I PARTTEN
3. Non-Christians, who are “related” to the church.34
The third group includes those whom Rahner refers to as “anony- mous Christians.” The fact that people are outside the visible Catholic church (or any Christian church for that matter) does not mean that all of them are apart from the grace of God. Christ died for them as well, and we should not deny this grace. The concepts of degrees of member- ship and anonymous Christians have allowed the church both to g-rant the possibility of grace apart from its sacraments and to maintain its authority at the same time.
There has also been discussion within the church regarding the nature of salvation. There has been a greater openness to the classical Protestant concept of justification. In this regard, Hans King’s work on Karl Barth’s theology has been particularly significant. In the past, Catholicism merged what Protestants term justification and sanctification into one concept, sanctifying grace. King, however, talks about objective and subjective aspects of justification. The former corresponds to what Prot- estants usually refer to as justification. In this aspect of salvation man is passive and God is active. The latter corresponds roughly to what Prot- estants have usually called sanctification; here man is active.35 King
33. Yves Congar, The Wide World My Parish: Salvation and Its Problems (Baltimore:
Helicon, 1961), pp. 101-04.
34. “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” pp. 30-35, sections 13-16.
35. Hans Kiing, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964), pp. 222-35,264-74.
904 Salvation observes that Barth emphasized the former whereas the Council of Trent emphasized the latter. Nonetheless, there is no real conflict between Barth and Trent.36 In addition to the Protestant concept of justification, the Catholic church has become more tolerant of Luther’s interpretation of grace as well.
To summarize: the Catholic church has in recent years been more open to the possibility that some outside of the visible church, and perhaps some with absolutely no claim of being Christians, may be recipients of grace. As a result, the Catholic understanding of salvation has become somewhat broader than the traditional conception. In partic- ular, the current understanding includes dimensions which have usually been associated with Protestantism.
Evangelical Theology
The traditional orthodox or evangelical position on salvation is corre- lated closely with the orthodox understanding of the human predica- ment. In this understanding, the relationship between the human being and God is the primary one. When that is not right, the other dimensions of life are adversely affected as well.
The Scriptures are understood by the evangelical to indicate that there are two major aspects to the human problem of sin. First, sin is a broken relationship with God. The human has failed to fulfil divine expectations, whether by transgressing limitations which God’s law has set or by failing to do what is positively commanded there. Deviation from the law results in a state of guilt or liability to punishment. Second, the very nature of the person is spoiled as a result of deviation from the law. Now there is an inclination toward evil, a propensity for sin. There is a bias, as it were, away from the good, so that the person tends by nature to do evil. Usually termed corruption, this often shows itself in terms of internal disorienta- tion and conflict as well. Beyond that, because we live in the context of a network of interpersonal relationships, the rupture in our relationship with God also results in a disturbance of our relationships with other persons. Sin even takes on collective dimensions: the whole structure of society inflicts hardships and wrongs upon individuals and minority groups.
Certain aspects of the doctrine of salvation relate to the matter of one’s standing with God. The individuals legal status must be changed from guilty to not guilty. This is a matter of one’s being declared just or righteous in Gods sight, of being viewed as fully meeting the divine requirements. The theological term here is justification. One is justified
36. Ibid., pp. 275-84.
Conceptions of Salvation 905
by being brought into a legal union with Christ. More is necessary, however, than merely remission of guilt. Remember that the warm intimacy that should characterize one’s relationship with God has been lost. This problem is rectified by adoption. In adoption one is restored to favor with God and given the opportunity to claim all the benefits pro- vided by the loving Father.
In addition to the need to reestablish one’s relationship with God, there is also a need to alter the condition of one’s heart. The basic change in the direction of one’s life from an inclination toward sin to a positive desire to live righteously is termed regeneration or, literally, new birth.
An actual alteration of one’s character is involved, an infusion of a positive spiritual energy. This, however, is merely the beginning of the spiritual life. There also is a progressive alteration of the individuals spiritual condition; one actually becomes holier. This progressive subjec- tive change is referred to as sanctification (“making holy”). Sanctification finally comes to completion in the life beyond death, when the spiritual nature of the believer will be perfected. This is termed glorification. The individuals maintaining faith and commitment to the very end through the grace of God is perseverance.
As we have done with respect to other issues, we will adopt the evangelical position on salvation. Although God is concerned about every human need, both individual and collective, Jesus made clear that the eternal spiritual welfare of the individual is infinitely more important than the supplying of temporal needs. Note, for example, his advice in Matthew 529-30: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” His rhetorical question in Mark 8:36 makes the same point: “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life [or soul]?” God’s preoccupation with man’s eternal spiritual welfare and the biblical picture of sin are compelling evidence for the evangelical view of salvation. We saw in chapter 27 that sin originates in the individual human through personal voluntary choice in response to temptation. And we observed in chapter 29 the radical and thoroughgoing nature of human sin. This “total de- pravity,” as it is termed, means that a radical and supernatural transfor- mation of human nature is required if forgiveness and restoration to favor with God are to be experienced. Consequently, in the following chapters, we will develop the evangelical view of salvation.
The Antecedent to Salvation:
Predestination --’
rThe Historical Development of the Doctrine Differing Views of Predestination
Calvinism Arminianism Karl Barth
A Suggested Solution Implications of Predestination
0 f all the doctrines of the Christian faith, certainly one of the
most puzzling and least understood is the doctrine of predestination. It
seems to many to be obscure and even bizarre. It appears to others to be
an unnecessary inquiry into something that exceeds the human capacity
to understand. Such theological hairsplitting is considered to have little if
any practical significance. Perhaps more jokes have been made about
this doctrine than about all other Christian doctrines combined. Yet
because the biblical revelation mentions it, the Christian has no option
but to inquire into its meaning. The fact that it is a difhcult and obscure
907
908 Salvation The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination 909 doctrine does not excuse us from the necessity of intensive study and
reflection to determine just what the truth is in this matter.
It is necessary to define precisely what is meant by the term predesti- nution. Although some use it interchangeably with “foreordination” and
“election, “1 for our purposes here “predestination” is midway in specificity between “foreordination” and “election.” “Foreordination” we will regard as the broadest term, denoting God’s will with respect to all matters which occur, whether that be the fate of individual human persons or the falling of a rock. “Predestination” refers to God’s choice of individuals for eternal life or eternal death. “Election” is the selection of some for eternal life, the positive side of predestination.
The Historical Development of the Doctrine
Because there has been a considerable amount of controversy over predestination, and because the different formulations of the doctrine are related to other developments within both theology and culture in general, it will be helpful to introduce the doctrine with a survey of its elaboration through the centuries of the church to the point where the classic formulations were enunciated. As so often is the case with theo- logical matters, the doctrine of predestination was held in somewhat undeveloped form until serious disagreement arose regarding it. In the early years of the church, no exact formulation was devised. There was, particularly in the West, a growing conviction of the sinfulness of humans and of the consequent need for divine transforming grace.2 In general, however, the logical implications of this conviction were not worked out until Augustine. His personal experience of God’s grace enabled him to see more clearly than did others the teaching of Scripture on these matters. We must not think that his experience determined what he found in Scripture. Rather, his experience sensitized him, enabling him to identify with what he found there, and thus to understand it better.
Even before encountering the thought of Pelagius, Augustine had to a considerable extent developed his view of the human situation. He stressed that Adam had begun life truly free.3 The only limitations upon his will and actions were the inherent limitations imposed by the very
1. E.g., Benjamin B. War-field took the position that “‘foreordain’ and ‘predestinate’ are exact synonyms, the choice between which can be determined only by taste”-“Predestin- atiori,” in Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University, 1929), p. 4. War-field uses
“election” to designate what we are here labeling “predestination.”
2. E.g., Tertullian On the Soul 39.
3. Augustine On Rebuke and Grace 33.
nature of humanity. Thus there was, for example, the possibility of change, which included the possibility of turning away from the good.4 When Adam sinned, he became tainted in nature. Now inclined toward doing evil, he transmitted this propensity for sin to his descendants. As a result, the freedom to abstain from evil and do good has been lost. This is not to say that freedom of will in general is gone, but rather that we now invariably use that freedom in ways contrary to God’s intention for US.~ Without divine assistance we are unable to choose and do the good.
The views of Pelagius sharpened Augustine’s thinking, forcing him to extend it beyond its previous bounds. Pelagius, a British monk, had relocated to Rome and had become a fashionable teacher there.6 He was primarily a moralist rather than a theologian per se. Concerned that people live as virtuously as possible, he considered Augustine’s emphasis upon the extreme corruption of human nature and its corollary, human inability, to be both demoralizing to any genuine effort at righteous living and insulting to God as well.’ God made humans different from all of the rest .of the creation; they are not subject to the laws of nature which control the rest of creation. Man has freedom of choice. This gift of God ought to be used to fulfil God’s purposes.8
From this basic principle Pelagius developed his system. The f&t of its tenets is that each person enters the world with a will that has no bias in favor of evil. The fall of Adam has no direct effect upon each human’s ability to do the right and the good, for every individual is directly created by God, and therefore does not inherit from Adam either evil or a tendency to eviL9 Surely the God who forgives each person his or her own sin would not hold any of us responsible for the act of someone else. The only effect of Adam’s sin upon his descendants, then, is that of a bad example. We do not inherit his corruption and guilt. There is no inherent spiritual and moral flaw in us from birth.lO
Further, Pelagius held that God does not exert any special force upon anyone to choose the good. Such influence as he exerts is through external aids. There is no internal work of God upon the soul.’ 1 In particular, he makes no special choice of certain persons to holiness.
4. Augustine The City of God 14.12.
5. Augustine On Man 5 Perfection in Righteousness 9.
6. Although there is some question as to whether Pelagius was actually a monk, he was referred to as a monachus. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York:
Harper and Row, 1960), p. 357.
7. Pelagius Letter to Demetrias 16-17.
8. Ibid., 16.
9. Pelagius Exposition of Remans 5: 15.
10. Pelagius Demetrius 8, 17.
1 I. Augustine On the Gruce of Christ and on Original Sin 1.2,8,36.
910 Salvation The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination 911
Grace is available equally to all persons. It consists of free will, apprehen-
sion of God through reason, and the law of Moses and the example of Christ. Each person has equal opportunity to benefit from these tokens of grace. God is impartial. Progress in holiness is made by merit alone, and God’s predestining of persons is based entirely upon his foreseeing the quality of their lives.12 One might conclude that it is possible to live without sinning. And Pelagius did indeed draw that conclusion. Would God have commanded, “You shall be holy; for I the L
ORDyour God am holy” (Lev. 19:2), and “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), if sinlessness were not a possibility for human beings?
l 3In
response to this position, Augustine developed his view of predesti- nation. He emphasized the seriousness of Adam’s sin and pinned the blame solely on Adam’s own act of will. But that sin was not merely Adam’s All of us were one with him and thus participated in his sin. Since the human soul is derived from one’s parents through the generative process, we were present in Adam and sinned in and with him.i4 This means that all human beings begin life in a seriously marred condition. Augustine does not hold that the image of God has been completely destroyed, but he does maintain that we have lost the libeq.,not to sin, a liberty which Adam had.15 Without God’s grace, we are unable to avoid sin, and to do the good requires an even greater grace. This is not to say that man is not free. Man has options, but those options are all sinful in nature. He is free to choose, but merely to engage in one sin rather than another.16 God’s grace restores complete freedom; it returns to us the option of not sinning and of doing good. This grace, while irresistible, does not work against, but in concert with our wills. God so works in relationship to our wills that we freely choose the good. God, being omniscient, knows precisely under what conditions we will freely choose what he wills, and works in such a way as to bring about those conditions. Without this special working of God, man cannot choose or do good. While man always has free will, he is free to choose and do good only if and when God grants him that freedom.17
This line of argument brings Augustine to predestination. For if we do good only if God chooses to so work in relationship to our will, and if we will infallibly do good if God so wills, our choosing or doing good seems
12 Pelagius Exposition of Remans 9-10; see also 8:29-30.
13 Pelagius On the Possibility of Not Sinning 2.
14 Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.15.
15 Augustine City of God 22.24.2; 13.3, 14.
16 Augustine Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.5; 3.24.
17 Augustine To Simplician-On Various Questions 1.2. 13.
to be entirely a consequence of what God has already willed to do. It is a matter, then, of God’s choosing to give grace to some and not to others.
God has made this choice from all eternity, and has chosen exactly the number needed to replace the fallen angels.la This choice of certain people in no way depends upon his advance awareness of what they will do, for any good deeds of theirs depend instead upon his giving his grace to them.19 There really is no answer to the question of how God decides who will receive his grace and who will be left in their sinful condition.
He simply chooses as he pleases. There is, however, no injustice in this, for justice would result in God’s condemning all. It is only by an act of great compassion that he saves anyone. The condemned receive just what they deserve. The elect receive more than they deserve.
The outspoken attacks of Augustine led to the condemnation of Pela- gianism by the Council of Ephesus in 431, one year after Augustine’s death. What prevailed afterwards, however, was not really a pure Augus- tinianism, but a semi-Pelagianism. Despite the acceptance of many of Augustine’s terms, the doctrine of synergism, which holds that God and man together accomplish what must be done in order for man to be saved, tended to predominate. This position was considered and con- demned by the Synod of Orange in 529. The synod spoke in strong terms of the inability of man and the necessity of divine grace, but did not insist on absolute predestination (i.e., the doctrine that God by an unalterable eternal decree has determined who is to be saved; being totally of God’s grace, salvation in no way depends upon man or what he does) and irresistible grace.20
This milder form of Augustinianism prevailed for several centuries. In the ninth century, Gottschalk defended the doctrine of double predesti- nation-predestination applies equally to the elect and the lost. Gott- schalks views were condemned by a synod of bishops at Mainz in 848.
Controversy ensued. One of the most interesting positions was that taken by Johannes Scotus Erigena. While charging Gottschalk with heresy, Erigena agreed with him in rejecting the idea that God’s predestination is based upon his foreknowledge of what men will do. That had been a rather common way of dealing with the apparent inconsistency between divine predestination and human freedom. It had been advanced partic- ularly by Origen as a solution to the problem. Now, however, Erigena contended that since God is eternal, he sees things as neither past nor
18. Augustine City of God 22. 1.2.
19. Augustine On the Gift of Perseverance 35, 47-48; On the Predestination of the Saints 19.
20. Harry Buis, Historic Protestantism and Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), p. 15.