10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
Message: A Divided Will; Does man cooperate with God at the point of salvation or is man passive?
Time: Paul wrote Romans from Corinth as he prepared to leave for Palestine. Phoebe (16:1,2) was given the great responsibility of delivering the letter to the Romans believers. At this time, Rome had a population of 1 million, many of whom were slaves. The Roman church was doctrinally sound, but it still needed rich doctrine and practical application. Rome had massive buildings but also slums.
What the Lord is Saying:
While Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism were condemned at the Second Council of Orange in AD 529, there are remnants of it that still seem to be held today. Catholicism condemns it and yet in practice, they seem to lapse back into semi-Pelagianism. RC Sproul in his message "Is Grace Irresistible" mentions that there is an always present conflict in the church between semi-Pelagianism and Augustinian as it relates to the issue of man's involvement in salvation. He mentions that Arminius held to something similar to semi-Pelagianism. (I get the idea that he thinks that a person can be saved believing in semi-Pelagianism as well as Augustinian's view because both believe in grace.)
Again, semi-Pelagianism upholds the doctrine of grace but believes that man takes the first step toward God. Pelagius argues that if God commanded people to do something, then he felt that man must have the ability to do it, for why would God make a command if man was unable to heed it. The conclusion of Pelagius is that grace is not needed for man has the ability on his own for goodness. [I have read a few commentaries on Pelagius and it seems that what he wrote about grace contradicted himself - at times he said grace was necessary, at times unnecessary; what seems to be clear is he was concerned that grace made man sort of irresponsible and therefore could gave license to sin; Christians were therefore lax in their service because the view they had about sin.]
I find these beliefs interesting because we have so many seemingly different beliefs today and yet as I study this material I see we actually have a few beliefs with some small variations (recently, I have begun to identify that the variations are often a difference in opinion as to what constitutes essential and non-essential doctrines). It is interesting to see the origin of theology and how concepts have been concluded by some and not concluded by others. Who we are today in our thinking is really a product of thinking from hundreds of years ago.
It seems that the crux of what most people want from God or their beliefs is something that makes sense or sounds reasonable to them. They seem to want something all inclusive. In a way, I can understand the stumbling block that results in believing that God does all the work because man seems to want to see worth and value in who he himself is. Therefore, God choosing His elect, God doing all the work, and man not even capable of denying God, but rather works in a way that he must - well, these concepts for me anyway create a sort of struggle and a struggle to others.
Even the atheist seems to arrive at his or her conclusion because of a belief that life is unreasonable if there is a God and it is easier to conclude that there is no God and life is only what we see now. I was listening to an interview with Ravi Zacharias and he said the most common and prevalent question he gets is over the problem of evil, suffering and life operating in a seemingly random manner. And how is it a God could love me and yet allow others to suffer. I've always found this puzzling that people have simply come to the conclusion that life can only be for our good. On one hand I don't think people think this and that toil has merits, but not to the extremes of perhaps suffering.
Therefore, it seems to me that their is a conclusion that there is no God. Even in these other beliefs that theologians and monks have had, it appears this idea of reason that sweeps into the view of the Bible - that at first glance, in the reading of scripture it doesn't make sense that, for example, a command would be given by God and yet man would be incapable of adhering to that command. In addition, the exclusive notion of God only saving the elect, at times feels peculiar.
Much of life is based upon training and we are trained in thought by our surroundings - our parents, our churches and naturally some people can at times stare at this and wonder if the training has been valid. At times in my reading of the Bible, I'm looking at the words of the text and thinking about them to see if my conclusion lines up with the training in which I have received. Thus, when I examine these beliefs I want to understand them. Even this study, the writers have already concluded that they are heresies. Granted, others have concluded that in that past as well. I really want my beliefs to be based upon the Word of God and not the Words of Men. Yet, God speaks through men and gives them understanding into the things of God.
RC Sproul in the message titled A Divided Will looks at the Roman Catholic view toward original sin. Original Sin is defined as Adam sinning first and then his sin passed on to every other person after Adam; one person's sin made everyone a sinner. The Roman Catholic church condemned Pelagianism in the past and even today. What seems surprising is that at one time they upheld Augustine. Then they condemned semi-Pelagianism in 529, but then they also condemned Luther at the time of the Reformation in the 16th century. Thus, all of the options concerning the will and original sin seem to have been condemned. But the appearance is that they seem to mirror semi-Pelagianism which tries to say that grace and man choosing can go hand in hand.
In the Council of Trent from the 16th century, he (Sproul) looks at the Roman Catholic view of will and original sin. In Canon 4, there is some sort of condemnation toward the reformers. Rome has maintained that baptism cleanses the soul from original sin; grace is infused into the soul and thus grace is necessary for salvation, but the grace must meet with a response or cooperation with the person; at this point a person becomes inherently righteous. However, according to reformers, man is dead in sin and must be awakened by God through regeneration. The issue seems to be here as to whether there is cooperation with man or if the first step of grace is God doing the work. According to reformers, at this point, man is passive. God is not waiting for man to agree with Him. Man instead is quickened back to life. Thus, it is monergistic whereby God works through the Holy Spirit to bring about the salvation of the individual. But, according to the catechism man still has the power to choose good or evil. Reformers says that man does have the freedom to choose, but will only choose evil.
In his message titled Bondage of the Will, RC Sproul speaks of Martin Luther and sola fide "by faith alone" and this summarizes Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone. Yet Luther felt that sola gratia "by grace alone" was an even more important subject as sola fide grows out of sola gratia. He thought that the study of election was at the heart of the church's mission in understanding. We are saved by grace and it has to then be by faith. Luther felt it was of pinnacle importance to understand whether our salvation is the work of God or work based upon our own merits, our own striving, our own efforts. Sproul talks about the debate between Erasmus and Luther over the issue of whether free will is even a subject that academics should study and debate. Erasmus felt conversely that it shouldn't be studied for he felt that to understand grace alone and faith alone would make man feel that his live of living had no value. To this Luther responds. Erasmus says "Who will respond to reform his life?" Luther - "Nobody." Erasmus - "Who will believe that God loves him?" Luther - "Nobody." And this is in a way Luther's point that no one seeks after God as it says here in Romans 3:11.
We don't want to come to the things of God, on our own. Our only hope is that God seeks us out and turns us around and brings us to Himself. How can one say that one person, on his own accord chooses grace while another person does not? There must be something between the action of the will and making the choice. The in between is inclination of the soul. Why are you a Christian and your neighbor isn't? And they'll say, "Well, I chose to be and they chose not to be." And I will say - Is it because you are more righteous than your neighbor? Most people will shrink from saying this. So why isn't it because you are more righteous? You made the right decision, didn't you? And yet this is what they really believe that they made the righteous choice. And then there is the subject of necessity. For Erasmus, necessity meant coercion and therefore felt like there was no free will. If my actions are necessary because of God's foreknowledge then they must take place through coercion - says Erasmus. Luther says - God does not force me to make decisions in my normal daily living, but they are necessary in respect to his knowledge, because if God knows today what I am going to do freely tomorrow, without His coercion, will I do that tomorrow? God's knowledge of it happening does not mean that God is forcing it to happen. God does not coerce sinners to sin. People choose what they want, but the problem is what they want is wicked. He does not force people who want only to do evil, to do good.
RC Sproul in the message title Voluntary Slaves, Sproul starts by clarifying that Calvin gets his understanding of election from Augustine and Luther. Following Luther's death, the Lutheran church was persuaded by a colleague Phillipp Melanchthon of Luther's who disagreed with some of Luther's philosophies, namely the one of whether individuals cooperated with their salvation. This is why the Lutheran church is in conflict with Calvin even today.
Calvin often gets the credit for the doctrine of free will and God's sovereignty because of his TULIP. T is for Total Depravity. This total depravity does not mean that a person is completely evil for even in thinking of a person that is evil, like Hitler, that person could be more evil than he was. Instead what this means is that as a result of the fall, sin affected the entire human race. And this fallenness affects the entire person - the mind, the heart, the the body, the will. Thus we are morally incapable. Calvin said we are still capable of making choices and he says we are still capable of achieving what he calls "civil" or "civic virtue." This means that on the level of human interaction, fallen man can do good things to and for each other. These are horizontal choices. What Calvin is getting at is whether man has any desire to good things vertically. On his own accord, vertically, will he choose the things of God?
Now what is most controversial by Calvin is the letter U which stands for Unconditional Election. What this means is God chooses man not based upon their actions because no one would respond positively to the gospel. As he said, man is fallen and therefore incapable of choosing horizontal devotion to God, apart from God giving them aid and drawing them to Himself. Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives to regenerate us we are incapable of choosing the things of God.
Our mind has been seriously affected by the Fall. But it has not been destroyed. The mind is still capable of achieving greatness. Some people have been bestowed on them a great intellect and work hard at learning and have in the process achieved much greatness on the earthly plane - horizontally, but in the matters of the vertical or in the matters of God the only way they can achieve the things of God is when the Spirit of God intercedes into their lives. I Corinthians 2:14 - The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. No one ever of himself will be able to come to Christ. No one can. Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless it is given to him or unless the Father draws him. Arminian speaks of this drawing as God luring or assisting man in coming to him. Calvin though speaks of drawing as working internally in the heart and soul of a person and make them willing to come to him. If left to themselves they would not be willing. God does the work and they become willing. Apart from his work they would never come to him. He changes their disposition.
Summary - What I am seeing in this discourse is the tendency I think in some thinkers, like Pelagius and Erasmus is maybe not necessarily disputing the words of the Bible, but struggling in believing this is actually as it is. Feelings creep into our lives and we in turn struggle to believe that God really intended people to operate in a manner of Him doing the work in drawing man to Himself. I thought it was most compelling in this study to think about the vertical and horizontal. That we can make choices on the horizontal and even live seemingly good lives, do good things, and make good choices, but in the matter of the vertical, in the matter of God and desiring Him above else, this is our problem. And it is only God that can give us this type of desire for Him. We cannot do it on our own. Thus, as I have said before, we are trained in life to live in such a way horizontally and we naturally think this is how God works vertically. But He does not. There is no trade-off with Him of us doing good deeds and then receiving a reward in return. The reality is this is the way it works most of the time in our horizontal living and therefore we equate it with God. But scripture says differently and so we must submit to the Word of God, in its entirety. I think I've thought that maybe the Apostle Paul and Jesus and the rest of the Bible were somehow in conflict, but this is not so. Paul simply expands on principles of the rest of the book. This has been an enlightening message and I know it has taken me two months to complete, but it does seem like it has sunk into me now. Thus, where we reside today is the idea that people simply are not as fallen as scripture makes them out to be.
Promise: From Tabletalk - Understanding our fallenness, that we will not seek God without His effectual grace, enables us to worship Him more fervently as the source of every good and perfect gift.
Prayer: O Father, I thank you for the clarity of Your Word. Yes, it is hard work and it takes time to understand what it says. I thank you for this, that there is depth to You. Thank you for speaking through men like Sproul and weaving your message through history. Give me empathy towards people that do not share this knowledge. I pray for them that you would illuminate people and give them understanding. Keep me focus on this practice of prayer and not towards the practice of me seeking to change others. Thank you for salvation and allowing me to see the beauty of your grace and have it affect me for all eternity. Thank you Jesus for bearing the punishment of my sins, for bearing the punishment of all of our sins, thereby fulfilling the punishment of my sins so that I could be sealed in righteousness for eternity.
Note: I follow the readings from the Tabletalk Magazine devotional, though I am a little behind and working through 2017 devotionals. 2017 is a study of key biblical doctrines celebrating the 500th year of the Reformation. The month of April is about salvation by grace alone. March was about the sovereign providence of God; February was about the doctrine of revelation and the various aspects of the doctrine of Scripture that sola Scriptura seeks to preserve; January is about the doctrine of God.
