Theology of the Church, Mentor's Guide, MG03

/ 2 4 5

T H E O L O G Y O F T H E C H U R C H

the Reformation. The key to the dispute is whether or not we, as fallen human beings, possess the freedom to turn God for salvation apart from God’s effective choice and supply of grace through the Spirit, or are we so depraved in our unsaved condition as to make impossible our freedom to choose or reject God’s grace in Christ. Pelagianism outlined its doctrine in this way: the will of human beings is not so damaged that we cannot respond to God’s command to repent and believe. This view was perceived and understood to mean that individuals can become acceptable and righteous without God’s sovereign elective grace, and had no need for his sovereign involvement through election. This doctrine of human ability was condemned at the Council of Orange (529), which also condemned a form of semi-Pelagianism, which taught that human beings could choose Christ without any sense of God’s special grace. During this time, the Church in the West held to a view of election that was built on Augustine’s idea of “double predestination.” This doctrine taught that God chose the elect to his salvation and, that he chose the “reprobate” (that is, the lost and unsaved) to damnation. Election as a doctrine during the Reformation was rethought and re-formed, and the issues which came out of those discussions continue to influence the wrestlings and conflicts up to the present. Many of the key Reformers held to the idea of “unconditional election,” which has today been directly associated with what is known as the “Calvinist” view of election. This teaching was built on Augustine’s view, and emphasized that God’s election of individuals was the ground and condition of every other thing in salvation. What God does in election determines not only the first step, but the entire salvation of the elect, which God establishes by his own choice and sustains according to his own plan. This teaching emphasized God’s determination before time for those who were to receive salvation as well as those appointed for damnation. God’s election of the elect was based upon his mercy alone and without any reference to the merit and or worth of the chosen. The major reaction to this teaching came in the form of a tradition today known as Arminianism. It focused especially on the idea of rejecting the view of unconditional election. Rather, this tradition taught that election was in some form “conditional,” i.e., God chose those whom he foresaw would respond to the Gospel