By Mark W. Christy
In general, most Calvinists and Arminians agree, at least on the surface, that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. For this reason, some evangelical denominations, like the Southern Baptist Convention, have historically allowed both theological camps to coexist alongside one another. Despite the apparent comradery between Calvinists and Arminians, the theological fissure separating the two is now leading to increasing levels of upheaval within many churches, and rightly so. Essentially, both have coexisted (in the churches where both are allowed to be manifested) in a false unity based upon their mutual willingness to affirm the teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone while at the same time allowing for each position to supply a different meaning to this affirmation. To put this another way, both have willingly allowed (some no doubt due to theological ignorance) for a degree of double-speak to exist in their core soteriology.
Originally, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, taught that the freewill was passive in its salvific role in his lengthy engagement with Erasmus entitled The Bondage of the Will.[i] In this work, he draws a solid line between what today are known as Calvinism and Arminianism and positions himself squarely with the Calvinists of today: “God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, ‘Free-will’ is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them.”[ii]
For Luther, those who insisted upon an active role of the freewill in salvation were in error for he argued that the Bible reserves all glory for God in the salvation process. To revisit his words previously quoted from another direction, Luther is declaring that those who affirm the Arminian view of active freewill in salvation are by extension denying God’s sovereignty in the matter. Along with this denial, they also elevate the role of fallen humanity in salvation by giving prominence to the supposed freewill. Luther, with Calvin, understood that the freewill, if it can even be rightly named this, lies in total bondage apart from a decisive regenerating act within the person. Commenting on Paul’s teachings on this matter, Luther observes that he “concludes that [“all men”] are all ungodly, unrighteous, and ignorant of the righteousness of faith: so far is it from possibility, that they can will or do any thing good.”
Since Arminians refute Luther and Calvin on this point, some have charged them with Pelagianism (i.e., denying the doctrine of the original sin). Arminians, of course, refute this by affirming the doctrine of the original sin, but then they essentially offer the state of fallen flesh hope by allowing for what is sometimes called prevenient grace. This grace, according to them, has been made available to all humanity through the atoning work of Christ such that all humanity have been divinely enabled to render a freewill response to the gospel. This, of course, ends up undermining the sovereignty of God in election as taught by Luther and Calvin because it gives the final decision to the freewill responder.
Returning back to the supposedly commonly held belief that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, it should be clear by now that the Reformers, Luther and Calvin, meant something entirely different than the Arminians of today. For the Reformers, they taught that salvation was wholly a freewill act of God who, according to His own divine pleasure, distributes saving grace and faith (i.e., the believing response) to whomever He wills. Arminians, however, totally deny this, and instead limit God’s sovereign work to the creation of a salvation plan which is only completed when the human responder chooses to effectuate it. Given this major difference between the actual theological positions of the Reformers and the Arminians, any claim that they both support the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone would amount to a form of double-speak.
[i]Martin Luther, De Servo Arbitrio “On the Enslaved Will” or The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), 23, 52, available at: https://ccel.org/ccel/l/luther/bondage/cache/bondage.pdf.
[ii]Ibid., 26. Italics are his.