Does God choose us because we choose Him, or do we choose God because He chooses us? That question captures the essence of a debate over the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human will in salvation. Some argue that God chose people to be saved based on His ability to look into the future and see that they would choose Him. Others insist that the saved choose God only because, in eternity past, He chose them for no reason other than He chose to do so. One position grounds salvation in man’s free will, while the other in God’s free will.
History of the Debate: Pelagius and Augustine
Many assume this debate stems from a controversy shortly after the Protestant Reformation between the disciples of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and John Calvin (1509-1564). The disciples of Arminius emphasized that the human will is the first cause of salvation, and Calvin’s disciples emphasized that God’s will is the first cause. To this day, those who prioritize human “free will” are labelled “Arminian”, while those who prioritize God’s choice in election are labelled “Calvinist”. While the namesakes of the labels are from the 16th century, we ought not assume that the debate originated in that century.
Long before Calvin and Arminius were twinkles in their fathers’ eyes, a man named Pelagius (354-418) emerged in 5th-century Britain. Pelagius insisted that man’s free will was not bound by original sin. In other words, he taught that man had the ability, within his will, to choose God or reject God. Man, without the need for divine intervention, could trust in Christ and obey His Law. After all, as Pelagius reasoned, if God commanded man to obey, then man must be able to obey.
Pelagius’ teachings made their way from Britain to North Africa, where they encountered Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine understood that Pelagius was throwing shade on the Bible’s teachings. Before the Fall, Adam, in his will, had the ability to choose between good and evil. However, since Adam’s Fall, mankind has been dead, incapable of choosing God. As a result, people love the darkness and hate the light. Mankind now only possesses free will to sin. Original sin binds the human will, restricting man from choosing God.
Augustine rallied the Church against Pelagius’ teaching, and the Church eventually condemned Pelagius as a heretic. He had misunderstood the depths of human depravity, and, in so doing, he essentially taught that man could choose God without God’s sovereign act of grace in man’s heart. Augustine understood that man must be freed from the bondage of his sinful will. Only Christ had the ability to liberate man towards belief and obedience. Without Christ, man remains bound to his sinful desires and rebellion against God.
Therefore, the debate concerning free will and God’s sovereignty began long before the time of Calvin and Arminius. It reaches back at least to the 5th century, when the heretic Pelagius attempted to convince the Church that men had the free will to choose God.
The Essence of the Debate: The Bondage of the Will
As many have confused the origins of the debate, many have also confused the essence of the debate. Most assume the debate exclusively centres around the extent of God’s sovereignty. Is God sovereign in His decree to elect some to salvation and not elect others? While the debate certainly touches on God’s sovereignty in election, an oft-neglected aspect of it is the extent of the sinful corruption of the human will. In other words, does man possess the ability to choose God? Augustine’s interaction with Pelagius primarily concerns this latter question regarding the pervasiveness of sin in man’s heart.
To put it another way: Augustine argued that we sin because we are sinners, while Pelagius argued that we are sinners because we sin. Pelagius taught that we could not sin, while Augustine taught that we could not not sin. To Pelagius, the human will remains as it was in the Garden of Eden, capable of choosing good and evil: we can not sin. To Augustine, the human will was so corrupted at the Fall that our natural state, apart from grace, is to continually reject God: we can not not sin.
The answer to the human problem, then, cannot be simply the offer of grace. Otherwise, man’s heart would perpetually reject grace. The answer to our problem is the provision of grace. God provides grace not just in the forgiveness of sins, but also in changing our hearts to receive the forgiveness of sins. It’s grace from beginning to end. Grace changes our hearts, so we believe in Christ. Grace forgives our sins.
Many contemporary Arminians understand this problem. So, in order to avoid being called “Pelagian,” they invented a concept called “prevenient grace.” Arminians believe that prevenient grace is a grace that God has put in every person’s heart to enable belief. Because each person has prevenient grace, each person has the ability to reject or receive saving grace. Not only is the concept of prevenient grace nowhere found in Scripture, but it also means that there are no consequential or practical differences between Arminianism and Pelagianism. Yes, Arminians can avoid being officially Pelagian, but really and truly the difference between the two is a word game. For this reason, some have called “Arminianism” “Semi-Pelagianism.” I wonder if “Synthetic-Pelagianism” might be more accurate.
Conclusion
In summary, the debate over God’s sovereignty in election did not originate with Calvin and Arminius in the 16th century. It at least stretches all the way back to the 5th century, when Augustine corrected the heretical teachings of Pelagius. And the debate is not even primarily about the extent of God’s sovereignty, although it certainly includes His sovereignty as an aspect of the debate. It is about the extent of man’s sinfulness. For the Arminian, men are drowning in the sea of sin, while God offers help. For the Calvinist, men are lifeless at the bottom of an ocean, dead in their trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), unable to respond to God’s offer. For the Arminian, saving grace is God’s offer. For the Calvinist, saving grace is God’s complete act.
