How To Know If You Are A Real Christian

A Sermon delivered by Jonathan Edwards
(Originally titled True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils, 1752.)

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder." James 2:19

How do you know if you belong to God? We see in these words what some people depend on as an evidence of their acceptance with God. Some people think that they are all right before God if they are not as bad as some evil person. Other people point to their family history or church membership to show that God approves of them. There is an evangelism programme in common use that asks people certain questions. One of the questions is, "Suppose you were to die today. Why should God let you into his heaven?" A very common response is, "I believe in God." Apparently the apostle James knew people who said the same thing: I know I am in God's favor, because I know these religious doctrines.

Of course James admits that this knowledge is good. Not only is it good, but it is also necessary. Nobody can be a Christian who doesn't believe in God; and more than that, the One True God. This is particularly true for those who had the great advantage of actually knowing the apostle, someone who could tell them of his first-hand experience with Jesus, the Son of God. Imagine the great sin of a person, who knew James, and then refused to believe in God! Certainly this would make their damnation greater. Of course, all Christians know that this belief in the One God is only the start of good things because "anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Heb. 11:6.)

However, James is clear that although this belief a good thing, it is definitely not proof that a person is saved. What he means is this: "You say you are a Christian and you are in God's favor. You think God will let you into heaven, and the proof of it is, you believe in God. But that is no evidence at all, because the demons also believe, and they are sure to be punished in hell." The demons believe in God, you can be sure of that! They not only believe that He exists, but they believe that God is a holy God, a sin-hating God, a God of truth, who has promised judgments, and who will carry out his vengeance upon them. This is the reason the demons "shudder" or tremble- they know God more clearly than most human beings do, and they are afraid. Nevertheless, nothing in the mind of man, that devils may experience as well, is any sure sign of God's grace in our hearts.

This reasoning may be easily turned around. Suppose demons could have, or find within themselves, something of God's saving grace-proof they would go to heaven. This would prove James wrong. But how absurd! The Bible makes it clear that demons have no hope of salvation, and their believing in God does not take away their future punishment. Therefore believing in God is not proof of salvation for demons, and it is safe to say, not for people, either.

Demons Have a Knowledge of God--Knowledge of God alone is no proof of salvation.

This is seen even more clearly when we think about what demons are like. They are unholy: anything that they experience, cannot be a holy experience. The devil is perfectly wicked. "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) "He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning." (1 John 3:8 ) Therefore the demons are called evil spirits, unclean spirits, powers of darkness, and so on. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph 6:12)

So it is plain that anything in the minds of demons cannot be holy, or lead to true holiness by itself. The demons clearly know many things about God and religion, but they do not have a holy knowledge. The things they know in their minds may make impressions in their hearts- indeed we do see that the demons have very strong feelings about God; so strong, in fact, that they "shudder." But they are not holy feelings because they have nothing to do with the work of the Holy Spirit. If this is true of the experience of demons, it is also true of the experience of men.

Notice this, that it does not matter how genuine, sincere, and powerful these thoughts and feelings are. Demons, being spiritual creatures, know God in a way that men on earth cannot. Their knowledge of God's existence is more concrete than any man's knowledge could be. Because they are locked in battle with the forces of good, they have a sincerity of knowledge as well. On one occasion Jesus cast out some demons. "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" (Mat 8:29) What could possibly be a more clear-cut experience than this? However, while their thoughts and feelings are genuine and powerful, they are not holy.

Also we can see that the holy objects of their thoughts doesn't make their thoughts and feelings holy. The demons know God exists! Matthew 8:29 shows they know more about Jesus than many people do! They are thoroughly that Jesus will judge them some day, because He is holy. But it is clear that genuine, sincere, and powerful thoughts and feelings about holy, spiritual things, is no proof of God's grace in the heart. Demons have these things, and look forward to eternal punishment in hell. If men have no more than what the demons have, they will suffer in the same way.

Religious experiences are no proof of salvation.

We may make several conclusions based on these truths. First, that no matter how much people may know about God and the Bible, it is no sure sign of salvation. The devil before his fall, was one of the bright and morning stars, a flame of fire, one excelling in strength and wisdom. (Isa. 14:12, Ezek. 28:12-19) Apparently, as one of the chief angels, Satan knew much about God. Now that he is fallen, his sin has not destroyed his memories from before. Sin does destroy the spiritual nature, but not the natural abilities, such as memory. That the fallen angels do have many natural abilities may be seen from many Bible verses, for example Eph 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." In the same way, the Bible says that Satan is "more crafty" than other created beings. (Gen 3:1, also 2 Cor. 11:3, Acts 13:10) Therefore we can see that the Devil has always had great mental ability and is able to know much about God, the visible and invisible world, and many other things. Since his job in the beginning was to be a chief angel before God, it is only natural that understanding these things has always been of first importance to him, and that all his activities have to do with these areas of thoughts, feelings, and knowledge.

Because it was his original employment to be one of the angels before the very face of God, and sin does not destroy the memory, it is clear that Satan knows more about God than just about any other created being. After the fall, we can see from his activities as a tempter, etc., (Matt 4:3) that he has been spending his time increasing his knowledge and its practical applications. That his knowledge is great can be seen in how tricky he is when tempting people. The craftiness of his lies shows how clever he is. Surely he could not manage his deceit so well without an actual and true knowledge of the facts.

This knowledge of God and his works is from the very beginning. Satan was there from the Creation, as Job 38:47 shows: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. . .while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" So he must know much about the way God created the world, and how He governs all the events in the universe. Furthermore, Satan has seen how God has worked his plan of redemption in the world; and not as an innocent bystander, but as an active enemy of God's grace. He saw God work in the lives of Adam and Eve, in Noah, Abraham, and David. He must have taken a special interest in the life of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of men, the Word of God incarnate. How closely did he watch Christ? How carefully did he observe his miracles and listen to His words? This is because Satan has set himself against Christ's work, and it is to his torment and anguish that Satan has watched Christ's work unfold successfully.

Satan, then, knows much about God and God's work. He knows heaven first-hand. He knows hell also, with personal knowledge as its first resident, and has experienced its torments for all these thousands of years. He must have a great knowledge of the Bible: at the least, we can see he knew enough to try tempting our Saviour. Furthermore, he has had years of studying of the hearts of men, his battlefield where he fights against our Redeemer. What labours, exertions, and cares the Devil has used over the centuries as he has deceived men. Only a being with his knowledge and experience of God's working, and the human heart, could so imitate true religion and transform himself into an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14)

Therefore we can see that there is no amount of knowledge of God and religion that could prove a person has been saved from their sin. A man may talk about the Bible, God, and the Trinity. He may be able to preach a sermon about Jesus Christ and everything He has done. Imagine, somebody might be able to speak about the way of salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of sinners, perhaps even enough to show others how to become Christians. All these things might build up the church and enlighten the world, yet it is not a sure proof of the saving grace of God in a person's heart.

It also may be seen that for people to merely agree with the Bible is no sure sign of salvation. James 2:19 shows that the demons really, truly, believe the truth. Just as they believe there is one God, they agree with all the truth of the Bible. The devil is not a heretic: all the articles of his faith are firmly established in the truth.

It must be understood, that when the Bible talks about believing that Jesus is the Son of God, as a proof of God's grace in the heart, the Bible means not a mere agreement with the truth, but another kind of believing. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." (1 John 5:1) This other kind of believing is called "the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness." (Titus 1:1) There is a spiritual holding to the truth, which will be explained later on.

Objection #1- People are different from demons.

Some people have strong religious experiences, and think of them as proof of God's working in their hearts. Often these experiences give people a sense of the importance of the spiritual world, and the reality of divine things. However, these, too, are no sure proof of salvation. Demons and damned human beings have many spiritual experiences which have a great effect on their heart attitudes. They live in the spiritual world and see first-hand what it is like. Their sufferings show them the worth of salvation and the worth of a human soul in the most powerful way imaginable. The parable in Luke chapter 16 teaches this clearly, as the suffering man asks that Lazarus might be sent to tell his brothers to avoid this place of torment. No doubt people in hell now have a distinct idea of the vastness of eternity, and of the shortness of life. They are completely convinced that all the things of this life are unimportant when compared to the experiences of the eternal world. People now in hell have a great sense of the preciousness of time, and of the wonderful opportunities people have, who have the privilege of hearing the Gospel. They are completely aware of the foolishness of their sin, of neglecting opportunities, and ignoring the warnings of God. When sinners find out by personal experience the final result of their sin there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt 13:42) So even the most powerful religious experiences are not a sure sign of God's grace in the heart.

Demons and damned people also have a strong sense of God's majesty and power. God's power is most clearly displayed in his execution of divine vengeance upon his enemies. "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?" (Rom 9:22) Shuddering, the devils await their final punishment, under the strongest sense of God's majesty. They feel it now, of course, but in the future it will show to the greatest degree, when the Lord Jesus "is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels." (2 Thess 2:7) On that day, they will desire to be run away, to be hidden from the presence of God. "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him." (Rev 1:7) So everyone will see him in the glory of His Father. But, obviously, not all who see him will be saved.

Objection #2- People can have religious feelings that demons cannot.

Now it is possible that some people might object to all this, saying that ungodly men in this world are quite different from demons. They are under different circumstances and are different kind of beings. An objector might say, "Those things that are visible and present to demons are invisible and future to men. Besides, people have the disadvantage of having bodies, which restrain the soul, and keep people from seeing these spiritual things first-hand. Therefore, even if demons do have a great knowledge and personal experience of the things of God, and have no grace, the conclusion does not apply to me." Or, put another way: if people have these things in this life, it may very well be a sure sign of God's grace in their hearts.

In reply, it is agreed that no man in this life has ever had the degree of these things as the demons have them. No person has ever shuddered, with the same amount of fear that the demons shudder with. No man, in this life, can ever have the same kind of knowledge that the Devil has. It is clear that demons and damned men understand the vastness of eternity, and the importance of the other world, more than any living person, and so they crave salvation all the more.

But we can see that men in this world can have experiences of the same kind as those of demons and damned people. They have the same mental outlook, the same opinions and emotions, and the same kind of impressions on the mind and heart. Notice, that for the apostle James it is a convincing argument. He claims that if people think believing in one God is proof of God's grace, it is not proof, because demons believe the same. James is not referring to the act of believing only, but also to the emotions and actions that go along with their belief. Shuddering is an example of emotions from the heart. This shows that if people have the same kind of mental outlook, and respond from the heart in the same way, it is no sure sign of grace.

The Bible does not state how much people in this world may see God's glory, and not have God's grace in their hearts. We are not told exactly to what degree God reveals himself to certain people, and how much they will respond in their hearts. It is very tempting to say that if a person has a certain amount of religious experience, or a certain amount of truth, they must be saved. Perhaps it is even possible for some unsaved people to have greater experiences than some of those who have grace in their hearts! So it is wrong to look at experience or knowledge in terms of amount. Men who have a genuine work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts have experiences and knowledge of a different kind.

True Spiritual experiences have a different source.

At this point, someone might answer these thoughts by saying, "I agree with you. I see that believing in God, seeing His majesty and holiness, and knowing that Jesus died for sinners is not proof of grace in my heart. I agree that demons can know these things as well. But I have some things they don't have. I have joy, peace, and love. Demons can't have them, so that must show that I am saved."

Yes, it is true that you have something more than a demon can have, but it is nothing better than a demon could have. A person's experience of love, joy, etc., may not be because they have any cause in them different from a demon, but just different circumstances. The causes, or origins, of their feelings are the same. This is why these experiences are no better than those of demons. To explain further:

All the things that were discussed before about demons and damned people, arise from two main causes, natural understanding and self-love. When they think about themselves, these two things are what determine their feelings and response. Natural understanding shows them that God is holy, while they are wicked. God is infinite, but they are limited. God is powerful, and they are weak. Self-love gives them a sense of the importance of religion, the eternal world, and a longing after salvation. When these two causes work together, demons and damned men become aware of the awesome majesty of God, whom they know will be their Judge. They know that God's judgment will be perfect and their punishment will be forever. Therefore, these two causes together with their senses will bring about their anguish on that judgment day, when they see the outward glory of Christ and His saints.

The reason many people feel joy, peace, and love today, while demons do not, may be more due to their circumstances, rather than any difference in their hearts. The causes in their hearts are the same. For example, the Holy Spirit is now at work in the world keeping all of mankind from being as wicked as they could be (2 Thess 2:17). This is in contrast to demons, who are just as wicked as they can be all the time. Furthermore, God in his mercy gives gifts to all people, such as the rain for crops (Matt 5:45), heat from the sun, etc. Not only that, but often people receive many things in life to bring them happiness, such as personal relationships, pleasures, music, good health, and so on. Most important of all, many people have heard news of hope: God has sent a Saviour, Jesus Christ, who died to save sinners. In these circumstances, the natural understanding of people can cause them to feel things that demons never can.

Self-love is a powerful force in the hearts of men, strong enough without grace to cause people to love those who love them, "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6:32) It is a natural thing for a person who sees God being merciful, and who knows that they are not as bad as they could be, to therefore be sure of God's love for them. If your love for God comes only from your feelings that God loves you, or because you have heard that Christ died for you, or something similar, the source of your love to God is only self-love. This reigns in the hearts of demons as well.

Imagine the situation of the demons. They know they are unrestrained in their wickedness. They know God is their enemy and always will be. Although they are without any hope, still they are active and fighting. Just think, what if they had some of the hope that people have? What if demons, with their knowledge of God, had their wickedness restrained? Imagine if a demon, after all his fears about God's judgment, was suddenly led to imagine that God might be his Friend? That God might forgive him and let him, sin and all, into heaven? Oh the joy, the wonder, the gratitude we would see! Would not this demon be a great lover of God, since, after all everybody loves people who help them? What else could cause feelings so powerful and sincere? Is it any wonder, that so many people are deceived this way? Especially since people have the demons to promote this delusion. They have been promoting it now for many centuries, and alas they are very good at it.

A true spiritual experience transforms the heart.

Now we come to the question, if all these various experiences and feelings come from nothing more than demons are capable of, what are the kinds of experiences that are truly spiritual and holy? What do I have to find in my own heart, as a sure sign of God's grace there? What are the differences that show them to be from the Holy Spirit?

This is the answer: those feelings and experiences which are good signs of God's grace in the heart differ from the experience of demons in their source and in their results.

Their source is the sense of the overwhelming holy beauty and loveliness of the things of God. When a person grasps in his mind, or better yet, when he feels his own heart held captive by the attractiveness of the Divine, this is an unmistakable sign of God's working.

The demons and damned in hell do not now, and never will experience even the tiniest bit of this. Before their fall, the demons did have this sense of God. But in their fall, they lost it, the only thing they could lose of their knowledge of God. We have seen how the demons have very clear ideas about how powerful God is, his justice, holiness, and so on. They know a lot of facts about God. But now they haven't a clue about what God is like. They cannot know what God is like any more than a blind man can know about colors! Demons can have a strong sense God's awesome majesty, but they don't see his loveliness. They have observed His work among the human race for these thousands of years, indeed with the closest attention; but they never see a glimmer of His beauty. No matter how much they know about God (and we have seen that they know very much indeed) the knowledge they have will never bring them to this higher, spiritual knowing what God is like. On the contrary, the more they know about God, the more they hate Him. The beauty of God consists primarily in this holiness, or moral excellence, and this is what they hate the most. It is because God is holy that the demons hate Him. One could suppose that if God were to be less holy, the demons would hate Him less. No doubt demons would hate any holy Being, no matter what He was like otherwise. But surely they hate this Being all the more, for being infinitely holy, infinitely wise, and infinitely powerful!

Wicked people, including those alive today, will on the day of judgment see all there is to see of Jesus Christ, except His beauty and loveliness. There is not one thing about Christ that we can think of, that will not be set before them in the strongest light on that brilliant day. The wicked will see Jesus "coming in clouds with great power and glory." (Mark 13:26) They will see his outward glory, which is far, far greater than we can possibly imagine now. You know the wicked will be thoroughly convinced of all who Christ is. They will be convinced about His omniscience, as they see all their sins replayed and evaluated. They will know first-hand Christ's justice, as their sentences are announced. His authority will be made utterly convincing when every knee will bow, and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord. (Phil 2:10,11) The divine majesty will be impressed upon them in quite an effective way, as the wicked are poured into hell itself, and enter into their final state of suffering and death (Rev 20:14,15) When that happens, all their knowledge of God, as true and as powerful as it may be, will be worth nothing, and less than nothing, because they will not see Christ's beauty.

Therefore, it is this seeing the loveliness of Christ that makes the difference between the saving grace of the Holy Spirit, and the experiences of demons. This sight or sense is what makes true Christian experience different from everything else. The faith of God's elect people is based on this. When a person sees the excellence of the gospel, he senses the beauty and loveliness of the divine scheme of salvation. His mind is convinced that it is of God, and he believes it with all his heart. As the apostle Paul says in 2 Cor 4:34, "even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." That is to say, as was explained before, unbelievers can see that there is a gospel, and understand the facts about it, but they do not see its light. The light of the gospel is the glory of Christ, his holiness and beauty. Right after this we read, 2 Cor 4:6 "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." Clearly, it is this divine light, shining into our hearts, that enables us to see the beauty of the gospel and have a saving belief in Christ. This supernatural light shows us the superlative beauty and loveliness of Jesus, and convinces us of His sufficiency as our Saviour. Only such a glorious, majestic Saviour can be our Mediator, standing between guilty, hell-deserving sinners such as ourselves, and an infinitely holy God. This supernatural light gives us a sense of Christ that convinces us in a way nothing else ever could.

Genuine spiritual experiences have different results.

When a most wicked sinner is caused to see Christ's divine loveliness, he no longer speculates why God should be interested in him, to save him. Before, he could not understand how the blood of Christ could pay the penalty for sins. But now he can see the preciousness of Christ's blood, and how it is worthy to be accepted as the ransom for the worst of sins. Now the soul can recognize that he is accepted by God, not because of who he is, but because of the value God puts on the blood, obedience, and intercession of Christ. Seeing this value and worth gives the poor guilty soul rest which cannot be found in any sermon or booklet.

When a person comes to see the proper foundation of faith and trust with his own eyes, this is saving faith. "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life." (John 6:40) "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me." (John 17:6-8)

It is this sight of the divine beauty of Christ that captivates the wills and draws the hearts of men. A sight of the outward greatness of God in His glory may overwhelm men, and be more than they can endure. This will be seen on the day of judgment, when the wicked will be brought before God. They will be overwhelmed, yes, but the hostility of the heart will remain in full strength and the opposition of the will continue. But on the other hand, a single ray of the moral and spiritual glory of God and of the supreme loveliness of Christ shone into the heart overcomes all hostility. The soul is inclined to love God as if by an omnipotent power, so that now not only the understanding, but the whole being receives and embraces the loving Saviour.

This sense of the beauty of Christ is the beginning of true saving faith in the life of a true convert. This is quite different from any vague feeling that Christ loves him or died for him. These sort of fuzzy feelings can cause a sort of love and joy, because the person feels a gratitude for escaping the punishment of their sin. In actual fact, these feelings are based on self-love, and not on a love for Christ at all. It is a sad thing that so many people are deluded by this false faith. On the other hand, a glimpse of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ causes in the heart a supreme genuine love for God. This is because the divine light shows the excellent loveliness of God's nature. A love based on this is far, far above anything coming from self-love, which demons can have as well as men. The true love of God which comes from this sight of His beauty causes a spiritual and holy joy in the soul; a joy in God, and exulting in Him. There is no rejoicing in ourselves, but rather in God alone.

The sight of Christ's beauty- God's greatest gift!

The sight of the beauty of divine things will cause true desires after the things of God. These desires are different from the longings of demons, which happen because the demons know their doom awaits them, and they wish it could somehow be otherwise. The desires that come from this sight of Christ's beauty are natural free desires, like a baby desiring milk. Because these desires are so different from their counterfeits, they help to distinguish genuine experiences of God's grace from the false.

False spiritual experiences have a tendency to cause pride, which is the devil's special sin. "He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil." (1 Tim 3:6) Pride is the inevitable result of false spiritual experiences, even though they are often covered with a disguise of great humility. False experience is enamored with self and grows on self. It lives by showing itself in one way or another. A person can have great love for God, and be proud of the greatness of his love. He can be very humble, and very proud indeed of his humility. But the emotions and experiences that come from God's grace are exactly opposite. God's true working in the heart causes humility. They do not cause any kind of showiness or self-exaltation. That sense of the awesome, holy, glorious beauty of Christ kills pride and humbles the soul. The light of God's loveliness, and that alone, shows the soul its own ugliness. When a person really grasps this, he inevitably begins a process of making God bigger and bigger, and himself smaller and smaller.

Another result of God's grace working in the heart is that the person will hate every evil and respond to God with a holy heart and life. False experiences may cause a certain amount of zeal, and even a great deal of what is commonly called religion. However it is not a zeal for good works. Their religion is not a service of God, but rather a service of self. This is how the apostle James puts it himself in this very context, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" (James 2:19-20) In other words, deeds, or good works, are evidence of a genuine experience of God's grace in the heart. "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:34) When the heart has been ravished by the beauty of Christ, how else can it respond?

How excellent is that inner goodness and true religion that comes from this sight of the beauty of Christ! Here you have the most wonderful experiences of saints and angels in heaven. Here you have the best experience of Jesus Christ Himself. Even though we are mere creatures, it is a sort of participation in God's own beauty. "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature." (2 Pet 1:4) "God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness." (Heb 12:10) Because of the power of this divine working, there is a mutual indwelling of God and His people. "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16)

This special relationship has to make the person involved as happy and as blessed as any creature in existence. This is a special gift of God, which he gives only to his special favorites. Gold, silver, diamonds, and earthly kingdoms are given by God to people who the Bible calls dogs and pigs. But this great gift of beholding Christ's beauty, is the special blessing of God to His dearest children. Flesh and blood cannot give this gift: only God can bestow it. This was the special gift which Christ died to obtain for his elect. It is the highest token of his everlasting love, the best fruit of his labours, and the most precious purchase of his blood.

by this gift, more than anything else, the saints shine as lights in the world. This gift, more than anything else, is their comfort. It is impossible that the soul who possesses this gift should ever perish. This is the gift of eternal life. It is eternal life begun: those who have it can never die. It is the dawning of the light of glory. It comes from heaven, it has a heavenly quality, and it will take its bearer to heaven. Those who have this gift may wander in the wilderness or be tossed by waves on the ocean, but they will arrive in heaven at last. There the heavenly spark will be made perfect and increased. In heaven the souls of the saints will be transformed into a bright and pure flame, and they will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Amen.

Copyright (c) 2011 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Error spreads from one person to another. It is like the plague, which infects all round about it. Satan by infecting one person with error infects more! The error of Pelagius spread on a sudden to Palestine, Africa, and Italy. -Thomas Watson1

Along with Pelagius, Evangelicals2 today believe that salvation is by character.3 They believe that men, by faith, before God actually affects a change in their nature, must exercise their will towards that which is good and believe the promises of God without coercion because they are able to do so. This is what Pelagius believed: a notorious heretic (heresiarch) of the fifth century who was condemned by the councils, synods, theologians and pastors of the day, and subsequent synods and councils to that day. It may be said that the Evangelical church today is held captive by Pelagius’ heretical theology though they are unaware of it. But to assert this charge is by no means a warrant to believe it. It must be proven. First, it is important to outline the historical background to Pelagius’ life and ecclesiastical interaction. Then, second, it will be helpful to outline and refute his doctrine, and its Semi-Pelagian subsequent affects. Thirdly, there will be an examination of Evangelicalism and its continuation of Pelagian and Semi-Pelagianism. Fourthly, there will be a brief conclusion to the findings.

The History of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism

First, historically, Pelagius is known on the historical scene as a blue-eyed British monk, with the surname of Morgan, whose fame emerged from Rome in the beginning of the fifth century. He studied the Greek theology, especially that of the Antiochian school, and early showed great zeal for the improvement of himself and of the world.4 Warfield says, “He was also constitutionally averse to controversy; and although in his zeal for Christian morals, and in his conviction that no man would attempt to do what he was not persuaded he had natural power to perform, he diligently propagated his doctrines privately, he was careful to rouse no opposition, and was content to make what progress he could quietly and without open discussion.”5 This, however, would not last long. Pelagius, already advanced in life, demonstrated that his exegetical skills were rather shallow, and appear in his Commentary on the Epistles of Saint Paul,6 which was written and published in the year 409. In this work he gives the essence of his system, but it is not the result of sober exegetical work, rather, it is indirect and a result of answering the common teaching of the day to propagate something new. He labored quietly and peacefully for the improvement of the corrupt morals of Rome, and converted the advocate Coelestius, of distinguished, but otherwise unknown birth, to his monastic life, and to his views. Pelagius was the moral author of the system and Coelestius was the intellectual author.7

It was from this man, younger, more skilful in argument, more ready for controversy, and more rigorously consistent than his teacher, that the controversy came to the forefront. It was through him that it first broke out into public controversy, and received its first ecclesiastical examination and rejection.8

Pelagius soon afterwards departed for Palestine, leaving Coelestius behind at Carthage. Here Coelestius sought ordination as a presbyter, but the Milanese deacon Paulinus accused him as being a heretic, and the matter was brought before a synod under the presidency of Bishop Aurelius. Paulinus’ charge consisted of seven items, which asserted that Coelestius taught the following heresies: 1) Adam was created mortal, and would have died, even if he had not sinned. 2) Adam’s fall injured himself alone, not the human race. 3) Children come into the world in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. 4) The human race neither dies in consequence of Adam’s fall, nor rises again in consequence of Christ’s resurrection. 5) Unbaptized children, as well as others, are saved. 6) The law, as well as the gospel, leads to the kingdom of heaven. 7) Even before Christ there were sinless men.9

The principal propositions were the second and third, which are intimately connected, and which afterwards became the special subject of controversy. Coelestius returned evasive answers. He declared the propositions to be speculative questions of the schools, which did not concern the substance of the faith, and that there were a number of different opinions in the church on them. He refused to recant the errors charged to him, and the synod excluded him from the communion of the church.10
Only two fragments of the proceedings of the synod in investigating this charge have survived; but it is easy to see that Coelestius was contrary to all this, and refused to reject any of the propositions charged against him, except the one which had reference to the salvation of infants that die unbaptized, — the only one that had a sound defense. In terms of the transmission of sin, he would only say that it was an open question in the Church, and that he had heard both opinions from Church dignitaries – so that the subject needed investigation, and should not be made the ground for a charge of heresy. The natural result was, that, on refusing to condemn the propositions charged against him, he was himself condemned and excommunicated by the synod.11 Soon afterwards he sailed to Ephesus, where he obtained the ordination that he sought and was there ordained a presbyter. The Pelagian doctrines found many adherents even in Africa and in Sicily. (Augustine wrote several treatises in refutation of them so early as 412 and 415.)

Meanwhile Pelagius was living quietly in Palestine, when in the summer of 415 a young Spanish presbyter, Paulus Orosius by name, came with letters from Augustine to Jerome, and was invited, near the end of July in that year, to a diocesan synod, presided over by John of Jerusalem. There he was asked about Pelagius and Coelestius, and proceeded to give an account of the condemnation of the latter at the synod of Carthage, and of Augustine’s literary refutation of the former. Pelagius was sent for, and the proceedings became an examination into his teachings.12 The chief matter brought up was his assertion of the possibility of men living sinlessly in this world. Soon afterwards two Gallic bishops, — Heros of Arles, and Lazarus of Aix, — who were then in Palestine, lodged a formal accusation against Pelagius with the metropolitan, Eulogius of Caesarea; and he convened a synod of fourteen bishops which met at Lydda (Diospolis), in December of the same year (415), for the trial of the case.13

Perhaps no greater ecclesiastical farce was ever enacted than this synod exhibited. When the time arrived, the accusers were prevented from being present by illness, and Pelagius was confronted only by the written accusation. Pelagius escaped condemnation only at the cost both of disowning Coelestius and his teachings, of which he had been the real father, and of leading the synod to believe that he was anathematizing the very doctrines which he was himself proclaiming. Warfield says, “There is really no possibility of doubting, as any one will see who reads the proceedings of the synod, that Pelagius obtained his acquittal here either by a “lying condemnation or a tricky interpretation” of his own teachings; and Augustine is perfectly justified in asserting that the “heresy was not acquitted, but the man who denied the heresy,” and who would himself have been anathematized had he not anathematized the heresy.”14

Pelagius soon published a work In Defense of Free-Will, in which he triumphed in his acquittal and “explained his explanations” at the synod. However, the North-African synods sent a letter to Innocent I (Bishop of Rome) trying to engage his assent to their action to condemn Pelagius for his heresy. Augustine, at this same time, along with four other bishops, added a third letter of their own which they prompted Innocent to examine Pelagius’ teaching. The Africans, including Augustine, asserted the necessity of inward grace, rejected the Pelagian theory of infant baptism, and declared Pelagius and Coelestius excommunicated until they should return to orthodoxy. The biblical scholar Jerome joined Augustine in condemning Pelagius, calling him a “corpulent dog … weighed down with … porridge.” Innocent died and Zosimus replaced him, being more sympathetic to Coelestius. Zosimus sided with him. He wrote a sharp and arrogant letter to Africa, proclaiming Coelestius “catholic,” and required the Africans to appear within two months at Rome to prosecute their charges, or else to abandon them.

On the arrival of Pelagius’ papers, this letter was followed by another (September, 417), in which Zosimus, with the approbation of the clergy, declared both Pelagius and Coelestius to be orthodox, and severely rebuked the Africans for their hasty judgment.15 The African bishops gathered in 418 in Carthage and said, “we are aided by the grace of God, through Christ, not only to know, but to do what is right, in each single act, so that without grace we are unable to have, think, speak, or do anything pertaining to piety.” This made Zosimus waver. Ultimately Pelagius and Coelestius were condemned as heretics and they were forced into banishment.

The exiled bishops were driven from Constantinople by Atticus in 424; and they are said to have been condemned at a Cilician synod in 423, and at an Antiochian one in 424. The end was now in sight. The Pelagian heresy was officially condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, one year after Augustine’s death. Then the famous second Synod of Orange met under the presidency of Caesarius at that ancient town on the 3rd of July, 529, and drew up a series of moderate articles which received the ratification of Boniface II in the following year and condemned this heresy and Semi-Pelagianism16, completely substantiating Augustinianism.

It is equally important to highlight the historical nature of Semi-Pelagianism, and its most avid adherent, James Arminius. Through Arminianism, Pelagianism is kept alive. James Harmensen was born in 1560. This was his Dutch derivation, but is more well-known by his Latinized name – James Arminius. While a young teen, as a servant in a public inn, a patron noticed his wit and keen intellect for someone at such a young age, and as a result this patron decided to offer him the chance at schooling in the University of Utrecht. He supported Arminius until his death, and then another patron continued to pay for his education. Arminius was then able to attend the University of Marpurg, in Hess, and then finally the University in Leyden. He was even sent to Geneva while Theodore Beza presided there, but indulged in insubordination and a spirit of self-sufficiency. He spoke privately to the other students against the teachers there and was ultimately expelled from the University. After leaving Geneva, he toured Italy and then came back to Geneva, and had a wide following of people at this time. Upon his return, as a result of his following, the people decided to make him a minister of Amsterdam.

After serving as minister for some time, he was then called to the University of Amsterdam to teach on the condition that he would adhere to the Belgic Confession. Arminius pledged loyalty to the confession when entering the professorship. One of the Belgic articles asserts the following: “Article 16 – We believe that, all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.” It was this kind of teaching, solid reformed teaching after the manner of Calvin, and Turretin to come, that Arminius gave allegiance to, even though he really did not believe it. He was a scandalous, double-minded shadowy individual.

After a year or two he was found to be a scandalous man. It was his practice to teach the doctrines of grace in alignment with the Confession in class, but then distributed private confidential manuscripts among his pupils.17 By this “double-mindedness” he was able to continue in his popularity, while at the same time he was infecting the students under him of the same errors of “Arminianism” which he really believed.

The States General of the Netherlands sent deputies of the Churches to question him on this, and to discover whether the rumors were true. This would involve an open debate and discussion, and then the consequences of the discussion would be taken back to the National Synod to be discussed further as to what ecclesiastical action should take place. Arminius denied the “rumors” about this (in reality this was simply a lie to cover up his scandal) and he agreed to meet with the council on one condition: if they found anything wrong, they would not report him to the Synod. What ploy was this?

The deputies, in view of his subtle refusal, refused, themselves, to pursue this discussion believing that Arminius was not being honest and forthright with them, or agreeing to this under a guise of integrity. Instead, sometime later, they summoned him to council with Classis, a reformed theologian. He declined and would not subject himself to an open synod. This was his continued position from that time forward. His strategy was to win over the secular men of the state and university to gain enough backing before going “public” on his “new and radical” views. This is important to note since Arminianism, like its father Pelagianism, is the secular man’s salvation. When heresy arises it is never frank and open as it is growing. Such heretical groups are almost never honest and candid as a party until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity: as With Pelagius, so with Arminius.18

Arminius’ goal was to unite all Christians, except the papists, under one common form of doctrinal brotherhood. If this was truly the case, why was it so difficult for him to be “tried” theologically in an open forum? His agenda and motives prove that his goal is true, but not for the good of the church. In his views (which are unorthodox and heretical) he agreed substantially in the five doctrines set forth by his predecessors in a more refined manner. He died in 1609 before he could ever be brought openly before a public Synod. Most hoped that with the death of Arminius that Arminianism would die quickly. Unfortunately, his infectious doctrine had overwhelmed too many younger students and a group called the Remonstrants arose soon after.

In 1610 the Remonstrants organized into a body and set forth a “Remonstrance” to the States General of Holland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. The word “Remonstrance” means “vigorously objecting or opposing.” These men were persuaded that they ought to continue Arminius’ teaching in a precise and ordered form. Their goal was to solicit the favor of the government, and to secure protection against the ecclesiastical censures to which they felt themselves exposed. They vehemently tried to raise up a man named Vorstius, a hero to their newfound party, to be given the chair of theology at Leyden. When King James I found this out (the same King James of England) he exhorted the States General by letter not to admit such a man to the chair holding such errors and being an enemy of the Gospel. Vorstius was prevented, barely, but another, Episcopius, rose up soon after. Arminianism was spreading at this time quite rapidly.

As much as it may be deplorable to some that the State involves itself in the affairs of the church today, in days of old the practice was quite different. Prince Maurice of Orange, the prince of the day for the region, was opposed to the work of the Remonstrants and desired a National Synod against them. As a result of Prince Maurice’s determination to rid the Netherlands of Arminianism, on November 13, 1618 a national council commenced in the city of Dordtrecht (also abbreviated as “Dort” or “Dordt”.) The synod consisted of 39 pastors and 18 ruling elders from Belgic churches, and 5 professors of the University of Holland. There were also delegates from Reformed churches throughout the region. At least 4 ministers and 2 elders from each province attended the Synod: men from France, Switzerland, the Republic of Geneva, Bremen and Embden, as well as varied deputies of the Belgic church, some English Puritans such as Joseph Hall and John Davenant, and delegates from Scotland. With such a sublime gathering, Joseph Hall was compelled to say that, “There was no place upon earth so like heaven as the Synod of Dordt, and where he should be more willing to dwell.”

The Synod of Dordt convened to examine the Arminian’s Remonstrance as well as their Christian walk. Both their doctrine and life were “on trial.” (Both were exceedingly important since such scandal had already befallen Arminius and these men were propagating the same teachings.) It is regrettable, but the Remonstrants thought themselves ill-treated as a result of this, and did not attend the meetings except to submit their propositions in the form of 5 articles at the beginning. The council was held for over a year.

After the Synod convened in 1619, they gave the following censure by unanimous decision – for they seriously and responsibly examined the Arminian tenants, “condemned them as unscriptural, pestilential errors,” and pronounced those who held and published them to be “enemies of the faith of the Belgic churches, and corrupters of the true religion.” They also deposed the Arminian ministers, excluded them and their followers from the communion of the church, suppressed their religious assemblies, and by the aid of the civil government, which confirmed all their acts, sent a number of the clergy of that party, and those who adhered to them, into banishment.19 They did not treat them as reprobate, but as those under ecclesiastical discipline.

Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Theology

Pelagius’ theology, contrary to some modern attempts at subtlety, is not difficult to ascertain. “The essence of the theology of Pelagius was the ethical development of man, as the Greeks taught it, resulting at last in perfection, and attained simply by his own natural powers.”20 Calvin, more blatantly, says, “Yet this timidity could not prevent Pelagius from rising up with the profane fiction that Adam sinned only to his own loss without harming his posterity. Through this subtlety Satan attempted to cover up the disease and thus to render it incurable. But when it was shown by the clear testimony of Scripture that sin was transmitted from the first man to all his posterity (Romans 5:12), Pelagius quibbled that it was transmitted through imitation, not propagation.”21 The tendency to sin is man’s own free choice, Pelagius insisted, and not inherited from Adam. Following this reasoning, there is no need for divine grace; man must simply make up his mind to do the will of God.22

Pelagius himself said, “This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.”23 Pelagius believed that the moral aim of life was sinless perfection and believed that such perfection could be reached without the aid of special or added grace. The logic he used was that biblical commands such as, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” (Matthew 5:48), imply “the ability on the part of the hearer to obey the commandment.” Moreover, Pelagius taught that sinners die for their own sin, not for the sin of Adam. The only remedy for sinners is justification by faith.24 Pelagius said:

We distinguish three things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first place “ability;” in the second, “volition;” and in the third, “actuality.” The “ability” we place in our nature, the “volition” in our will, and the “actuality” in the effect. The first, that is, the “ability,” properly belongs to God, who has bestowed it on His creature; the other two, that is, the “volition” and the “actuality,” must be referred to man, because they flow forth from the fountain of the will. For his willing, therefore, and doing a good work, the praise belongs to man; or rather both to man, and to God who has bestowed on him the “capacity” for his will and work, and who evermore by the help of His grace assists even this capacity.25

The key tenets of Pelagius’ doctrine of sin are summed up by Coelestius: “The sin of Adam injured only him, not the human race” and “the law leads to the kingdom, just as the gospel does”.26 In other words, Pelagius espoused that in following biblical commandments, “if we should we can.” The Racovian Catechism (which prevails among the English and American Unitarians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) lays out Pelagius’ doctrine by embracing the following points: 1) Adam’s sin affected himself alone. 2) Infants are born in the same moral state in which Adam was created. 3) Every man possesses ability to sin or to repent and obey whenever he will. 4) Responsibility is in exact proportion to ability; and God’s demands are adjusted to the various capacities (moral as well as constitutional) and circumstances of men.27
The differences between Augustinianism and Pelagianism are apparent.

In relationship to original sin Augustinianism teaches that by the sin of Adam, in whom all men together sinned, sin and all the other positive punishments of Adam’s sin came into the world. By it human nature has been both physically and morally corrupted in every faculty of their being. Every man brings into the world with him a nature already so corrupt, that it can do nothing but sin. This does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, but that they are totally and completely affected in every area of their being – mind, emotions, will, body and spirit. The propagation of this quality of his nature is by concupiscence. Pelagianism teaches that by his transgression, Adam injured only himself, not his posterity. Men are not sinners because of Adam. Men are sinners because they sin. In respect to his moral nature, every man is born in precisely the same condition in which Adam was created. There is therefore no original sin.

In relationship to free will Augustinianism teaches that by Adam’s transgression and sin, the freedom (liberium arbitrium) of the human will has been entirely lost. In his present corrupt state man can will and do only evil. Pelagianism teaches that man’s will is free. Every man has the power to will and to do good as well as the opposite. It therefore depends upon his own actions as to whether he is good or evil. Man, then, becomes the measure of himself.

In relationship to grace, Augustinianism teaches that if man, in his present state, wills and does anything good, it is merely the work of the grace of Christ in him working that good. It is an inward, secret, and wonderful operation of God upon man. It is a preceding as well as an accompanying work. By preceding (or regenerating) grace, man attains faith, by which he comes to an insight of good, and by which power is given him to will the good. He needs cooperating grace for the performance of every individual good act. As man can do nothing without grace, so he can do nothing against it. It is irresistible. Since man by nature has no merit at all, no respect at all can be had to man’s moral disposition, in imparting grace, but God acts according to his own free will.

Pelagianism teaches that although by free will, which is a gift of God, man has the capacity of willing and doing good without God’s special aid, yet for the easier performance of it, God revealed the law; for the easier performance, the instruction and example of Christ aid him; and for the easier performance, even the supernatural operations of grace are imparted to him. Grace, in the most limited sense (gracious influence) is given to those only who deserve it by the faithful employment of their own powers. However, man can still resist it.

In relationship to predestination and redemption Augustinianism teaches that from eternity, God made a free and unconditional decree to save a few (though this number may not be “few” in number) from the “mass of perdition” that was corrupted and subjected to damnation. To those whom he predestinated to this salvation, he gives the requisite means for the purpose. However, on the rest, who do not belong to this small number of the elect, He leaves them in their sin, and actively decrees to damn them for it.

In terms of redemption, Christ came into the world and died for the elect only. Christ does not offer atonement for those whom He does not save. Pelagianism teaches that God’s decree of election and reprobation is founded on prescience. In other words, those that God would foresee that they would keep His commands, He predestinated to salvation (which is really based on works). Others, whom he did not foresee would come to faith, He left to damnation. In terms of the atonement, Christ’s redemption is a general atonement for all men. However, only those people who have actually sinned need his atoning death. All, however, by his instruction and example, may be led to higher perfection and virtue.28

Pelagianism took a more subtle form in the teachings of James Arminius. Arminius, the most popular of his kind, is known as a Semi-Pelagian.29 It is impossible to call him a Semi-Augustinian because his doctrine is not a mild form of Augustine’s teachings, but a modified form of Pelagius’ thoughts. The modifications are slight but important. Semi-Pelagians believe that the Fall in the Garden did affect all of Adam’s progeny, but not fully. Men are sick in sin, not dead in sin. Augustine taught that men are dead in sin following Romans 1-3and Ephesians 2. They are “somewhat alive” and never completely dead rendering their “free wills” quite able to choose either good or evil (following Pelagius). Semi-Pelagians also believed in a general atonement (like Pelagius) but that all men needed this atonement (modified Pelagianism).

Though Christ died for all men making a way for them, the efficacy of His death is not applied until man, by his own free will (the liberium arbitrium) chose to accept this atonement. Men are free, and not necessarily bound to anything but their neutral will and desires that can choose either good or evil.30

In opposition to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, Augustinianism follows the biblical exposition of the doctrine of man.31 There are two aspects to understanding sin that must be noted. The first is in terms of original sin (the first sin of the Garden) and the second is the consequence of that original sin called total depravity. The Westminster Shorter Catechism in question 15 asks, “What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?” This question revolves around the first sin committed – Adam’s original sin. The answer is “The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created, was their eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6-8).” The consequence of eating this forbidden fruit was breaking covenant with God. Adam transgressed the law of God and plunged all humanity into sin. This sin is imputed to all his progeny and is also labeled as the imputation of “original sin”.

As a result of the imputation of sin, all men are infected with sin and corrupt in every faculty of their being. This is called total depravity. The effects of sin are biblically evident and questions 18 and 19 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism state the biblical picture clearly: that the sinfulness of that estate where man fell into consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it (Rom. 5:19; Rom. 3:10; Eph. 2:1; Psa. 51:5; Matt. 15:19-20). Total depravity, then, is a label for the complete misery that men fell into. All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever (Gen. 3:8, 24; Eph. 2:3; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 6:23; Matt. 25:41).

Total Depravity is not absolute depravity or utter depravity. Men are not as vicious as they could be. In Genesis 20:6, for example, Abimelech is restrained by God’s hand to not touch Sarah, Abraham’s wife. Men have a certain limitation to sin that God places upon them. He will allow them to go only so far (1 Thess. 2:16). But, due to the imputation of Adam’s original sin to all his posterity, men are unable to please God whatsoever, and are rather, prone to evil in every area of the faculty of their being. The Synod of Dordt says, “a corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring.”32 Turretin asserts, rightly, that there is a “universal disorder in their nature…”33 He says “Men are not only destitute of righteousness, but also full of unrighteousness.”34

William Ames affirms that from the fall there is the “…corruption of the whole man…”35 William Perkins defines this, “Original sin, which is corruption engendered in our first conception, whereby every faculty of the soul and body is prone and disposed to evil.” 36 Perkins continues to explain that men’s minds received from Adam: 1) Ignorance, namely a want, or rather a deprivation of knowledge in the things of God, whether they concern His sincere worship, or eternal happiness. 2) Impotency, whereby the mind of itself is unable to understand spiritual things, though they be taught. 3) Vanity, in that the mind thinketh falsehood truth, and truth falsehood. A natural inclination only to conceive and desire the thing which is evil.37

Total depravity renders men incapable of doing good. Ames says, “Bondage to sin consists in man’s being so captivated by sin that he has no power to rise out of it…rather he would wallow in it." 38 But what exactly is bondage? Ames says that, “The beginning of spiritual death in the form of conscious realization is spiritual bondage.”39 The Synod of Dort is comprehensive in its answer, “…all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.”40 Unlike Pelagius who taught that man is good, and unlike Semi-Pelagianism that taught that man is sick, Augustinianism, along with the Bible, teaches that man is dead in sin. Christopher Love says, “…he is spiritually dead. For example, you know a dead man feels nothing. Do what you will to him, he does not feel it. So a man who is spiritually dead does not feel the weight of his sins, though they are a heavy burden pressing him down into the pit of hell. He is a stranger to the life of godliness, past feeling, given over to a reprobate sense, so that he does not feel the weight and burden of all his sins.”41

The Canons of the Council of Orange (which met to condemn the beginnings of Semi-Pelagianism) condemns, “anyone that denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?”42

The Scriptures abound with references to man’s estate as one being dead in sin, and in bondage to it: Genesis 6:5; Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9; Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:10-18; Isaiah 64:6; Ezek. 11:19; Col. 2:13; Ephesians 2:1, 5. Three main points may demonstrate the biblical position succinctly: 1) Fallen men cannot do or work any good before the eyes of God (Matthew 7:17-18; 1 Cor. 12:3; John 15:4-5; Romans 8:7-8). 2) Fallen man cannot comprehend or apprehend the good of the Gospel, or of the Scriptures (Acts 16:14; Ephesians 4:18; 2 Cor. 3:12-18; John 1:11; John 8:43; Matthew 13:14; 1 Cor. 1:18, 21; 1 Cor. 2:14). 3) Fallen man does not desire or have any desires towards that which is good in the eyes of God (Matthew 7:18; John 3:3; John 8:43; John 15:5; John 6:64-65; Ezek. 11:19; Ephesians 2:1, 5). As John Owen states, “But it will be objected, and hath against this doctrine been ever so since the days of Pelagius, “That a supposition hereof renders all exhortations, commands, promises, and threatenings, — which comprise the whole way of the external communication of the will of God unto us, — vain and useless; for to what purpose is it to exhort blind men to see or dead men to live, or to promise rewards unto them upon their so doing? Should men thus deal with stones, would it not be vain and ludicrous, and that because of their impotency to comply with any such proposals of our mind unto them; and the same is here supposed in men as to any ability in spiritual things.”43

The Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church

The Evangelical Church at large is currently held captive by Pelagius’ teachings. Not only had Pelagius infected the church in his time, but his doctrines also stretch through the centuries through other schismatic forms. Pelagius has infected the teachings of men in all theological colors through the centuries. For example, the Neo-orthodox theologian Emil Brunner, following Barth, says, “Original sin does not refer to the transgression of Adam in which all his descendants share; but it states the fact that Adam’s descendents are involved in his death, because they themselves commit sin.”44

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that, “while Adam and Eve rebelled and fell from grace, their sin was not passed on to their descendants except in regard to temptation and morality.”45 Process Theology teaches that salvation is, at best, the achievement of “self fulfillment or self-integration.”46 Liberation theology teaches much the same. Gustavo Gutierrez, a preeminent Latin American Liberation theologian, said, following Karl Rahner’s view of original sin, “persons are saved if they open themselves to God and to others, even if they are not clearly aware that they are doing so.”47 Feminist theology says the same when Dorothee Soelle writes, “According to a Christian understanding of the world, sins are not particular things we do as individuals – the infringement of sexual norms, for example. They are structure of power that rule over us, something to which we are subjugated, from which we have to be liberated. It is not primarily a question of the violation of individual commandments.”48 Charismatics, Success Theology, The Vineyard Movement, New Age theology and those who advocate a Theology of Hope, all agree on this issue – Adam’s sin does not come down to affect us as inherently evil beings. Rather, it is retranslated into a theology of oppression, sickness, need, or like ideologies.

Moving into modern culture today, most Evangelicals follow the Arminian schematic for systematic Theology, and are Pelagian in many of their tenants, though they think they believe what the church “has always believed.” There is no sector of Evangelicalism that has been safe from this trend. It reaches from Presbyterian pulpits across the land, to Charismatic, to Interdenominational, to Baptist, and to every other heresy spinning off from orthodox Christianity. Most of the most popular preachers of the day are infected with traits of Pelagianism: turn on the “Christian radio” stations today for five minutes and you will hear heresy blaring across the airwaves.

The following are direct quotes and instances taken from sermons, books, lectures, seminars, and the like that demonstrate, briefly, the trend in modern Evangelicalism which follow Pelagian tendencies and doctrines. Bob Coy, pastor of Calvary Chapel of Ft. Lauderdale said, “We can determine to walk outside of God’s sovereignty…” “God will accept us because we believe…”49 This is blatantly denying the total depravity of man and appeals to Arminius’ modified Pelagianism. Chuck Smith, Coy’s non-denominational “leader” of the Calvary Chapel movement, said, “We believe that Jesus Christ died as a propitiation (a satisfaction of the righteous wrath of God against sin) “for the whole world”50 This again, follows Pelagius’ doctrine and the further Remonstrance teaching of Arminius. It is a contemporary echo of the 18th century preacher John Wesley when he said, “God so loved the world — That is, all men under heaven; even those that despise his love, and will for that cause finally perish. Otherwise not to believe would be no sin to them. For what should they believe? Ought they to believe that Christ was given for them? Then he was given for them.”51 Following this Semi-Pelagian trend, on June 24th, 2001 Dr. Norman Geisler similarly declared false and misleading views of salvation from the pulpit of Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Geisler declared that the orthodoxy found in the Reformed position of salvation deemed the Sovereign LORD over mankind’s destiny as a “divine rapist.” At the end of his diatribe, a Calvary Chapel pastor instructed potential converts “Jesus has taken nine steps toward you, now you have to take a step toward Him.”52

Billy Graham, the famous “evangelist” said, “I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ.”53 Again, the tendency to deny the fall in this type of phraseology speaks for itself. In September 1993, Graham held a crusade in Columbus, Ohio. In a pre-Crusade television interview, Graham said (speaking of the people of Columbus, Ohio): “You’re too good, you don’t need evangelism. … In fact, that’s what kept us from coming to Columbus for so long.”54 Curtis Mitchell, who documented Graham’s invitational preaching, says the following is a typical use of words by Graham, “I am going to ask you to come forward. Up there – down there – I want you to come. You come right now – quickly. If you are with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him…”55 Similar expressions of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagian theology can be found in contemporary authors and books such as, What Love is This? by Dave Hunt, and Chosen But Free by Norman Giesler.56

Many charismatic leaders today have infected Evangelicalism for the worse with Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian theology. Robert Schuller, a modern Pelagian following the same theological views as Charles Finney57, said, “Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.”58 He says, “The Cross will sanctify your ego trip,’ just as it did for Jesus."59 Schuller wrote, “I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and hence counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition” (cf. Romans 1:18-3:20).”60 He also states that he wants to “persuade you the reader, that you can if you think you can…by realizing the amazing possibilities inherent in the mind.”61 Following Schuller as a man he admires, Rick Warren’s popular Christianity also exposes him for Pelagian tendencies. His wife, Kay, speaking about a conference they attended which included Schuller as a speaker, said, “We were captivated by his [Schuller’s] positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back.”62 Warren says, “…anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the felt needs to his or her heart.”63 Warren says that all people need to do is whisper a sweet prayer to Jesus and they “will” be saved, “”quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: “Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you.””64 Mountains of Pelagian ideas blatantly haunt the ministry of T.D. Jakes. He says, “Scripture teaches that receiving Christ as your personal Savior does not necessarily make you a son of God, but if you choose to do so, the power (authority) and right to do so is present. … Just being saved does not make you a son of God, …only those who are willing to be led by the Spirit actually realize and manifest the sonship of God.”65 Bill Hybels, the pastor who made popular the Willow Creek Seeker Movement said, “We are a love starved people, with broken parts that need the kind of repair that only he can give long-term. We need to bring our brokenness out into the light of his grace and truth.”66 This is Semi-Pelagian. Men are not broken in sin, or simply have broken heart. They are dead in Sin (Ephesians 2:1-2). Bill Bright, former leader and founder of the Navigators and Campus Crusade for Christ, formulated the recognizable “Four Spiritual Laws.” He says,

Law 3: We Receive Christ by Personal Invitation.

Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him.” (Revelation 3:20) Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins and to make us the kind of people He wants us to be. Just to agree intellectually that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins is not enough. Nor is it enough to have an emotional experience. We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of will.

Not only is this horrible exegesis of Revelation 3:20 (which is often used by preachers to refer to sinners when it actually refers to the church) but Bright presses the fact the “we” must receive Christ, and “we” must turn to “personally invite” Christ into our lives. This blatantly contradicts the teaching of the Bible where the Spirit of God must first change the heart in order to make men spiritually renewed so that they may come to Him as a result of grace, not personal power (cf. John 3:1-3). The major ecumenical movement known as Promise Keepers, by their very name, asserts ability to fallen men to “keep promises.” Officially they say, “Since the disbelief and disobedience of Adam and Eve, all humans have failed to obey God’s two major laws summed up by the Lord Jesus Christ. We have failed to love God with our whole being and we have failed to love our neighbors as ourselves. People have become slaves to selfishness and are alienated from God and one another.67” Where is sin in all of this? They use terms like “disbelief”, “disobedience,” “failed to obey”, “slaves to selfishness”, “alienated”, but not “sin.” It sounds more like psychological doubletalk at the expense of offending someone, than a theological stance on the doctrine of sin. Truly Evangelicalism is nothing like the Christianity of old. Instead, it has toppled over in veneration to Pelagius, and then Arminius after him.

Conclusion

Many more quotes could be given that display the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian theology of modern Evangelicalism across the world board. It would be a waste of space to continue to quote men like Max Lucado, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Louis Palau, anyone appearing on the Trinity Broadcast Network, and others who spout off Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian doctrines each Sunday morning, and corrupt the airwaves with their various degrees of horrible theology.

John Owen rightly states that the church of Jesus Christ “cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius.”68 This is an impossibility. One cannot be bedfellows with Reformed Orthodoxy and hold to Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian teachings. Pastors must choose whom they follow – Paul or Pelagius? When they preach a sermon, they are practically choosing their theological roots by what they say in the pulpit. They may not use the same word of phrase, but their meaning is quite the same, and sometimes just as strong as Pelagius or Arminius of old. Instead of wrestling with these ideas, Evangelicals today simply follow the crowd at chow time. They eat what their pastors give them without any recourse to study what is being said or check if their pastor is right. Instead, because of a charismata that is easier to feel than exegesis is to study, they are falling headlong into the abyss of Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian doctrine which is another Gospel, or no Gospel, altogether.

Entire Christian universities and theological schools have been given over to this blatant kind of religious humanism. John Owen rightly said in his day, “Many at this day will condemn both Pelagius and the doctrine that he taught, in the words wherein he taught it, and yet embrace and approve of the things themselves which he intended.”69 However, though Owen said this four hundred years ago, it is more true today than it was at his time. But there has been a change. It is not that men deny Pelagianism, for most pastors have no idea what Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism is at all. Rather, they simply believe the doctrines of Pelagius and Arminius at the expense of even knowing in which theological camp they are historically bound. Truly, the Evangelical church today is captive. It is impossible to deny the overwhelming degree that the church is under the Pelagian captivity of old.

No man but Pelagians, Arminians, and such, do teach, If any shall improve their natural abilities to the uttermost, and stir up themselves in good earnest to seek the grace of conversion and Christ the wisdom of God, they shall certainly and without miscarrying find what they seek. 1. Because no man, not the finest and sweetest nature, can engage the grace of Christ, or with his penny of sweating earn either the kingdom of grace, or glory, whether by way of merit of condignity or congruity. Rom. 9:16: So then, it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 2 Tim. 1:9: Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Eph. 2:1-5, Titus 3:3-5, Ezek. 16:4-10.
- Samuel Rutherford70
——————————————————————————–

[1] Watson, Thomas, The Lord’s Prayer, (Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle: 1993) Page 279.
[2] In general the modern term “Evangelicals” are those who have developed a more inclusivistic attitude toward liberalism, and are ecumenical in their efforts towards ecclesiastical unity. As a result of a broad churchism their theological views are akin to pleasing the masses, and are often comprised of non-compulsory sermons towards the commands of God and the repulsion of sin.
[3]Anderson, Archer, John Calvin, A Prophet of God, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 91 (October, 1934;2002: Page 478).
[4] Schaff, Phillip, History Christian Church, vol 3 (Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids: 1994) Page 597.
[5] Warfield, B.B. Introductory Essay On Augustine And The Pelagian Controversy, Nicene, Post Nicene Fathers, Volume 5, (Henrickson Publishers, Peabody: 1995) Page 10.
[6] There are three works of Pelagius printed among the works of Jerome (Vallarsius’ edition, vol. xi.): viz, the Exposition on Paul’s Epistles, written before 410 (but somewhat, especially in Romans, interpolated); the Epistle to Demetrius, 413; and the Confession of Faith, 417, addressed to Innocent I. Copious fragments of other works (On Nature, In Defence of Free Will, Chapters, Letters to Innocent) are found quoted in Augustine’s refutations; as also of certain works by Coelestius (e.g., his Definitions, Confession to Zosimus), and of the writings of Julian. Here also belong Cassian’s Collationes Patrum, and the works of the other Semi-Pelagian writers.
[7] Schaff, History, Page 598. The reader must note the development of Pelagian doctrine through its disciples of Faustus and Laelius Socinus in the sixteenth century.
[8] Warfield, Introductory Essay, Page 10.
[9] Schaff, History, Page 599.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Warfield, Introductory Essay, Page 19.
[12] Warfield, Introductory Essay, Page 21.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Warfield, Introductory Essay, Page 22
[15] Warfield, Introductory Essay, Page 23.
[16] In the meantime, while the Pelagian controversy was at its height, John Cassian, of Syrian birth and educated in the Eastern Church, having moved to Marseilles, in France, for the purpose of advancing the interests of monkery in that region, began to give publicity to a scheme of doctrine occupying a middle position between the systems of Augustine and Pelagius. This system, whose advocates were called Massilians from the teachings of their head, and afterward Semi-Pelagians by the Schoolmen, is in its essential principles one with that system which is called Arminianism. Faustus, bishop of Priez, in France, from A. D. 427 to A. D. 480, was one of the most distinguished and successful advocates of this doctrine, which was permanently accepted by the Eastern Church, and for a time was widely disseminated throughout the Western church also, until it was condemned by the synods of Orange and Valence, A.D. 529.
[17] This is attested by Samuel Miller, Thomas Scott, and by many Dutch writers on the subject of the time.
[18] See also the historical evidence behind Arius, Amyraut, Socinians, and the Unitarians.
[19] See Thomas Scott where he points out in his introductory essay to Dort’s articles this fact, The Articles of the Synod of Dordt, (Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg: 1993) Pages 2ff.
[20] Wylie, J.A. History of the Scottish Nation, (Ages Software, Albany:1997) Page 328.
[21] Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:1:5
[22] Sandin, Robert, Christian History: Augustine, One of the Best Teachers of the Church: Augustine on Teachers and Teaching (Logos Research Systems, 1996 (electronic ed.).
[23] Cited in Augustine, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 5, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First series, ed. Philip Schaff, 14 vols, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1987 [= 1886–1889]), 5:185.
[24] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 1:313–314.
[25] Cited in Augustine, A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, ch. 5 “Pelagius’ own account of the Faculties, quoted” (NPNF, 5:219).
[26] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition, vol 1(University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2003) Pages 314–316.
[27] Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology, Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. (electronic ed. based on the 1972 Banner of Truth Trust reproduction of the 1879 ed. Christian Classics Foundation, Simpsonville: 1997) Pages 97-103.
[28] Wiggers, G.F. Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism, Translated by Rev. Ralph Emerson, (np, nc: nd) Pages 268–270.
[29] Cassian of Marseilles was a Semi-Pelagian of the 5th Century; but he was not a popular fellow and did not gather a large following. Another, named Bolsec, lived in Geneva around 1552 and propagated Semi-Pelagianism. He taught the same doctrines but was not heeded because of his immoral lifestyle. A third man by the name of Corvinus attempted to stir Holland in 1560 with the same ideas, but it never came to a full fruition until Arminius.
[30] Arminius, James, The Works of James Arminius, vol. 3, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: 1991), Translated by Nichols, Page 190.
[31] It should be noted that Augustinianism and Calvinism are synonyms.
[32] Articles of the Synod of Dordt, Head of Doctrine 3/4:2.
[33] Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1992) 1:638.
[34] Turretin, Institutes, 1:637.
[35] Ames, William, The Marrow of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House: 1983) Page 120.
[36] Perkins, William, The Foundations of The Christian Religion, A Golden Chain Concerning Salvation and Damnation, (John Legate, Cambridge: 1608) Chapter 12.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ames, Page 119.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Articles of the Synod of Dordt, Head of Doctrine 3/4:3.
[41] Love, Christopher, unpublished sermon, Man’s Miserable Estate, www.apuritansmind.com/ChristopherLove.htm
[42] The Canons Of The Council Of Orange, 529 AD.
[43] Owen, John, The Works of John Owen, vol. 3 (Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle: 1994) Page 356.
[44] Brunner, Emil, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, Dogmatics vol. 2, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press: 1952), Page 104.
[45] Smith, David L., A Handbook of Contemporary Theology, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids: 1992) Page 111.
[46] Ibid, Page 163.
[47] Gutierrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, rev. ed. (Mary-knoll, New York, Orbis Books: 1988) Page 25.
[48] Soelle, Dorothy, Choosing Life, (SMC Press, London: 1981) Pages 39-40.
[49] cf. Sun Sentinel weekly column on Religious Issues.
[50] Smith, Chuck, Calvinism, Arminianism & The Word Of God, A Calvary Chapel Perspective (Calvary Press, online at www.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm This quote is characteristic of the blatant Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian teachings of the Calvary movement who combine both a modified Pelagianism and a Vineyard movement charismata to their theological system as a whole.
[51] Wesley, John, Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, (Schmul Publishers, Salem: 1976) Page 219.
[52] Sunday Evening Service, Calvary Chapter, Ft. Lauderdale, June 24, 2001.
[53] May 31, 1998 television interview with Robert Schuller, as reported in the May-June 1997, Foundation magazine.
[54] September 1, 1993, Columbus Dispatch.
[55] Mitchell, Curtis, Those Who Came Forward (The World’s Work Ltd., 1966) Page 32. Emphasis mine.
[56] For a worthy rebuttal of Hunt’s and Geisler’s Semi-Pelagian theology see James White’s works, The Potter’s Freedom and Debating Calvinism.
[57] Finney said, “Moral depravity is sin itself, and not the cause of sin,” Finney, Charles, Finney’s Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976), Page 172. Men are then born righteous and only become sinners as they sin. Schuller is following behind Finney, who is following Pelagius.
[58] Schuller, Robert, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (Waco: Word Books, 1982) Page 14.
[59] Ibid, Page 74-75.
[60] Schuller, Robert, Christianity Today, A Letter to the Editor, October 5, 1984.
[61] Smith, Handbook, Page 189.
[62] Stafford, Tim, A Regular Purpose-Driven Guy: Rick Warren’s Genius is in Helping Pastors See the Obvious, (Christianity Today, November 8, 2002).
[63] Warren, Rick, The Purpose Driven Church, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids: 1995) Page 219.
[64] Warren, Rick, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002). Page 58. Emphasis his.
[65] Jakes, T.D., PFO Quartely Journal, The Harvest, Pages 46-47.
[66] Interview with Dr. G.A. Pritchard http://www.reformed-churches.org.nz/resources/fnf/a47.htm.
[67] http://www.promisekeepers.org/faqs/core/faqscore22.htm
[68] Owen, Works, vol 10, Page 22.
[69] Owen, Works, vol 5 Page 370.
[70] The following text as a whole can be found at A Puritan’s Mind, www.apuritansmind.com/SamuelRutherford/
SamuelRutherfordPreparationsBeforeConversion.htm
Quick Nav

Copyright (c) 2011 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).

Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption

[God sends Christ to die and Christ dies on behalf of His people, church and sheep. He doesn’t die for the goats. His death actually DOES SOMETHING upon the cross. It is not to make a hypothetical “way” but actually secures the salvation of His people. Isn’t that assuring?]


compiled by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not limited in its power to save, but in the extent to which it reaches and will save certain individuals.

Limited atonement is a theological term that has been used for centuries to define a very important aspect of the Gospel. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine which states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die, or redeem, every individual for all of time, but for some individuals, i.e. His sheep and His church. This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men if He wanted to. The power and efficacy of His death in and through one drop of His blood could have saved a million-billion worlds. That was not what God intended. The Scripture does not dabble in “possibilities.” It does, however, state that the scope of His death is limited.

Jesus Christ, much like the lamb of the Old Testament sacrifice, died for some people, and secured the salvation of those people through His death which took away their sin and imputed (or accounted) His own righteousness to them. This is something Christ accomplished on the cross; not something individuals initiate. It is true, as the Scriptures state, that he died for “all men” and that God loves “the whole world”. In these cases “all men” does not mean every individual inclusively for all time including Judas and Pharaoh. Nor does it necessarily follow that Christ died for the whole world because God loves the whole world inclusively. (For a study of these passages see “the all and world passages” in Owen’s Death of Death or in Calvin’s the “all” passages.) Jesus secured the salvation of those for whom He gave his life, and for those God imputes His righteousness upon them. Jesus does not infallibly secure the salvation of all men, for thence, all men would be saved.

As the Maxim goes:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men – which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men – which means men are still in their sins.
3) All of the sin of some men – which is the biblical position.

Those who hold to a deviant “gospel” must grapple with the fact that Jesus does His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by GOD.

It is not that Christ’s power is “limited” but rather His intent or use OF THAT POWER is limited to those for whom He died, and chose.

The “limitation” of the extent is a deciding factor in the Gospel message as to whether one believes that the God of the GOSPEL SAVES, or that men save themselves because Jesus did not save anyone directly, but made it hypothetically possible that they could reach out and save themselves. Hypothetical salvation is no salvation at all.

Jesus died and secured the salvation of all those that the Father gave Him, and that cannot be snatched out of the Father’s hands. It is not that Christ “might save, but that He IS the Savior. He does not lay His life down for all, but for His sheep. He does not give His life for Judas, but only for His friends. It is the church, not the world, which Christ has purchased with His own blood.

John 6:37-40, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Matthew 1:21, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

John 10:15, “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

John 15:13, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Acts 20:28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”

Puritan Quotations on Limited Atonement:

“Election is ascribed to God the Father, sanctification to the Spirit and reconciliation to Jesus Christ. This is the chain of salvation and never a link of this chain must be broken. The Son cannot die for them the Father never elected, and the Spirit will never sanctify them whom the Father has not elected nor the Son redeemed.” Thomas Manton

“Application is the making effectual, in certain men, all those things which Christ has done and does as mediator.” William Ames

“As for the intention of application, it is rightly said that Christ made satisfaction only for those whom he saved.” William Ames

“[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But his unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.” John Owen

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if…” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ’s death; we say, “no my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.” Charles Spurgeon

Copyright (c) 2011 Immutable Word Ministries ("...the word of our God stands forever." Isa. 40:8).