PERSONAL : THE PARADOX OF GIFT AND RESPONSE I. INTRODUCTION

A. CLARIFICATION OF TERMS. 1. Personal Salvation. The emphasis here is on God's gift of salvation by grace and the personal response to that gift. There are many aspects of salvation which will not be included. Salvation is far more complex than presented here. For example, the corporate aspects in personal salvation are not addressed. (It is an important topic, since it is basically ignored by many Christians.) That topic must be left for another time. However, out of respect for that ignored topic, the expression personal salvation will be used instead of individual salvation. 2. Paradox. There are several meanings to this word. We will restrict our usage to the following meaning: "Paradox is a statement or situation that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may actually be true in fact" (a dictionary definition). Our love for truth should demand that we hold paradoxical truths in tension and not force a resolution of the paradox. In some cases the paradox will be resolved as more insight becomes available. Some theological paradoxes will not be resolved until we get to heaven. Others will never be resolved. I like the label "eternal paradox" with this form, since, in reality, they have the nature of a true mystery. A true mystery cannot be solved. It is possible to further our understanding of some mysteries. In fact, the Bible speaks of mysteries being revealed (Dan 2:28-29, 47; Matt 13:11; Eph 3:3-9). But, for a true mystery, any such further understanding only deepens the mystery. We actually get further behind the deeper we go in probing true mystery, i.e., we have more questions than when we started. 3. Gift. All that is done by God in the act of personal salvation is referred to as a "gift" here, since it is an act of grace on His part. We neither deserve God's actions on our behalf nor is it possible to control these actions (i.e., in some way obligate God to act on our behalf). These gracious acts include, but are not limited to, the following aspects of personal salvation: calling, choosing (election), , , and (final ) as well as conversion, , , of sin, reconciliation to and peace with God, , inner renewal (e.g., dealing with corruption of sin), restoration (e.g., being recreated in the image of God), and being filled with the Holy Spirit (including empowering, cleansing, enlightening). 4. Response. Essentially all Christians believe that personal salvation is totally a work of God's grace, while at the same time it also is an event and process involving human agency. B. BIBLICAL PARADOX. It is my position that the Bible maintains the paradox of gift and response , even if in some places it seems to emphasize one side of the paradox more than the other. Personal salvation is a gift (God offers, provides, sustains, etc.) requiring a necessary human response (it must be accepted, maintained, etc.). Shall we accept it as an eternal paradox (mystery) and simply try to understand what we can about it, or shall we seek to resolve the paradox? I suggest that we hold together in paradoxical tension the necessity of both gift and response. I think the Bible encourages a healthy debate surrounding this paradox, with no side "winning" the debate. Instead, the challenge intensifies our search and produces deeper meanings and explanations.

II. SOME HISTORICAL POSITIONS There is a general agreement among Christians that personal salvation consists of both gift and response (or "gift and task" as some choose to describe it). However, there is a wide diversity in what that means. Several basic positions will be described below, but even within these possibilities there is considerable diversity. It is better to think of the explanations as forming a spectrum of belief regarding personal salvation with these basic positions being somewhere along the spectrum. At one end of the spectrum would be with at the other. These are true opposites of each other. Various forms of then would be somewhere in between these two positions. Many views of salvation have existed since NT times. However, some issues come to the forefront through debates which arise. Three important debates will be mentioned here. The first one was between Pelagius and Augustine [who defended monergism] in the early part of the fifth century.

A. PELAGIANISM. Pelagius, a British , denied the existence of . He maintained that Adam's sin was not transmitted to his posterity. No human depravity resulted from the Fall. Humans can live without sinning. Divine aid is helpful but not necessary. Sin is an act; it has no separate existence (e.g., original sin). Sin does not change the person; it only brings penalty. Every child is born in a state of innocence, and perseverance in goodness is a human choice. All people, even the worst sinners, have the power of choosing God and salvation; it is an act of their own free will. It is even possible to move on to complete obedience and perfection. Most people holding this viewpoint would recognize the need for God's grace to reach these higher levels of development. But His assistance is not essential to personal salvation, nor is it necessary in order to live a sinless life.

Some people consider Pelagianism to be a form of synergism (a cooperative endeavor between God and humans). (I don't think it should be viewed that way.) If so, for this theology, the focus is on the human agency. Humans are in charge; God is the one cooperating! Pelagianism was condemned as heresy by several between 412-418 and the condemnation was confirmed in 431 by the Council of Ephesus. A modified form (called Semi-Pelagianism) was held by some later in the fifth century. In this modified form, God's grace is given to everyone, but people must take the first step toward salvation. In some cases, the good will of a human person precedes divine mercy and grace. It was condemned as heresy at a at Orange in 529. Various forms of Semi-Pelagianism have been around ever since, if not in standard theologies, at least in the thinking of many who confess the Christian . This type of fuzzy thinking finds expression in such statements as "God helps those who help themselves" and "If you take one step towards God, He will come the rest of the way to you", etc. B. MONERGISM. The basic meaning of the word is "works alone" (from "mono-" [one, alone], "ergon" [work]). Some historians think that Augustine actually modified his personal belief as a reaction to the views held by Pelagius. He moved to a more extreme position. (The irony of debate is that debate should help people find some middle ground, instead it more often moves people further apart.) It is important to note that monergism was not the position of the church at that time. In fact, neither the Roman Church nor the Orthodox Church have ever held this extreme doctrinal position. In brief, monergism insists that God does it all. Even the "human response" is completely God's work. C. LIBERAL MONERGISM [UNIVERSALISM]. This position maintains a belief in the ultimate, unconditional reconciliation of all humans with God. This reconciliation might even include fallen angels. D. EVANGELICAL SYNERGISM. The basic meaning of the word is "work together" (from "syn-" [with, together], "ergon" [work]). In general, synergism includes any belief where personal salvation involves a cooperation between God (doing the saving) and humans (being saved). One aspect that distinguish it from any form of Pelagianism is that God is the major player in this process. However, even though the human plays a minor role, this human response is still a crucial aspect of salvation. Typical of most "middle way" positions, it is difficult to describe it perfectly. Many monergists simply label any form of synergism as Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism and dismiss, as heretics, those holding such viewpoints. At the time of the , another debate took place. Some people do not know that the Protestant Reformation sparked a Catholic Counter-Reformation. Martin Luther and several (not all) other Protestants took a monergistic position. , a Catholic reformer, took a synergetic viewpoint on personal salvation. Out of this debate came two books: On Free Will (by Erasmus) and On the Bondage of the Will (by Luther). Erasmus stated that due to God's grace, the human will can be enabled to accept or reject the gift of salvation. The initiative is with God. He provides a "prevening" [prevenient] grace. The words "prevening" and "prevenient" come from an earlier meaning of the word "prevent" [i.e., going before, preceding]. This is provided to humans before salvation. However, this grace can be resisted. God's grace assists people in making a free choice; the gift can either be accepted or rejected. The initiative is with God; the response is by the person. However, even this free acceptance of the gift is possible only by grace. God is at work throughout the entire process. Never, at any point, are the people being saved acting entirely on their own. They have nothing to boast about.

The type of synergism described here is something called evangelical synergism to separate it from other forms which appear to allow for merit in the response.

E. CATHOLIC SYNERGISM. It turns out that the viewpoint of the Catholic Reformer [Erasmus] discussed above never became the official position of the Church. Included as necessities for personal salvation were an acceptable relationship with the church and expressions of love. Conversion is a life-long process, not an instantaneous event as believed by Protestants. Therefore, justification is essentially identified with sanctification. For Catholics the process involves a number of factors. It begins with followed by confirmation. It continues with the regular partaking of the (administered by a priest), and penance (periodic confession of sin to a priest). Personal salvation involves "works of love" to others. This process of being made righteous is completed after death when the person is totally purified in . F. SUMMARY. The doctrine of original sin is at the very core of the debate. Pelagian viewpoints deny its existence. These views stress human goodness and moral achievement. This choice then allows for people to initiate the process of personal salvation as an act of their free will. All other viewpoints hold that the initiative must be with God, since original sin has made humans incapable of choosing God. The gift must include the grace needed to accept the gift. For monergism, everything is included in the gift. Even what appears to be a freedom of response is, in reality, an act of God. On the other hand most of Christianity, over the years, has held this basic position: Scripture presupposes human freedom and responsibility . The Bible becomes extremely more difficult to understand if human freedom and responsibility are illusions. Many Christians would add another fundamental position: if the freedom of human response is simply an illusion, and salvation is totally a sovereign act by God, then God is not good if He does not save everyone. Liberal monergism takes care of that problem by stressing the goodness of God and insisting on the universal salvation of all. The third debate is found in the next section.

III. MAJOR THEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS A. MAJOR THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. Within Christianity there are three major theological systems: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. Within Protestantism, there are three major theological systems: , , Wesleyan-. One of the major differences among these theological systems is the position taken regarding personal salvation. We are especially interested in the different viewpoints of the last two. B. CALVINISM (John Calvin, 1509-1564). Here is a brief description as found in the Beacon Dictionary of Theology : "The single most distinguishing mark of Calvinism is its emphasis on divine decrees. The world, including people, is governed not merely by the power of God but by His decrees (Calvin 1:236). Thus God's providence is not viewed as flexible response but advance determination, and divine sovereignty is not seen as absolute authority primarily but as absolute efficiency. The divine will cannot be thwarted." C. JAMES [JACOB] ARMINIUS (1560-1609). Some groups (e.g., Anabapists and the of Holland) rejected the position taken by Calvin and other reformers (a monergistic position insisting on the absolute sovereignty of grace). James [Jacob] Arminius was the leading figure among the Remonstrants. He attempted to define a synergism that affirmed God's primary role but allowed for a free response by people (basically the position of Erasmus described above).

D. CANONS OF DORT (1618-1619). Calvinists responded to this challenge to monergism by describing the actions of God in personal salvation. Some scholars maintain that these canons took more extreme positions than Calvin would have taken. These descriptions were later organized using the acronym TULIP, which stands for , Unconditional election, Limited atonement, (), and Perseverance (from which comes the doctrine of ). These five major interdependent and interlocking doctrinal positions produced a strong, logically coherent, and impressive system. Some brief explanations might be helpful. 1. Total depravity. This doctrinal position does not mean that all people are totally bad. Rather it means that depravity has touched every aspect of people's life. People in this state are totally incapable of spiritual accomplishment on their own. They are dependent on God's grace throughout all of life. 2. Unconditional election. God sovereignly predestines [foreordains] some fallen people to be saved. It is totally His choice. 3. Limited atonement [definite atonement, particular atonement]. Christ did not die for everyone; He died for all those unconditionally elected [predestined] to salvation. 4. Irresistible grace (effectual calling). People who are elected [chosen] for salvation cannot resist God's gracious call. 5. Perseverance of the . The elect will persevere in grace and not fall from it. It is important to understand that the doctrine of eternal security is derived from this fifth point, but it is not what was originally intended by it. People hold to eternal security because it provides of salvation. In contrast, Calvin maintained that no one could have that assurance. It is only after people have persevered to the very end (Mt 24:10-13) that they will actually know that they are part of the elect. He basically said, "If you are among the elect, then God will make sure you persevere. If you don't persevere, then you weren't among the elect" (God may even allow you to think that you are chosen when you are not!). The strongest biblical support for these five points is found in Romans 9-11, Ephesians 1, and John 14- 17. However, very few Calvinists accept all five points as stated above. The few who do are often called "Hyper"/"High" Calvinist or "five-point" Calvinist. Other Calvinists, without totally rejecting any of the five points, seek ways to modify them somewhat in order to allow for a measure of human freedom in the response to the gift. Of course, there are others who still keep the label "Calvinist" while accepting only modified versions of points #1 and #5 (allowing for a "fuller" synergism), while rejecting the rest. These five points of TULIP were challenged by James Arminius (1560-1609) and (1703- 1791). It is not that they did not agree with some aspects of TULIP. However, they could not accept the denial of what is called "libertarian human free will" (labeled this way to distinguish it from attempts by some Calvinists to keep all five points and still allow for some free will). E. SOVEREIGNTY OR GOODNESS? The popular notion of the major difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan-Arminianism is in the choice between the sovereignty of God and human free will. But it really is a conflict between the Sovereignty of God (as taught by Calvinism) and the Goodness of God (as taught by Wesleyan-Arminianism). Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of books have been written by brilliant scholars, and many periodicals are dedicated to the task of defending one or the other of these two positions. What can I possibility write in a few words? Let me at least list some basic charges each side levels against the other. 1. Calvinists charge that the sovereignty of God is being denied by any form of synergism. People cannot be allowed a decisive role in their salvation. One very insulting charge is that Wesleyan scholars resort to rational thinking and not to the of God given in the Bible. I think