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).

Spiritual Growth--It's Decline

by Arthur W. Pink

I

First, its nature. That which we are here to be concerned with is what some writers term "backsliding"—a lucid and expressive word that is not employed so often as it should be or once was. Like most other theological terms this one has been made the occasion of not a little controversy. Some insist that it ought not to be applied to a Christian since the expression occurs nowhere in the New Testament. But that is childish: it is not the mere word but the thing itself which matters. When Peter followed His Master "afar off," warmed himself at the enemy’s fire, and denied Him with oaths, surely he was in a backslidden state—yet if the reader prefers to substitute some other adjective we have no objection. Others have argued that it is impossible for a Christian to backslide, saying that the "flesh" in him is never reconciled to God and that the "spirit" never departs from him. But that is mere trifling: it is not a nature but the person who backslides, as it is the person who acts—believes or sins.

It is not because the word backslide is a controversial one that we have preferred "decline," but because the former is applied in Scripture to the unregenerate as well as the regenerate—to professors as such, and here we are confining our attention to the case of a child of God whose spirituality diminishes, whose progress is retarded. There are, of course, degrees in backsliding, for we read of "the backslider in heart" (Prov. 14:14) as well as those who are such openly in their ways and walk. Yet to the great majority of the Lord’s people a "backslider" probably connotes one who has wandered a long way from God, and whom his brethren are obliged to sorrowfully "stand in doubt of." As we do not propose to restrict ourselves to such extreme cases, but rather cover a much wider field, we deemed it best to select a different term and one which seems better suited to the subject of spiritual growth.

By spiritual decline we mean the waning of vital godliness, the soul’s communion with its Beloved becoming less intimate and regular. If the Christian’s affections cool, he will delight himself less in the Lord and there will be a languishing of his graces. Hence spiritual decline consists of a weakening of faith, a cooling of love, a lessening of zeal, an abatement of that whole-hearted devotedness to Christ which marks the healthy saint. The perfections of the Redeemer are meditated upon with less frequency, the quest of personal holiness is pursued with less ardor, sin is less feared, loathed and resisted. "Thou hast left thy first love" (Rev. 2:4) describes the case of one who is in a spiritual decline. When that be the case the soul has lost its keen relish for the things of God, there is much less pleasure in the performance of duty, the conscience is no longer tender, and the grace of repentance is sluggish. Consequently there is a diminishing of peace and joy in the soul, disquietude and discontent more and more displacing them.

When the soul loses its relish for the things of God there will be less diligence in the quest of them. The means of grace though not totally neglected, are used with more formality and with less delight and profit. The Scriptures are then read more from a sense of duty than with a real hunger to feed on them. The throne of grace is approached more to satisfy conscience than from a deep longing to have fellowship with its occupant. As the heart is less occupied with Christ the mind will become increasingly engaged with the things of this world. As the conscience becomes less tender a spirit of compromise is yielded to and instead of watchfulness and strictness there will be carelessness and laxity. As love for Christ cools, obedience to Him becomes difficult and there is more backwardness to rood works. As we fail to use the grace already received, corruptions gain the ascendancy. Instead of being strong in the Lord and in the power of His might, we find ourselves weak and unable to withstand the assaults of Satan.

A born-again Christian will never sink into a state of unregeneracy, though his case may become such that neither himself nor spiritual onlookers are warranted in regarding him as a regenerate person. Grace in the Christian’s heart will never become extinct, yet he may greatly decline with respect to the health, strength, and exercise of that grace, and that from various causes. The Christian may suffer a suspension of the Divine influences to him. Not totally so, for there is ever such a working of God as maintains the being of the spiritual principle of grace (or new nature) in the saint, yet he does not at all times enjoy the enlivening operations of the blessed Spirit on that principle, and its activities are then interrupted for a season, and in consequence, he becomes less conversant with spiritual objects, his graces languish, his fruitfulness declines, and his inward comforts abate. The flesh takes full advantage of this and acts with great violence, and in consequence the Christian is made most miserable and wretched in himself.

If it be asked, Why does God withdraw the gracious operations of His Spirit from His people or suspend His comforting influences, which are so necessary for their walking in Him? Answer may be made both from the Divine side of things and the human. God may do this in a sovereign way, without any cause in the manner of their behavior toward Himself. As He gives five talents to one and only two to another according as seems good in His sight, so He varies the measure of grace bestowed on one and another of His people as best pleases Himself. Should any one be inclined to murmur against this, then let him pay attention to His silencer: "Is it not lawful for mc to do what I will with mine own" (Matthew 20:15). God is supreme, independent, free, and distributes His bounties as He chooses, in nature, in providence, and in grace. God takes counsel with none, is influenced by none, but "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). As such He is to be meekly and cheerfully submitted to.

But it is not only from acting according to His own imperial right that God withdraws from His people the vitalizing and comforting influences of His Spirit. He does so also that He may give them a better knowledge of themselves and teach them more fully their entire dependency upon Himself. By so acting God gives His children to discover for themselves the strength of their corruptions and the weakness of their grace. Though saved from the love, guilt, and dominion of sin, they have not yet been delivered from its power or presence. Though a holy and spiritual nature has been communicated to them, yet that nature is hut a creature—weak and dependent—and can only be sustained by its Author. That new nature has no inherent strength or power of its own: it only acts as it is acted upon by the Holy Spirit. "In the Lord have I righteousness and strength" (Isa. 45:21): every believer is convinced of the former, but usually it is only after many a humiliating experience that he learns his strength is not in himself but in the Lord.

It is rather in a way of chastisement that, in the great majority of instances, God withholds from His people the gracious operations of the Spirit; and that brings us to the human side of things, wherein our responsibility is involved. Ii the saint becomes lax in his use of the appointed means of grace—which are so many channels through which the influences of the Spirit customarily flow—then he will necessarily be the loser and the fault is entirely his own. Or if the Christian trifles with temptations and experiences a sad fall, then the Spirit is grieved and His comforting operations are withheld as a solemn rebuke. Though God still loves his person; He will let him know that He hates his sins, and though He will not deal with him as an incensed Judge, yet He will discipline him as an offended Father; and it may be long before he is again restored to the freedom and familiarity that he formerly enjoyed with Him. (See Isa. 59:2; Jer. 5:25; Hag. 1:9, 10.)

Though God draws not His sword against His erring saints, yet He uses the rod upon them. "If his children forsake my law and walk not in my judgments, if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments, then will I visit transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break nor alter the thing that has gone out of my lips" (Ps. 89:30-34). Then it is our wisdom to "hear the rod" (Micah 6:9), to humble ourselves beneath His mighty hand (1 Peter 5:6) and forsake our folly (Ps. 85:8). If we do not duly repent and amend our ways, still heavier chastisements will be our portion; but "if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). When the Spirit’s influences are withheld from the Christian, it is always the safest course for him to conclude he has displeased the Lord and to cry "Show me wherefore thou contendest with me" (Job 10:2).

Second, its causes. The root cause is failure to mortify indwelling sin, called "the flesh" in Galatians 5:17, which makes constant opposition against "the spirit" or the principle of grace in the soul of believers, A carnal nature is ever present within them, and at no time is it inactive, whether they perceive it or no, Yea, they are often unconscious of many of its stirrings, for it works silently, secretly, subtlety, deceptively, prompting not only to outward acts of disobedience, but producing unbelief, pride and self-righteousness, which are most offensive to the holy One. This enemy in the soul possesses great advantages because its power to rule was unopposed by us all through our unregeneracy, because of its cursed cunning, because of the numerous temptations by which it is excited and the variety of objects upon which it acts. Yet it is our responsibility to keep our hearts with all diligence, to jealously watch over its workings, for the principal part of the "fight" to which the Christian is called consists of continually resisting the uprisings and solicitations of his evil principle: in other words, to mortify them.

The more carefully the believer observes the many ways in which indwelling sin assails the soul, the more will he realize his need of crying to God for help that he may be watchful and faithful in opposing its lustings. But alas we become slack and inattentive to its serpentine windings and are tripped up before we are aware of it. This is stupid folly, and it costs us dearly. By our slothfulness we get a sore wound in the soul, our graces droop, our conscience is defiled, our relish for the Word is dulled, and we lag in the performance of duty. Grace cannot thrive while lust is nourished, for the interests of the flesh and of the spirit cannot be promoted at the same time. And if our corruptions be not resisted and denied, they will, they must, flourish. If the daily work of mortifying the flesh be not diligently attended to, sin will most certainly become predominant in its actings in our hearts. If we fail there, we fail everywhere.

True, the lustings of the flesh cannot be rendered inactive, but we must refuse to provide them with fuel: "make not provision for the flesh unto the lusts thereof" (Rom. 13:14). Those lusts cannot be eradicated, but they can (by the Spirit’s enablement) be refused. There is where the responsibility of the Christian comes in. It is his bounden duty to prevent those lusts occupying his thoughts, engaging his affections, and prevailing with the will to choose objects which are agreeable to them. Take covetousness as an example—a lusting after the empty things of this world. If the mind permits itself to have anxious thoughts for material riches, and the affections to be drawn unto them and pleasing images are formed in the imagination, the lust has prevailed and our conduct will be ordered accordingly. An earnest pursuit after corrupt things preys upon the vitals of true spirituality. The preventative for that is to set our affection upon things above, to make Christ our satisfying portion, and having "food and raiment . . . therewith be content" (1 Tim. 6:8).

It is very evident then that the Christian should spare no pains in seeking to ascertain and be sensibly affected by the real causes of his spiritual decline, for unless he knows from what causes his spiritual decays proceed, he cannot "remember therefore from whence he is fallen" nor truly "repent" of his failures or again "do the first works" (Rev. 2:5); and unless and until he does these very things he will deteriorate more and more. It is equally clear that if there be certain appointed means the use of which promotes spiritual growth and prosperity, then the slighting of those means will inevitably hinder that growth. As the first of those means is the mortifying of the flesh it will be found that slackness at that point is the place where all failure begins. It is sin unmortified and unresisted, yielded to and allowed, and—what is still worse—unrepented of and unconfessed, which brings a blight upon the garden of the soul, Sin unmourned and unforsaken in our affections is more heinous and dangerous than the actual commission of sin.

Closely connected with the mortifying of sins is the Christian’s devoting of himself entirely to God. Christian progress is largely determined by continuing as we began—by the measure in which we steadfastly adhere to the surrender we made of ourselves to Christ at our conversion and to the vows we took upon us at baptism. If our conversion was a genuine one we then renounced the world, the flesh and the devil, and received Christ as our only Lord and Saviour. If our baptism was a Scriptural one and the believer entered intelligently into the spiritual import and emblematic purport of that ordinance, he then professed to have put off the old man, and as he emerged from the water — as one symbolically risen with Christ—he stood pledged to walk in newness of life. As the adult Israelites were "baptized unto Moses" (1 Cor. 10:1, 2)—accepting him as their lawgiver and leader, so those who have been "baptized’ unto Christ, have "put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27) having enlisted under His banner, they now wear His uniform.

The more consistently the believer acts in harmony with the public profession he made in his baptism, the more real progress will he make. Since Christ be "the Captain" of his salvation, lie is under bonds to fight against everything opposed to Him, for "they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again (2 Cor. 5:15). Each day the saint should renew his consecration unto God and live in the realization that "he is not his own, for he is bought with a price"—no longer free to gratify his lusts. The more Christ’s purchase of him be kept fresh in his mind, the more resolutely will lie conduct the work of mortification, It is forgetfulness that we belong to God in Christ which makes us slack in resisting what He hates. It is such forgetfulness and slackness that explains the call "remember therefore from whence thou art fallen" (Rev. 2:5)—i.e., your dedication to God and your baptismal avowal of identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

While there be a healthy desire after God and a delighting of ourselves in Him, an earnest seeking to please Him and the enjoyment of communion with Him, there is necessarily an averseness for sin and a zeal against it. While we have a due sense of our obligations to God and high valuation of His grace to us in Christ, we continue to find duty pleasant and direct our actions to His glory. But when we become less occupied with His perfections, precepts, and promises, other things steal in and little by little our hearts are drawn from Him. The light of His countenance is no longer enjoyed and darkness begins to creep over the soul. Love cools and gratitude to Him wanes and then the work of mortification becomes irksome, and we shelve it. Our lusts grow more unruly and dominant and the garden of the soul is overrun with weeds. In such a case we must "repent" and return to "the first works" (Rev. 2:5)—contritely confess our sinful failures and re-dedicate ourselves unto God.

Again; if the Christian accords not to the Word of God that honor to which it is so justly entitled, he is certain to be the loser. If the Word holds not that place in his affections, thoughts and daily life which its Author requires, then sad will be the consequences. If the soul be not nourished by this heavenly bread, if the mind be not regulated by its instructions, if the walk be not directed by its precepts, disastrous must be the outcome. We must expect God to hide His face from us if we seek Him not in those ways wherein He has promised to meet with and bless us, for such a neglect is both a violation of His ordinance and a disregard of our own good. I may spend as much time in reading the Bible today as ever before, but am I doing so with a definite and solemn treating with God therein? If not, if my approach be less spiritual, if my motive be less worthy, then a decline has already begun, and I need to beg God to revive me, quicken my appetite, and make me more responsive to His injunctions.

Finally; it requires few words here to convince a believer that if there be a decreasing occupation of his heart with Christ, his fine gold will soon become dim. If he ceases to grow in a spiritual knowledge of his Lord and Saviour, if he become lax in desiring and seeking real communion with Him, if he fails to draw from the fulness of grace which is available for His people, then a blight will fall upon all his graces. Faith in Him will weaken, love for Him will abate, obedience to Him slacken, and He will be "followed" at a greater distance. His own words on this point are too clear to admit of mistake: "He that abideth in me and I in him [note the order: we are always the first to make the breach], the same bringeth forth much fruit [his graces are healthy and his life abounds in good works], for severed from Inc [cut off from fellowship] ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). The same things which opposed our first coming to Christ will seek to hinder our cleaving to Him, and against those enemies we must watch and pray.

"Faith which worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6). Since it is "with the heart man believeth" (Rom. 10:10), saving faith and spiritual love cannot be separated—though they may be distinguished. Faith engages the heart with Christ, and therefore its affections are drawn out unto Him. Thus faith is a powerful dynamic in the soul, and acts (to borrow the words of Thomas Chalmers) as "the impulsive power of a new affection." A little child may be amusing itself with some filthy or dangerous object, but present to him a luscious pear or peach and he will speedily relinquish it. The world absorbs the heart and mind of the unregenerate because he is of the world and so knows nothing better, for the Christ of God is a Stranger to him. But the regenerate has a new nature and by faith becomes occupied with Him who is the Center of Heaven’s glory, and the more the mind be stayed upon Him, the less appeal will the perishing things of time and sense make upon him. It is faith in exercise upon its glorious Object which overcometh the world.

II

We have pointed out the deep importance of ascertaining the causes from which spiritual decays proceed, in order to bring us to a due compliance With the injunctions of Revelation 2:5. We cannot turn from that which is injurious and avail ourselves of the remedy until we are conscious of and sensibly affected by those things which have robbed of spiritual health. But let not the young Christian assume a defeatist attitude and conclude that ere long he too will suffer a decline. Prevention is better than cure. To he forewarned is to be forearmed. This aspect of the theme should serve a dual purpose: a warning against such a calamity and as furnishing instruction for those whose graces have already begun to languish. Thus far we have dwelt only on what will be the inevitable consequences if the believer fails to make a diligent and full use of the chief aids to spiritual growth; now we proceed to point out other things which are among the causes of decline.

A slackening in the prayer life will soon lower the level of one’s spiritual health. This is so generally recognized among Christians that there is the less need for us to say much thereon. Prayer is an ordinance of Divine appointment, being instituted both for God’s glory and our good. It is an owning of His supremacy and an acknowledgment of our dependency. On the one hand the Lord requires to be waited on, to be asked for those things which will minister unto our wellbeing; and on the other hand, it is by means of prayer that our hearts are prepared to receive or be denied those things which we desire—for it is essentially a holy exercise in which our wills are brought into harmony with the Divine, A considerable part of our religious life consists in praying, either in public or in private, either orally or mentally; and our spiritual prosperity ever bears a close proportion to the degree of fervor and constancy with which this important duty is attended to. Prayer has been rightly termed "the breath of the new creature," and if our breathing be impeded then the whole system suffers—true alike spiritually and naturally.

But prayer is more than a duty: it is also one of the two principal means of grace, and without it the other (the Word) profits us little or nothing. Since prayer be the breath of the new creature, we need to live in its own element—the atmosphere of Heaven. In order thereto a new and living way has been opened to the throne of grace, whither we may come with boldness and confidence, and there find help. Help for what? For everything needed in the Christian life, more particularly, for enablement to comply with the Divine precepts. That which God requires from us may be summed up irk one word, obedience, and it is only through prayer we obtain strength for the performance thereof. That is partly the meaning of "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). The law reveals mans duty, but it conveys no power for the discharge of it. But grace (as well as truth) comes to us by Jesus Christ as the previous verse tells us, yet there is no other way of receiving out of His fullness except by the prayer of faith,

Prayer is even more than a means of grace: it is a holy privilege, an unspeakable boon, an inestimable favor, and it should be the most delightful of all spiritual exercises. It is by prayer we have access to God and converse with Him, whereby He becomes more and more a living Reality unto the soul. It is then that we draw near to Him and He draws near to us, and there is a sacred converse the one with the other. Thereby we commune with and delight ourselves ilk Him, It is while we are thus engaged that the Spirit graciously fulfills His office work as the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry "Father! Father!" We then find He is more ready to hear than we are to speak. Pleading the merits of Christ we enjoy most blessed fellowship with Him and obtain fresh foretastes of the everlasting bliss awaiting us on high. It is to a reconciled Father we come, and as "his dear children." If we approach in the spirit of the prodigal son, the same welcome awaits us and the same tokens of love are received by us. It is then we are made to exclaim "Thou anointest my head with oil, my cup runneth over" and that we pour out our hearts before Him in praise and adoration,

Now contemplate a slackening of the prayer life in the light of the three things pointed out above, and what must be the inevitable consequences! How can I prosper if I shirk my duty? How can the blessing of God rest upon me if I largely refuse that which He requires from me? If prayer also be one of the chief means of grace and I neglect it, am I not "forsaking my own mercies?" If it be the only channel through which I obtain fresh supplies of grace from Christ shall I not necessarily be feeble and sickly? If my strength be not renewed, how can I successfully resist my spiritual foes? If no power from on high be received, how shall I he able to tread the path of obedience? And if prayer be the principal channel of communion and converse with God, and that holy privilege be lightly esteemed, will not God soon become less real, my heart grow cold, my faith languish, and my joy vanish? Yes, a slackening in the prayer life most certainly entails spiritual decline, with all that accompanies the same.

Sitting under an unedifying ministry. God has appointed and equipped certain men to act as His shepherds to feed His sheep. He speaks of them as "pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer. 13:15). In the ordinary course of events it is His method to employ human instrumentality, and therefore He has provided gifted servants "for the perfecting of the saints" (Eph. 4:11, 12). Satan knows that, and hence he raises up false prophets to deceive and destroy. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 warns us that "such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves in to the apostles of Christ." Nor should we he surprised at this, "for Satan himself is transformed as an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness." Those ministers of his have long held most of the professors’ chairs in the seminaries, thousands have occupied the pulpits of almost every denomination, and the great majority of those who sat under them were corrupted and fatally deluded by a specious mixture of truth and lies; and real Christian is who attended; injuriously affected.

It is because of the presence of these disguised ministers of Satan that God bids His people "Beloved, I believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God, for many false prophets are gone out into the [professing] world" (John 4:1). "Try" them by the unerring standard of Holy Writ: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20). God holds you responsible to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21) and commends those who have "tried those who say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars" (Rev. 2:2). His urgent command to each of His children is, "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth thee to err from the words of knowledge" ( Prov. 21:27). That is not optional but obligatory, and we disregard it at our peril. Listening to false doctrine is highly injurious, for it causes to err from right beliefs and right practices. The ministry we sit under affects us for good or evil, and therefore our Master enjoins us "Take heed what ye hear" (Mark 4:24).

It is of far greater moment than young Christians realize that they heed that which has just been pointed out. The reading matter we peruse and the religious instruction we imbibe has as real an influence and effect upon the mind and the soul as that which ye eat and drink does on the body: if it be corrupt and poisonous its effects will be identical in each case, Proof of that is found in the history of the Galatians. To them the apostle said, "Ye did run well: who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" (5:7), and the answer was, heretics, Judaisers, who perverted the gospel. And the saint to-day is hindered ("driven back," margin) if he attends the preaching of error. Therefore "shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness and their word will eat as doth a canker" (2 Tim. 2:16, 17). The teaching of heretics diffuses a noisome influence, till it eats away the life and power of piety, as a gangrene spreads through a limb.

But one may sit under what is termed a "sound" ministry and, through no fault of his own, derive no benefit from the same. There is a "dead orthodoxy," now widely prevalent, where the truth is preached, yet in an unctionless manner, and if there be no life in the pulpit there is not likely to be much in the pew. Unless the message comes fresh from God, issues warmly and earnestly from the preacher’s heart, and be delivered in the power of the Holy Spirit, it will neither reach the heart of the hearer nor minister that which will cause him to grow in grace. There is many a place in Christendom where a living, refreshing, soul-edifying ministry once obtained, but the Spirit of God was grieved and quenched, and a visit there is like entering a morgue: everything is cold, cheerless, lifeless. The officers and members seem petrified, and to attend such services is to be chilled and become partaker of that deadening influence. A ministry which does not lift the soul Godwards, produce joy in the Lord, and stimulate to grateful obedience, casts the soul down and soon brings it into the slough of despond.

Only the Day to come will reveal how many a babe in Christ had his growth arrested through sitting under a ministry which supplied him not with the sincere milk of the Word. Only that Day will show how many a young believer, in the warmth and glow of his first love, was discouraged and dismayed by the coldness and deadness of the place where he went to worship. No wonder that God so rarely regenerates any under such a ministry: those places would not prove at all suitable as nurseries for His little ones. Many a spiritual decline is to be attributed to this very cause. Then take heed, young Christian, where you attend. If you cannot find a place where Christ is magnified, where His presence is felt, where the Word is ministered in the power of the Spirit, where your soul is actually fed, where you come away as empty as when you went,—then far better to remain at home and spend the time on your knees, feeding directly from God’s Word, and reading that which you do find helpful unto your spiritual life.

Companionship with unbelievers. "Enter not into the path of the wicked and go not in the way of wicked men" (Prov. 4:14). "I have written unto you not to keep company—with the world" (1 Cor 5: 10, 11). The word for "company" there means to mingle: we cannot avoid contact with the unregenerate but we must see to it that our hearts do not become attracted to them. Indeed the Christian is to have good will toward all he encounters, seeking their best interests (Gal. 6:10); but he is to have no pleasure in or complacency toward those who despise his Master. It is forbidden to walk with the profane in a way of friendship. "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14), for familiarity with them will speedily dull the edge of your spirituality. "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33). We cannot disregard these Divine precepts with impunity. "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" (James 4:4). "A companion of fools shall be destroyed" (Prov. 13:20).

But it is not only the openly profane and lawless who are to be shunned by the saint: he needs especially to avoid empty professors. By which we mean, those who claim to be Christians but who do not live the Christian life; those who are "church members" or "in fellowship" with some assembly, but whose conduct is careless and carnal; those who attend service on Sunday, but who may be found at the movies or the dance-hall during the week. The empty professor is far more dangerous as a close acquaintance than one who makes no profession: the Christian is less on his guard with the former, and having some confidence in him is more easily influenced by him. Beware of those who say one thing but do another, whose talk is pious but whose walk is worldly. The Word of God is plain and positive on this point: "Having a form of godliness, but [in action] denying the power [reality] thereof: from such turn away" (2 Tim. 3:5). If you do not, they will soon drag you down with themselves into the mire.

O young Christian, your "companions," those with whom you most closely associate, exert a powerful influence upon you for either good or evil. Far better that you should tread a lonely path with Christ, than that you offend Him by cultivating friendship with religious worldlings. "He that liveth in a mill, the flour will stick upon his clothes. Man receiveth an insensible taint from the company he keepeth. He that liveth in a shop of perfumes and is often handling them carrieth away some of their fragrancy: so by converse with the godly we are made like them" (A Puritan). "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise" (Prov. 13:20). In selecting your closest friend, let not a pleasing personality allure: there are many wolves irk sheep’s clothing. Be most careful in seeing to it that what draws you to and makes you desire the Christian companionship of another is his or her love and likeness to Christ, and not his love and likeness to yourself.

"I am a companion of all that fear thee and of them that keep thy precepts" (Ps. 119:63) should be the aim and endeavor of the child of God, though such characters indeed are very scarce these evil days. They are the only companions worth having, for they alone will encourage you to press forward along the "narrow way." It is not those who profess to "believe in the Lord," but those who give evidence they revere Him; not those who merely profess to "stand for" His precepts, but who actually perform them, that you need to seek out. So far from sneering at your "strictness" they will strengthen you therein, give salutary counsel, be fellow helpers in prayer and piety: the godly will quicken you to more godliness. Their conversation is on sacred topics, and that will draw out your affection to things above. If you are unable to locate any of these characters, then make it your earnest prayer "Let those that fear thee turn unto me and those that know thy testimonies" (Ps. 119:79).

An undue absorption with worldly things. "Worldly" is a term that means very different things in the minds and mouths of different people. Some Christians complain that their minds are "worldly" when they simply mean that, for the time being (and often rightly so), their thoughts are entirely occupied with temporal matters. We do not propose to enter into a close defining of the term, but would point out that the performing of those duties which God has assigned us in the world, or the availing ourselves of its conveniences (such as trains, the telegraph, the printing press), or even enjoying the comforts which it provides (food, clothing, housing), are certainly not "worldly" in any evil sense. That which is injurious to the spiritual life is, time wasted in worldly pleasures, the heart absorbed in worldly pursuits, the mind oppressed by worldly cares. It is the love of the world and its things which is forbidden, and very close watch needs to be kept on the heart, otherwise it will glide insensibly into this snare.

The case of Lot supplies a most solemn warning against this evil. He yielded to a spirit of covetousness and so consulted temporal advantages that the spiritual welfare of his family was disregarded. When Abraham invited him to make choice of a portion of Canaan for himself and his herds, instead of remaining in the vicinity of his uncle, upon whom the blessing of the Most High rested, he "lifted up his eyes (acting by sight rather than by faith) and beheld all the plain of Jordan that it was "veil watered everywhere . . . then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan and Lot journeyed east." Thus, he even went outside the land itself, for we are told "Abraham dwelt in the land of Canaan and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain and pitched his tent toward Sodom" (Gen. 13:8-10). Nor did that content him: he became an alderman in Sodom (Gen. 18:1) and discarded the pilgrim’s "tent" for a "house" (v. 3). How disastrous the sequel was both to himself and his family is well known.

One form of worldliness which has spoiled the life and testimony of many a Christian is politics. We will not now discuss the question whether or not the saint ought to take any interest in polities, but simply point out what should be evident to all with spiritual discernment, namely, that to take an eager and deep concern in politics must remove the edge from any spiritual appetite. Clearly, politics are concerned only with the affairs of this world, and therefore to become deeply absorbed in them and have the heart engaged in the pursuit thereof, will inevitably turn attention away from eternal things. Any worldly matter, no matter how lawful in itself, which engages our attention inordinately, becomes a snare and saps our spiritual vitality. We greatly fear that those saints who spent several hours a day in listening to the speeches of candidates, reading the newspapers on them, and discussing party politics with their fellows during the recent election, lost to a considerable extent their relish for the Bread of Life.

III

Having dwelt at some length on the nature of spiritual decline and pointed out some of the principal causes thereof, a few words should be said on its insidiousness. Sin is a spiritual disease (Ps. 103:3) and, like so many others, it works silently and unsuspected by us, and before we are aware of it our health is gone. We are not sufficiently on our guard against "the deceitfulness of sin" (Heb. 3:13): unless we resist its first workings, it soon obtains an advantage over us. Hence we are exhorted "Take good heed therefore unto yourselves that ye love the Lord your God" (Josh. 23:11), for all spiritual decline may be traced back to a diminution of our love for Him. The love of God is of heavenly extraction, but being planted in an unfriendly soil, it requires guarding and watering. We are not only surrounded with objects which attract our affections and operate as rivals to the blessed God, but have an inward propensity to depart from Him.

In the early stages of the Christian life love is usually fresh and fervent. The first believing views of the gospel fill the heart with amazement and praise to the Lord, and a flow of grateful affection is the spontaneous outcome. The soul is profoundly moved, wholly absorbed with God’s unspeakable gift, and weaned from all other objects. This is what God terms "the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals" (Jer. 2:2). It is then that the one who has found such peace and joy exclaims, "I love the Lord because he hath heard my voice, my supplications [for mercy], because he hath inclined his ear unto me: therefore will I call upon him as long as I live" (Ps. 116:1, 2). At that season the renewed soul can scarcely conceive it possible to forget Him who has done such great things for it or to lapse back in any measure to his former loves and lords. But if after twenty years of cares and temptations have passed over him without producing this effect, it will indeed be happy. There are some who experience no decline, but that is far from being the case with all.

There are those who speak of the Christian’s departing from his first love as a matter of course, who regard it as something inevitable. Not a few elderly religious professors who have themselves become cold and carnal (if they ever had life in them), will seek to bring young and happy Christians to this doleful and God’s dishonoring state of mind. With a sarcastic smile they will tell the babe in Christ, though you are on the mount of enjoyment today, rest assured it will not be long until you come down. But this is erroneous and utterly misleading. Not so did the apostles act towards young converts. When Barnabas visited the young Christians at Antioch, he "saw the grace of God and was glad," and so far from leading them to expect a state of decline from their initial fervor, assurance, and joy, he "exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord" (Acts 11:23). While the great Head of the church, informed the Ephesian saints that He had it against them "because thou hast left thy first love" (Rev. 2:4).

There is no reason or necessity in the nature of things why there should be any abatement in the Christian’s love, zeal, or comfort. Those objects and considerations which first gave rise to them have not lost their force. There has been no change in the grace of God, the efficacy of Christ’s blood, the readiness of the Spirit to guide us into the truth. Christ is still the "Friend of sinners," able to save them unto the uttermost that come to God by Him. So far from there being good or just reason why we should decline in our love, the very opposite is the ease. Our first views of Christ and His gospel were most inadequate and defective: if we follow on to know the Lord, we shall obtain a better acquaintance with Him, a clearer perception of His perfections, His suitability to our ease, His sufficiency. He should, therefore, be more highly esteemed by us. Said the apostle "this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment" (Phil. 1:9). So far from himself relapsing, as he neared the end of his course, forgetting the things that were behind, he reached forth to those that were before.

To decline in our love is quite unnecessary and to be lamented, but to attempt a vindication of it is highly reprehensible. It would be tantamount to arguing that we were once too spiritually minded, too tender in conscience, too devoted to God. That we were unduly occupied with Christ and made too much of Him: that we overdid our efforts to please Him. It is also practically to say, we did not find that satisfaction in Christ which we expected, that we obtained not the peace and pleasure in treading Wisdom’s ways that we looked for, and, therefore, that we were obliged to seek happiness in returning to our former pursuits, and thereby we confirmed the sneer of our old companions at the outset, that our zeal would soon abate and that we would return again to them. To such renegades God says "O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me" (Micah 6:3).

The fact remains, however, that many do decline from their first love, though they are seldom aware of it until some of its effects appear. They are like foolish Samson, who had trifled with temptations and displeased the Lord, and who "awoke out of his sleep and said, I will go out as at other times before, and shake myself. And he wist not that the Lord was departed from him" (Judges 16:20). Yielding to sin blinds the judgment, and we are unconscious that the Spirit is grieved and that the blessing of God is no longer upon us, Our friends may perceive it and feel concerned because of the same, but we ourselves are not aware of it. Then it is those solemn words accurately describe our case: "strangers have devoured his strength, and he knows it not; yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth not" (Hos. 7:9)! "Gray hairs" are a sign of the decay of our constitution and of approaching decrepitude: so there are some signs which tell of the spiritual decline of a Christian, but usually he is oblivious to their presence.

We will turn now and point out some of the symptoms of spiritual decline. Since sin works so deceitfully and Christians are unconscious of the beginnings of retrogression, it is important that the signs thereof should be described. Once again we find that the natural adumbrates the spiritual, and if due attention is paid thereto, much that is profitable for the soul may be learned therefrom. Constipation is either due to self-neglect or a faulty diet, and when sin clogs the soul it is because we have neglected the work of mortification and failed to eat "the bitter herbs" (Ex. 12:8). Loss of appetite, paleness of countenance, dullness of eye, absence of energy, are so many evidences that all is not well with the body and that we are on the way to a serious illness unless things soon are righted: and each of those has its spiritual counterpart. Irritability, inability to relax, and loss of sleep, are the precursors of a nervous breakdown, and the spiritual equivalents are a call "return unto thy rest O my soul" (Ps. 116:7).

In cases of leprosy, real or supposed, the Lord gave orders that the individual should be carefully examined, his true state ascertained, and judgment given accordingly. And just so far as a spiritual disease is more odious and dangerous than a physical one, by so much is it necessary for us to form a true judgment concerning it. Every spot is not a leprosy! and every imperfection in a Christian does not indicate he is in a spiritual decline. Even the apostle Paul groaned over his inward corruptions, and confessed He had not yet attained nor was he already perfect, but pressed forward to the mark for the prize of the high calling. Yet those honest admissions were very far from being acknowledgments that he was a backslider or that he had given way to an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. Great care has to be taken on either side, lest on the one hand we call darkness light and excuse ourselves, or on the other call light darkness and needlessly write bitter things against ourselves.

Undoubtedly more are in danger of doing the former than the latter. Yet there are Christians, and probably not a few, who wrongly depreciate themselves, draw erroneous conclusions and suppose their case is worse than it is. For instance, there are those who grieve because they are no longer conscious of that energetic zeal, of those fervent and tender affections, which they were sensible of in the day of their espousals. But a change in their natural constitution, from an increase of years, will account for that. Their animal spirits have waned, their natural energy has diminished, their mental faculties are duller. But though there be less tender and warm feelings, there may be more stability and depth in them, Many things relating to the present world, which in our youth would produce tears, will not have that effect as we mature, though they may lay with greater weight on our spirits. To confuse the absence of the brightness and excitement of youth with spiritual decline and coldness is a serious mistake.

On the other hand every departure from God must not be reckoned a mere imperfection, which is common to all the regenerate. Alas, the tendency with writer and reader alike is to flatter himself that his "spot" is only "the spot of God’s children" (Deut. 32:5), or such as the best of Christians are subject to; and therefore to conclude there is nothing very evil or dangerous about it. Though we may not pretend or deny that we have any faults, yet are we not ready to regard them lightly and say of some sin, as Lot said of Zoar "is it not a little one?" Or to exclaim unto one we have wronged, "What have we done so much against thee?" But such a self-justifying spirit evidences a most unhealthy state of heart and is to be steadfastly resisted. The apostle Paul spoke of a certain condition of soul which he feared he should find in the Corinthians: that of having sinned and yet not repented for their deeds, and where that is the case spiritual decay has reached an alarming stage. Here are some of the symptoms of spiritual decline.

1. Waning of our love for Christ. If the Lord Jesus is less precious to our souls than He was formerly, in His person, office, work, grace, and benefits, whatever we may think of ourselves, we have assuredly gone back. If we have a lower esteem of the Lover of our souls, if our delight in Him was decreased, if our meditation upon His perfections are more infrequent, if we commune less with Him, then grace in us has certainly suffered a relapse. It is the nature of certain plants to turn their faces towards the light: so it is of indwelling grace to strongly incline the heart unto heavenly objects and to take pleasure therein. But if we neglect the means of grace, are not careful to avoid sinful pleasures, or suffer ourselves to be weighted down by the concerns and cares of this life, then will our affections indeed be dampened and our minds rendered vain and carnal. As it is only by acts of faith on the glory of Christ that we are changed into His image (2 Cor. 3:18), so a diminishing of such views of Him will cause our hearts to become chilled and lifeless.

2. Abatement of our zeal for the glory of God. As the principle of grace in the believer causes him to have assurance of Divine mercy to him through the Mediator, so it inspires concern for the Divine honor. As that principle is healthy and vigorous it will cause us to refuse whatever displeases and dishonors God and His cause, and inspire us to practice those duties with a peculiar pleasure which are most conducive to the glory of God, and which give the clearest evidence of our subjection to the royal scepter of Christ. If the new nature be duly nourished and kept lively, it will influence us to bring forth fruit unto the praise of God; but if that new nature be starved or become sickly, our concern for God’s glory will greatly decrease. If we have become less conscientious than formerly of whether our conduct become or bring reproach upon the holy Name we bear, then that is a sure mark of our spiritual decline.

3. Loss of our spiritual appetite. Was there not a time, dear reader, when you could truly say "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy Word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (Jer. 15:16)? If you cannot honestly affirm that today, then you have retrograded. You may indeed be a keener "Bible student" than ever before and spend more time than previously in searching the Scriptures, but that proves nothing to the point. It is not an intellectual interest but a spiritual relish for the Bread of life that we are now treating of. Do we really savor the things that be of God: the precepts as well as the promises, the portions that search and wound as well as comfort? Do we not merely wish to understand its prophecies and mysteries, but really "hunger and thirst after righteousness"? If we prefer ashes to the heavenly manna, the "husks" which the swine feed on to the fatted calf—secular literature than sacred—then that is an evident sign of spiritual decline.

4. Sluggishness or drowsiness of mind. One is in a sad frame when exercise before God and communion with Him are supplanted by carnal ease. In spiritual torpor it is much the same as in the natural: our senses are no longer exercised to discern good and evil, we neither see nor hear as we ought, nor can we be impressed and affected by spiritual objects as we should be. While in such a condition spiritual duties are neglected, or at most performed perfunctorily and mechanically, so that we are none the better for them. If spiritual duties be attended to from custom or conscience rather than from love, they neither honor God nor profit ourselves. Though the outward exercise be gone through, the spirit of it is lacking, the heart is no longer in them. Those who read the Bible or say their prayers as a matter of form or habit perceive no change in themselves: but those who are accustomed to treat with God in them, and then discover a disinclination thereto, may know that grace in them has languished. If we have no delight in them we are in a sad case.

5. Relaxing in our watchfulness against sin. The want of alertness in guarding against all that is evil, under a quick and tender sense of its loathsome nature, is a sure sign of spiritual decline, Refusing to keep our hearts with all diligence, indifference to the working of our corruptions, trifling with temptations without, are certain evidences of the decay of personal holiness. When the new nature is healthy and vigorous, sin is exceedingly sinful to the saint, because he then has a clear and forcible apprehension of its malignity and contrariety to God, and that maintains in him a holy indignation against it. While the mind is engaged in considering the awful price which was paid for the remission of our sins, a detestation of evil is stirred up in the heart, and that is attended with strict watchings, for the renewed soul cannot countenance that which was the procuring cause of his Savior’s death. Such an exercise of grace has been obstructed if sin now appears less heinous and there is less care in maintaining a watch against it.

6. Attempting to defend our sins. There are some sins which all know are indefensible, but there are others which even professing Christians seek to justify. It is almost surprising to see what ingenuity people will exercise when seeking to find excuses where sin is concerned. The cunning of the old serpent which appeared in the excuses of our first parents seems here to supply the place of wisdom. Those possessing little perspicuity in general matters are singularly quick-sighted in discovering every circumstance that appears to make in their favor or serves to extenuate their fault. Sin, when we have committed it, loses its sinfulness, and appears a very different thing from what it did in others. When a sin is committed by us, it is common to give it another name—covetousness becomes thrift, malignant contentions fidelity for the truth, fanaticism zeal for God—and thereby we become reconciled to it and are ready to enter on a vindication, instead of penitently confessing and forsaking it.

7. Things of the world obtaining control of us. In proportion as the objects of this scene have power to attract our hearts, to that extent is faith inoperative and ineffectual. It is the very nature of faith to occupy us with spiritual, heavenly, and eternal objects, and as they become real and precious our affections are drawn out to them, and the baubles of time and sense lose all value to us. When the soul is communing with God, delighting itself in His ineffable perfections, such trifles as our dress, the furnishing of our homes, the glittering show made by the rich of this world, make no appeal to us. When the Christian is ravished by the excellency of Christ and the inestimable portion or heritage he has in Him, the pleasures and vanities which charm the ungodly will not only have no allurement but will pall upon him. It therefore follows that when a Christian begins to thirst after the things of time and sense and evinces a fondness for them, his grace has sadly declined. Those who find satisfaction in anything pertaining to this life have already forsaken the Fountain of living waters and hewed them out broken cisterns that hold no water (Jer. 2:13).

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