THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN THE SALVATION OF MAN: THE DEBATE

Most Americans seem to know very little of US History and some of the debates that shaped the course of our country. That ignorance is likely surpassed by American Christians concerning church history and debates that have shaped our creeds. The debate we are focusing on this week is between proponents of freewill and predestination, as pertaining to God’s plan of salvation. Why is it important to consider this? Because Scripture speaks to the matter and we need to know what to believe! Salvation is a pretty important doctrine! We cannot study Romans—that shining gem of the Gospel—without considering this in general and verses like 8:29-30 in particular. Those verses state, “ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

So, against that Biblical backdrop, we step into the theological ring and look at the match—in one corner stand the advocates of freewill and in the other predestination.

AUGUSTINE VERSUS PELAGIUS.
This is round one. In the fifth century, Augustine was saved out of such a life of debauchery that he was convinced only God could save him and that man could do nothing. Had God not sought him, he didn’t believe he would ever have sought the Lord—quite the opposite. Upon his conversion, Augustine became an influential theologian and powerfully defended a predestination position. In the other corner was the freewill camp, led by Pelagius. He was a cultured, educated monk who believed that with some help from God, man could improve himself. Pelagius taught that Adam’s sin only affected Adam and that we sinned by following Adam’s bad example. Salvation on the other hand was found in Christ’s example, and as we followed that we would be saved. His teachings were examined, rejected and labeled heresy, while Augustine’s view prevailed.

LUTHER VERSUS ERASMUS.
Now we come to round two in the 1500’s. Martin Luther believed that teaching freewill compromised grace. He taught that the will was not free, but because of sin man’s will was in bondage and he wrote a book to that effect—a book which he considered to be his finest work, “The Bondage of the Will.” On the other hand, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest that had sympathy with Luther’s reforms, yet who refused to abandon Rome. He was a humanist who believed that the fall may have affected man, but that humans could still find God of their own volition. Luther saw salvation as all of grace and would not back down. The Protestants adopted Luther’s view and followed him and other Reformers in that doctrine.

CALVIN VERSUS ARMINIUS.
Next, round three was fought with what has become the most familiar names in the debate, with the respective adherents called Arminians and Calvinists. The twist that Arminius gave to freewill teaching is to acknowledge that salvation is indeed all of grace but he expressed that God gives every man enough grace to overcome depravity. Opposite him was John Calvin, unwavering in his teachings concerning God’s absolute sovereignty in matters of salvation and the teaching of predestination.

Calvin’s followers have put this into a five-point formulation called TULIP, an acronym for: 1) Total depravity—all are sinners and cannot save themselves; 2) Unconditional election—God chooses those in His grace that He wishes to save; 3) Limited atonement—Christ died only for the elect; 4) Irresistible grace—those God elects will come to Him; 5) Perseverance of the saints—The elect cannot be lost.

It should be noted that sometimes those who stake themselves to their respective positions take things to extremes—as we are all prone to do. Arminians, in rejecting TULIP theology, adopt another flower, “daisy” theology, instead. You know, that’s where you pick the daisy’s petals, “He loves me; he loves me not.” Thus, one day God loves us and we’re His child and the next He doesn’t love us because of our failings. These have no assurance of salvation—just trying to hang on—backsliding and repenting and getting “saved” multiple times. Their hymn is rendered, “I once was lost in sin, and now I’m lost again. Let us have a little talk with Jesus and make it right.” Calvinists may outdo Calvin himself and become hyper-Calvinists thinking like this, “Eeny meeny miny moe, this one to heaven, to hell you go.” One must acknowledge that at times the debate seems to shed more heat than light.

WHITEFIELD VERSUS WESLEY.
The contest continued with round four in the 1700’s. Whitefield and the Wesley brothers—John and Charles—were friends in their younger days and all members of the “Holy Club” while at Oxford. Both George Whitefield and John Wesley were prominent figures in the Great Awakenings in England and America. Each had a profound impact on the shaping of America and the American church. Their friendship, however, was torn asunder when Wesley adopted Arminian theology while Whitefield held to Calvinism. This pained Whitefield greatly, who longed for reconciliation. Wesley was rigid in this and went so far as to crusade against his former friend for preaching what he called the “blasphemy” of predestination. Later they were reconciled in spirit, though never in doctrine, and John Wesley preached Whitefield’s funeral.

Wesley was, of course, very evangelistic as one who sincerely holds to freewill teaching would be. The charge is leveled that Calvinism makes a person unconcerned about evangelism, since God will save those He wants to save anyway. While this charge may accurate concerning some Calvinists, and hyper-Calvinists certainly, Whitefield was no less an evangelist than Wesley. Multitudes were converted as he preached the Gospel. I am currently reading one of Spurgeon’s works called, “The Soul-winner.” The eighteenth century Baptist pastor was a Calvinist yet none can doubt his evangelistic fervor. There are Arminians who say they believe in evangelism and yet behave like hyper-Calvinists and Calvinists who witness with the zeal of Arminians! I’d prefer the latter to the former.

So what are we to conclude concerning this debate that has raged across two thousand years of church history? One thing I can conclude is that I cannot settle it in a sermon or even a series of messages! I’m not that good. Yet, we must all seek to know God’s glorious Gospel and are challenged to, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).