The following is an abridged version of a paper that was presented at the 2021 ISBH symposium on “Current Issues in Soteriology.”
A Quadrant Model of Soteriological Compromises [Abridged]
Our soteriological perspective can be described as Faith Alone in Christ Alone (FACA). This view is not held by consensus but rather is derived biblically. Many who fall under the umbrella of Christendom reject our perspective, typically because they deem FACA either to be insufficient or unnecessary to varying degrees, and outside of Christendom are those who reject the Gospel for even more reasons. The following chart shows the relation of FACA to other perspectives:
The top represents FACA and the bottom has views that typically do not self-identify as Christian. The quadrant in the middle of the chart divides the bulk of Christendom in terms of direction (left, right) and distance (near, distant). The left has Works-Assisted Condition (WAC) and Works-Assisted Merit (WAM), both of which compromise the sufficiency of FACA. The right has Christian Pluralism (CP) and Christian Universalism (CU), both of which compromise the necessity of FACA. The distant views (WAM, CU) are more extreme than the near alternatives (WAC, CP).
The differences are vast and often confusing. Within Christendom, many will use the phrase, “Faith alone in Christ alone,” including Protestants who espouse Works-Assisted Condition (WAC) and Christian Pluralism (CP), but while we may be using the same words, we are often using different dictionaries; these arguments are over the application of (but not source of) salvific merit and often deal with semantics. Others, especially the more distant views of WAM camps, are more likely to reject faith alone and say that works are meritorious; these disagreements are rooted more in source of salvific merit than WAC or CP. Yet others come from the CU perspective and argue that God will save everyone; these arguments may appeal to liberalism or perhaps cherry-pick aspects from opposing soteriological and eschatological systems to render faith in Christ unnecessary in this life.
The broad and complex nature of soteriological distinctions renders soteriological reductionism ineffective, so this model does not intend to over-simplify any issues but instead hopes to develop a better presentation and understanding of perspectives within Christendom. Space restrictions prohibit a thorough response to each view, but in hopes of clarifying IFCA’s position and equipping readers for more meaningful evangelistic conversations, this paper will attempt to present each of these perspectives, especially the four that are Christian, yet non-FACA, and common trends within the perspectives.
The Top: Faith Alone in Christ Alone (FACA)
We believe that the Bible teaches that man is saved simply through faith alone in Christ alone. In brief, our view could be summarized: God is infinitely holy and therefore cannot have relationship with that which is unholy (1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 33:5; Hab. 1:13). His perfect justice demands that sin be punished (Pss. 9:8; 96: 10, 13; Acts 17:31). The sin of the world was laid on Christ at the cross and sin, therefore, does not prevent man from salvation (Isa. 53; Rom. 5:8; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24); however, since natural man still falls short of God’s standard of holiness, he is separated from Him by default and is unable to do any work that could merit righteousness (Isa. 64:6; Luke 19:10; John 3:19-21; Eph. 2:12; Rom. 1:18–3:20). Man is born spiritually dead and heading for eternal conscious torment in the Lake of Fire (John 3:18; 8:24; Eph. 2:1; Rev. 20:11–15), but the believer is saved from this end when He is given a second birth whereby God imputes Christ’s righteousness to him when he fulfils the sole condition of believing in Christ for eternal life (John 3:3–18; Eph. 2:4–9; Phil. 3:9; Rom. 3:22; Rev. 21).
The Left: Works-Assisted Condition (WAC)
The main disagreement between FACA and WAC is over the application of salvific merit. The WAC school has differing camps within itself, but they would agree that somehow or another man’s good works are a condition for salvation.
The famous debate between Arminians and Calvinists is often a dispute over details that inevitably end in WAC nonetheless. To be clear, Arminians and Calvinists can hold to FACA, but there are some versions of these systems that cross the line into WAC. A particularly popular systematic theology from the Wesleyan Arminian tradition has:
Saving faith is vitally related to good works… Too frequently, Calvinists in their insistence upon salvation by faith only, have denied works, both as a merit and as a condition. Arminians deny the merit of good works but insist upon them as a condition of salvation. Mr. Wesley’s formula was, “works, not as a merit, but as a condition.”[1]
While Arminians and Calvinists critique each other in the details, some more extreme Calvinists come to similar conclusions as extreme Arminians. These conclusions are often related to the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. To be clear, the doctrine of eternal security is biblical, but to say that God preserves the saints is different from saying that the saints must persevere in works to be saved. No Christian, if he is honest with himself, knows that he will persevere. While Calvinism advocates an unconditional election to salvation, many Calvinists will rest the assurance of their election on their own perseverance, rather than solely on Christ’s promise.[2] These works are not viewed as meritorious, but the question, “Am I saved?” is not answered by pointing to Christ, but to self. The Arminian who rejects eternal security often has a similar answer to the same questions.
This is not to say that WAC believes that man’s works are meritorious; WAC advocates agree that only Christ’s works can purchase salvation and therefore they reject the notion of meritorious works, but it seems that WAC positions are self-contradictory: Works do not save, but there is no salvation without works.
The Distant Left: Works-Assisted Merit (WAM)
The WAM views are on the same trajectory as WAC, but come to more distant conclusions on the alleged insufficiency of FACA. While both reject the actual “faith alone” message, WAM is more explicit. Naturally, there are similarities with WAC, as both are on the same side of the spectrum. Perhaps some of the similarities spur from the Roman Catholic roots of the Protestant Reformation, but there are still some clear distinctions between WAM and WAC that should be highlighted.
The Council of Trent outlines five causes of justification: final (finalis), effectual (efficiens), meritorious (meritoria), and instrumental (instrumentalis).[3] The instrumental cause is said to be the sacrament of baptism, which is a marked departure from WAC—much more from FACA—but it is the causa meritoria that is most complicated. The meritorious cause for justification is said to be Jesus and His work on the cross, which would be tempting to agree with, but the Roman Catholic understanding of justification does not come with a promise of eternal life. The Catechism divides justification by God’s merit from attaining eternal life by man’s merit:
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.[4]
For this reason, Roman Catholicism falls squarely in line with Works-Assisted Merit. The Roman Catholic does not suppose that his merit alone saves him—Christ’s merit is vital to the transaction—but as one Roman Catholic theologian summarizes, “It is the presence or absence of works that determines one’s future destiny.”[5]
Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Roman Catholicism on several key points of doctrine and practice while still adhering to the WAM school of thought. Eastern Orthodoxy and other groups[6] have a soteriology that is a process of theosis, or deification. Rather than Christ dying for men so that man can be saved by grace through faith, theosis has Christ becoming man so that man could strive to become like Him.
Unfortunately, WAM is found in Protestantism as well. Alexander Campbell, an early leader of the Restoration Movement, lists adoption, justification, and sanctification as consequents of baptism.[7] One Church of Christ minister writes, “Is work meritorious? Absolutely! It is correct that there is no justification by works done before one is saved by grace through faith; however, never will salvation be rewarded to those who haven’t done good works after being justified.”[8]
WAM has been the topic of much debate, especially in the centuries since the Reformation. We have here the examples of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Church of Christ, but these are not alone in proclaiming WAM. Often Christian cults will hold to WAM, but these are too numerous to do justice here. In short, WAM conflicts with clear Biblical teaching that salvation is through FACA and is an insult to the person and work of Jesus Christ.
The Right: Christian Pluralism (CP)
The left side of the chart (WAC and WAM) diminishes the sufficiency of faith in Christ while the right side of the chart (CP and CU) diminishes the necessity of faith in Christ. CP and WAC have much in common with each other, being near alternatives to FACA. Often our differences with near alternatives boil down to semantic arguments. While WAC compromises the message of “faith in Christ,” CP compromises the message of “faith in Christ.” Both camps may repeat the five solae, but just as WAC redefines the terms to make them fit, CP does likewise.
In so many words, CP teaches that everyone under the umbrella of Christendom—all Calvinists, Arminians, FACA advocates, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.—are all essentially teaching the same thing and so we are all one Body of Christ. Different CP advocates draw the line differently, such that some will not include Catholics while others might even include Mormons. But in the end, regardless of how the individual defines the saving message, it does not require someone to believe in Christ alone for eternal life and instead accepts the possibility that someone can be saved by trusting his works to some extent instead.
Does this mean that Catholics, Adventists, Church of Christ members, etc., cannot be saved? Of course not. Even an atheist, Muslim, or Scientologist can be saved by believing in Christ, but at the moment in which someone believes in Christ, he is rejecting the doctrines of Catholicism, Adventism, Islam, Scientology, and every other false gospel or religion that rejects the sufficiency and necessity of Christ.
Christians agree that there should be unity in the Body of Christ and it is agreed that there are many challenges to Christian unity, but anti-unity is not only division on the inside, but also unity with the outside. For example, a famous American Christian Pluralist pastor appeared on CNN during a presidential election in which Mitt Romney, a Mormon, was a leading candidate. The pastor was asked how he would respond if a congregant expressed concern that Mormons are not Christians to which he responded:
Well, my personal view is, Wolf, if when I hear Mitt Romney say that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that He’s the Christ, raised from the dead, that He’s his Savior, that’s good enough for me… I believe they are a believer in Christ [sic]… Mormonism is a little bit different, but I still see them as brothers in Christ.[9]
Other Christian Pluralists may be more restrictive than this example, but just as Mormonism redefines “Christ” (among other things), Christian Pluralism redefines “believer in Christ,” to include those who do not believe in Christ, sometimes to the extent that it includes Mormons.
Christian Pluralism is distinct from (though, often accepts adherents of) Religious Pluralism and Syncretism. It is also distinct from (but often the root soteriology of) ecumenism. To the extent that Ecumenism is oriented toward social issues, it is not a soteriological issue per se, but clear priorities must be established to prevent mistaking unity over non-salvific issues for being one in the Body of Christ. Indeed, soteriological differences have been a hindrance to the Ecumenical Movement, so it is not uncommon for Ecumenists to appeal to Christian Pluralism to overcome the soteriological barriers.
A semantics slight to beware of is the broadening of the term, “Gospel.” While dispensationalism seeks to rightly divide the various messages of good news throughout the Bible,[10] an opposing trend reconstructs evangelistic terminology and methodology by recontextualizing multiple gospels, sometimes even including gospels that are entirely foreign to Scripture. In a recent dissertation[11] to help a major Evangelical ministry seek “to determine what constitutes effective and even culturally appropriate approaches to evangelism in the twenty-first century,”[12] an influential missiologist proposes that the Gospel should involve, among other things, “restoration, the inclusion of all people—rich and poor, outcasts and foreigners, and empowerment, liberation, and deliverance for the disenfranchised… the good news includes God’s presence in suffering now and the promise of eternal life.”[13] Note the broadening of the message from the promise of eternal life to include liberation. This is not just a call to defend traditional marriage, but rather reinforces long-held evangelistic partnerships with the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine, as well as employment of missionaries with aberrant theology.[14]
Difficulties ensue when delineating CP, but this section hopes to establish the general barriers of what constitutes a Christian Pluralist and to identify some intersections where pluralistic ideology permeates Christendom. CP is to be rejected because it compromises the exclusivity of the Biblical Gospel and allows for other ways of salvation besides FACA. CP thrives when (but is by no means excluded to when) the Gospel is downplayed or redefined in social terms, which opens the floodgates to inappropriate unity.
The Distant Right: Christian Universalism (CU)
Pluralism implies exclusivity, so a more extreme rejection of the necessity of FACA is CU, which concludes that everyone eventually will be saved. This may sound friendly on the surface, but the Biblicist should find a closer examination to be unsettling. CU comes in too many forms to address every possibility, so a few common examples of CU and its ramifications follow.
CU was first clearly pronounced by Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD)[15] and from its earliest days, proponents were proclaiming other heterodox views to the extent that the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 AD) declared several anathemas against early universalists. Honest proponents of CU admit to its shady history.[16] Responding to CU can be difficult since it is a moving target,[17] as one universalist puts it, “Throughout Christian history, but most especially since the seventeenth century, universalism keeps being ‘reinvented.’”[18]
The ramifications of CU are greater than they may seem because the processes that support Universalism often inflict damage to a host of doctrines along the way. For example, some theologians spiritualize “hell,” such that it is a current kingdom and experience,[19] in order to open the floodgates for annihilationism or CU. This move can easily slip into Christological errors relating to the cross; such is the case with Jeremy Myers, a CU proponent[20] who is respected within certain evangelical circles. With an agenda to demonstrate that “God will not separate Himself from anyone in eternity,”[21] Myers begins by spiritualizing hell and along the way denies substitutionary atonement[22] and even goes as far as to interpret “Christ’s descent into hell as the story of the Incarnation into ‘this present darkness.’”[23]
Just as WAC and CP have similarities as near alternatives to FACA, so also WAM and CU have similar tendencies as distant alternatives. WAM, especially in higher liturgy forms such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, tends to shift authority from Scripture to ecclesiastical bodies. These organizations change the meaning of “salvation” and diminish Christ’s role by shifting some of the burden of merit onto man, thus rendering FACA insufficient. CU also tends to shift authority away from Scripture, but typically in liberal directions that redefine the terms of “salvation,” diminish Christ’s person and work, and ultimately render FACA unnecessary.
What may seem to be a disagreement over soteriology or even eschatology is often a result of an earlier, more fundamental, disagreement over the nature of God’s holy writ. It becomes difficult to reason with CU proponents exegetically when the Bible, the only source of exegetical material, comes under siege. Just as one does not need to grant authority to an ecclesiological body to suppose WAM, it is not necessary to reject inerrancy to land in CU; however, CU is not consistent with grammatical-historical hermeneutics, so there must be some hermeneutical shift and the shift often relates to inerrancy.
Suffice to say that it fits best on a theologically liberal framework. The bottom line of CU is that everyone will eventually spend eternity with the Christian God (though the Christian God may be vastly redefined in some CU circles). CU is to be rejected, not only for its conclusions, but also for the liberal methodologies that usually cause the conclusions.
Other Perspectives
The average Christian is a kaleidoscope of contradicting ideas. A Pew Research poll shows that in the UK, Protestants are more likely than Catholics to say that both good deeds and faith in God are necessary to get into heaven.[24] The same study has 78% of German Christians saying that Catholics and Protestants today are religiously more similar than different.[25] This is Germany, home of the Protestant Reformation! The causes for confusion are a matter of speculation, but certainly many underlying problems exist. While the quadrant model helps diagnose a person’s soteriological perspective, it will only hinder the discussion if it is assumed that everyone applies a rigid mode of consistent thought. A few tips are in order to help evangelists properly understand those who do not quite fit into any particular quadrant. Occasionally, someone may hold to an odd doctrine that confuses diagnostics. Another difficulty might be that someone may keep silent about his views or live with incompatible strands of doctrine without ever resolving the inconsistencies. Such is particularly common following neo-orthodoxy but certainly extends to other traditions as well.
Pure Universalism would have that all people are saved but that Christ is not the universal Saviour. Pure Universalism comes in many forms, but often there is an eschatologically redeeming element as in CU. Religious Pluralism is similar to Pure Universalism, but distinct in that Pluralism excludes somebody. Alternative religions and atheism reject the Bible as it stands. Neither would self-identify as Christian, so an analysis of such worldviews would be beyond the thrust of this study, which is to present in broad terms a quadrant model of four soteriological compromises within Christendom.
CONCLUSION
Satan will not tire in his assault on the gospel. The model presented here does not pretend to classify everyone who claims to be a Christian into one of four options, nor are the quadrants the only alternatives to FACA. This quadrant model is presented, not to oversimplify complex issues, but rather to assist readers in identifying soteriological compromises so that they will be better equipped to urge unbelievers to believe in Christ alone for eternal life. May He receive uncompromised glory in our evangelism!
[1] Henry Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1952), II.373.
[2] See Gordon Clark’s comments on 1 John 2:3 in Gordon H. Clark, First John: A Commentary 2nd ed. (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1980).
[3] Council of Trent, 6.7.
[4] Catechism 2010. Available online at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2010.htm (accessed December 28, 2020).
[5] Michael P. Barber, “A Catholic Perspective: Out Works Are Meritorious at the Final Judgment because of our Union with Christ by Grace” in Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment Alan Stanley, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 168.
[6] Roger E. Olson, “Deification in Contemporary Theology” Theology Today 64:2 (July 1, 2007), 186–200.
[7] Alexander Campbell, Christian Baptism—Its Antecedents and Consequents (Bethany, VS: Alexander Campbell, 1851), 274–312.
[8] Minky Chang, Is Work Meritorious” Buford Church of Christ, July 23, 2020, https://www.bufordcoc.com/is-work-meritorius2/ (accessed December 29, 2020).
[9] “Joel Osteen talks religion & politics,” CNN, April 4, 2012. Available online at https://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2012/04/24/exp-tsr-osteen-intv.cnn (accessed December 7, 2020).
[10] For a classic example, see ch. 21, “The Four Gospels” in Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages Enlarged and Revised Ed. (Philadelphia: Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., 1920).
[11] Cas Monaco, “Bill Bright’s (1921–2003) Four Spiritual Laws Reimagined: A Narrative Approach to Meaningful Gospel Conversations for an American Twenty-First-Century Secularized Context” PdD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2020 available online at https://search.proquest.com/openview/003724e24648323cfe181794e656b5b1/1.pdf (accessed December 23, 2020).
[12] Cas Monaco “Bill Bright’s Four Spiritual Laws Reimagined,” 3.
[13] Cas Monaco “Bill Bright’s Four Spiritual Laws Reimagined,” 9.
[14] This is based on personal conversations and correspondence with Cru staff based in Eastern and Central Europe.
[15] See Tom Greggs, “Apokatastasis: Particularist Universalism in Origen (c. 185–c. 254)” in All Shall be Well: Explorations in Universal Salvation and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann, Gregory Macdonald, ed. (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, James Clarke & Co Ltd., 2011), 29–46.
[16] See Gregory Macdonald, “Introduction: Between Heresy and Dogma” in All Shall be Well: Explorations in Universal Salvation and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann, Gregory Macdonald, ed. (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, James Clarke & Co Ltd., 2011), 1–25.
[17] Another difficulty is the term itself. “Christian Universalism” is often used in reference to neoliberal inclusivity, which deals less with soteriology and more with ecclesiology. See, for example, the verbiage in Melissa E. Sanchez, “Transdevotion: Race, Gender, and Christian Universalism” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 19:4 (2019), 94–98. doi:10.1353/jem.2019.0039.
[18] Gregory Macdonald, “Introduction: Between Heresy and Dogma” in All Shall be Well: Explorations in Universal Salvation and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann, Gregory Macdonald, ed. (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, James Clarke & Co Ltd., 2011), 15.
[19] For example, see Bradley Jersak, “Hell is a Kingdom: the Missing Motif Reconstructed” Clarian Journal for Religion, Peace & Justice (Dec. 18, 2015). Available online at https://www.clarion-journal.com/files/hell-is-a-kingdom-4.pdf (accessed December 31, 2020).
[20] Myers has that his view is more closely related to Traditionalism (Eternal Conscious Torment) that Universalism on the grounds that he believes that the eternal experience will be hindered when someone rejects Christ. This is a false alignment. Myers clearly holds that everyone will be with God and this is Universalism, even if there are degrees of experience in eternity. Jeremy Myers, What is Hell? The Truth About Hell and How to Avoid It Kindle eBook version (Dallas, OR: Redeeming Press, 2019), 356.
[21] Jeremy Myers, What is Hell? The Truth About Hell and How to Avoid It Kindle eBook version (Dallas, OR: Redeeming Press, 2019), 352.
[22] Jeremy Myers, “Good Questions About the Death of Jesus that Make no Sense” Redeeming God, available online at https://redeeminggod.com/good-questions-make-no-sense/ (accessed December 31, 2020).
[23] The quote is Bradley Jersak’s paraphrase of Jeremy Myers’ view in the forward of Jeremy Myers, What is Hell? The Truth About Hell and How to Avoid It Kindle eBook version (Dallas, OR: Redeeming Press, 2019), 221.
[24] Pew Research Center, “Five Centuries After Reformation, Catholic-Protestant Divide in Western Europe Has Faded,” (August 31, 2017), 10.
[25] Pew Research Center, “Five Centuries After Reformation, Catholic-Protestant Divide in Western Europe Has Faded,” (August 31, 2017), 4.
You must be logged in to post a comment.