Dec

3

Is My Church Semi-Pelagian?

December 3, 2007 |

Posted by vancemac · Filed Under Evangelicalism, Calvinism/Arminianism 

I attend an Assembly of God Church, one that my extended family has been attending for more than 60 years. While I have many “issues” with the doctrines and practices of the denomination, I find that I can happily set these aside and worship and fellowship in this church. But given the ongoing Calvinist-Arminian debate here and elsewhere, I decided to check out the A/G’s official position on that topic. While I knew that it was generally Arminian (as are most Pentecostal churches), when I read the following on the Assembly of God website, I wondered if they might actually be considered “semi-Pelagian”. What do you think?

After some discussion and Scripture on the sovereignty of God, the paper states the following:

“Over against these statements of God’s sovereignty, we have the Genesis account of God’s earliest interaction with human beings. When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, God did not excuse them by saying it was His fault they had disobeyed. Instead, He laid the full penalty of the sin of disobedience on them, although at the same time He gave them a promise of salvation and escape from the penalty of their disobedience. In addition to this example of humankind’s responsibility, we also have a direct statement of Scripture: “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4,20, NKJV). Joshua’s challenge to the Israelites is a challenge for today: “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15, NIV). “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). God does not force individuals to sin. Yet He has ordained a penalty for voluntary sin that must be paid. Every call to repentance in Scripture is an indication that God has given to humankind a free will which can choose right or wrong.

How do we bring together these two seemingly exclusive truths: God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will? In God’s great design for His creation, He desired freely given allegiance rather than robotic response to His will. Voluntary love and obedience are much better than automatic, predetermined responses. God created humankind with the option of loving and obeying Him, even though it meant that some would choose not to give allegiance to His rule. Freely given love is more valued than forced or parroted expressions. Since God has chosen to give humankind a free will, His sovereignty is not destroyed.

A related issue that raises a similar question is the providence of God. By definition, God’s providence is His faithful and loving provision for the needs of all His creation, for His own children as well as for those who reject His offer of salvation. To believers, the promise is given, “My God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians. 4:19, NASB). But the Bible also affirms kindness even to those who deny His Lordship: “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). If God is good as His providential care for His creation suggests, one might wonder why people, especially God’s children, suffer and experience serious setbacks.

The same explanation serves to answer this question. Desiring voluntary love and obedience from His creation, God provides a free-will choice for all humans. Sin entered the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Man is appointed to die because sin reigns in our fallen physical world. Becoming a Christian does not cancel the physical judgment that rests on all humankind. If it did, everyone would become a Christian just to avoid pain and suffering. But one can choose to acknowledge God’s authority even though pain and suffering are still part of our earthly existence. When we accept Christ our free will chooses allegiance to God, believing that He has ultimately overcome Satan, sin, suffering, and death, and believing that the heavenly reward that awaits us makes all the suffering and pain of this life worthwhile. Mature Christians understand that God’s providential care for His creation is not destroyed just because physical laws of sin and death are still part of our temporary earthly existence.

With this understanding of God’s sovereignty, providence, and humankind’s free will, another question is raised. Can we in any sense alter God’s plan or will for our lives through our choices or our prayers? God in His providence always desires what is best for His children, in fact, for all of His creation. But He still recognizes our freedom to make choices, even when they are not in our best interest or in keeping with His desire that all persons would be saved. While our choices may keep us from reaching the high design God has for each of our lives, such willful failure in no way defeats God’s greater design for His kingdom. He will accomplish His larger purposes through other vessels if we choose not to respond to His loving overtures of salvation and righteousness. God is still sovereign, and neither Satan nor human free will can thwart that sovereignty. But God does not use His omnipotent sovereignty to violate the free will He has chosen to give all humankind.”


Comments

3 Comments so far

  1. Steve Moore on December 4, 2007 9:49 am

    Vance,

    Thanks for your openness and willingness to approach this subject. I wish to respond in a manner which will be understood as my attempt to provide you with an objective response to your objective question. In other words, I dont want my comments to be taken as directed at you in any way, but instead at the information you’ve provided. Cool? ;^)

    Having said all that, I think the answer is somewhat indeterminate. I view this issue like a spectrum, with full blown Pelagianism on one end and the Hyper-Calvinist on the other. (maybe there are other extremes, but you get the picture).

    I’d say this view falls at or between Semi-pelagian and very Arminian but I cant pinpoint exactly where. Why? Well, classical Arminianism embraces the doctrine of total depravity to avoid Pelagianism and the above statements seem to avoid making that case. I would think if they did agree with it, this would be the logical and necessary place to state their view. They dont go so far as to deny it, or to say that the only reason people sin is because of the bad example of Adam and Eve like Pelagianism, but they do give me that impression.

    So while there is not enough information here (at least for me) to make a definitive assessment, I think that there is enough which isn’t said that would cause me to ask some more questions or dig a bit deeper.

    I hope my comments have been helpful, and perhaps others can add further insight.

    -steve

  2. vancemac on December 4, 2007 10:03 am

    I think you are right, and that they are definitely on the far end of Arminianism, in the least. Oddly, in another paper, they set out the Arminian and Calvinist and say that they see truth in both sides and “lean toward” the Arminian side, as if they are pretty moderate. I don’t have any vested interest in their theological position, since I don’t think I need to agree entirely with them to attend there. But I do find it interesting.

    I will have to look at the “Total Depravity” position in more detail, but my guess is that they agree with it in principle, but then hold other positions that don’t quite fit with it.

  3. Steve Moore on December 4, 2007 10:39 am

    Vance,

    Sounds like a plan to me. ;^)

    As Roger Olsen described it, TD was definitely in Arminianism but prevenient grace is the “solution” for overcoming the TD, allowing moral agents to make a libertarian type of free choice.

    hth,

    -steve

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats