Four Views on Effects of the Fall on Human Nature
In Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul declares that “you were dead in your transgressions and sins…doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” There is a powerful presentation throughout Scripture about just how powerless man is. Yet there is a vast range of perspectives regarding the nature of this fallen man, and the impact of his sinful state. In crude terms, Pelagianism—one end of the spectrum—elevates man’s will above God’s will. Calvinism—the other end of the spectrum— elevates God’s will above man’s will. Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism sit somewhere between those first two positions, however, all four views tend to be defined differently depending upon the one who claims to hold them. Others may reject all four because they ignorantly proclaim a kind of ‘no creed but Christ’ mentality. And yet every believer must reckon with the passages related to these views, because they appear in God’s word at every turn. Though it can become contentious, this topic is fundamental to get right.
Pelagianism
Beginning with the most theologically liberal view, Pelagianism is about lessening the devastation and reality of sin. This has been taken as far as when the “liberal modernists of the early twentieth century taught a form of Pelagianism in which man is basically good.”[1] This denial of basic Biblical truth regarding sin and man strikes at the heart of the gospel, and appeals more to fleshly foolishness rather than Spirit-enabled wisdom. The foundation for this is an inflated view of man, rather than an acceptance of the testimony of Scripture. Beeke and Smalley rightly note that Pelagianism “was not a variation within Christianity, but apostasy to a pagan belief in man’s self-made virtue.”[2] Yet even though this perspective is hardly Christian, “the Pelagian view of man periodically resurfaces among professing Christians.”[3] There is something pleasing at a shallow level about the idea of absolute free will, and about a sinful nature that isn’t very sinful. Sadly, the presence of Pelagian ideas reveals that one is deceived, untaught, or simply stubborn against God. It is ironic that Pelagianism claims man has the ability to do and know good, yet does this by rejecting the Biblical revelation, and thus testifies in practice to man having a radically fallen nature that opposes God and His word. Pelagians greatly limit the effects of Adam’s sin, claiming “that Adam’s sin did not bring condemnation or moral corruption upon the entire race.”[4]
Semi-Pelagianism
When it comes to Semi-Pelagianism, there is a greater desire to honour what Scripture teaches about the fallen nature of man. Scripture is lifted off the floor and placed upon the chair, but raising the supposed standard of man’s condition is still the key feature. Beeke and Smalley present this example, “Erasmus sought to avoid Pelagianism by attributing salvation mostly to grace, but he also attempted to attribute a small contribution to human free will as God’s universal grace mitigates the effects of the fall. Consequently, his approach was semi-Pelagian.”[5] Unfortunately, Semi-Pelagianism still tries to find room for inherent goodness within a fallen nature, blending concepts that don’t fit together comfortably. God is given the title ‘Sovereign’, but in practice this is not exclusive; man retains some sovereignty for himself. Unlike with Pelagianism, the fall had a significant impact. Man in his fallen state was maimed, but certainly not dead. He could—and in fact needed to—reach out to God with the strength that he still had. This sounds familiar in our day, because Arminianism overlaps and often falls into Semi-Pelagian thought. “After Arminius, some Arminians went further.”[6] It is an errant view, and should be rejected because it attributes to man that which doesn’t belong to him. It misrepresents free will and ultimately mispresents the seriousness of the fall of man. Semi-Pelagianism raises man up far too high, and brings God down far too low.
Arminianism
Arminianism is very prevalent today, used as a broad term to cover variations of Arminius’ own views and of Semi-Pelagian thought. Arminianism, like Semi-Pelagianism, elevates man so that God co-operates with man in order for man to be saved. This individualism is naturally attractive in an age where ‘self’ is perhaps the chief idol. As Macarthur and Mayhue describe, “the Arminian conception of election rests the ultimate cause of salvation on man, not on God; election is simply God’s ratification of the choices that he foresaw individuals would make.”[7] This provisionism is a direct result of mankind supposedly retaining moral ability even after the fall. As Beeke and Smalley summarise, “Arminians say that the human will always stands in a position of indifference, so it can will either good or evil.”[8] Arminianism tries to find a way to balance sin and righteousness in the fallen state of man, an attempt to make sense of man’s experience and perspective regarding his own ability to will and choose. This stems from the theology of Arminius, but often goes further in reducing the impact of sin. “Jacob Arminius taught that Adam’s sin brought upon his natural descendants both a liability to death under God’s wrath and the loss of original righteousness.”[9] Clearly this is distinct from Pelagianism, and even sits on the conservative side of semi-Pelagianism. But it is also very distinct from the Calvinistic understanding, since “Arminius taught a doctrine of prevenient grace, which man must not resist so that he can receive more grace and so be saved. Grace is necessary, but man’s will is decisive for the outcome.”[10] Every view introduced thus far carries the same core principle: man can do it himself. Though each view varies in the degree of God’s involvement and the dependence upon him, each view still holds that man has an independently-driven part to play. Arminianism nearly gets it right, but assumes that the Spirit is helping a limp man to walk, rather than bringing a dead man to life.
Calvinism
Calvinism is a controversial view that I have found to be slandered even simply because of the title. Perhaps this is itself a testimony to the validity of the view, in that critics often resort to this ad hominem argumentation. The view could just as well be known as the ‘Augustinian’, ‘Reformed’, or simply ‘sovereign grace’ perspective. As Beeke and Smalley helpfully state, “The Augustinian tradition, reaffirmed and clarified by Luther, Calvin, and the Reformed churches, teaches that man’s sinful condition can be remedied only by the transforming power of sovereign grace.”[11] Calvinism seeks to appropriately define the roles of man and God in salvation, with a Biblical understanding of the fallen state of man as a key feature. Man is found to be lacking in moral ability; since the fall caused radical spiritual corruption, man by nature can no longer please God. He is tragically bound to a life of sin, because “the stronghold of reigning sin is in the heart.”[12] Genesis 6:5 says, “Yahweh saw that the evil of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Calvinism acknowledges that this foundation of depravity prevents man from doing genuine righteousness. As Beeke and Smalley note, “Two notable features of the Reformed doctrine of original sin are total depravity and total inability…Total inability does not mean that fallen men can do nothing useful for society, but rather that they do nothing pleasing to God or take the first step of willing the good that God requires, without regenerating grace.”[13] That “first step” is perhaps the crucial difference between Calvinism and other views. Calvinism states that God must exclusively regenerate the sinner in order for the sinner to even have ability. It is not a cooperation between God and man. Man is dead apart from God’s grace. Once the heart is transformed and freed from enslavement to sin, man is then free to choose that which is good—to believe upon Christ.
Conclusion
This doctrine of fallen man’s nature is complex, and yet crucial to understand well. The gospel can become dangerously distorted if the Biblical witness is not prioritised. Beeke and Smalley warn that “many theologians have attempted to craft a middle road between Augustinianism and Pelagianism…Though this solution seeks to ascribe the glory of salvation entirely to God, at a practical level it gives man ultimate veto power over his salvation, logically requiring that man must credit himself, along with God, for his redemption…If embraced in it’s full implications, such a doctrine destroys the gospel of salvation by grace alone and replaces it with a law that cannot save.”[14] The Biblical approach is narrow and firm. And rather than fight against what our foolish flesh considers unfair, the glory of sovereign grace should magnify God’s name in our hearts and minds. “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33).
[1] Beeke, Joel R., and Smalley Paul M. Reformed Systematic Theology, Vol. 2. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020, pp381-82.
[2] Reformed Systematic Theology, p367.
[3] Reformed Systematic Theology, p383.
[4] Reformed Systematic Theology, p367.
[5] Reformed Systematic Theology, p371.
[6] Reformed Systematic Theology, p377.
[7] MacArthur, J., & Mayhue, R. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017, p498.
[8] Reformed Systematic Theology, p409.
[9] Reformed Systematic Theology, p376.
[10] Reformed Systematic Theology, p377.
[11] Reformed Systematic Theology, p383.
[12] Reformed Systematic Theology, p401.
[13] Reformed Systematic Theology, p379.
[14] Reformed Systematic Theology, p383