The Battle for Grace Alone
Written by R.C. Sproul |
Thursday, April 25, 2024
The operative word in Augustine’s view is that regenerating grace is monergistic. It is the work of God alone. Pelagius rejected the doctrine of monergistic grace and replaces it with a view of synergism, which involves a work of cooperation between God and man.
The early part of the fifth century witnessed a serious controversy in the church that is known as the Pelagian controversy. This debate took place principally between the British monk Pelagius and the great theologian of the first millennium, Augustine of Hippo. In the controversy, Pelagius objected strenuously to Augustine’s understanding of the fall, of grace, and of predestination. Pelagius maintained that the fall affected Adam alone and that there was no imputation of guilt or “original sin” to Adam’s progeny. Pelagius insisted that people born after the fall of Adam and Eve retained the capacity to live lives of perfect righteousness unaided by the grace of God. He argued that grace “facilitates” righteousness but is not necessary for it. He categorically rejected Augustine’s understanding that the fall was so severe that it left the descendents of Adam in such a state of moral corruption that they were morally unable to incline themselves to God. The doctrines of Pelagius were condemned by the church in 418 at a synod in Carthage.
Though Pelagianism was rejected by the church, efforts soon emerged to soften the doctrines of Augustine. In the fifth century the leading exponent of such a softening was John Cassian. Cassian, who was the abbot of a monastery in Gaul, together with his fellow monks, completely agreed with the condemnation of Pelagius by the synod in 418, but they objected equally to the strong view of predestination set forth by Augustine. Cassian believed that Augustine had gone too far in his reaction against the heresy of Pelagius and had departed from the teachings of some of the church fathers, especially Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome. Cassian said that Augustine’s teaching on predestination “cripples the force of preaching, reproof, and moral energy…plunges men into despair and introduces a certain fatal necessity.” This reaction against the implied fatalism of predestination led Cassian to articulate a position that has since become known popularly as “semi-Pelagianism.” Semi-Pelagianism, as the name implies, suggests a middle ground between Pelagius and Augustine. Though grace facilitates a life of righteousness, Pelagius thought it was not necessary. Cassian argues that grace not only facilitates righteousness, but it is an essential necessity for one to achieve righteousness. The grace that God makes available to people, however, can and is often rejected by them.
-
Jesus Knows Exactly Who He has Called and What He has Called You to
Jesus knows what he asks of us as his disciples. He knows what we’ll have to bear. He isn’t taken by surprise by any of it. And just as he died for all the sins he knew you would commit even before you did it, he chose you to be his before the foundation of the earth and committed you to faithful obedience – knowing precisely what that would entail – because he wants to spend eternity with you.
Two thoughts (both wrong) often crop up in the believer’s mind. The first is that this sin is really the one that will put us beyond reconciliation. We kind of accept Jesus died for our sin, but we wonder whether this particular one might just put us beyond his reach. He couldn’t possible forgive this one. If only he knew this was coming he would never have accepted me in the first place.
In truth, this sort of thinking is more like the accusations from Satan. The Devil loves to tempt us into sin and, when we fall into it, loves to get us thinking that Jesus will never have us now. But you won’t find anything in the mouth of Jesus or anywhere in the pages of scripture that come close to ever suggesting this is the case.
In fact, the truth is that Jesus knew you would do this particular sin before he died for it. As God, in eternity past with his Father, Jesus chose a people for himself and he took great joy in choosing them. He knew all about them, he knew how they would sin, he knew what they were like and he chose them nevertheless. He went to the cross not only knowing who he was dying for, but what he was dying for.
None of your sin takes Jesus by surprise. He knew you were going to do it even before you knew you were going to do it. He paid for it at the cross knowing you were going to do it long before you did it, before you knew you were going to do it, before you even existed to know anything at all! Jesus knows all about you and your sin. He knows exactly what he is getting into when he said, ‘I want them’. He knew the sins he was paying for and he paid for them. Not just some of them, or the worst of them, but all of them.
What that means is there is no sin you can commit that will remove you from the love of Christ if you truly belong to him. The sign that you truly belong to him is that you repent. But if you are a repentant believer, Jesus is sat with his Father reminding him as our advocate that this is just another of those sins that he has already paid for at the cross. It was a sin they both knew was going to be committed by you, which was paid for 2000 years ago and which didn’t put them off choosing you in the first place.
That is the essence of what Paul says in Romans 8:38-39.
Read MoreRelated Posts:
.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning. -
What Is Christian Nationalism?
One major reason for optimism in the Christian nationalist fold is that they have evidently learned from the failures of the conservative movement and are working on developing a positive program, not merely a defensive strategy. And they have a convincing, historically-based case that highlights the deep imprint of America’s Protestant character that remains even today, however trampled upon and bruised.
The subject of Christian nationalism generates little light but much heat.
Since at least the publication of Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in 2006, the ruling class has used the term as a club to bludgeon evangelicals—especially in the wake of their prodigious support for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Christian nationalists, the mainstream press tells us, are racist, QAnon-addled election deniers. They want to Make America Puritan Again (in the modern, badly misunderstood meaning of that word). And they believe that the Constitution should be set aside for a Christian divine-right king who will oversee forced religious conversions and impose draconian moral codes upon an unwilling populous.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin has called Christian nationalism “an authoritarian, racist, dogmatic message donning the cloak of Christianity,” asserting that the GOP is “dedicated to imposing White Christian nationalism” on the country. A coterie of chin-stroking panels hosted by D.C. think tanks, “democracy” experts and sociologists, and (former) Republican members of Congress have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
Evangelicals who aspire to be accepted by the ruling elite make a point of agreeing in full with the received view. Christianity Today editor-in-chief Russell Moore described Christian nationalism as “liberation theology for white people.” David French, who never misses the chance to steamroll his fellow evangelicals in the New York Times, called it “a blueprint for corruption, brutality, and oppression.”
The riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 has been packaged as the perfect showcase of Christian nationalism’s devastating consequences for America. All Americans are required to say that Christian Trump supporters tried to overturn “our sacred democracy” and made an idol of Trumpism at the expense of their eternal souls. (Ethics Professor Daniel Strand has conclusively shown that critics flew to this ready-made narrative before any evidence was presented.)
Mainstream conservatives, for their part, generally argue that liberals indiscriminately and unfairly employ the label against all conservatives, who are for the most part not Christian nationalists but patriotic Americans. However, as that contrast implies, this defense of conservatism takes for granted that the ruling class portrait is an accurate one: Christian nationalism stamps out religious freedom and coerces people into false belief. As Hillsdale College’s D.G. Hart wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that was published close to Independence Day, Christian nationalists long to return the nation to “pre-1776 patterns of government, such as John Calvin’s Geneva or John Winthrop’s Boston,” where “the civil magistrate supported churches and cajoled citizens to practice faith.” Conservatives like Hart worry that Christian nationalists will drag us back, Handmaid’s Tale-style, to a benighted age that we worked very hard to leave behind.
Both the Left and a good portion of the Right then agree that Christian nationalism ought to be rejected by all good and decent Americans. But does it truly represent the ultimate threat to the American republic? Is it the dying gasp of a hidebound folk religion that signifies the closing stage of a less-refined epoch? Is this how Christian nationalists understand themselves?
While the Claremont Institute takes no institutional position on the question, we must take Christian nationalism seriously. The debate over it represents a new stage in the ongoing realignment of our politics and culture, touching directly on how Americans should regard and relate to ultimate questions of the human soul and the highest good. The rise of Christian nationalism, along with post-liberalism, Catholic integralism, and other overlapping yet distinct attempts to answer the deepest theological-political questions facing our nation, speaks to mounting levels of dissatisfaction with our current failing paradigm. Wishing away this obvious reality and holding fast to the dead consensus will only fuel greater levels of discontent with the status quo and heighten the chances of our nation’s disintegration.
Just as President Trump’s first presidential run offered the opportunity for a searching reconsideration of the post-Cold War political consensus, the rise of Christian nationalism likewise offers us the same opportunity in the realm of church and state.
Who Are You?
Critics like to suggest that the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement are universally members of an outlandish coalition: explicit pro-MAGA churches; pastors who hold star-spangled, “patriotic” services; Charismatic snake handlers; prosperity Gospel grifters; and Donald Trump’s less-than-orthodox circle of evangelists. Though these groups publicly promote a certain strain of Christianity, they are not supplying the leading theological and political arguments for Christian nationalism (even though they may reside somewhere in the fold).
Rather, the group leading the Christian nationalist movement is a small pan-Protestant coalition of Christians from multiple denominations (e.g., Presbyterians, Baptists, and Anglicans) who want to restore the political theology of the Magisterial Reformers. Works in this tradition include Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi, Theodore Beza’s The Right of Magistrates, and Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex. And pivotal Protestant confessions that inculcate such views are the original Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, the Irish Articles, and the Thirty-Nine Articles.
The arguments that buttress this project are limited to a few books—with just one systematic treatment among them so far, Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism—a number of lengthy essays (some of whose authors do not even call themselves Christian nationalists), and assorted private group chats. There are no foundations or nonprofits solely dedicated to advancing Christian nationalism. Very few institutions would dare publish anything sympathetic with its aims.
Christian nationalists see themselves as leading a counterrevolution against the post-World War II order. In a bracing series of aphorisms in his book’s epilogue, Wolfe describes the Left as the managers of New America who have long since discarded the founders’ Constitution. They have captured virtually every major public institution and are working zealously to stamp out any vestige of Old America, with its heroes, traditions, and ways of life. The inheritance our forefathers left us has been rejected in favor of a toxic cocktail of oligarchy, feminism, transgenderism, and wokeism. Even the U.S. military, once thought unassailable, is in service to the Global American Empire—an online moniker given to America’s imperial project of exporting “universal principles” (in truth particularist claims that benefit certain “dispossessed classes”) to foreign lands. All told, Wolfe asserts, “Americans live under an implicit occupation; the American ruling class is the occupying force.”
Christian nationalists see the suppression of traditional Christian teachings and practices in public as a defining element of this occupation. This includes: a series of disastrous Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment’s religion clauses; hoary clichés such as the “neutral” public square and the supposedly impregnable “wall of separation” between church and state; and “religious liberty” that allows Christian business owners to be sued into oblivion. As Kurt Hofer has noted at The American Mind, Christians “have accepted the terms of battle dictated to us by liberalism—we have, in effect, already conceded defeat.”
The pushback to our current regime has either been completely ineffective or nonexistent. The modern conservative movement’s often facile and uncritical embrace of open markets, open trade, and (in many cases) open borders has helped strip mine America of its once plentiful resources and contributed to our present disorders. Meanwhile, Wolfe argues that a group of Protestant regime theologians have been busy reconciling evangelicals to their dhimmitude status, ensuring that they will never pose a threat to unraveling the 21st-century moral consensus.
Longhouse Nation
According to Christian nationalists, America’s men inhabit the Longhouse. In First Things, the anonymous writer L0m3z described that now ubiquitous online term as the “overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior.” Christian nationalists argue that modern feminism’s fatwa against “toxic” masculinity pathologizes healthy masculine virtues and renders men subservient and docile. Innumerable pits of quicksand are ready to engulf any man who makes a wayward step: kangaroo tribunals led by college administrators ready to prosecute the merest suspicion of sexual misconduct, heavily biased family courts, and phalanxes of white knights and doxxers on social media apps who seek to destroy the lives of those who run afoul of regime-approved orthodoxies.
Amidst this carnage, Zoomers and young Millennials are searching for a path by which they can achieve greatness, excellence, self-mastery, and vitality. This is why men in these circles have exhorted being in good shape, lifting weights, and eating right—not due to a base materialism but because preserving the physical body is an implication of the Sixth Commandment. And they champion other aims, including getting (and staying) married and having kids, building productive households, buying land and establishing anti-fragile homesteads, and being engaged in every facet of their local communities.
Above all, Christian nationalists reject the status to which Christians have been assigned: naïve patsies who believe that Christ’s teachings mandate the destruction of one’s nation and people. They want nothing to do with year-zero theology, the notion that Christianity best flourishes when Christians have no political power and face routine persecution and martyrdom.
Instead, they are looking to recover the collective will of Christians and confidently assert their interests in public. They would heartily agree with Kevin Slack’s cri de cœur made in this publication that Christianity “must once again become a fighting faith, the inheritance of the battles of Edington, Tours, and Lepanto.”
Defender of the Faith
How, exactly, can a nation be Christian? Crucially, according to Wolfe, the term does not imply that every citizen needs to be a believer. Instead, Christian nations exist when “everyday life is invested and adorned with Christianity (e.g., Christian manners and expectations) and when life orients around distinctly Christian practices such as the worship of God (e.g., sabbath observance).”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Evangelicals for Kamala?
The evangelical world still holds a powerful weapon in its hands. Because of the electoral college, what really matters in elections is what happens in each states. In 2020 Biden beat Trump in Arizona by 10,935 votes. In Georgia, Biden won by 14,152 votes. In Wisconsin, Biden won by 20,546 votes. That’s a total of around 46,000 votes in an election where the total number of votes cast was over 150 million.
David French is at it again. In the New York Times he recently pinned an opinion piece entitled To Save Conservativism from Itself, I Am Voting for Harris. Now he is making his rounds on anti-Christian platforms like MSNBC. He is also part of a movement called “Evangelicals for Kamala.” French was blocked from a round-table discussion at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) this past summer, but he is welcomed with open arms by those who hate Christianity. You can tell a lot about a man by who his friends are.
I voted for Donald Trump in the last two presidential elections and I will be voting for him again. See the reasons for my vote four years ago in an article on the Aquila Report: Why I Am Voting for President Trump – Again!.
My goal here is not to discuss all of the political issues surrounding this presidential election. If you have not made up your mind on these issues, then you are probably sinking in spiritual quicksand. I simply want to remind the reader of two things—how critical this election is, and what part evangelicals must play in it. Elections have consequences.
The great battle in America in this election is not between personalities, or even between political parties. There is a war going on in this nation between Christianity and Marxism (I prefer the term Neo-Marxism). Neo-Marxism has captured all of the major institutions in this country including the federal government, the educational institutions, the media, and even the military. Now, it is infiltrating the church. See Megan Basham’s book on Shepherds for Sale. The Church was sleeping while the enemy sowed his seeds.
Kamala Harris is a puppet for the power behind her campaign which is Neo-Marxism. Trump with all his failures, sins, inconsistencies, and fiascos holds some hope for Christianity, or at least the last flicker of what is left of Christianity in this nation. Trump is no savior. Some of his positions are anti-Christian, but he may be able to buy us a little more time to fight for biblical liberty and freedom in America.
Four more years of Neo-Marxist insanity will either make America a third world country or bring about a civil war. Our foreign adversaries are ready to take advantage of our weakness and to shame us. Kamala Harris with lipstick and high-heals cannot negotiate with the likes of men as Putin or Xi Jinping.
The evangelical world still holds a powerful weapon in its hands. Because of the electoral college, what really matters in elections is what happens in each states. In 2020 Biden beat Trump in Arizona by 10,935 votes. In Georgia, Biden won by 14,152 votes. In Wisconsin, Biden won by 20,546 votes. That’s a total of around 46,000 votes in an election where the total number of votes cast was over 150 million. Probably, if evangelicals had turned out in full force and voted for Trump, the results of the election (even discounting fraud) would have been different. That’s a lot of power in the hands of evangelicals.
The bottom line is that if movements like “Evangelicals for Kamala” have only a minimal influence over evangelicals, then it may push the election in the favor of Kamala Harris and her coterie of Neo-Marxists. According to a Gallup Poll, the Trump vote by white evangelicals declined from 2016 to 2020 by about 4%. With all the anti-Trump rhetoric that came out of evangelical networks, that sounds about right. This 4% decline in the white evangelical vote was probably enough to defeat Trump in 2020.
I hope evangelicals will rise up and choose to have a major impact in this election. We do live in a democracy. We are not living in the New Testament age where Christians had no freedom or responsibility to vote.
If need be, hold your nose, and vote for Trump. “Evangelicals for Harris” will have a tremendous influence with their purity claims and their guilt manipulation. All they need is a small incremental change for Kamala to win. Remember, too, that refusing to vote for Trump guarantees a victory for Harris.
Will the influence of men like David French carry the day in the evangelical church by switching the votes of just few thousand evangelicals for Harris, or will the evangelicals that I know turn out and vote for a future that will restrain Neo-Marxism? I hope I will not be disappointed in the evangelical church again in 2024 as I was in 2020.
Yes, God is sovereign. In the end we all have to learn to live with his will, even in presidential elections. However, God has given to each of us both responsibility and accountability, and we need to be faithful in all things.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:
