In a piece in the Augusta Chronicle, Pastor James Cole of Sovereign Grace Community Church argued that the “Church isn’t for the unbelievers.” In response to a person who said that they liked having unsaved people in the church “so that they could save them,” Cole responded:
First, we don’t save anyone, at all, never, whatsoever. If anyone gets saved, they are saved by Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone through the preaching of His word and regeneration by His Holy Spirit. If you and I can save someone, then there is no point in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Leaving aside the particular question of whether churches should be exclusively for the already-converted or not, I’m intrigued by his emphatic declaration that “we don’t save anyone, at all, never, whatsoever” and that thinking otherwise somehow renders Christ’s death pointless. Cole doesn’t cite any sort of biblical support for this assertion. Instead, it’s just the sort of thing that Protestant pastors say with some regularity, which is surprising, given how obviously wrong it is.
What I mean by that is that there are multiple Bible verses that say the exact opposite of what Cole claims. To take just the Epistle of James as an example, St. James speaks of how you should bring the sick before the presbyters of the Church, since “the prayer of faith will save the sick man” (James 5:15), and then he says (James 5:19-20):
My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
It’s not possible to simultaneously believe that we “can save his soul from death” (as the Bible says) and “we don’t save anyone, at all, never, whatsoever” (as the Bible never says). So Cole and the countless other Protestants who say things like this are wrong. My question is: why? What is leading people to make this basic of a mistake about salvation?
The short answer I’ve got is: I don’t know for sure. It’s impossible to get someone else’s head, and dangerous to pretend to do so. So take all of what follows with an appropriately-sized grain of salt, because I have a three-fold theory: (1) that this is owing to the influence of monergism, (2) that it’s a mistaken application of “zero-sum” thinking, and (3) that Protestants often emphasize our role as instruments of God at the expense of understanding our role as His co-workers.
First: the Protestant doctrine of monergism holds that “the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.” The argument is that because we’re fallen sinners, and dead in our sins before regeneration, then the act of regeneration must be 100% God, and 0% us. I actually want to leave aside the question of whether monergism is right (it’s not, but that’s not the point I’m making today). But for now, just notice how easy it is to go from “it’s 0% us, and 100% God” in regards to our own salvation to saying “it’s 0% us, and 100% God” in regards to the salvation of others. (Note that this isn’t logically necessary, but it’s easy to slip into).
Second: “zero-sum” refers to “a situation (such as a game or relationship) in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side.” Here, it’s the idea that in order for God to have 100%, we must have 0%. The minute that we contribute even 1% (or more) to salvation, God gets knocked down to 99% (or less). Cole all but says this outright: if we contribute anything to our neighbor’s salvation, “then there is no point in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Our gain would be God’s corresponding loss. This is both a logical and a theological error, because it makes us the same kinds of actors as God. As I said a few years back:
It makes sense to ask what percentage of the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo, and what percentage was painted by other painters, like Sandro Botticelli. Michelangelo and Botticelli are the same type of actors. But if you were to ask what percentage of the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo, and what percentage was painted by paintbrushes, it would become clear you were thinking of Michelangelo as a mere sort of tool.
You can say without contradiction to say that 100% of the Sistine Chapel ceiling was painted by Michelangelo, and that 100% of the Sistine Chapel ceiling was painted by paintbrushes. Likewise, you can say without contradiction that God saves our neighbor and that we do, without it becoming 50-50, or 99-1, etc. But because we’re used to thinking about these things is terms of human activity (where if you do more work, I do less), it’s easy to slip into this erroneous way of thinking. Ultimately, thinking about God and man as a “zero sum game” is a sort of insult to God, reducing Him to the level of being merely another human actor.
Zero-sum thinking here is also a subtle Christological error. Bishop Barron points out one of the central lessons of the Incarnation: “if God became human without ceasing to be God and without compromising the integrity of the creature he became, God must not be a competitor with his creation.” In other words, if you believe that God and man are in a kind of zero-sum relationship with one another, then you’re ultimately arguing against the Incarnation by saying that it’s impossible for Christ to be both fully God and fully man.
Third: Scripture speaks of us both as God’s instruments and His coworkers. When God send Ananias to the newly-converted Saul/Paul, He says, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). But while we’re God’s instruments, we’re also so more than that. After all, a literal instrument has no willpower – it’s simply being used by another. We have the ability to cooperate with God, to be coworkers alongside Him in the ministry of salvation. In today’s First Reading, St. Paul says to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:6-9):
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
He likewise says that Prisca and Aquila are his “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 16:3), that Tryphaena and Tryphosa are “workers in the Lord” (Rom. 16:12), and that Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus are “fellow workers for the kingdom of God” (Col. 4:10-11). St. John likewise calls for us to care for missionaries, “that we may be fellow workers in the truth” (3 John 1:7-8). What all of this has in common is that we’re not simply passive players, something acted upon by God. We’re also invited (indeed, called) to be active players in the spreading and sharing of the Gospel.
The difficulty is keeping both of these aspects – active and passive, instrument and coworker – in view, since to lose either half is to get a distorted picture of salvation. And amidst all of this is God’s own activity. Even when we work alongside Him, it is God who is at work in us. As St. Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” But He is at work in us in a way that respects and strengthens our freedom, not in a way that overrides it. As Jesus promises, “if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36), which is why St. Paul can speak simultaneously of being a slave for Christ and being a “freedman of the Lord” and “a slave of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:22).
To see what it looks like to keep all of these threads in view, look at St. Paul. He praises God that the Thessalonians received his preaching as “what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” And how did he know that this was the case? Because they became “imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:13-14). Their activity, in other words, was evidence both of their receptivity and God’s activity within them. All of these seemingly-contradictory things (God acted, they received, they acted) were true simultaneously. If you pit God’s activity against ours, or our receptivity against our cooperation, or our being instruments against our being coworkers, you end up with a distorted view of salvation.
Part of the Good News of the Gospel is that you and I have a real role to play in the salvation of the world. That role isn’t the same one as Jesus’, who is the “one mediator between God and men,” who “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But it’s a real role, nevertheless. In my own case, my salvation was due in no small part to the role of (now-Fr.) Andrew Strobl charitably answering all of my theological problems back when I was in college. I can simultaneously say that “he saved me” and “Christ saved me,” because I don’t mean the same thing in those instances. I’m not suggesting that Fr. Andrew mounted a Cross for me. Rather, I’m using “saved” in the sense of bringing me to Christ… which is the same way that James uses it in the New Testament. If we lose this, if we start demonizing other Christians for wanting to save their unsaved neighbors, then we’ve lost something essential to what it is to be Christian.
I agree with your main point. I’ve always read “whoever brings back a sinner…will save his soul…” to mean he who brings back a sinner saves his own soul from death, not that he saves the one he brings back. Do you know of any commentary that clarifies this passage?
Grace,
I hadn’t noticed that the passage in James can be read either way, depending on who the “he” who shall be saved is. You’re right to catch that. My own inclination is that the “he” refers to the straying person, since that seems to make more sense, contextually (presumably, the person bringing them back already is right before God).
In any case, both are true, according to St. Paul: “Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Timothy 4:16). And it seems that the Fathers took James 5:19-20 in both senses – both the person who turns them back, and the person who is turned back, are saved. St. John Cassian (360-435), for instance, wrote: “Sometimes too the pardon of our sins is obtained by the intercession of the saints, for “if a man knows his brother to sin a sin not unto death, he asks, and He will give to him his life, for him that sinneth not unto death;” [1 John 5:16] […] And often by the conversion and salvation of those who are saved by our warnings and preaching: “For he who converts a sinner from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and cover a multitude of sins.” [James 5:20].”
From Ancient Christian Commentary, it appears that some (like Origen and St. Hilary of Arles) took it to mean the salvation of the preacher, while others (like the Venerable Bede, and St. Gregory the Great) took it to mean the salvation of the straying person. I think the latter interpretation is more what James is saying, but that both interpretations are orthodox, and consistent with 1 Tim. 4:16.
Ouch! This made my head hurt! No wonder so many people see us coming and run.
Somewhere along the way in popular piety we do not perceive ourselves as the Body of Christ – the New Creation – the Beloved Community in and through which we are saved FROM the Hell that is alienation from God and each other and FOR bringing the life of Heaven to this time and place (the notion of being co-creators with God). We have replaced it with a plethora of individual salvation projects. This, in turn, has led to the convoluted, dead end arguments you address. It is prevalent in many Catholics of my acquaintance. This, of course, leads to “I can find God in nature, I don’t need the church” (my answer to that is “All may, none must, some should”). My suspicion is the antidote lies in better pastoral practice (which is where I hope the Holy Spirit and Pope Francis are leading us).
I look at the act of “saving” someone the context of the concept of being ‘born again’. Anyone who has raised children or animals know that mere biological birth is only part of being ‘born’. That is, it is not a single event, but rather a process that involves 2 major parts, the physical health of the infant child and the social/spiritual health of the same baby as he advances through weeks, months and years after his birth.The spiritual element can be considered a type of love or ‘bonding, and an infant is known to particularly study very carefully the faces of it’s mother and father as it advances in age.
So, relating this post-natal human biology to Christian salvation, we need to consider how Christian faith is taught to non-Christians, so that they might be ‘born again’. And, this is primarily accomplished by means of the Kerygma and the teaching of Christ’s Gospel message: ie.. presented to a non-believer by means of the teaching provided by a grace filled Christian… which consequently results in a ‘new spiritual bonding’ of that converted soul to Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit.
In this context, I believe that a person CAN help save another person…but only by providing his body and holy actions/virtues, so that the ‘Spirit’ and ‘face’ of Christ might shine through that teacher…wherein that new convert/disciple might be able to “bond” again to God….or ‘born again’ to the eternal loving face of God the Father, through knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
At least, that’s how I view this subject….and the role of evangelization and salvation…in general.
“4.1 Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification
19.We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:
20.When Catholics say that persons “cooperate” in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.
21.According to Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action. Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace. When they emphasize that a person can only receive (mere passive) justification, they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one’s own justification, but do not deny that believers are fully involved personally in their faith, which is effected by God’s Word. [cf. Sources for 4.1].”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Rev. Hans,
Good call sharing that – it is helpful in explaining both the Catholic and Lutheran view. (I think it also explains why the Catholic view isn’t Pelagianism, despite accusations to the contrary). But that’s about our own salvation. In your view, do you think that we can we help to save others?
Hello Joe!
Your question about saving others is a really good one. I am so entrenched in my views as a Lutheran, that it is hard for me to untangle it all. I have such a low view of humanity (and 2020 has not helped me any in this!!!). At best, we can encourage others with grace filled words, live a life as close to the gospel witness as possible, and pray for them. At the end of the day, I cling to the cross of Christ like a sailor overboard holding onto a plank of wood. What can I do for others to save them as we are all overboard?
As a side note, I am selling my house. Yes, I buried the St. Joseph statute. I prayed to Christ a lot, and I asked for prayers and help from San Jose. I looked to St. Joseph for help like I look to my prayer friends for prayers. My boy, Luther loved Mary and St. Anne. I am not sure how he felt about St. Joseph. Luther never tried selling his house though either. ha ha ha!
Isn’t clear that we are held accountable for the loss of a soul that we see, but don’t attempt to dissuade from their evil ways? If our actions had no power, it would be unjust to hold us accountable.
And why would we need to “preach the Gospel to all nations”? God could engrave it some hillside like the Code of Hammurabi with perhaps a large illuminated hand pointing at it. Yes, wouldn’t that be much simpler?
Except it seems He intends to work through us and with us, worms that we are. How curious, except of course that unless we do His work how can we be transformed, how can we be saved or be worthy of saving?