The example of Abraham shows that faith comes before justification. Although God's choice and grace precedes both faith and justification, His particular saving grace is effectual only through faith. That is why Ephesians says it is "grace through faith", and not " faith through grace".
To clear up the difference between Arminian and Pelagus:
Arminianism - the first steps of grace are taken by God. Humans have a choice and ability to reject the Spirit (see verses on rejecting the Holy Spirit). God tries to draw, but this drawing is rejected. This is truly a wooing, or a calling, or a drawing, sensitive to God's Spirit, and the person's will and emotions which God will not over-ride without free permission.
Semi-pelagianism - God's grace intervened only after a human made a choice to approach God. This ignores the effectual calling in the cross, the gospel.
Pelagianism - is even more 'man-centric' - man is effecting his own salvation!
Often Calvinists label Arminians to be pelagian but this simply isn't the case. Both Calvinist and Arminian theology comes from the same branch of protestantism. Pelagianism is outright heresy which was rejected in the early church.
We know that the early church relied heavily upon the concept of free-will. They did not push their beliefs onto anyone (at least until the christianisation of the roman empire anyway), and definitely did not think God did the same. In this respect any view which downplays free-will, such as ultra-calvinism, should be rejected outright. In the early church they had trouble with people who said man was not responsible for the evil in his own life, neither Adam and Eve for theirs. All sorts of issues arise when we divert blame and responsibility from ourselves, to something or someone else. In this sense God's foreknowledge is confused with His fore-ordaining. And even this is coupled with a wrong view of God's sovereignty, more akin to what Muslims believe - that everything that happens for good or evil is directly a result of God's will. If someone gets blown up by a suicide bomber they say it's God's will. If 5000 americans died in twin towers collapsing they say it's God's will. If the ultra-Calvinist says such and such didn't believe and so must be one of the non-elect and going to hell, "that's God's will".
The bible affirms the pelagian view when the bible says God hoped that men would seek out and perhaps find him (Acts 15 I think it is, where Paul talks about the 'unknown God'). This describes the light switch example fairly well. Men are groping in the dark, some find him, some do not. The early Chinese were 'one God' believers. Many other tribes and cultures also. However, since the Gospel, God uses it to draw all men to Himself. They are no longer in darkness because the light shines upon them when the gospel is preached to them. This is the Calvinist and Arminian view.
Calvinists confuse the meaning of elect to mean those who are chosen to be saved. But when Paul uses this term 'the elect', he means those who have been saved (by faith) . Not those who will be or are yet to be saved. It's putting the cart before the horse a bit.
I think the bible indicates the order of salvation would be:
1. Gospel being preached and person given opportunity to hear (that is itself God's grace), 2. man believes or rejects (act of the will), 3. God's saving grace, justification, regeneration applied (this is saving grace through faith, not of ourselves).
Calvinists can sometimes claim, wrongly, that point 2. is a person saving themself. But believing in something, having faith, and having a mental ascent to something, is never counted as a work in Jewish or early christian understanding. See the teaching in James about faith and works.
To clear up the difference between Arminian and Pelagus:
Arminianism - the first steps of grace are taken by God. Humans have a choice and ability to reject the Spirit (see verses on rejecting the Holy Spirit). God tries to draw, but this drawing is rejected. This is truly a wooing, or a calling, or a drawing, sensitive to God's Spirit, and the person's will and emotions which God will not over-ride without free permission.
Semi-pelagianism - God's grace intervened only after a human made a choice to approach God. This ignores the effectual calling in the cross, the gospel.
Pelagianism - is even more 'man-centric' - man is effecting his own salvation!
Often Calvinists label Arminians to be pelagian but this simply isn't the case. Both Calvinist and Arminian theology comes from the same branch of protestantism. Pelagianism is outright heresy which was rejected in the early church.
We know that the early church relied heavily upon the concept of free-will. They did not push their beliefs onto anyone (at least until the christianisation of the roman empire anyway), and definitely did not think God did the same. In this respect any view which downplays free-will, such as ultra-calvinism, should be rejected outright. In the early church they had trouble with people who said man was not responsible for the evil in his own life, neither Adam and Eve for theirs. All sorts of issues arise when we divert blame and responsibility from ourselves, to something or someone else. In this sense God's foreknowledge is confused with His fore-ordaining. And even this is coupled with a wrong view of God's sovereignty, more akin to what Muslims believe - that everything that happens for good or evil is directly a result of God's will. If someone gets blown up by a suicide bomber they say it's God's will. If 5000 americans died in twin towers collapsing they say it's God's will. If the ultra-Calvinist says such and such didn't believe and so must be one of the non-elect and going to hell, "that's God's will".
The bible affirms the pelagian view when the bible says God hoped that men would seek out and perhaps find him (Acts 15 I think it is, where Paul talks about the 'unknown God'). This describes the light switch example fairly well. Men are groping in the dark, some find him, some do not. The early Chinese were 'one God' believers. Many other tribes and cultures also. However, since the Gospel, God uses it to draw all men to Himself. They are no longer in darkness because the light shines upon them when the gospel is preached to them. This is the Calvinist and Arminian view.
Calvinists confuse the meaning of elect to mean those who are chosen to be saved. But when Paul uses this term 'the elect', he means those who have been saved (by faith) . Not those who will be or are yet to be saved. It's putting the cart before the horse a bit.
I think the bible indicates the order of salvation would be:
1. Gospel being preached and person given opportunity to hear (that is itself God's grace), 2. man believes or rejects (act of the will), 3. God's saving grace, justification, regeneration applied (this is saving grace through faith, not of ourselves).
Calvinists can sometimes claim, wrongly, that point 2. is a person saving themself. But believing in something, having faith, and having a mental ascent to something, is never counted as a work in Jewish or early christian understanding. See the teaching in James about faith and works.
Last edited: