It is unfortunate that it is still necessary to argue the case that the recent Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation is semi-Pelagian. I believe the arguments already provided show beyond any reasonable doubt that the language of the Statement is semi-Pelagian. Nonetheless, objections continue to be raised against this observation and in the process many are attempting to redefine semi-Pelagianism. Recently, Brad Reynolds appealed to the Canons of the Second Council of Orange to argue that the Statement is not semi-Pelagian. I appreciate his appeal to those Canons but I am afraid they do not bear out his conclusions. To the contrary, the Canons make it clear beyond reasonable contestation that the Statement is semi-Pelagian.
Semi-Pelagianism is a belief that came out of the early controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. A monk named John Cassian disagreed with both Pelagius and Augustine and proposed another option. While Pelagius believed that man was capable of living righteous under his own power and Augustine believed that man was completely unable to do or desire anything of God’s righteousness, Cassian proposed that man retains some ability to seek the grace of God. Grace is essential for the life and salvation of a believer, but sin has not completely destroyed human ability to desire that which is good. We must have grace, but man remains able to seek and pursue God’s grace. For Augustine, God must first change the heart before any person would ever desire God’s grace. For Cassian, people are able to desire grace through natural ability, without God first changing the heart.
Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Second Council of Orange in 529 BC. You can find the Canons of this council at the Historic Church Documents site. Of these canons, some are clearly directed at Pelagianism, others at semi-Pelagianism, and others touch on general issues of God’s grace to mankind. The canons close with a concluding statement summarizing the position taken by that council. I believe these canons and the conclusion make the definition of semi-Pelagianism clear, and make it clear that the Statement fits. Read the Canons for yourself, read the Statement (neither are long), then come back for my discussion.
The Statement and the picture of salvation
Throughout the Statement’s ten articles of affirmation and denial, a fairly clear picture emerges about man’s natural condition and the obligation that God has placed on man. All of the following portions in quotation marks come from the Statement.
In the Statement, we are told that “every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sinâ€. We are not born in a neutral condition, we are born corrupted by sin’s effects. Because of our condition, we can be sure that “every person who is capable of moral action will sin.†The Statement recognizes and affirms that all people will sin and as such stand in need of salvation.
Despite sin’s corrupting influence, it has not completely destroyed man’s ability to will that which is good. The Statement denies that “Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free willâ€. The Statement defines free will as “the ability to choose between two options†and says that God “endows each person with actual free willâ€. We are corrupt, but our free will is not destroyed. We retain the ability to choose between two options. Set before us one choice for evil and another choice for good, and fallen man has the natural ability to choose either one. Sin’s corrosive influence has not rendered him incapable of choosing that which is good.
Because we retain the free will ability to choose between two options, we thereby retain the ability to choose or reject God’s offer of salvation. God has offered us saving grace in Jesus Christ, and because God has created us with a will that is not incapacitated by the fall, that will “must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvationâ€. When the Statement denies that “only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospelâ€, I take it to mean that the Statement affirms that all people retain the natural ability to respond to the Gospel.
Salvation is granted to individuals in response to their exercise of the will. God makes an offer, but it remains only an offer until each individual exercises his will to accept or reject that offer. Thus the Statement denies that “God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will.â€
God’s role in salvation is one of calling or drawing. By grace, God made the “generous decision to provide salvationâ€. The Statement says that God takes the initiative in salvation in three areas: 1. “in providing the atonement†– God took the initiative by sending Christ to die for us; 2. “in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit†– God took the initiative by offering salvation to all people; and 3. “in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith†– God will take a new believer and unite him to Christ not on the basis of works but on the basis of faith (in truth I’m not sure how this item reflects God’s initiative in salvation since it refers to something following salvation; hence, it is what God does to a believer, not what God does to one who is not yet a believer).
Furthermore, salvation does not come apart from “the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospelâ€. The Statement does not explain the nature of the Holy Spirit’s drawing, though it does deny “that there is an ‘effectual call’ for certain people that is different from a ‘general call’ to any personâ€. In other words, the Spirit’s work is essentially the same in all people. Though he may work in different ways, he is doing the same thing for all, providing the same sort of drawing in all people. Based on other conversations with those who defend the Statement, I believe they see the Holy Spirit’s drawing as being his calling, his wooing, his summoning people to come and be saved. They do not believe that the Spirit must first change a person to enable a response; we retain the natural ability to turn and be saved. The Spirit’s drawing is extended to all people and it summons but the drawing itself does not save.
Finally, the Statement denies that “the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person.†Faith comes from within, not from without. Faith is something that comes from us through our free will, it is not something God implants within us, gives us, creates in us, etc, faith comes through our will and is shown in our response to God.
The picture of salvation that emerges is that God holds out his hand with the gospel, calling us and beckoning us and wooing us but not taking hold of us or changing us. It remains for us to respond “in faith to the Gospel†after which “God promises to complete the process of salvationâ€. God extends the offer of the gospel, we reach out in response, he takes hold of us and saves us. As the preacher man says, “God is pleading with you to come to him. He is beckoning for you, he is calling you over, he wants you to be with him, and if you will take the first step in response to God, Jesus will take the other 99 steps to take hold of you and save you.â€
The initiative belongs to God in that God provides the gospel in Christ then extends the gospel to all, yet the actual accomplishment of our individual salvation begins with us as we must move toward Christ, exercising faith by our own will and choosing to receive for ourselves that which God has offered to all.
Even though the Statement denies that “the response of faith is a meritorious work that earns salvationâ€, it still leaves the response of faith as a necessary work for our salvation. If we do not choose, if we do not respond, if we do not reach out, if we do not create faith in ourselves by the working of our wills, then we will not be saved. This is the classic synergistic position in which man cooperates with God in accomplishing our salvation. There is a part for God to do by his power, and there is a part for man to do by his power, and if either part is missing, we will not be saved. Based on the Statement, one cannot escape the conclusion that salvation is not all of God but is a lot of God and a little of man.
Semi-Pelagianism and the Canons of the Second Council of Orange
This summary, drawing directly from the Statement, doubles as a picture-perfect presentation of the semi-Pelagian position. It would be difficult to make it more overtly semi-Pelagian than by, perhaps, adding semi-Pelagian somewhere in the title. Adding to all that I have said in previous posts about the semi-Pelagian nature of the Statement, let me summarize what the Canons of the Second Council of Orange have to say, showing just what it was that they were opposing. Along the way, I will contrast the Canons with portions of the Statement.
First, a quick run-down of the canons: there are twenty-five canons (or articles) and a concluding statement. Each of the Canons addresses a particular issue brought before the council. The first two canons seem specifically aimed at the original Pelagian controversy while canons 3-8 address the semi-Pelagian controversy (I’m not sure what canon 3 is in response to, though part of it has a clear implication for semi-Pelagianism). Canons 9-25 touch on a variety of issues relevant to the controversy. Canons 1-8 condemn specific views and arguments while canons 9-25 present the position of the council.
What the Council condemned
In the first eight canons, the Council made clear their belief that humans are completely unable to “believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock†apart from “the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us†(Canon 5). We retain absolutely no natural ability to respond in any way to God’s work of salvation. We will not seek, desire, or reach out for the gospel. Grace is given to us by God’s free and sovereign work and does not depend on human seeking: “if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle…†(Canon 6) God does not wait for us to reach out. The Statement claims that “when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer…†This directly opposes the teaching of Canon 6 that our obedience of faith is itself a gift of God’s grace.
Of faith itself, the Statement denies that “the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the personâ€, a view condemned in the Canons when it says that “if anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginnings and the very desire for faith… belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles†(Canon 5). The Council clearly believed that no man can have faith in God unless God first changes our wills by “turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness.†Whereas the Statement claims that “God… endows each person with actual free will… which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting… salvationâ€, canon 5 says that our natural will must be changed before it will ever seek God. We do not retain the natural ability to exercise our wills in God’s direction. What we need is not simply a drawing or wooing, our wills must be changed.
In the Statement, salvation comes down to the natural, unchanged free will choice of the believer responding to the drawing and wooing of God. In canon 7 the Council condemned the view that “we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life… through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth…†The signers of the Statement would certainly affirm that God must be active in “illumination and inspiration†so that we can receive knowledge of the gospel, but that this illumination and inspiration take place by the Holy Spirit’s inspiring the Word of God. They do not believe that God must first open man’s eyes to make him able to see. Contrary to that, the Council said that the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit is his work to make “all men gladly assent to and believe in the truthâ€. It is the Spirit, not our natural will, who makes men assent and believe.
Canon 8 presents a clear denial of the ability of free will. Over and over again the Statement upholds the ability of man’s will to come to God with saving faith, yet the canon says that “if anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he… holds that [the will] has been affected in such a way that they still have the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God.†Understand what the Council means by “without the revelation of God†– they mean what they meant by the work of the Spirit in “illumination and inspiration†in canon7 and the Spirit’s work in canon 5, namely, that the Spirit must be “amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godlinessâ€. By our own free will, no one will be saved. Only if the Spirit changes our hearts and wills can we be changed. The Statement’s claims about the role of our will in salvation is clearly and strongly denied by these Canons.
Because “the freedom of the will… was destroyed in the first man†(Canon 13), because “the sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sakeâ€, because “grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ,†salvation is from end to end a matter of God’s grace. God does not wait for our response, he does not “await our will to be cleansed from sin,†but he gives us the will, the desire to be clean “through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit†(Canon 4). Contrary to the Statement, God’s work is not simply a drawing, a calling, an offering, he must turn us and change us and give us faith and a will to seek him or we will never be saved.
For the sake of time, I did not present much from Canons 9-25 which do not oppose error so much as affirm what the Council believed to be true. Had I more time I would look closer at statements like “None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayerâ€; “Adam was changed for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for himâ€; “the love of God which ‘has been poured into our hearts’ not by freedom of the will from our own side but ‘through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us’â€.
There are a few that I want to point out specifically: “…grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done†(Canon 18) This one is particularly important since it shows what they mean when they speak of grace preceding our response: the grace they speak of is God’s grace which enables our response, not simply grace to draw us or woo us or offer us the gospel. This is grace which changes us and brings us to salvation. In all of this discussion on semi-Pelagianism, many people have pointed to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church which says that semi-Pelagians believed that “the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that grace supervened only laterâ€. Semi-Pelagians did not deny that God must first offer the gospel, nor did they deny that God wooed, drew, called, etc. But when the Council speaks of grace in salvation, they mean grace which changes us and enables us to believe. Semi-Pelagians did not deny that there must be grace before we believe. Of course they believed that Jesus first had to come and die, and that his death must be proclaimed to all and that God is calling sinners everywhere to repent. But they did not believe that enabling or transforming grace must precede man’s response. Since they believed man retained the natural ability to choose God, enabling grace was not necessary. The Canons make it clear that the Council disagreed and condemned the view that did not believe that God must first turn the will “from unbelief to faithâ€, etc, etc.
“…a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it†(Canon 20) This one clearly states that God is responsible for any good we perform. It is good for people to call out for salvation. It is good for people to have faith. It is good for people to realize they are sinners and to turn to God in repentance. And this good comes not from themselves but from God.
“Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.†(Canon 23) This is the clincher. Whenever we disobey God, we are following our own wills. But any time we do that which is pleasing to God, we are doing what he has caused us to do. It does not matter how much we believe ourselves in control over our willful actions (“however willingly they do soâ€), anything we do that conforms with the will of God “is his willâ€. When a person calls out for salvation, he does it not by the power of his will but by the will of God.
In the closing lines of the Council’s conclusions, they state that “we must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise… was not a natural endowment but a gift of God’s kindness.†Faith is a gift of God, not a work of our will.
The Canons were written to oppose semi-Pelagianism and on point after point we find that it opposes the Statement. It does so because the Statement is semi-Pelagian. It is time for the signers of the Statement to stop trying to redefine semi-Pelagianism, stop denying that the Statement is what it is, and recognize that their position has already been defined in history by John Cassian and his followers.