Salvation - Predestined or Self-Determined?

Are people chosen for salvation or do they freely choose to be saved? This was the topic of contention between St. Augustine and John Cassian. Augustine emphasized that God is the One who initiates the work of salvation while Cassian argued that God saves those who take the first step towards Him. Let’s dig a bit deeper into each person’s arguments and then evaluate it biblically.

Cassian’s view of Divine and Human roles in Salvation

Cassian sees salvation as a cooperative work between God and man. He argues that the grace of God always co-operates with human will and sometimes, even requires and looks for some efforts of goodwill from humans. The reason for this is because God does not want to make it appear to confer His gifts on one who is asleep or relaxed in sluggish ease. Thus, the first action is from humans in the exercise of their will.

Cassian comes to this view because of his understanding of the fall of Adam. He asserts that though Adam conceived a knowledge of evil after the Fall, he did not lose the knowledge of good which he had before. This good in humans is still capable of seeking God and is, in fact, required for God to save them. God reaches out, invites, calls, and waits for humans to respond to Him.

Cassian does not deny the need for grace as Pelagius did (see Part 6 of Heresies & Creeds). However, the grace of God can only act after the will of man has acted; when God sees in humans some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation. Thus, salvation is synergistic (work of two (or more) people).

According to Cassian, God does not give grace according to the power of His Majesty but according to the measure of faith He finds in each one.

Augustine’s view of Divine and Human Roles in Salvation

Augustine credited the work of salvation to God alone. He begins his argument with the fact that humans are born under the effects of Adam’s sin and that no one can be delivered from that evil except by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. We are not capable of having saving-faith by ourselves. Faith is itself a gift from God and He gives it to us because of His grace, not because of our works or because he owes us.

Augustine also argued that this grace to believe is not given to all but only to the Elect i.e., to those whom the Father predestined even before the foundation of the world. God does this not because of our will but because of His own election; He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do.

However, the Elect are called through the preaching of the gospel and are made believers by the preparation of their wills. This special calling is not because the Elect already believed but in order that they may believe, it is not because they were holy but that they might be holy, it is not because they were of themselves righteous but so that God might make them righteous. Augustine emphasizes that God’s mercy acted first according to grace. It was not the Elect who chose God first, but it was God who first chose them so that they might choose Him.

Therefore, Augustine maintains that salvation is monergistic (work of one person). The Elect were elected before the foundation of the world because of God's act of predestination, and not because of the actions of the Elect. And, those whom He predestined, them He called, not others; those whom He so called, them He justified, not others; those whom He predestined, called, and justified, them He also glorified, and not others. God is the only actor and humans are recipients of this divine grace.

Who is Biblically Accurate?

Cassian’s view originates from his understanding of the impact of the Fall on humans. His view that man still has the same ability to do good as Adam had in the garden is not Scriptural. Instead, the biblical testimony is that man is unable to do anything to subject himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8). Man is dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1) and is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Cassian’s understanding that man should first seek God is directly negated in Romans 3:11-12:

“There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;

All have turned aside, together they have become useless;

There is none who does good, There is not even one.”

Because of this, Jesus said in John 6:44 that, “No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” Augustine understands this truth correctly and argues that the Father pours out His grace for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart; He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. The new heart hears the Father and learns from Him, and consequently, the person comes to the Son.

Cassian’s view also robs God of His essential attributes of Sovereignty and Omnipotence. According to Cassian, God’s sovereignty is limited by human free will; God can only act after humans have shown signs of good will. Although God wishes that none should perish, it is ultimately in the will of man to either bring it to fruition or to thwart it. In that sense, man is more sovereign than God. God’s omnipotence is also in question if He is not able to bring about the things He desires to do. This, however, is contradictory to Scripture which says that God accomplishes all His purposes (Isaiah 46:10) and no one can frustrate it (Isaiah 14:27). “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps” (Psalm 135:6). Augustine, on the other hand, affirms that God is all-powerful and in control of everything in the universe. According to Augustine, God Himself makes humans do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfillment of God’s promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of humans.

Conclusion

Salvation is from the Lord (Ps 37:39) and Jesus is the author and the finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). Our faith is itself a gift from God (Eph 2:8). We have nothing to boast of (Rom 3:27) but to be thankful for His grace. There was nothing in us that caused God to make us born again (1 Pet 1:3) but He chose us according to the kind intention of His will (Eph 1:4-5).

And when we learn this, we should be in awe of God’s grace and burst out in worship like Paul did in Rom 11:33-36.

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

To the non-Christian:

The fact that God is the One who initiates salvation should not be an excuse to the person who has not believed. God’s command for all people everywhere is to repent (Acts 17:30) and believe in the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47, Acts 2:38). Today is the day of salvation – turn to Jesus now!

Primary Issue of the Reformation

The Reformation changed the course of history, not just religiously but also politically. Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church held authority over Christianity as a religion; it was authoritative over the people, and also over kings and rulers. However, this authority was shaken to its core during the Reformation. The Reformers challenged this authority not because they were seeking power. Rather, they understood that true authority is found in God’s Word alone. Sola Scriptura became the “formal principle” (what everything is based on) and one of the five “Solas” of the Reformation.

The Reformers did not try to invent something new; instead, they wanted to regain what was lost. They understood that God has spoken authoritatively in His Word. What was new was their interest in the Scriptures, which lead to a new movement. They recovered the true interpretation of the Bible which was lost due to the addition of traditions by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Need for Reformation

In the centuries preceding the Reformation, there was change in almost every aspect of Christianity. The monasteries, where people went to escape the pleasures of this world by becoming monks, had become extremely relaxed and turned into centers of leisurely living. The papacy was weakened by the Great Schism, because of which, Western Europe’s allegiance was divided between two, and even three, popes. The meeting of Councils, which was effective in the early church and the medieval period to resolve issues, had become opportunities for regaining and asserting political power. In this context, the lay people were highly suspicious of the clergy and did not want to trust their teachings. The people saw that the clergy did not practice what they preached; in fact, their lives were completely opposite to it.

Changes were not only needed at the moral level but also in the teachings of the Catholic Church, since many saw that it had gone astray. There were individuals who were voicing their concerns including Wycliffe, Huss, and Erasmus. Martin Luther eventually became the face of the Reformation, while Zwingli, who was independently coming to the same understanding as Luther, lead his own reformation in Zurich.

The Question of Authority

The Reformation revolved around the question of authority and this question became its driving force. There were three aspects to the question of authority.

The first aspect was the authority of the Scriptures versus the authority of church tradition. The Reformers argued that Scripture alone was the sole authority for matters of faith and practice in the church. However, the Catholic church held its traditions on the same level as Scripture. These traditions were considered to be oral teachings and practices, not written down in the Bible, but passed on by the Apostles to their students, which were then passed on by these students to those under them and so forth. But there was no consensus on these traditions; it was the magisterium (teaching authority of the Catholic Church) that decided which traditions were Apostolic and which were merely human. If something was pointed out from Scripture that contradicted the church’s practices or beliefs, the church refused to accept it since it was against the tradition of the church. The Catholic church also turned to the writings of its theological doctors, like Thomas Aquinas and others, to arbiter matters of faith.

However, the Reformers rejected this since they intended to be true to Scripture rather than to human traditions. John Wycliffe and Jan Huss were two prominent pre-reformation figures that were condemned by the Catholic Church. But when Luther was asked to recant his teachings, he retorted by appealing to the authority of the Scriptures: “Unless I am convinced by Sacred Scriptures or by evident reason, I will not recant. My conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand; I can do no other.”

The second aspect focused on the authority to possess, read, and interpret the Scriptures: are the clergies the only ones who hold this authority or do lay people also have this authority? The Catholic Church believed that only the priests had authority to possess and interpret the Scriptures. The magisterium decided what Scripture meant and no one could question its authority. But the Reformers argued otherwise. John Wycliffe pioneered to get the Scriptures into the hands of the common people. He started translating the Scriptures from Latin into English. Luther also believed that the Scriptures should be open and available to the people and that the Church did not possess the sole authority to own and interpret the Scriptures. He translated the New Testament into German while he was in hiding.

The final aspect was the argument between the authority of the Church and the authority of the State. The church considered itself superior to the kings and the rulers of the different nation-states. The rulers were subject to the decisions made by the clergy and when they refused, the church would take extreme measures against them. Some of these measures included not administering the sacraments and even excommunicating the kings. The Reformation gave the rulers and kings the opportunity to join in the protest against the church in a nationalistic way. The Reformers argued for the separation of church and state since the church was meant to be a theological body and not a political entity. The rulers took advantage of this to deny the authority of the church over the states.

The Effects of the Reformation

The Reformation was an important marker in the history of the church and of civilization. It brought about significant changes in Europe and also all over the world. The nature of Christianity was changed forever from being mainly Catholicism concentrated in Western Europe to various denominations spread all across Europe and eventually all over the world. There was religious freedom, and people were free to choose their method of worship from the many denominations that erupted in Europe. This also led many philosophers to boldly challenge the truths of Christianity and even religion as a whole.

Nation-states began to appear, and many alliances were made between like-minded nations. People had to choose between Catholicism and Protestantism. Rulers switched between these two groups also, thus impacting the people's lives and safety. People were moving away from rulers with whom they did not agree. These moves lead to the discovery of new land and independence for those who moved. As people started spreading to other parts of the world, there was plurality of denominations and religious viewpoints.

The Reformation challenged the authority of the Catholic Church because the Reformers believed that Scripture alone is authoritative. The Catholic Church responded to the Reformation by convening the Council of Trent to denounce the tenets of the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic church defined its teachings on justification, sacraments, authority of the church and clergy, and other theological doctrines. These doctrines were directly in contradiction to the truths argued by the Protestant Reformers. The most significant of these was regarding the nature of salvation. While the Protestant Reformers argued that humans are saved by faith alone, the council of Trent declared that humans are saved by faith and works; the Protestant teaching was also anathematized.

True Authority

Authority was a significant motivating factor for the Reformation, and it continues to be a significant factor in the church and in society. Christians may confess today that God holds all authority, and it is true that He does. However, the immediate question that follows is, “how does He exercise this authority over us?” The answer to this question has to be through His Word.

God has always operated in His creation through His Word. He created through His Word (Gen 1:3). He revealed His Law through His Word (Ex 20:1) and He revealed Himself fully through His Word (John 1:14, 18). Jesus, all through His earthly life, emphasized the authority of God’s Word. He fought temptations through God’s Word and submitted to it (Matt 4:4,7,10). He constantly appealed to God’s Word as authoritative (Matt 19:4-5,17-19,22:31, Jn 10:34). Jesus said He came to fulfill God’s Word and not a jot or tittle will be unfulfilled (Matt 5:17-18).

God has given us Scripture so we can know Him and have a relationship with Him through His Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. Nothing on this earth holds the same authority as His Word; everything else has to be placed under it. God has put other authorities on this earth to bring about His purposes including the church, the government, parents, etc. (Rom 13:1). However, all earthly authorities have to submit to God through His Word.

It’s Our Turn

As Christians, we need to have the same commitment to God’s Word as the Reformers. Many were persecuted and even put to death because they refused to compromise on the authority of God’s Word. Satan has been attacking this authority ever since the Garden of Eden when he asked Eve, “Has God said…?” (Gen 3:1). He tried it with Jesus but failed. Will he succeed with us? If we are in Jesus, let us follow His example and hold fast to God’s Word as He did.

Further Reading

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2: The Reformation to the Present Day

Jesus - Creature or Creator?

Throughout history, a simple question such as “Who are you?” has been a difficult one to answer in its true sense (remember the movie Anger Management?). People have always been concerned about their identity. It has plagued many philosophers and thinkers for millenniums and many theories have been put forward regarding who we are.

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus posed such a question to His disciples saying, “Who do you say I am?” (Matt 16:13-16). The disciples gave multiple answers till Peter correctly identified Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The question of Jesus’ identity has been hotly debated since His appearance 2,000 years ago and it still continues today. One of the most significant of these debates was the Arian Controversy. Even though it was condemned as heretical, many groups of people still adhere to it. As we consider Arianism, we will also examine our own beliefs about Jesus.

Who was Arius and what did he teach?

Arius was a presbyter (pastor) in the early 4th century in Alexandria. He gained a significant following due to his teaching on the nature of God, the Father, and of Jesus Christ. He started wrestling with who Jesus was, and wanted to understand His relationship to God. He firmly believed that God was self-existent and the source of all creation. Eventually, he came to understand that God was not always a Father, that is, there was a time when God was all alone. He became a Father when the Son came into being. This was his main teaching – the Son had a beginning.

Arius claimed that there was ‘a time when the Son was not.’ This became the theme song for his supporters. According to him, only the Father is God and without a beginning. The Father begot the Son and, until He was begotten, the Son did not exist. The main support for his view was the word “begotten” in John’s Gospel (John 1:18, 3:16) and the adjective “firstborn” in Col 1:15.

Arius argued that the Father created the Son, so that the Son can create other things; the Father was too high and mighty to create a world. The Father bestowed all the glories on the Son and caused Him to exist with Him. The Son, though superior to all other creatures, is still a creature, created out of nothing, and does not have the same essence of the Father. Thus, the Father and the Son are not on equal footing.

Arius also contended that because the Son is different than the Father, He cannot fully know the Father, nor can He reveal Him to us. Moreover, the Father is God of the Son, and rules over Him.

(Did you get all that…?)

But That Was Early 4th Century…What About Now?

Although these views originated in the early 4th century (and were refuted), they never really died. There are many groups today within Christianity and outside of it who do not hold that Jesus is God or that He has the same nature as God. They see Jesus as a creature or a mere mortal.

Jehovah’s Witnesses consider Jesus as God’s first creation and a lesser god (identical to Arians). Many Unitarians also hold to the same view that Godhood is possessed only by God, the Father. Mormons claim Jesus to be the literal biological son of the Father; for them, the Father is also a mortal who once lived on an earth. Judaism considers Jesus as a mere human and a teacher; He is not God for that would be blasphemous against the Only true God. Islam considers Jesus as a prophet, born of a virgin, but not God or even the Son of God; for God is not a Father.

As it can be seen, the identity of Jesus is a major point of difference among most of the world’s religions. Before we look at the importance of getting the identity of Jesus right, let’s look at what happened to Arius and his teachings in the 4th century.

Arius Challenged

Arius and his view of the Son was challenged by a number of his contemporaries. His opponents claimed that the Son was of the same being or essence as the Father, and that He was God (see arguments below). The disagreements were so intense that the whole Christian world was divided because of this issue. To resolve this controversy, the first ecumenical (world) council was organized in Nicaea in 325AD. Arius and his teachings were deemed heretical. The decision hinged on one Greek letter – “i” (iota) – Homoousias (same substance) was affirmed and Homoiousias (like substance) was rejected. The most ardent voices against Arius were those of two bishops: Alexander of Alexandria and his successor, Athanasius of Alexandria.

Arius Refuted

Contrary to Arius’ view, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son, Jesus, is the Creator and not a creature. Alexander was Arius’ contemporary and opposed him to his face. Athanasius was involved in debates with Arius’ followers after his death. He wrote multiple discourses against Arianism and was exiled several times for his defense of the divinity of the Son. We now turn to their arguments.

John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17 reads that “all” things came into existence through the Word of God, the Son, – everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen. If the Son is a creature, then He belongs to the category of “all” created things. But how could He, as a created being, create Himself…? This is an absurdity and was rightly pointed out by both Alexander and Athanasius. Moreover, there could not have been a time when the Son was not because He created time itself. Therefore, the Son is not part of the “all” created things and cannot be numbered with those who came into existence; rather, He is the Creator of “all” things. As a result, no difference exists between the nature of the Father and the Son. Because the Son is of the same substance as the Father, He possesses the same attributes as the Father (except that He is begotten). He is immutable, perfect and in want of nothing. At the same time, the Son is not the Father; they are distinct persons.
There are many texts in the Bible where Jesus is called God and is equated to God by the inspired writers (John 1:1-2, 18, 20:28, Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8).
Jesus Christ, the Son, was worshipped in all of the churches and Jesus Himself received worship during His earthly ministry. If the Son is a creature, as Arius argued, then all those who worshipped Jesus would be guilty of worshipping a creature i.e., idolatry. Jesus Himself would also be guilty of blasphemy for accepting worship. However, this is not true, and the worship offered to Jesus, the Son, is worship offered to the only true God.
More importantly, Athanasius argued that Jesus needed to be both God and man for Him to secure our redemption. If Jesus was not a man, then He could not have represented us perfectly before the Father. We would not have had a true substitute because “what He did not assume, He did not redeem.” Therefore, Jesus’s humanity is necessary for our redemption. In the same way, if Jesus was not God, then He could not have been sinless and thus, could not stand in God’s presence as our representative. He could not have endured the wrath of God on our behalf because no human can do that. Only God can bear God’s wrath, which we deserved.

More Refutations

In the Old Testament, God reminds His people over and over again that He is the true God and there is no other. One of the arguments used to support this claim is that God alone is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. See Isaiah 40:25-26,42:5; 45:12, 18; 48:12-13. How then could the New Testament writers make Jesus, the Son, the creator of all things (John 1:3, Col 1:16-17)? The only plausible way to understand this is that they understood Jesus to be God, though distinct from the Father.

In Heb 1:8, the writer addresses the Son and continues in Heb 1:10 to say that the Son laid the foundations of the earth in the beginning. This is a reference to Psalm 102:25, where the same words are addressed to the Father. The writer is, thus, equating Jesus to Yahweh.

Why does this matter today?

What we believe about the identity of Jesus is not just a theological exercise, but it has important implications for our eternity.

Jesus wanted His disciples to know that He is God incarnate. During His earthly ministry, He revealed His identity to them through various ways. He forgave sin (Mark 2:10), He accepted worship (Matt 14:33, John 20:28), He transfigured (Matt 17:2), and He even raised people from the dead (Luke 7:15, John 11:43-44). No mere human can do any of these things but only God can.
Jesus also revealed His identity to the Pharisees using Old Testament language. God had revealed His name as “I AM” in Exod. 3:14. Jesus told the Pharisees that He is the I AM and unless they believe it, they will perish in their sins (John 8:24).
After His resurrection, Jesus taught His disciples from the Scriptures everything written about Him (Luke 24:44-47). The disciples’ understanding can be seen in their teaching, that Jesus is God and not just a man. John wrote that if we deny the Son, we do not have the Father (1 John 2:23).
Paul wrote in Rom 10:9 that confessing Jesus as Lord is salvific. And for John, a person’s understanding of Jesus’ identity was important to know if that person is born of God (I John 4:2-3).

As we close, each of us should examine our belief of who Jesus is. Is He a creature or the Creator?

The testimony of the entire the Bible is that Jesus is the Creator and all created things were made through Him. We need to hold fast to this confession for our salvation and to grow in our understanding of the One who rescued us.

This was a brief look into the Arain controversy and how it impacts us today. Stay tuned for more articles which will deal with the nature of Jesus Christ and His work.

Further Reading

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation

Michael A. G. Haykin, Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church

William G. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy (Sources of Early Christian Thought)