to his salvation. However, it is impossible to affirm unconditional election of some to salvation without simultaneously affirming unconditional election of other to damnation. This affirmation is a denial of the scriptural truth that it is not God’s will that any should perish.
Such an understanding also opens the door to a path ending with supralaprsarionism. Accepting that God planned man’s sin and fall with all its implications is totally inconsistent with the holy nature of God.
Classical Armenianism does not deny predestination but rejects unconditional election. They embrace predestination based on conditional election. The condition being “God’s foreknowledge of who will freely respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation and the prevenient enablement to accept it.“
Thus it becomes clear that Armenians accept salvation to be all of God based on his foreknowledge of how man will exercise his free moral agency. There is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. In as much as the TULIP is a house of cards, failure of the unconditional election at best erodes if not collapse the perseverance of the saints as understood in the term “eternal security“. Armenianism based on conditional election fully affirms the security of the believer as that security is conditional as well on the continuance in the faith.
ps - I agree with what you say. I think the Calvinists among us understand the ramifications of monergism. To be fair, however, Calvinists will often say that because God actually changes the will, but person is choosing Him.
I see strengths in Calvinism, but I remain persuaded by a more Arminian position. (no 'e' by the way in Arminian. little nit pick - sorry).
It is partially because of the ramifications you mention.
I wish more Calvinists would read Olson's book. It would not change their views probably, but would give a better understanding of Arminius.
here's where i get held up with arminian thought, particularly with conditional election. you say that God looks down the corridor of time, so to speak, and elects those whom He knows will have faith in Him. let me know if i'm misrepresenting you.
on the one hand, i don't understand what election means at that point, unless it's just a recognition of fact. there doesn't seem to be any choosing/electing, because it seems that the human is the one who did the choosing, electing to have faith.
on the other hand, what is it that caused those people to choose Him? in other words, how did this history of time, which God is looking at and using as the condition of His election, come to be? if it is not laid out by God's sovereign plan, then how was it determined? and if something else, other than God, determined it, is that determiner not more powerful than God, to make a decision which God did not ordain?
to answer ps1226, yes, the logical conclusion of a sovereign, all-powerful and all-knowing God is supralapsarianism, that God ordained the fall to happen, that from eternity past ("before the foundation of the world" as paul says) He predetermined the fall of humanity, the sacrifice of Christ, the salvation of those He would call His own, and the damnation of the reprobate, in order to show His glorious power and grace (cf. Romans 9:22-23).
There are other Calvinists (maybe more?) who hold that only after the fall is the bondage of the will, so to speak. But I agree with walt that it is a logical conclusion.
One thing to consider Walt, is that the Arminian position sees many (not all of the election passages as corporate. I think that it is the case that we sometimes push an individualistic mindset on the Bible.
Additionally, why we see everything as related to who is 'saved' and who is not. Isn't it possible that some references are to God's plan of salvation history, i.e. Christ is not an afterthought but the plan all along, and the church is predestined to a certain purpose.
We all have a high view of Scripture and want our beliefs to reflect the Scriptures. How we approach the Bible is most important.
This comment has been removed by the author.
dan, i'm sorry if i was unclear, but i don't hold that the human will was under bondage to sin (that is, unable to not sin) until after the fall. i do believe in humanity before total depravity (Gen. 1&2).
however, all events, actions, existence, etc., is dependent upon God's divine ordinance, as far as i understand it. everything that is, was, or will be is under His sovereign control. by that, i don't mean that He is the author, or direct/active agent in all things, but that everything that comes to pass is allowed to in accordance with His master plan.
i understand that some of the passages on election in Scripture may be taken corporately. but again, i don't understand how an arminian would view how the individuals who make up the corporate whole came to be a part of that group. if you have an understanding of how God elects conditionally without detracting from His omnipotence, i would love to hear it.
i'm a little confused by your third paragraph. could you expound on that? i think i agree with a lot of it, but i would appreciate some clarification.
I'd rather not get into the garden/fall thing right now, but I hear you understand what you are saying.
Your second paragraph is just that we fundamentally disagree about the extent to which God exercises sovereignty in the world. I say he decreed our freedom and maintain that only with such freedom is true worship possible. But I see your side truly.
My point about the Bible is we need to think through how we come up with a biblical view of a doctrine such as this. I would suggest that just tallying up what a sentance seems to say is woefully inadequate.
We need to start with a particular book and a particular author. If an author seems to say one thing 'arminian' and in another place 'calvinist' we need to spend time gathering the totality of the authors thought. Then we bring them together. Because we have a high view of scripture, we beleive that they are basically in agreement as all of Scripture is inspired by God.
What we tend to do is take one or two passages that we think are crystal clear and use them as an interpretive lense for other Scripture. This is problematic, but we all tend to do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home