God Loves… Himself

In A.A. Hodge’s Outline of Theology he gives us three positions of doctrine in reference to human inability that seem to cover about any position that one can come up with. They are also the three positions taken by theologians in history. The first position is Pelagianism and is given as stated by Hodge below:

1st. Pelagian.-(a.) Moral character can be predicated only of volitions. (b.) Ability is always the measure of responsibility. (c). Hence every man has always the plenary power to do all that it is his duty to do. (d). Hence the human will alone, to the exclusion of the interference of an internal influence from God, must decide human character and destiny. The only divine influence needed by man or consistent with his character as a self-determined agent is an external, providential, and educational one.

This is simply a statement of the classical Pelagianism position. It has been condemned throughout the history of the Church as heresy. It sounds a lot like the “rugged American” position. Moral character can only be seen by what a person actually does (volitions = choices). The desires, intents, and loves of a person are not what is important, but it is only what the person does. We are told today that a person’s “emotions” (a very ambiguous and imprecise term) cannot be controlled but that the person can control the actions. We are told that the feelings are like the end of a train and if we control the behavior (the engine) the feelings will eventually follow (like the cars and caboose). All of this can be simply a restatement of the classical Pelagian position. The person is in control of the actions and the inward part of the person does not count as long as it is not expressed. But this is not in line with Scripture which teaches us that our thoughts can be evil (Mark 7:21), that our desires are evil (coveting, 10th Commandment), that we cannot love more than one master at a time (Matthew 6:24), and that all sin comes from the heart (Mark 7:21-23). We are also told in Scripture that anger in the heart is sin (Mat 5:22) and in that context it is considered as murder. We are also told that lusting in the heart is adultery (Mat 5:27). Moral character is very much of the heart and not of the volitions alone.

The second part of the Pelagian system (b) is that the ability is the measure of responsibility. The deduction from that is that man has the power to do all that he is supposed to do (c). We hear this said very loudly and clearly throughout the justice system as well as various theological systems. On the surface this makes a lot of sense. We don’t tell those who are three years of age to do those things that only those much older can do. But notice what is going on underneath and behind this point. The whole issue comes down to man’s ability to obey God and do what He commands. God commands men to be perfect, to be holy as He is holy, and to love Him with all of their heart, mind, soul, and strength. Does man have the ability to do those commands? We will water something down at this point if we think man can. We will either water down the spiritual extent of the commands or the extent of the Fall or both. If God commands a person to do something, we know that the obligation of the person is to do what is commanded. But does that mean that a person has the ability to do what is commanded? What happens at this point is very crucial. We will either accept what the Pelagian system says or we will receive what Scripture says on the issue. However, the semi-Pelagian (Arminian) system tries to find a third way (see below).

In former BLOGS this issue has been dealt with in a different way. But let us look at this carefully. The Augustinian view (Calvinism) teaches that man is dead spiritually and is unable to do anything good. It says that man has no ability in this regard. Notice the tension between the Pelagian system and the Augustinian position. The Pelagian position says that ability is the measure of responsibility and so man has no obligation to do that which he has no ability to do. The Augustinian position is that man is unable to do anything spiritually good and yet is still morally obligated to do what he cannot do. The two positions could not be more opposite. Scripture teaches that man is dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1-3), that man cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44) and that the mind set on the flesh cannot subject itself to the law of God and cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8). What is going on here?

On the surface it appears that the Pelagian system is correct. How could God demand of man what man cannot do? The doctrine that is under the surface here is the teaching of Scripture about the Fall of humanity into sin. How badly did the Fall drop man into sin? How fallen is mankind? How deeply into sin has humanity fallen? The texts of Scripture as given above mean something. Pelagianism in effect does not take the Fall into account very much at all. It does not see the Fall as having a radical influence on every human being that will ever be born. It does not really see that Adam was a true representative as a federal head of humanity. It is a denial of original sin in that it denies that all the children of Adam partake of his fall into sin. The Augustinian position takes the Fall very seriously and says that all fell in Adam and all are born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature are children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). Augustinianism teaches that God commands man as to what his obligations were when man had not fallen into sin. The obligations of man have not changed because of the Fall, though after the Fall man lost all of his moral ability in the spiritual realm. However, God commands man to do what man can only do in Christ. We thus see the New Covenant in which Christ is the life of His people and by the Spirit He keeps the commandments of God in and through the believer.

The semi-Pelagian or Arminian position tries to find a third way. It says that the Fall indeed has an influence on humanity, but man is not truly dead in sin as man has responsibility before God. In order to maintain a position that is not Augustinian it wants to leave some ability in man and calls it free-will. However, it falls under the indictment of Luther on Erasmus at this point. If the will cannot do what is commanded apart from grace, is it really free at all? Doesn’t that simply deny what free-will is supposed to be? Despite the language and efforts of trying for a spot that is between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, the semi-Pelagian is really Pelagian in practice. The soul of man is not truly dead and there is enough of something in man (the will) that can act apart from grace. This is denied in one sense as the claim is that the will must have grace to assist it. However, if the will can act with assistance some of it is acting without assistance. Assistance is applied to one that only needs some help. The position of the semi-Pelagian at this point is really no better than that of the Pelagian despite its claims to the contrary.

In his Outlines of Theology A.A. Hodge makes a very helpful synopsis of man’s inability by comparing the central beliefs and distinctives of Pelagianism, Semipelagianism and Augustinianism. These are very helpful in the sense that they get to the core of the issues between the differing systems of thought as they have been historically understood. As the political differences between the differing parties in the United States have switched and what one party believed in the past the other party now believes, so this can happen in theological systems as well. We must be very careful to notice certain distinctions as they have been historically set out or confusion will set in and a person will call him or herself by one name but in reality believe what is in line with another system of thought.

I will produce what Hodge has written without commenting in this BLOG other than to note a few things before they are given. It is important to notice some differences as they are read. First, it is not against the central teaching of Pelagianism to have God provide influence upon man as long as it is an outward influence. It is the internal influence that is excluded in Pelagianism and that is the logical result of a position that holds to free-will. If you will think through this carefully, you will see that Pelagianism is rampant in modern America. Some who hold to the basic teachings of Pelagianism call themselves Arminian. Second, notice that the Arminian position believes that the fall was so bad that now man cannot act correctly in divine matters without divine assistance. But notice that according to this position it is only assistance that man needs. It is also important to think of how it is at the heart of Arminian teaching that an infant inherits a weakened moral state from his or her parents and not sin that deserves the wrath of God. Man must still strive to do his duty but it is only when God gives co-operative grace that man can have successful efforts. This type of thinking appears to be widespread among those who think of themselves as Reformed today and can be easily confused with Calvinism.

In the last section we see true Augustinianism (or Calvinism) set out. By nature man is dead in sin and cannot do any thing that is spiritually good or even dispose himself to that. Instead of the will being able to act right after some co-operating grace given by God, the will itself must be radically and permanently renewed. But even after the renewal of the will it must always have divine grace to prompt, direct, and enable it in every good work. What the Augustinian position sets out is a grace that is grace from beginning through eternity. It is grace alone and all of grace. The other two systems of thought are very close to each other in many ways, but both are in direct contradiction to the third system (Augustinianism or Calvinism). This great statement of the systems of thought is helpful to see the real differences and they are not just over the five points.

What are three great types of doctrine on the subject of human ability to fulfil the law of God have always coexisted in the church? [I assume he means the visible or professing church]

1st. Pelagian.-(a.) Moral character can be predicated only of volitions. (b.) Ability is always the measure of responsibility. (c). Hence every man has always the plenary power to do all that it is his duty to do. (d). Hence the human will alone, to the exclusion of the interference of an internal influence from God, must decide human character and destiny. The only divine influence needed by man or consistent with his character as a self-determined agent is an external, providential, and educational one.

2nd. Semipelagian.-(a.) Man’s nature has been so far weakened by the fall that it can not act aright in spiritual matters without divine assistance. (b.) This weakened moral state which infants inherit from their parents is the cause of sin, but not itself sin in the sense of deserving the wrath of God. (c.) Man must strive to do his whole duty, when God meets him with co-operative grace, and renders his efforts successful. (d.) Man is not responsible for the sins he commits until after he has enjoyed and abused the influences of grace.

3rd. Augustinian.-Which was adopted by all the original Protestant Churches, Lutheran and Reformed. (a.) Man is by nature so entirely depraved in his moral nature as to be totally unable to do any thing spiritually good, or in any degree to begin or dispose himself thereto. (b.) That even under the exciting and suasory influences of divine grace the will of man is totally unable to act aright in co-operation with grace, until after the will itself is by the energy of grace radically and permanently renewed. (c.) Even after the renewal of the will it ever continues dependent upon divine grace, to prompt, direct, and enable it in the performance of every good work.

The last four BLOGS we have been looking at a sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13 by a man named Asahel Nettleton. He was an evangelist during the 2nd Great Awakening. What should be of great interest to modern people (and was to many in his day) is that he also greatly opposed Charles Finney and his new ways of evangelism that he brought into the church. In this sermon on regeneration he is giving us reasons why he was so against the new ways of doing evangelism.

“Ever effort has been made by the ingenuity of man, by palpably erroneous schemes, and by plausible ones, to wrest the glory of this work from the hands of the divine Spirit, and to claim the operation for ourselves; at least to share in the honor of it. After all, its origin can be traced only to the free and sovereign grace and Almighty power of God. The work is all his; and the glory must and will forever belong exclusively to him.”

Nettleton is absolutely correct and in line with Romans 1:18-32. Man tries to suppress the truth of God and wants to do away with the biblical God in terms of his understanding. One way that men try to suppress the truth of God is in theology and various forms or versions of Christianity. By theology and various practical applications of that theology they deny what is true about God and erect idols of their own imaginations to serve and worship. In doing that they are like the Pharisees who erected a god that could be pleased with their own efforts and works. Others try to set up a god who is nothing but their own idea of love and grace. What we must do, however, is receive the testimony of Scripture as the Word of God Himself. Calvinists have been accused many times of trusting in philosophy rather than Scripture. In reality, however, it is the Arminian system that has done this. The doctrine of free-will is not a teaching of Scripture but is rather a logical deduction based upon certain philosophical presuppositions of man in order to escape the teaching of Scripture that God is truly sovereign in all man’s affairs.

While it may not be obvious to men or even a conscious thought or action, the teaching of free-will is in a direct confrontation with the sovereignty of God. In later BLOGS I hope to show this through the writings of John Owen. Regeneration is clearly said to be the work of the Holy Spirit and yet men continue to try to claim that operation for themselves in relying upon a free-will for the final choice in the matter of salvation.

“It is a doctrine supported by the great light of the Reformation and by the pillars of the evangelical churches ever since: that regeneration is a physical work. And by this they mean there is an actual new creation, as absolutely so as when the world was created; that a new spiritual taste or discernment, and principle is implanted by a sovereign creative operation, and not simply a new direction given to old faculties.”

This is utterly vital. At this point the differences between Arminian theology and evangelism are seen to be at clear odds with the Reformed. Nettleton is making the claim that the doctrine of the Reformation (and of the pillars of evangelical churches ever since) was that regeneration is a physical work. By this he is not saying that it is something that happens to the physical body, or that it is not spiritual. But it is a real and substantive change rather than one in name only. The new birth is something that is so grand and glorious that the recipient of it is a new creation in reality and not just in name only.The new birth is not something where a man simply makes a choice and it is done, but it is the difference between a world that was not there and then was created. Sinners are spiritually dead and then they are spiritually alive when God makes them alive. The free-will of man cannot make anyone spiritually alive nor can it give anyone a new spiritual taste and the faculties a completely different direction that is opposite to the old direction. No man can do this. It is God’s work to do this and no one else’s.

Once we begin to see what the new birth actually is, we see how impossible the Arminian practice is. An actual new birth that makes man a new creation with new spiritual tastes and gives a completely different direction is simply and certainly beyond the power of man’s will. The choice of the human being (the will) must always be in line with the desires, capacities of the man and with the direction of the faculties. Man must be born again in order to love and choose Christ rather than to love and choose Christ in order to be born again.The differences in these two positions are startling in their wide variance. Let us be honest about this and deal with them according to Scripture rather than trying to whitewash them as the Pharisees did the tombs of the prophets.

The last few BLOGS we have been looking at a sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13 by a man named Asahel Nettleton. We will continue with the following quote:

“There is only one way left for a creature dead in trespasses and sins to rise to life. This is by the power of God which quickens him-creates him anew. Observe in what language sacred writers have chosen to communicate their ideas on this subject: born of God; begotten of God; quickened; or made alive from the dead; created anew. If it be said that this is figurative language, I agree to it, but if there be any correctness in the figures, the work of regeneration must be the commencement of a new spiritual existence. On any other grounds the language of the Scriptures is of all books the most fancied, unmeaning, and obscure.”

If we truly believe that sinners are dead in trespasses and sins, then our evangelism must take that into account. It matters little what a person’s professed theological persuasion or confessional statement is, if a person does not take this into account in evangelism then that person evangelizes more like Pelagius than those who have who were Reformed from the Reformation until Finney. It is to “Pelagian-ize” rather than to evangelize. If we believe that it is all up to the free-will of the sinner rather than the power of the living God to make sinners alive and actually make them a new creation, then we are those who try to persuade sinners rather than to point them to the living God who alone can make them alive. That means we are leaving sinners with hope in themselves rather than hope in the living God. The terms of Scripture regarding the new birth are quite clear and without any equivocation. Sinners must be born and begotten of God, not begotten of their own choice. Sinners must be quickened and made alive from the dead by the power and life of God, not from their own abilities. Sinners must be a new creation which God alone can do rather than do something in their own power.

“After all there must be a new creation,–the dead must be quickened-believers must be born of God. The same energy which brought Christ from the dead-the exceeding great power of the living God must perform the work…Indeed, my friends, where else can we look for the origin of such a change as makes believers pass from death to life but the omnipotence of the divine Spirit? Is it our understanding which accomplishes this change? But our understanding is darkened… Is it our will?… Our wills are perverse and rebellious. Is it our strength? Christ died for the ungodly who are without strength. We are not sufficient of ourselves to think a good thought. Is it our merits? We merit nothing but utter rejection. Is it the ministers of God who persuade us? Paul may plant and Apollos water, but God gives the increase”

Scripture teaches us that the same energy that brought Christ from the dead must raise the sinner from the dead (Ephesians 1:15-2:10). Do we see anything in Scripture which teaches us that man can raise himself from the dead? Do we see anything in Scripture that teaches us to look for the origin of change from anyone other than God Himself? Does Scripture tell us to look to ourselves for any help at all or does it teach us to look to God alone for help and power? Follow the thought of Nettleton here and ask yourself if he or the Arminian teaching is correct on this. If what is needed is persuasion, then what is it that is to be persuaded? It will be argued that we must persuade the understanding of the sinner. But how can you persuade the understanding of one that is in complete spiritual darkness? Well, one might say, we must convince them to make a choice. What is a choice but an act of the will? We must also ask what is the will apart from the understanding? Is the will free enough to be free from a nature that is dead in sins and trespasses? Well, one might say that we have enough strength to just open and receive. Nettleton points out Scripture which tells us that Christ died for those without strength. Another might say that our little choice has merit (whether stated or implied) and God works without that. But Scripture tells us that even our righteous works are as filthy rags. What is the sinner left with to make a choice that will save him or her? The sinner is left with nothing in himself to make a choice and needs to be made a new creation by the work of God and to be given divine life by God. That is where evangelism should leave the sinner.

The last three BLOGS we have been looking at a sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13 by a man named Asahel Nettleton. He was an evangelist during the 2nd Great Awakening. What should be of great interest to many people today as well as many in his day, is that he also greatly opposed Charles Finney and his new ways of evangelism that he brought into the church. In this sermon on regeneration he is giving us reasons why he was so against the new ways of doing evangelism.

“After all the preparatory means-all the promises and threats of the gospel-all the operations of common grace-and all the exertions of unregenerate sinners, they must be born of God to become his children. There must be a new creation,–a work accomplished by Almighty power-a sovereign-special-supernatural act, like making a world, or raising the dead, as to the power exerted, and without which such an act no one can ever see the kingdom of heaven. Persuasion is not sufficient to make men new creatures. If the Spirit operates on the minds of men only by setting persuasive arguments or motives before them, be the kinds never so diverse or well adapted to this purpose, yet after all, it depends on the will of man whether any shall be regenerated or not. On this scheme the glory of regeneration would belong to ourselves.”

Here is a brutal fact for all who would argue against Calvinism. Man must truly be born again and become a new creation by the work of an Almighty power which is the same power that raised Christ from the dead despite the opposition from the devil. To argue against that is to argue that the new birth will come by persuasive arguments and motives. It is to leave the glory of it all to human beings, either the one presenting the arguments or the one making the choice. There is no way around this argument. The new birth is either by God or by man. If the new birth is really changing the heart of a dead sinner and making it that of a live saint which is the life of God in the soul of man, then this is the work of God and nothing and no one else can do it. No matter how much a human being is persuaded, the human being cannot change his own heart from the spiritual dead and snatch divine life from God and give it to himself. The heart of Arminian evangelism, whether practiced by professing Calvinists or not, relies upon persuading the sinner to make a choice because of the grace already given to him. Surely it is obvious, at least from the last few BLOGS, that an evangelistic method that does that is something that has been obtained in the same spirit as Pelagius. The Gospel does not promise life to those who will raise themselves from the dead, but to those who have given up any hope in themselves and rest in His grace alone.

“Moral persuasion to a better life confers no new real, supernatural strength to the soul, which may enable it thus to live. No new taste-no new spiritual discernment springs from persuasion. If regeneration comes thus, then a man begets himself, he is born of himself, he makes himself to differ from others. On this plan the Spirit of God has no more to do than Paul or Apollos.”

As stated before, Arminian evangelism (based in a belief in free-will) relies on persuasion. If all has been done by grace and now the only thing left is an act of the free-will, then the evangelists must simply be persuasive and convince the sinner that s/he needs to make a choice. If that is correct, then we are left with a new birth as being without any real life of God in the soul and without the strength of God. This persuasion simply convinces the sinner to do what he needs to do in making the choice. As Nettleton noted, that would leave the Spirit of God with no more to do than Paul or Apollos. That would change Scripture from being Paul and Apollos planting and watering and God causing the growth to Paul and Apollos planting and watering and the sinner causing the growth. How disturbing it should be when evangelism leaves all to the persuasive powers of people and not to the grace and power of almighty God.

“Besides, this is not for what we pray; we pray not that motives may be set before us to regenerate ourselves, but that God would change us, create us anew. The ancient churches urged this prayer upon the heretics, who denied a supernatural work in regeneration, and they felt themselves sorely pressed without.”

As we look at what we pray for when we pray for the conversion of sinners or ourselves, we do not pray for someone to persuade us to make a decision. We do not pray that someone would give us better motives. What we must pray for is that God would give the person a new heart, which He alone can do. While many trust in themselves for faith or belief, can anyone trust in himself for a new heart and divine life? While I may be accused of being mean or ungracious and certainly not very winsome, there would be no real reason for an Arminian to pray if the Arminian used consistent principles. If the final decision is based on a choice of a free-will, then God could not do anything to the sinner as that would mean that the will would not be free. Prayer for the sinner, then, would be asking God to do something that is morally repugnant since violating a free-will is thought to be just that. On the other hand, the person that is dead in sins and trespasses can pray for God to give him or her a new heart that s/he can believe in and love Him. If the new birth is a supernatural work, then prayer is to God asking Him to do a supernatural work. If salvation is simply the choice of the free-will, then what can God do and leave the free-will intact? The answer is precisely nothing.

The last two BLOGS we have been looking at a sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13 by a man named Asahel Nettleton. He was an evangelist during the 2nd Great Awakening. Interestingly enough to many people today as well as many in his day, he also greatly opposed Charles Finney and his new methods of evangelism that he brought into the church. In this sermon on regeneration he is giving us reasons why he was so against the new ways of doing evangelism:

“That the Holy Spirit makes use of the word and many other instruments to bring sinners to Christ, I have no doubt. But that men are naturally so inclined, as to approve of and obey the precepts of the gospel, unless some peculiar course of sin or prejudice prevent them, contradicts the whole tenor of the gospel, in which it is a fundamental principle, that by nature we are children of wrath, and that we are at enmity with God and blinded to the light of his truth and dead in trespasses and sins. That the Holy Spirit is communicated to all in a sufficient manner to save them, entirely overthrows the idea of any special grace, and makes one man as much born of God as another! Our text says that as many as received Christ, and believed on his name, were born of God. If so, others who did not, were not born of God, and the undistinguishing influences of the Spirit cannot be maintained.”

Here is one point of great distinction that apart from it many souls can be deluded. If all men alike are given the same power and benefits to be saved and all of those are by grace, then people will use the words “saved by grace” and yet mean something totally different by it than what has been historically thought to be meant by Scripture, Augustine, the Reformers and virtually the whole Church from the Reformation until the times and practices of Finney. What the former men meant by “saved by grace” was that grace that was planned by the Father, earned by Christ, and then applied by the Holy Spirit. This is quite opposed to any scheme or teaching which does not have the Spirit applying grace to the hearts of man but is the man himself applying the gospel by his choice. Scripture teaches us that man is dead and cannot be enticed to spiritual things much less apply them to his own heart.

“It is a great stumbling block, in the way of many, that God should give more of his Spirit to one, than another. To remove this subject of prejudice, Pelagius and multitudes ever since have maintained that all men receive gifts alike, and are alike furnished to work out their salvation. This effectually destroys the new birth, and makes it alike common to every man. On this scheme Judas had as much grace as Paul, Ahab who sold himself to work wickedness, as David, a man after God’s own heart. All the difference between them, was owing to the different manner in which they improved their privileges.”

This is why men so hate the biblical teaching of this and do all they can by scholarship and other methods to banish this truth from their minds. Nettleton has pointed this out and it would do us well to pay attention to his words. When it is maintained that all men have received the grace of God alike and what is needed for salvation is for them to make a decision, they have in effect destroyed the grace of God in the new birth though they might insist that is it by grace alone. If all men have the same amount of grace, then salvation is by grace only to a degree. The Gospel is that men are saved by grace apart from works, that is, by grace alone (Eph 2:1-10). For the Gospel to be by grace alone then it is by grace (moved by God rather than something in man) that God would regenerate the sinner. It is so vital to note this distinction because it is vital to the Gospel of grace alone and it is so different than what we see in the majority of places today. Many people who claim to be Reformed still leave it to the sinner to apply the Gospel to himself. Others will tell the sinner to believe and if the sinner says that s/he believes then they say that God gave that person his or her faith to believe. While this may sound as if it is in accordance with older orthodoxy, it is not. They have still left it in the hands of the sinner with no way for the sinner to tell if faith is coming from himself or God. They have also not told the sinner that s/he must be born by the work of God and so is in the hands of grace alone.

“I know such doctrine is agreeable to corrupt nature; and the easy reception it has met with ever since it was first preached proves how agreeable it is to carnal reason. But neither the Scriptures nor experience afford us any reason to believe it. I do not doubt that the Spirit of God strives with all men who are not reprobates. I fully admit it. I admit that the promises and threats of the gospel would be sufficient to persuade us to a holy life, if our understandings were neither darkened, nor our affections depraved. But after all this, I deny that common grace makes us the sons of God, or that we are persuaded to be Christians without any special divine influence; or that all men receive the same measure of the Spirit.”

The teaching of Pelagianism is indeed agreeable to human beings who trust in their own wisdom and power, even in the things of grace. While the teaching does not state it this way, it is much easier for carnal man to accept a teaching that leaves everything in his own hands. It is so easy for the carnal man to believe that God loves him and has done everything to save him and now it is all up to him to make that choice anytime he will. But if all of that is true, then no one is saved by the grace of God or by His love, but in reality is saved by his own will and choice. If all men receive the same measure of grace, then the only thing that distinguishes men is not grace but their own wisdom and will. It sure sounds to me a lot like the promise Satan made to Eve in the Garden that she would be like God. Rather than leaving things in the hands of men, the Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us that we have no righteousness and no sufficiency in ourselves. All the grace of salvation must not only be from Christ but be applied by the Holy Spirit. Man is sufficient for nothing good from or within himself.

Last time we looked at a quote from a sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13 by a man named Asahel Nettleton. Prior to his conversion he was deeply convicted of his sin and “diligently applied himself to the means of grace, often praying for hours. After ten months of spiritual agony, God miraculously changed his heart.” He was thoroughly Reformed in his theology and evangelism. He also greatly opposed Charles Finney and the new ways of evangelism that he brought into the church. I will continue on with another quote from Nettleton:

The fundamental truth of the Pelagian and Arminian scheme, (for they are in substance the same) are these:
(1). That God not only proclaims the offers of grace and salvation to all men alike, but that the Holy Spirit is equally and sufficiently distributed to all men to insure their salvation, provided they duly improve the benefits bestowed upon them.
(2). That the precepts and promises of the gospel are not only good and desirable in themselves, but so suited to the natural reason and interests of mankind, that they will of course be inclined to receive them, unless overpowered by prejudice, and an habitual course of sin.
(3). That the consideration of the threatenings and promises of the gospel is sufficient to remove these prejudices and reform that course.
(4). That those who thus seriously reflect and amend their lives have the promise of the Holy Spirit, and are entitled to the benefits of the new covenant.

Here is the heart of what Nettleton saw as so dangerous to evangelism in his time and he deemed it as rooted in principles that were Pelagian in principle. We must not miss this if we are going to see the dangerous way of evangelism being practiced in our day. If you look at the four points given by Nettleton above, you might not think of these things as being all that dangerous or bad. After all, it might be said, if they are preaching Christ and His cross they are not far from being wrong. That is one point that needs to be brought out. One can teach and preach an orthodox understanding of the Person of Christ and, to a degree, His work on the cross and still preach a false Gospel. In one sense this is the genius of Nettleton in the way he puts it. The outward information for the most part might actually be the same between certain forms of Pelagianism and orthodoxy. Nettleton is getting at how the information is given, which determines what is trusted in by the sinner. In fact, he says that “the very life and soul of the gospel truth is taken away.” Why would he say that? Let me give some more of the thoughts of Nettleton in order to make the matter clear:

Under this specious statement of fundamental principles which is apt to strike an inconsiderate mind in a favorable manner, the very life and soul of gospel truth is taken away. On this scheme, all men are regenerated alike, originally; all having an equal measure of the Spirit, and the difference between one man and another is to be ascribed wholly to himself; to the improvement he has made of the blessings vouchsafed. And regeneration is a reformation of life, induced by moral persuasions, or commenced in consequence of the understanding being enlightened and the affections being moved by divine truth alone. If you ask, how does salvation proceed from divine grace on this plan, the answer is that all the means of improvement are bestowed by God and herein is the grace.

The whole scheme is simply this, God gives faculties and grace to all, and to all alike and thus furnished, they work out their own salvation, being persuaded to do this by the promises and threatenings of the gospel. The dreadful mischief which this extensive and popular scheme has caused spring from its plausibility-from such an appearance of truth, mixed with so many great and dangerous errors.

In the next BLOG we will continue in Nettleton’s thinking. It is much the same as has been presented in earlier BLOGS as it has to do with the application of salvation to the sinner. But Nettleton puts it in a different way and applies it to regeneration. If you have eyes to see and have been looking around in our day, you will quickly see that what Nettleton was saying is happening in our day. Regeneration is not seen in the same way as it used to be.

In 1783 a man named Asahel Nettleton was born in Connecticut. He was deeply convicted of his sin and “diligently applied himself to the means of grace, often praying for hours. After ten months of spiritual agony, God miraculously changed his heart.” Thus was the work of God in the soul of a man greatly used by God from when he began his ministry as an itinerant evangelist in 1812 until he died in 1844. He was Reformed in theology and in his practice of evangelism which he learned from Scripture and the writings of Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. As such, he opposed with all of his might the new measures brought in by Charles Finney. It has been commented that Nettleton “spoke almost prophetically about the consequences of churches adopting these measures.” Interestingly enough, many of those measures are practiced today and are at the root of turning from the sober pursuit of God to many of the ways that people use to fill buildings in the name of Christ. He believed and practiced the accepted practice of evangelism by Reformed people in his day. The following quote is from his sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13:

“Pelagius in the 4th century first invented and advocated a scheme of regeneration which, with a few modifications, sometimes in the phraseology, and sometimes by partial additions or diminutions, has been the scheme of the great body of all sectaries, who have dissented from orthodox evangelical sentiments.-Authors have appeared in different periods and in various countries, who have brought forward this specious scheme of the new birth, as principally illustrated, or defined by themselves; and many whose reading is superficial have been deceived into this supposition. The fact is, that almost the whole system of vague and inadequate notions on this great subject is only the heresy of Pelagius, so universally condemned by the ancient Church, which has now been newly dressed up, after the modern fashion, to secure a better reception.”

We must carefully note the claims that Nettleton is making (interestingly enough) in his sermon. He sets out that the scheme of regeneration set out by Pelagius was in fact practically the same scheme set out by all those over the centuries, though they may have differed with some additions and diminutions, who differed from the Reformed or orthodox view. It is necessary to remember the background of Nettleton on this. He opposed the theology and evangelistic measures of Charles Finney who was his contemporary. In effect, then, he is saying that Finney was a Pelagian in one way or another. This charge would then come to our day and show us that Nettleton would teach that anyone who evangelized like Finney should also be seen as guilty of the heresy of Pelagius. In Nettleton’s time, men took their theology and evangelism seriously. The things that we shrug off as differences today were thought of as heresy by him and others in his day. He thought that the heresy of Pelagius was simply given a new dress after the modern fashion to secure a better reception. His words should warn us today about the same thing. Could it be that many in our day have swallowed down the poison of Pelagius simply because it is in a different dress that makes it look modern and more palatable? Could it be that we no longer think of Pelagianism as really all that bad and so we don’t see it dressed up as Arminianism and even in some Reformed circles?

If we give this but a few moments thought, and that without naming names, we can see where some of these things are in the modern day. We see people believing that infants and adults are saved in some way as a result of baptism or that baptism is applied because a child being the child of a believer must also be a believer. What has happened to the demand of Christ that a person must be born from above in this case? The sovereign work of the Holy Spirit has been set aside for a ritual or a rite that cannot change the hearts of sinners. What is the theology that can tell a sinner to come forward at the end of a service and pray to receive Christ? They believe that salvation is contingent upon what they do rather than the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in applying what Christ has earned for His people. What is the theology that drives one to tell people that if they make a commitment to Christ and make a moral reformation of some sort that they are saved? What is the consistent theology of the practice of getting people to raise their hands or sign a card? What is the theology that drives a person to entertain people enough to get them to a building they call a church? What is the theology that drives people to set aside sound theology and just get people to meet together? All of those things have something in common at the root and it is Pelagianism in one form or another. We must be very careful in this as well, as Pelagianism can also be dressed in a Reformed cloak, which makes it doubly dangerous. Just because one accepts a creed intellectually does not mean that it is the creed of that person’s heart. We must all check our own hearts in this.

I will continue with several quotes from a sermon of Ebenezer Pemberton. Notice in these quotes that He is striving to convince people to be convicted of sin and not just a little conviction, but enough conviction to drive them out of themselves and to give up on anything that they can possible do. He thinks of the conviction of sin as that which drives a person to utter despair of self and of utter despair of any help in self and so that they will fall on their faces in utter helplessness before the throne of a sovereign God and ask for grace without any expectation of receiving if based on anything within themselves. His concept of conviction is again typical of the Puritans and of the early Americans, but is far removed from what we see today in Reformed circles. The distinctive differences between his views and that of modern Arminians and Calvinists is that he believed that men were totally depraved and totally in the hands of a sovereign God who shows grace as He pleases or not. His view was the Reformed view from Luther until Finney. While Reformed people today may blast Finney, they are still using his methods which were developed from a bankrupt theology. Pemberton gives us the true Reformed view.

This is that conviction which is preparatory to conversion, by which the sinner is disposed to give a joyful entertainment to the glad tidings of salvation. Here I wish to show the necessity and importance of this conviction. This conviction is necessary so that the sinner may be awakened out of a state of sin and security, and brought to a serious concern for his eternal welfare….This is that melancholy state of security which has invaded a sinful world and, till they are awakened out of it, it is impossible that they should ever obtain salvation. Their eyes must be opened to see their misery; their hearts must be affected with a sense of their danger before ever they will be persuaded to flee from the wrath to come, and in good earnest engaged to pursue their future welfare.

It is therefore indispensably requisite that there be a separation made between sin and the soul before any man will accept Christ the Savior or submit to the unalterable terms of mercy. To this end God opens the eyes of His people to see the deadly malignity of sin so that they may detest and abhor it…Now there is a destructive principle of pride in the hearts of unhumbled sinners who oppose these self-denying terms. They imagine that there are so many good dispositions in their souls, so many amiable virtues in their lives and conversations, that it would be unjustifiable severity in God to everlastingly cast them off and appoint them their portion with devils and damned ghosts…And while men entertain this fond opinion of their own sufficiency, and vainly imagine that they have anything of their own to entitle them to the divine favor and acceptance, they never truly humble themselves before God and resign themselves as prisoners of his justice. Therefore, the Most High God, who from eternity designed to save a remnant of the fallen race of men and make them the everlasting monuments of His victorious grace, sends His Spirit into the hearts of His elect to convince them not only of their sin and misery, but also of their inability to help and deliver themselves. He destroys the presumptuous opinion of their own strength and power, levels with the dust the carnal confidence in which they formerly trusted, and shows them that nothing which they can do will appease the wrath of an offended Deity or procure them a title to His favor…And when they are thus emptied of themselves, they will apply to the overflowing Fountain of benignity and goodness.

This shows why the preaching of the gospel is so generally unsuccessful, and so few in good earnest seek after eternal salvation…Multitudes under the gospel are so fond of carnal ease and pleasure that they delight to be flattered in their sins, and say to the seers, “See not,” and to the prophets, “Prophesy not unto us right things; speak unto us smooth things, and prophesy deceits.”…Nevertheless, the foundation of the gospel stands sure; the doctrines of deep and sincere conviction for sin, of man’s utter impotence to save and deliver himself, and the absolute necessity of almighty and unmerited grace to the conversion of a sinner will remain unalterable truths.

Pemberton sets out the typical Puritan view. The sinner must be stripped of any hope and confidence in self and the abilities of self in order to be saved. Until the sinner is stripped of all hope and trust in his own ability, the sinner is not ready for God to work grace in him. Sinners do not want to be stripped of all hope in self because of their pride and self-sufficiency. But how can a sinner look to God for grace alone to be saved if the sinner is still looking to his own ability or worth even a little? The Arminian method is to tell the sinner to look to himself in order to come up with the faith or the decision to be saved. This is devastating to the Gospel of grace alone where the sinner must not look to self for anything at all. Until the sinner is stripped of all of his or her ability, strength and power, there is no hope for the sinner. Until the sinner is stripped of his own worth, he cannot look to grace alone. Until the sinner is stripped of all of his own power, he cannot look to the power of God alone. Until a sinner is stripped of his own sufficiency, he cannot trust in the sufficiency of God alone. Until a sinner despairs of self, the sinner will never hope in Christ alone. These things are self-evident. Until the sinner is turned and becomes like a child, that sinner will never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3).

The Arminian method of evangelism is completely opposite of the Puritan and older Reformed practices. The problem, however, is that the modern people who are Reformed in profession are practicing evangelism just like the Arminians. Is the Gospel that was preached by Luther, Charnock, Alleine, Edwards and Pemberton the same Gospel that is being preached today? Not if one looks at the promises of the Gospel in terms of the application of it by the Spirit rather than just a decision or choice to be made. The outward message of Christ may have close resemblances; the rest does not. The inward breaking of the sinner by grace to make room for the application of grace is the missing part of the Gospel today. The sinner is left to his own devices rather than instructed to forsake all hope in himself. This is to leave the power of salvation in the hands of unbroken sinners rather than leaving sinners in the hands of a sovereign grace as the older Reformed theologians did. The difference is truly staggering.

In this BLOG I will give several quotes from Ebenezer Pemberton. He was a pastor from 1727 to 1777 (the latter being the year of his death) in a few churches in the Boston area. He is again representative of what Reformed evangelism and preaching look like. Notice the things that he does in calling to sinners and what he does not do. He does not leave salvation in their hands and up to the choices of their wills.

Third, to conclude, cry mightily unto God to enable you to come to Christ by faith, and receive Him with your whole heart. Faith is the gift of God; no man can come to Christ except the Father draws him. Renounce therefore all confidence in yourselves; depend entirely upon almighty grace to produce within you the work of faith with power; and never cease your importunate supplications till all your difficulties are removed, till your prejudices are conquered, and you are enabled to open the everlasting doors to your souls to receive and entertain the King of Glory, to whom be all honor, blessing, and praise forever and ever, Amen.

The first work of the Spirit is to convince men of their sins, whereby they have offended the eternal Majesty of heaven; to alarm their guilty fears by a discovery of their infinite danger…that the sentence of the law is pronounced against them, and there is but a step between them and eternal death; that they are in subjection to the tyranny of sin and Satan, and have no strength or power to knock off their captive-chains…When they find that they are utterly unable to help themselves, and that it exceeds the power of the whole creation to deliver them from so deplorable a ruin-then their hearts will be filled with distressing fears and they will anxiously inquire, “What shall I do to be saved?”

I now proceed to show that this is a work of almighty grace and is performed in the day of God’s power. Sinners will never come to Christ if left to follow their own inclinations and desires. The human nature was universally depraved by the first apostasy so that, while in an unregenerate state, we are insufficient for any good thing and are entirely destitute of spiritual strength…To come to Christ is to deny ourselves under every form and to renounce all our carnal confidence. To fly to the righteousness and atonement of our great Redeemer for justification and life requires a humble acknowledgement of our inability to help ourselves, and an entire dependence jupon the victorious power of His grace to mortify our corruptions and subdue our rebellious inclinations, to sanctify and save our souls. This is so contrary to the pride of man, so disagreeable to the appetites of flesh and blood, that degenerate nature will forever cry out. “These are hard sayings, and who can hear them?”

But this conviction further implies an utter despair of any deliverance in themselves from those dark and disconsolate circumstances. This aggravates the misery of the sinner, and gives the most bitter accent to their grief and sorrows. In the days of their security they imagined that they could at any time repent of their sins, and by a few importunate addresses for mercy secure a title to the divine favor; but they are now convinced that that they have offended an infinite God and stand exposed to the demands of inflexible justice….Thus they find that they are lost in themselves; and it is beyond the power of the whole creation to deliver them. They have not to flee to but that God whom by their iniquities they have so grievously offended; nothing to depend upon but unmerited mercy, which they have times without number forfeited.

Surely the difference between this approach and the modern approach can be seen. There were no pleas to the free-will and no pleas to make a decision to come to Christ on the people’s own power. Instead what we see is a driving home to the conscience that people must be broken from any hope in themselves and to recognize that they have no power or anything to come to God with. Here we see a man who was thoroughly acquainted with the depravity of man and the Gospel. He knew that for a person to come to Christ that person had to depend entirely on grace to produce faith within him. His call was not to look to themselves and to do something, but to renounce all confidence in self and what it could do. His call was to sinners to call upon God and ask Him for grace in order to come to Him. This was the way that the Puritans called people to Christ and this was the way men like Jonathan Edwards did it. They saw Arminian ways as dangerous to the Gospel and opposed them vehemently.