A Quote: St. Augustine on the Mystery of Salvation

“Without God, man cannot. Without man, God will not.”
-St. Augustine

Augustine here affirms that the salvation process is a mystery unbeknownst to man. Augustine says that man can in no way choose God without God first initiating that choice. Yet he states that without man willingly choosing God, God by no means will initiate the salvation process. This seeming contradiction only supports the idea that the salvation process is an unfathomable meshing of human Free Will and divine Sovereign Choice.

A Quote on the Divine Plan of Salvation: St. Anselm

“For it was appropriate that, just as death entered the human race through a man’s disobedience, so life should be restored through a man’s obedience; and that, just as the sin which was the cause of our damnation originated from a woman, similarly the originator of our justification and salvation should be born of a woman. Also that the devil, who defeated the man whom he beguiled through the taste of a tree, should himself similarly be defeated by a man through tree-induced suffering which he, the devil, inflicted. There are many other things, too, which, if carefully considered, display the indescribable beauty of the fact that our redemption was procured in this way.”
-St. Anselm of Cantebury

Satan vs. God

Satan is in no way the equal opposite of God. Satan is the opposite, yet he is in no way equal. Satan is a creature, God is the Creator. Satan is finite, God is infinite. Satan is subordinate to, weaker than, and less knowledgeable than God. Where God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, Satan is non of these things. God will defeat Satan in the end.

The Mystery of Salvation

As some of you folks know,  I believe that God is sovereign in the salvation process: he initiates salvation, guides its progress, and carries it out to completion. This point of view, in my opinion,  is absolutely supported by Scripture. Most call this Calvinism.

Let me lay out for you the 5-point system of Calvinism, otherwise known as TULIP:

  • Total Depravity: The doctrine that man is absolutely and totally incapable of meriting salvation in any form or fashion. We can not earn our salvation: it comes by faith, and by faith alone. (Jer. 17:9, Eph. 2:1-3, Rom. 3:23)
  • Unconditional Election: The doctrine that God elects, or chooses, those who will be saved. He grants faith to those he elects.  This election is not based on what man does — man can do nothing to earn salvation, as total depravity states — but is based on God’s ultimate and supreme wisdom and knowledge. Man can not understand why God chooses who he chooses.  (John 6:44, Eph. 1:4-5, Rom. 8-9)
  • Limited Atonement:  The doctrine that Christs death and atonement  is only meant for the elect; those that aren’t elect are not capable of receiving the benefits of the atonement at all. ( Matt. 26:28, John 10:11, 15)
  • Irresistible Grace: The doctrine that the grace extended by the Holy Spirit to the elect is irresistible. No one can refuse to follow its call. ( Phil. 2:12-13,  Rom. 9:16)
  • Perseverance of the Saints: The doctrine that once a sinner is saved, he can not lose his salvation. Salvation is permanent and secure. Also, that true Christians wouldn’t, nor couldn’t, turn their backs on Christ. Those who do were never truly saved. (John 10:27-28, 1 Corinthians 10:13)

Yet, when examining Calvinism, we must ask ourselves this: if God is supremely good, merciful, loving, and kind, how then can he predestine some to Heaven, and either by passing over others, or by directly acting on the part of others, predestine some to Hell. All men deserve the same fate, yet though he is fully capable of predestining all to Heaven, he chooses to predestine most to Hell — in fact, Hell would be exponentially more full — by God’s choice — than Heaven. This seems rather impossible to reconcile with God’s abounding love and goodness. So, what many have done is stated that God does not choose who is saved and who isn’t: this is up to man: man has free will when it comes to salvation. This point of view is called Arminianism. Arminianism, like Calvinism, has a 5-point system, which seems directly contradictory to Calvinism.

  • Free Will: The doctrine that man has the ability, by God’s grace, to choose God, or to deny him. (Is. 1:19-20, John 7:17)
  • Conditional Election: The doctrine that  God elects who will be saved, yet this election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who will chose him and who will deny him. (Matt. 11:28-30, John 4:42)
  • Unlimited Atonement : The doctrine that  Christ’s death and atonement is meant for, and is available to, all men, elect or not. (John 3:16, Rom. 5:12-21)
  • Resistible Grace/Common Sufficient Grace: The doctrine that God extends a grace to all men that is sufficient enough for man to choose God or not. Without this grace, man cannot chose, but with it, he is able to chose. This grace can be resisted.   (Acts 7:51, Jer. 7:24)
  • Fall From Grace: The doctrine that a saved Christian can lose his salvation. This is based on whether man remains in Christ or not. Whoever remains in him is saved, yet whoever denies him can/will lose his salvation. (1 Cor. 15:2)

Of Calvinism, I affirm all except Limited Atonement. Of Arminianism, I affirm all but Fall From Grace. “Isn’t this a contradiction?”, you might ask. Such a question is quite reasonable, for man’s mind is too feeble and finite to understand this meshing of man’s will and God’s sovereignty. Yet, just because we aren’t capable of understanding this does not make it false. The Salvation Process is a mystery. This mystery is so vast and complex that men can try to understand, but all will fail. Calvinism by itself, it seems to me, takes away man’s responsibility, while contradicting God’s goodness with its affirmation of predestination to Hell. Arminianism, on the other hand, Reduces God’s sovereignty to be subject to man’s will. To me, both of these positions are correct in ways, yet incorrect in ways. Salvation is a mystery, and a combination of sovereignty and will. I believe that John 1:12-13 support this idea completely: “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” Verse 12 says that man receives God, and can choose to believe in him or not, whereas verse 13 states that this is not based on will. This seems contradictory; it isn’t. It is a mystery.

 

That said, my theology is ever developing, and still will. This is where I am now. Let me know what you guys think, please.

 

In Christ,

Lucas.

 

A Quote: Origen

“If we see some admirable work of human art, we are at once eager to investigate the nature, the manner, the end of its production; and the contemplation of the works of God stirs us with an incomparably greater longing to learn the principles, the method, the purpose of creation. This desire, this passion, has without doubt been implanted in us by God. As the eye seeks light, as our body craves food, so our mind is impressed with the… natural desire to know the truth of God and the causes of what we observe.”

-Origen of Alexandria

Egalitarianism and Complementarianism

Over the course of the day, my friend and I have been debating whether women should be able to hold the office of Pastor, Deacon, or Elder. I say no, she says yes. The role of men and women in society, family, and church, I believe, is very important. Those who say that there is essentially no difference between men and women functionally, that men and women are essentially equal in their roles,  are called egalitariansThose who believe in a complementary system, in which men lead as servants and women submit humbly, are called complementarians.

Egalitarians, as I said, believe that men and women are functionally equal. To support this point, they use passages such as Galatians 3:28. An egalitarian would argue that, since men and women are functionally equal, both men and women could be ordained as ministers, deacons, or elders.

Complementarians, on the other hand, argue that men and women are equal in that they are both made in God’s image, and that they both are sinfully fallen, and both receive salvation through faith in Christ alone, yet a complementarian would argue that men and women have different functions in society. Men are called to be servant leaders, whereas women are called to be humble supporters of their men. Scriptures supporting this would be Ephesians 5:22-33 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Complementarians would argue that women are not to hold the offices of minister, elder, or deacon, for those offices are restricted to be held by men alone.

To summarize once more, egalitarians believe that men and women are functionally equal, whereas complementarians believe that men and women complement each other in their gender roles.

Yet which point of view is most Biblical? Take the passage most often cited by egalitarians to support their argument: Galatians 3:28.

 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29)

When taken by itself, Galatians 3:28 could easily be interpreted as the egalitarians do. Yet when we take it in context, the “equality” is clearly talking about the equal opportunity and ability for men and women to receive salvation in Christ, not about functional equality.

Next, let’s examine the Scriptures used by complementarians. First, Ephesians 5:22-33 sets up clear gender role held between husbands and wives.

 “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,  that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,  so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.  However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Ephesians 5:22-33)

Clearly, Paul says that men are to serve their wives, and in turn wives are to submit to their husbands, just as the Church submits to Christ. This submission does not belittle women at all, though. In fact, I would argue that it often takes a stronger person to submit than to lead. Men are not better than women because they are placed in the position of authority, and women are not less than men because they must submit.

Take the Trinity, for example: God the Father submits to none, yet Christ submits to the father, and the Holy Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. Yet the belief that each person of the Godhead are equally God is an essential tenet of the Christian faith. Each person of the Trinity has different roles, yet each role is equally important. The same goes for the relationship between husband and wife, between man and woman. Husbands should submit to Christ, and wives should submit to their husbands and Christ. This does not mean that wives are less important, just that they have a different role in the family.

Likewise, this relationship carries over to the Church. The Church is a family, and just as private families are led by husbands, so too is the Church. In fact, being “the husband of one wife” is a requirement of an authoritative position within the Church (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 5-9). This begs the question to the egalitarians, if women can hold an authoritative position, and one of the requirements for holding a position of authority is being the husband of on wifecan women be husbands? Does Paul permit homosexuality in order for women to have wives so that they can serve authoritatively in Church? Certainly not!

In 1 Corinthians, we see Paul say that women ought to be submissive in Church: “As in all the churches of the saints,  the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This doesn’t mean that women can have no say whatsoever in church. In fact, the Greek word used here that is translated to English as “silent,”  does not mean absolutely speechless, rather it means that women ought to be quieter and submissive to their husbands in worship. Women can host bible studies, Sunday-school classes, be missionaries, and even teach the Bible whenever, wherever. What Paul is saying is that women can not hold the position of pastor, elder, or deacon, for those are positions of authority within the Church.

Often, egalitarians say that this does not apply today because it was merely a cultural norm for women to be silent. But in 1 Timothy 2, we see Paul make clear that this restriction is universal, not cultural: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14) Because Paul notes that the restrictions placed are because of Adam and Eve, it can be concluded that the implications of this restriction are universal. Nowhere does he mention cultural restrictions.

Another retort is that the women in this time were uneducated. True, but so were most of Jesus’s disciples, and nowhere do we see an education listed as a requirement to be met in order to hold an authoritative position in the Church.

My point in saying all this is NOT to imply that God does not use women. He does, often in the most amazing ways. Deborah, Rahab, Miriam, and Phoebe were all women mentioned in the scriptures that God used in incredible ways. The difference between these women and the women that egalitarians put forth today is that the women used by God in the Bible were not spiritual leaders in authority over men.

Of course, seeing that the spreading of the Gospel is of highest importance, there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, if a congregation has no men who meet the requirements laid out in 1 Timothy 3, or none feel called, a woman who meets as many requirements as possible and feels called should step up to fill the roll. But as soon as a man who can take the lead arrives, the woman should step down.

Hopefully, I’ve shown that the Bible clearly does not support the idea of men and women being functionally equal, and that women should not hold authoritative positions in the Church. Not because I say so, because God says so.

Whether you are an egalitarian or a complementarian, your feedback is greatly appreciated!

In Christ,

Lucas.