Gratia omnibus

Abstract

This article attempts to compare the anthropological theories of the different positions concerning the grace doctrine. The article finds that the anthropological perspective of the nature of human beings in the state of sin is controlling in determining beliefs in the theology of sanctification and salvation, and dictates the Christian walk, especially with regard to the confession of sin. The article concludes that if there is error in the understanding of human anthropological origin, then there is error in the understanding of the application of grace unto salvation. It stresses that Scripture should be the ultimate standard under which anthologies of grace should be examined. The article also advances the relevance of traditions in modern Christianity. The doctrine of grace will be briefly investigated through the exegesis of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, particularly 1:4–7 and 2:8–9. The Calvinistic apologetics on the doctrines of grace is referred to throughout the article.

Full text

hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
In die Skriig / In Luce Verbi
ISSN: (Online) 2305-0853, (Print) 1018-6441
Page 1 of 10 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Author:
Zaldivar E. Acodesin1
Aliaon:
1Faculty of Theology,
North-West University,
Potchefstroom Campus,
South Africa
Corresponding author:
Zaldivar Acodesin,
zaldivaracodesin@gmail.com
Dates:
Received: 09 Feb. 2018
Accepted: 17 May 2018
Published: 27 Sept. 2018
How to cite this arcle:
Acodesin, Z.E., 2018, ‘Graa
omnibus’, In die Skriig 52(1),
a2355. hps://doi.org/
10.4102/ids.v52i1.2355
Copyright:
© 2018. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
Is God’s grace a mere comforting embrace for the sinner or is it an enabling and directing power
which drives Christians towards holy living?
The role of God’s grace is arguably the topic of many debates in Christianity. Ryrie (1963:10–11)
writes that grace is ‘the watershed that divides Catholicism from Protestantism, Calvinism from
Arminianism, and modern theological liberalism from theological conservatism’. From it flow
numerous, diverse and even conflicting theological Christian doctrines on human salvation.
While it has been plainly and generally characterised as a gift from God, freely given for human
salvation, debates as to its precise substance and role, is still unsettled (Kainer 2015:1, 7–12).
Robichaux (2000:5) observes that there is a ‘wide spectrum of definitions of what grace is among
various faith traditions within the Christian church’. Gaffin (2006:10) points out that there is an
‘undeniable state of affairs: the problematic nature of Pauline interpretation that has proven to be
the case down through the history of the church to the present’.
Grace is a fundamental concept in Christianity. Machen (cited by Bufford 2015:10) even says that
it is the ‘very centre and core of the whole Bible’. It is the ultimate manifestation of the immense
love of God, the very foundation of the gospel, profoundly shown to the sinners. Warfield
(2000:44) states that ‘it is in almighty grace that a sinner can hope’. After all, it is through grace that
the human interminable predicament, death, in its eventual sense, has been obliterated once and
for all. A compact of this elementary gospel message can be found in John 3:16 which Luther
famously referred to as the ‘heart of the Bible, the gospel in miniature’ (see Drury 2006). While
there is no question that God loves humanity, we may, however, inquire as to the extent of his love
for the sinner. Such a question draws different answers across the spectrum of Christian beliefs.
Ultimately, the answers would depend on the understanding of the role of grace and its functional
extent in the salvation narrative. This results to a mounting dilemma in the Christian church.
While various Christian groups claim that their institutional definition of grace is a faithful
interpretation of the Bible, all seem more caught up in dissimilarities than in accord (cf. Yarchin
2004:xi). In the search to satisfy a concrete characterisation of grace, some rely strictly on only one
version of a truth of the Bible, some blindly patronise teachers of the Word, insisting on progressive
and ‘new’ revelations, labelling themselves as ‘revolutionists’, while some are rigid in their
religiosity to teachings they have accepted as convention (cf. Gaffin 2006:1).
In general, we can identify three kinds of Christian orientations on the implications of God’s
grace: The first orientation that God’s grace results to the absolute application of God’s love
towards sinners so that they become perfect, blameless and absolutely absolved of any
implications of sin. The second argues for a partial application of God’s grace so that, while God
shows his love for the sinner, the sinner needs to cooperate with God’s gift to achieve salvation.
The third denies any application of grace which results a full reliance on the ability of the sinner
to work towards salvation. In these orientations are inroads that need to be nuanced and should
This article attempts to compare the anthropological theories of the different positions
concerning the grace doctrine. The article finds that the anthropological perspective of the
nature of human beings in the state of sin is controlling in determining beliefs in the theology
of sanctification and salvation, and dictates the Christian walk, especially with regard to the
confession of sin. The article concludes that if there is error in the understanding of human
anthropological origin, then there is error in the understanding of the application of grace unto
salvation. It stresses that Scripture should be the ultimate standard under which anthologies
of grace should be examined. The article also advances the relevance of traditions in modern
Christianity. The doctrine of grace will be briefly investigated through the exegesis of Paul’s
letter to the Ephesians, particularly 1:4–7 and 2:8–9. The Calvinistic apologetics on the doctrines
of grace is referred to throughout the article.
Graa omnibus
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.

Page 2 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
be subjected to critical analysis whether they are indeed
hinged on biblical truth. Needless to say, the litmus of faiths
should be the gospel truth, and whatever contradicts
Scripture in any way, shall be out-rightly dismissed and
treated as mere hypothesis. The challenge then is to be adept
in Scripture so that there can be an immediate recognition
and separation of truth from mere conjectures. Hence, there
is a need to trace concepts from their sources. This article
insists on tracing the origins of the doctrine of God’s grace
to Paul who is otherwise called the Apostle of Grace. This
means a study of Scripture, but a mere study should not
suffice; the study should follow the ultimate standard of
veracity and it should be thorough and in-depth. This article
attempts to subject the anthologies of grace to the redemptive-
historical framework where theologies on the nature of
human beings will be analysed as to their implications to the
sinners’ salvation.
Gaffin (2012:91) explains that the Scripture is an account of
‘inexorable forward movement of history, in all of its twists
and turns, towards its intended goal, Christ’. Through the
redemptive-historical view, readers of the Bible are urged to
trace passages to its ultimate reference point: the cross of
Christ – a story of how God is redeeming a people unto
himself through Christ. This is similar to what Paul said of
the gospel message (1 Cor 15). Paul bears witness to the
traditioning of God’s grace administration. He said:
… be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
which was not made known to men in other generations ... His
intent was that, through the church, the manifold wisdom of
God should be made known ... (Eph 3:4-10 – New International
Version [NIV])
Simply, the goal of this article is to relay to the reader that a
faithful understanding of grace should always be rooted their
Scripture. That said, whatever message is not in accordance
with Pauline grace, which is scriptural grace, is exclusively
false grace. The following subsections will explore why it is
imperative to have a correct understanding of the nature of
sinners while they were not saved. The implications of God’s
grace and its role for human salvation.
Pauline grace
The authors of the Bible were God-inspired and spirit-filled
writers. God called his writers and allowed them to see his
wonders and hear his voice so that they could pen the
chronology of God’s works in history. 2 Timothy 3:16 bears
witness to this truth: ‘All Scripture is God-breathed.’ Among
these writers is Paul.1 He is undeniably one of the greatest
Christian figures apart from Christ himself (Becker 1993:1, 5).
Paul was a Roman citizen (Ac 22:25–29).2 He introduced the
God of the Jews to the Gentiles and drew the Gentiles into a
1.Aer his conversion, he preferred to be called by his Roman name, Paul, rather than
his Hebrew name, Saul.
2.In Paul’s me, being a Roman cizen entails that one is privileged:
To the Roman his cizenship was his passport in distant lands, his talisman in
seasons of dicules and danger; it shielded him alike from the caprice of
municipal law and the injusce of local magistrates. (see The Internaonal
Standard Bible Encyclopaedia 1986:2273).
relationship with God. Paul himself acknowledged this
responsibility to introduce God to the Gentiles and he
emphasised this in his writings (Col 1:27; 1 Tm 2:7; Rm 1:5;
15:15–18). Thus, he came to be known by many as the Apostle
to the Gentiles (cf. Eph 3:1) because he was one of those
who severed the notion that the word of God is exclusive
only to the Jews. He reiterated in his writings the grant of
salvation even to the undeserving. It is in Ephesians 2:8–9
(NIV) where he wrote:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that
no one can boast.
According to Arnold (2008:21), Ephesians best narrates
what it means to be a Christian, as it clarifies the ‘heart of
the Christian faith’. Carson and Moo (2009:479–497), Heil
(2007:4–6), Hoehner (2002:2–77), O’Brien (1979:504–516) and
Schreiner (2011:11–30) are convinced that Ephesians is
written by Paul.3 It is worth noting that Paul wrote to the
Ephesians, because they once have heard the gospel message
of grace (cf. Eph 3:2ff.). This letter of Paul to the Ephesians
has hugely influenced Christian thought. Although Paul
writes of God’s grace in his other epistles such as in Romans
and Galatians, it is in Ephesians where Paul best articulates
God’s gift of grace to the sinners. After all, it is in Ephesians
3:2 that Paul tells us about the administration of God’s
grace given to him. Scholars agree that Paul’s letter to the
Ephesians is one of his more meaningful works. Bruce
(1984:229) calls Ephesians ‘the quintessence of Paulinism’,
because it ‘in large measure sums up the leading themes of
the Pauline epistles, and at the same time the central motive
of Paul’s ministry as the Apostle to the Gentiles’. Dodd
(1929:1224–1225) and Robinson (1907:vii) called Ephesians
the ‘crown of St. Paul’s writings’ and the ‘crown of
Paulinism’, respectively. Coleridge (1858:82) wrote that
Ephesians is ‘one of the divinest compositions of human
being, it embraces every doctrine of Christianity’. Calvin
(cited by Kostenberger, Kellum & Quarles 2012:241) even
referred to it as his favourite letter.
Paul’s writings on grace have been underscored in his letter
to the church in Ephesians. It is for these reasons that we
delve into the study of this letter to find Paul’s thoughts on
grace and associate them with what the other passages in the
Bible have to say about God’s grace in light of Christ’s works
for the salvation of the sinner.
Gaffin (2006:6) proposes a way of understanding Paul
through the redemptive-historical perspective which insists
that traditions and the passages of the Scripture are not mere
moral guides for the believer to live a faithful Christian life.
Scripture should rather be studied to unravel revelations of
Christ and his works for the salvation of sinners (Russell
1995:335–357) – that biblical-theological approach must
always be done with the recognition that each writer is a
part of a much larger (historical) context with the purpose
3.See also Arnold’s Ephesians (2011:46–50) which summarises the key reasons why
scholars and commentators are convinced that Ephesians is an authenc Pauline
leer.

Page 3 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
of directing those biblical knowledge to understand how
sinners are redeemed. Each, with his or her distinctive
contribution, functions in the unfolding history of God’s
self-revelation. God’s verbal self-revelation has its rationale,
as it is tethered to and is part of a larger totality of the
overall history of redemption and accompanying revelation,
of attesting and interpreting revelatory word focused on the
redemptive deed. In this way, we follow the lead of the New
Testament writers who understood the texts of the Bible in
their redemptive-historical setting and treated the texts in
relation to the ultimate biblical goal of fulfilment in Christ
(McCartney 2003).
Despite having Paul’s writings in the Bible as the main source
for the explanation of the doctrine of grace, there is an
inundation of diverse scholarly outputs on the meaning of
grace, its effects on sin and its role in the salvation of the
sinner.4 Instead of clarification, the numerous writings seem
to complicate its meaning and implication. Peter wrote about
the tendency and danger of misunderstanding Paul:
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them
of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they
do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Pt 3:16 NIV)
In Ephesians, Paul says of grace:
Καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναι ἡμᾶς
ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ
[For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and
blameless in His sight.]
ἐν ἀγάπῃ προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν,
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ
[In love He (God) predestined us to be adopted as His sons through
Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will …]
εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ
ἠγαπημένῳ
[to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the
One He loves.]
ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν
παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ
[In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins,
in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.] (Προς Εφεσίους 1:4–7;
Nestle 1967:490 [Eph 1:4–7 – NIV], [author’s emphasis])
Τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν,
θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον·
[For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God …].
Οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται
[not by works, so that no one can boast]. (Προς Εφεσίους 2:8–9; Nestle
1967:492 [Eph 2:8–9 – NIV], [author’s emphasis])
In trying to arrive at the truth intended by the two passages,
it is necessary to pay attention to the words used. Thus, it is
4.Some works include Barclay’s Paul and the gi (2015:151), Campbell’s Deliverance
of God (2009:172), Chester’s Reading Paul with the Reformers (2017:322), Dunn’s
Theology of Paul the apostle (1998:335), Sanders’ Paul and Palesnian Judaism
(1977:i), Stuhlmacher’s Revising Paul’s doctrine of juscaon (2001:75); Wright’s
Paul and the faithfulness of God (2013:1320).
vital to discuss the original meaning of certain keywords and
phrases (found in both the epistles and other supporting
passages) in examining the focus verses.
The Greek word ἐκλεκτός is widely translated in the
standard versions by such English terms as elect or chosen
(Wigram & Winter 1978:228). It is derived from the verb
form ἐκλέγομαι5 (cf. McCarthy 2010:1). It is the only form
occurring in one of the texts considered in this article
(Eph 1:4). However, many of the other 51 verses, concerning
this keyword, could have been included, because they
are related to the idea of election, foreordination and
predestination. For instance, John 15:15–16 tells us that
no one but God the Father can exercise choice in the
salvation narrative. The word predestined (προορίσας) in
verse Ephesians 1:5 is equivalent to the term foreordained
(Whitford 2012:87) which is a compound word from πρό – a
primary preposition which means ‘in front of’ or ‘prior to’
(figuratively superior),6 and from ρίζω which means to
mark out or bound (horizon), that is, (figuratively) to
appoint, decree or specify: declare, determine, limit or
ordain (Strong 1997:341). Thayer’s definition of the verb
προορίζω is to predetermine or decide beforehand: God’s
decree from eternity to foreordain and appoint beforehand
(Meyers 2016b). This keyword is the crux to understand the
controversy between the advocates of the human free will
and those who argue for a deterministic foreordination and
predestination (i.e. those who stress that both the saved and
the lost were ‘elected’ before the foundation of the world)
(Lindsay 1939). The doctrine of deterministic predestination
and foreordination was settled by John Calvin. Calvin
(1961:27) taught that predestination is the eternal decree of
God by which he decided before the foundation of the
world what is to become of each and every individual. On
the other hand, Arminius (1853:268), Wesley (1755:11) and
their followers resisted the Calvinistic interpretation and
set forth a theology of their own, advocating for the free
will and free moral agency of every person.
The understanding of grace in Ephesians 2:8–9 entails the
espousal of the concept of spiritual death referred to in verse
one as the default state of all sinners. The words hath he
quickened are italicised in some Bible versions like the King
James Version to show that it does not reflect its original text.
In many other translations, the phrase is altogether omitted.
Thus, Ephesians 2:1 should mean that sinners are dead in
trespasses and sins. The verse refers to a spiritual death, not
a physical one (Berkhof 1996:260). The Greek word for death
is νεκρός which can mean either the death of the body or the
death of the spirit. When the Bible talks about death, it is
generally not talking about the cessation of life, but more of
separation (Jakes 2008:82). In that sense, the spirit, which is
dead, is separated from God and cannot relate to or function
in God’s kingdom. This state of being spiritually dead is
due to our trespasses and sins. Sin separates us from God
spiritually. Paul wrote that all were dead in trespasses and sins.
5.This is used 21 mes in the New Testament.
6.It can also mean above, ago, before, or ever (see Meyers 2016a).

Page 4 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
Trespass is expressed by παράπτωμα which we could be
described as the acts of slipping off the right path, erring, or
wandering away from what is good (Strong 1997:360). The
word ἁμαρτάνω [sin] literally means ‘to miss the mark’
(Strong 1997:26). Παραπίπτω and ἁμαρτάνω refer to the act of
throwing a spear and missing the target – the failure to
achieve a purpose or a goal (Strong 1997:359). Paul stresses
that when we are separated from God; thus, all works on our
part eventually misses and wanders off from the will of God,
and will always fall short of the standard of God. Due to our
miserable condition and spiritual frustrations, there is utter
need for God to lead us away from the darkness and from
futility towards a life for and with him. John 3:16 tells us that
it is God’s love for all sinners that provided Jesus as the
remedy for sin. ‘God made Him, who has no sin, to bear our
sin, so that in Him we can become the righteousness of God’
(Rm 5:17). God recognises that sinners are spiritually dead;
thus, no intimate fellowship can be had with him. Therefore,
God elected believers and drew them to believe in him
(Eph 1:4), He, himself, devised a way to draw his people to
him and have that fellowship which once was lost due to sin.
He predestined (Eph 1:5) and plucked sinners from death
(Eph 2:1), even if there is no merit to bank from such gratuity.
This is the perfect manifestation of God’s grace.
Grace or Χάρις is used in Ephesians 1:6, 7, and in 2:8 as χάριτος
and χάριτί. Χάρις7 meaning graciousness (as gratifying) of
manner or act (abstract or concrete, literal, figurative or
spiritual, especially the divine influence upon the heart
and its reflection in the life, including gratitude) which is
acceptable, beneficial, favourable, joyous, liberal, pleasurable
and thankworthy (Strong 1997:521, 523). Grace (Χάρις) then
is the divine influence upon the heart which results to
something that is thankworthy. To Thayer (1996:665–666),
χάρις means good-will, loving-kindness, favour or favouring
(as also used in Lk 2:52; 2 Cor 8:4), to have favour with one
(cf. Ac 2:47, 7:10), attends and assists one (cf. Lk 2:40, Ac 4:33).
Χάρις refers to the kindness of a master towards the inferiors
or servants, especially of God towards humans (Lk 1:30).
This wins for us God’s favour (1 Pt 2:19; Ac 14:26; 15:40).
Christ’s grace is further described as the mercy shown
towards human sinfulness. By grace, Christ relinquished his
original status of divine blessedness (Rondinone 2012:174)
and voluntarily underwent the hardships and miseries of
ordinary human life so that, by his sufferings and death, he
secured salvation for humanity (Ac 15:11; 2 Cor 8:9; Rm 5:15;
Gl 1:6; Tt 3:7; Jn 1:14, 17). Χάρις is, according to Thayer (1996):
the merciful kindness by which God, exerting His holy influence
upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases
them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them
to the exercise of the Christian virtues. (pp. 665–666)
Because ‘death’ means a separation from God, sinners cannot
therefore independently endeavour to move themselves
from damnation to salvation, because the holiness of God
requires a standard too high to be reached by human effort
alone. Thus, by God’s grace, he allowed a remedy for us to be
7.Χάρις is used here as a noun derived from the primary verb χαίρω.
engrafted in his kingdom so that we may become the sons
and daughters of God by adoption through Christ.
Adoption or υοθεσία in Ephesians 1:5 means ‘placing as a
son’ into the divine family (Strong 1997:494). To Thayer
(1996:397, 1206), it is the nature and condition of the true
disciples of Christ who, by receiving the Spirit of God,
become the children of God (Rm 8:15; Gl 4:5). It also includes
the blessed state in the future life after the return of Christ
(ἀπεκδέχεσθαι υοθεσίαν) – to wait for adoption, that is, the
consummate condition of the children of God which will
render it evident that they belong to God (Rm 8:19, 23).
According to Scofield (2004:1556), the believers’ relation to
God as children results from the new birth (Jn 1:12–13).
Adoption is God’s act whereby one is placed in the position
of a child through redemption (Gl 4:1–5). The indwelling
spirit gives the realisation of this in the believer’s present
experience (Gl 4:6), but the full manifestation of the believer’s
adoption awaits the resurrection where transformation of
saints may be. Such phenomena is called ‘the redemption of
the body’ (Rm 8:23; 1 Th 4:14–17; Eph 1:14; 1 Jn 3:2).
The Pauline understanding of the word adoption can also
mean justification. Paul writes of sin and justification in
relation to two figures: Adam and Christ (Moo 1996:29).
Through Adam, sin and death have come into the world;
through Christ, righteousness has come into the world
bringing justification. Romans 5:18 says, ‘Consequently, just
as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so
also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all
people.’ According to Paul, history is divided into two eras,
each under its own regime – Adam and Christ respectively
(Barclay 1988:98). Each has their respective characterisation:
sin, the law, flesh and death on the one hand, and
righteousness, grace, the spirit and life on the other (Moo
1996:28) – the old and the new era.
Westerholm (1992:167) explains that all are, by default,
under the regime of the old era, because the Adamic nature
or sin (Rm 5:12) is inherited and passed on to every human
being. However, by being joined to Christ through faith
(Rm 6:1–6), there can be a change of regime. This option of
coming to the new era is in itself an expression of God’s
grace, because by the sin of Adam, death would have been
the ultimate sanction. According to Furnish (1968:135), ‘[j]
ustification by faith is ultimately a determinative to Paul’s
salvation historical scheme’. This does not mean an
automatic appropriation of Christ’s works. Therefore, the
person who lives after Christ’s death and resurrection, but
has not appropriated the benefits of those events of the new
era, is still in the old era, and thus still enslaved to sin in the
flesh and doomed to eternal death.
In relation to the church, Westerholm (1992:168) rightly
suggests that justification by faith is central to Paul’s theology,
because it expresses a crucial element in Paul’s understanding
of God’s works in Christ and by extension – the church.
Carson (1992:67) writes that there is a clear eschatological

Page 5 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
sense implied in Paul’s usage of the term justification. In
Romans 8:30, Paul relates justification with predestination
and glorification. He further states that those who are
justified, cannot be separated from Christ (Rm 8:33–39). In
Romans 8:16–19, Paul clearly states that believers in Christ,
through faith, are already children of God in the present,
but their ‘adoption’ is not yet fully manifested. Robinson
(1979:121), likewise understands that justification, in the
present tense in Romans 3:28, shows that the ‘process’ of
being made right before God is initiated in this life and
brought to completion in the final judgement. Within
justification, there is a vindication for the believer that will
not take place until the last day (Westerholm 1992:201). While
our salvation is secured through Christ’s death and applied
to us through faith (Rm 6), vindication will be fully manifested
in the completion of our justification at the final judgement of
God (Mt 25). Now the spiritually dead, made alive by the
adoption or justification through Christ, has been enabled to
‘walk in unity’ (Eph 4:1–16), ‘in holiness’ (4:17–23), ‘in love’
(5:1–6), ‘in light’ (5:7–14), ‘in wisdom’ (5:15–6:9), and to stand
in warfare (6:10–20) by the Spirit of God (cf. Hoehner
2002:497–817). According to Heil (2007:1–4, 93–278) the word
walks in Ephesians means ‘empowerment’ to live for the
unity of all in Christ. The Greek word for ‘walk’ is περιπατέω
which means to live, deport oneself, to follow (Strong
1997:374). Therefore, by grace, God enables Christians to
walk by faith in their Christian life.
Ephesians 1:3 talks of the many spiritual blessings in
Christ – one of which is redemption (τήν ἀπολύτρωσιν) (see
Meyers 2016c). It is a redemption through blood, because
the proper and commensurate indemnity for sin is blood,
being the emblem of cleansing (see Bible Hub 2016). Such
cleaning may only be had in union with Christ. This includes
the forgiveness of sin which is not merely a privilege of the
future, but of the present. According to Thayer (cited by
Meyers 2016d), φεσις [forgiveness] denotes a release from
bondage or imprisonment which is synonymous to the
meaning conveyed in Psalm 103:12 (NIV): ‘As far as the east
is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions
from us’, according to the riches of his grace. The
completeness of the forgiveness, the security of its being
continued in the future and similar qualities show the
richness of God’s grace (Mt 18:27; Lk 7:42, 47).
According to Mueller (1982:24), the salvific act of God or the
redemptive work of Christ has two dimensions: The first
enables the believers to glorify God, to be like Christ and
to be spiritually alive through the spirit or the λάσκομαι
[hilaskomai] as used in Hebrews 2:17 (Strong 1997:229) which
is the reconciliation of all through Christ’s blood or the
καταλλάσσω [katallasso] used in 2 Corinthians 5:18–20 (p. 249).
For Paul, grace is that enabling power of God to draw us
towards God – exclusive only through God’s pleasure and
will (Eph 1:5) so that no one should boast (2:8–9).
God framed this good news to show every generation his
immense love through his only son’s death on the cross.
This is the grace message: that we have been enabled to live
a Christian life despite our very nature: defiled, sinful,
depraved, separated and spiritually dead. The realisation of
the nature of human beings before salvation is of utmost
importance for the understanding of the gospel message
and the appreciation of God’s grace. Knowledge of our
miserable selves leads us to a desperation to know God
(cf. Inst. 1.1.1). Only when we see that once we were nothing,
but that God, by his sovereign will, granted salvation to his
people, can we acknowledge how profound, amazing and
great the gospel message is. Thus, we come to faithfully
follow it even when some ends still lie loose in our human
understanding. We come to realise that God is amazing in
his love and grace for us and sovereign in his plan for all.
Pelaguis, Augusne,
Semi-Pelagianism, Wesley, and
the reformed tradion on grace
In church history, the study on human fall has been made
an issue by Pelagius and Augustine. The discussion on the
role of grace began from 400 ce – from the time of Pelagius
extending up to the 17th century when the Calvinist-
Arminian debate began, and was passed on to contemporary
Christianity (cf. Sell 1998:1–26).
Pelagius and Augustine pioneered two notable streams of
thought on the concept of original sin.8 Pelagius (cited by
Rees 1991:36–37) contended that original sin did not render
sinners incapable of choosing God without any special
divine aid. In fact, God gave the gift of free will, because God
knew that we can will to choose his ways, for if it were not
so, God could not have given us free will, because he knows
that we will always choose that which is evil, rendering the
gift of free will meaningless. Pelagius (quoted by Rees 1991)
remarked:
It was because God wished to bestow on the rational creatures
the gift of doing good of their own free will and the capacity to
exercise free choice, by implanting in human beings the
possibility of choosing either alternative ... They could not claim
to possess the good of their own volition, unless they were the
kind of creatures that could also possessed evil. Our most
excellent Creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to
do only one, that is, good, which He also commanded, giving us
the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will by
exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is
also good – good, I say, because it makes the good part better by
making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity
but free to decide for itself. (p. 37)
Contrary to this, Augustine, Gerald and Honan (2010:262)
argues for the absolute transmission of Adam’s sin to his
descendants – that being hereditary, a defiled nature is
borne in the soul and body of all human beings by reason
of the original sin. Augustine added, ‘All human beings,
consequently, without a single exception, were dead
through sin, original sin.’ Hence, there is nothing in the
8.There are other theories beyond Pelagianism, but they are non-Chrisan which
automacally disqualies them as a basis for this arcle.

Page 6 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
sinner to assist himself or herself in the endeavour to
work towards salvation.
These two clashing theologies have become important, if
not overriding, in soteriological discourse. Analogous in
both perspectives is the evident importance of God’s grace in
human salvation which was evident throughout human
existence, even when Adam ate the fruit from the tree of good
and evil that was forbidden by God (Gn 2:16–17). How did
God show his grace to humans even in the garden? Cortez
(2012) wrote:
What did the almighty God of the universe do when His
creatures sinned against Him? He searched for them, He found
them, and He spoke to them (Gn 3:9). God spoke; ‘And the Lord
God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and
clothed them’ (Gn 3:21). He does not leave them in their shame
and nakedness, but He provides a covering. God provided;
‘I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and
you shall bruise his heel’ (Gn 3:15). God promised that He will
send someone who will strike back against the sin and evil that
threatened His creation, His people, and His plan. (n.p.)
And true enough, Jesus died on the cross, destroying the
throngs of sin so that sinners could be saved once and for all.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of good and evil,
God still showed them mercy and instead of fulfilling the
wages of their sin – death – without any recourse, he himself
gave a remedy so that humanity may be redeemed. This is his
grace (Χάρις – something worthy of thankfulness) to us.
To strike a compromise between Pelagius’ and Augustine’s
theses, Semi-Pelagianism became popular. It holds that
firstly, grace is the external prerequisite for salvation
(Augustinian view). Grace as an external prerequisite means
nobody can be saved without it, without a grant from God;
secondly, grace is, however, not necessary to make a start
towards salvation (Pelagian view); thirdly, predestination is
understood in light of prescience (Augustinian view) or
God’s foreknowledge of human future actions or decisions;
and fourthly, those who cooperate with grace are saved,
others who choose not to, will be lost (see Gore 2016). For
Semi-Pelagianism, sinners are spiritually sick, but not entirely
dead. Weber (1988: essay 1) writes that salvation means being
liberated from (this) sickness. Likewise, Bellah (1999:277–304)
advocates that spiritual health meant salvation – spiritual
health that we can either accept or reject.
Wesley’s view on this matter is more compromising. Wesley
(1856:37) taught that humans are radically corrupted because
of sin, but not entirely defiled. Following Paul’s teaching,
Wesley himself acknowledged that humans were spiritually
dead, but his concept of Christian anthropology consists
of Semi-Pelagianism, leaning towards the Augustinian
perspective.
The Augustinian perspective that human beings are totally
corrupted so that they cannot contribute to anything good
nor can they entirely cooperate with God, means that nothing
(0%) good can be attributed to human beings (Augustine
1953:219, 381). This drives a functional frustration and
desperation for the sinner. For if none can be attributed to
anyone who is spiritually dead, then there spawns a desperate
need for the mercy and grace of God, who we know, is the
only one we can plead to, because there is nothing in us, not
even a single attribute, to save us from damnation. Our sense
of nothingness allows God to bring about our salvation.
Therefore, we recognise that there cannot be any merit in
ourselves, but everything (100%) only in God.
The Pelagian perspective that human-will, as a creation of
God, is independently sufficient to lead a sinless life (Rees
1991:36–38, 43), eventually results to a realisation that sinners
have a certain capacity to achieve salvation and that salvation
requires human effort. Following this thought, it can be
syllogistically concluded that this perspective implies that
salvific discretion is fully ours to own and that salvation
relies heavily on human prerogative. This overemphasis on
human effort adversely means a lesser marvel on God’s hand
in salvation. There is an overconfidence placed in the human
ability and therefore less reliance on God’s power to unfold.
Eventually, God becomes an external party to the salvation
process whose role in salvation will wholly depend on the
decision of the sinner whether to allow him to intervene or
not at all. This draws out a conclusion then that God is at the
mercy of human free will, acting only when we choose to
allow him in our lives. Thus, in this case, God’s glory is not at
all served and is rather put into mockery.
Semi-Pelagianism sought to strike a balance between these
two theologies – by forging a cooperation between human
faith and God’s grace (hence, the 50–50 collaboration)
(cf. Weaver 1996:15). The term cooperation itself, implies a
‘joint-effort’ where one is indispensably needed for the other
to fulfil a purpose. Hence, without any human initiative to
accept salvation, God cannot apply his grace nor work out
his plans for salvation. In the same way, without God’s grace,
we are not able to achieve salvation and walk a Christian life.
This, however, compromises the glory that should be purely
God’s, as it presupposes a proportionate distribution of merit
to where it seems due – in this case, glory is given to God, but
credit is also attributed equally to human effort. Ultimately,
God cannot be said to have deserved all the recognition if the
sinner inevitably has to have a share in it.
In his journal, Wesley (1828) wrote:
I think on justification just as I have done any time these seven-
and-twenty years, and just as Calvin does. In this respect I do not
differ from him a hair’s breadth. (p. 560)
Wesley and the Arminians’ perspective is indeed a hair’s
breadth away from Calvin’s view. Calvin argues that human
beings are totally depraved because of sin, and therefore,
they are spiritually dead. Wesley and his fellow Arminians
acknowledged the idea that human beings are indeed in
bondage to sin so that we cannot freely act with faith apart
from God’s enabling power (Olson 2009:137–157); such is

Page 7 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
also held by Calvin. However, the Arminian theology of
prevenient grace runs contrary to the implications of total
depravity (Schreiner 2000:232–233). Wesley (cited by Field
2015:1–13) insisted that there is a measure of free will restored
in every human being. By the Wesleyan-Arminian view,
it may be inferred that, although humans are depraved,
we are not totally divested of our human-wills. According
to this view, while God’s grace is imperative, it is not the
only requirement. The formula accommodates a slither of
necessity to will for our salvation, because it is reasonable to
defend the principle of moral responsibility, even in salvation.
Ultimately, again in this case, the glory ascribed to God
cannot be said to be full and exclusively his alone.
The Reformers were hugely influenced by Augustine’s
works. Warfield (1905:126) wrote, ‘It is Augustine who gave
us the Reformation.’ Augustine had a huge impact on the
Reformation fathers. Luther himself was an Augustinian
monk. Calvin, in his writings, often quoted Augustine.
According to Sproul (1996:2), the Reformation’s roots were
‘planted by Augustine’. The reformed tradition is unique,
among others, because of its concept on God’s sovereignty
which takes primacy over all else. This could be further
broken down into two concepts: Firstly, grace is available to
all people (common grace); secondly, a special kind of grace
is, however, reserved and given to a particular people
(particular grace) (Bavinck 1989:35–65; Inst. 3.21.1). These
two reformed features of grace is what is intended by Calvin’s
statement that there is ‘sufficient grace to all but efficient only
to the elect’ (Inst. 2.17.1; 3.2). The two kinds of grace
contemplated here, is the katallasso and the hilaskomai.
Katallasso is the common grace and the hilaskomai is particular
grace. While everyone experiences the grace of God in
everyday life, such as the provision of life itself and the
necessities of living, a special order of grace, which enables
and directs a particular people to come to the knowledge of
God, is set apart for those whom God decides to give it to.
Nicole (1985) said:
What Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much to
secure the salvability of all humans, as actually to accomplish the
salvation of those whom He does redeem. (p. 13)
God, in his incontestable sovereignty, chose to set apart a
people unto himself that the suffering of Christ may not go to
waste, because redemption was costly (Van Genderen &
Velema 2008:482). Thus, if God chose to leave the decision of
salvation solely to the decision of the sinner, there could
never be salvation, because a sinner will never choose what
is godly because the sinner is completely yielded to the
consequences of sin – death. For indeed, how can one who is
dead, be able to decide and do?
It is easy to question such position, because if God loves the
world, how can he now choose a few and allow the rest to
suffer eternal damnation? This is where the Reformists insist
on the sovereignty and wisdom of God, which if inquired
into, will only frustrate the futility of human mind. God is a
God of order. He neither commits accidents or mistakes, nor
does he go wrong. He is God. His plan is perfect in a way that
human reason cannot contrive. This, however, implies that it
is absolutely God’s doing that there can ever be salvation to
those whom God has set apart for reasons no human mind
can ever understand. In such case, there is nothing in the
sinner that may be credited. Bonhoeffer (1959:43–45) enjoined,
‘Don’t cheapen [the grace of God] by inserting human ability
whether to choose or reject the grace He bestowed.’ Thus,
atonement is limited only to the elect, but sufficient to all so
that it may be called a privilege and a gift (χάρις or grace) –
something that cannot be taken for granted and should not
be cheapened.
Grace revoluon
The Grace Revolution Movement has been making powerful
inroads into the Christian churches despite of some aggregate
oppositions. According to Brown (2014:8–11), the Grace
Revolution seeks to transform or reform the church, because
the gospel of grace is not completely and truthfully taught in
the church. Thus, it seeks to reclaim the primacy of grace and
take a central position in Christian thought so that the doctrine
of the church will flow from a grace perspective. Whitten
(2012:25–26) claims that there is a need for revolution, because
little has changed in the Protestant church in more than
500 years – in which he said that the church message had and
has been missing the true gospel message of grace. He
conceded that Luther and Calvin got it right concerning
justification or how one is saved, but he argued that, somehow
Luther and Calvin missed the true message of sanctification
or how one is perfected into the likeness of Christ; thus, the
movement insisted on a theological revolution.
Brown (2014:6), however, classified this movement under the
umbrella of hyper-grace teaching, because according to him,
the so-called Grace Revolution teachings have exaggerated
the implications and extents of God’s grace. Crowder (2015),
a revolutionist, reposed that such is the nature of grace – that
indeed, it must be viewed ‘hyperly’, because to do otherwise,
will limit its depths and essence of the revelation of Christ
and primarily because the ‘scandal of grace’ is indeed so
scandalous. Brown (2016:17) and Ravenhill (2013: par. 12)
reasoned that the danger of viewing grace ‘hyperly’ is the
sensible tendency to misinterpret it as a license to sin. In such
case, it ultimately runs contrary to what Paul warned in
the Bible,9which is that grace should not be used to cheapen
its true meaning (cf. Bonhoeffer 1959:43–45). Brown and
Ravenhill cautioned that such is a fatal standpoint because
it goes beyond biblical interpretation, misleading many
believers into confusion and weakness in their confession of
sin and repentance.
In essence, the Grace Revolution message contends that
God does not see our sins anymore, because Jesus died for all
our sins of the past, present and future; hence all of our sins
in the past, present and future had already been forgiven
9.What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no
means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
(Rm 6:1-2, NIV)

Page 8 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
by God. Therefore, confession of sin and repentance is no
longer necessary, as spirituality should be absent of human
effort (Crowder 2010:9, 39; Dunn 2011:141; Prince 2010:xii,
145, 341; Wommack 2011:39–40). It teaches perfection in
Christ through confession of faith. Prince (2010:145, 341)
says that the moment we accepted Jesus as our saviour,
God gave us an ‘eternal “A+” for our right standing with
Him’. Whitten (2012:66) writes, ‘you are like Him, my friend,
and are in a permanent and unchangeable state of being
of holiness’. Crowder (2010:42) said, ‘the moment you
decide to do something to be holy, you have trusted in
yourself, instead of Christ, for salvation’. These imply that
sanctification is not a spiritual progressive process. Likewise,
Ellis (2012) preached that:
there is nothing wrong with wanting to better yourself, but you
have to understand that in Christ, you are already as good and
pleasing to God as you ever will be. But don’t confuse behaviour
with identity. You are not defined by what you do. Your identity
is Christ and in Him, you are and always will be 100% pleasing
and acceptable to God. (p. 112)
Ellis’ message seeks to convince Christians that they are
perfect, 100% pleasing and acceptable to God – no matter
what they do. Rufus (2011), in support of Crowder’s position,
said that:
sanctification isn’t a process! We do not become more and more
holy. No! We become holy once and for all! We become sanctified
once and for all. Now the life we live is the overflow of what has
happened, that miracle overflowing through our mind and
through our body! (n.p.)
Prince (2007) also teaches that sanctification is not a process
but a person, Jesus Himself. He writes:
stop examining yourself and searching your heart for sin.
Remember that when someone takes his sin offering to the
priest, the priest does not examine him. He examines the sin
offering. (p. 187)
He referred to the offering as the works of Jesus and insisted
on a Jesus-focused preaching rather than a sin-conscious one.
If we are to examine this so-called new concept of grace
through the anthropological test, it will eventually appear
that this is not a revolutionary new teaching. In fact, Pelagius
had the same thesis – by the mere confession that Christ is
our righteousness, we become like him: holy and righteous.
Oppositions claim that this is not the concept of grace
contemplated by Paul in the Bible (Hoehner 2002:497–817).
Such teaching is merely an outcrop of the Pelagian
anthropology which holds that sinners retain spiritual
wellness and are therefore capable of independently walking
a godly life and achieving salvation.
To say that our sins of the past, present and future have been
forgiven, and that we are totally blameless would entail the
emphasis on katallasso [common grace] erroneously making it
the exclusive and full meaning of God’s grace in salvation
and in the Christian walk, homogenising it with hilaskomai
[special grace] as if it were also katallasso – grace which is
available to everyone. Katallasso is for everyone, regardless if
it is accepted or otherwise. It is freely given, because God
has willed it so, but hilaskomai is a special and a different
kind of grace – only given to those whom God has chosen to
reveal it to. According to Manning (2008:21), the gospel of
grace is Christ suffering and dying for all sinners. He argued
that salvation is for all. He taught that the gospel of grace
accepts us all no matter what we are like. We just need to
come before the cross and confess that Jesus is our
righteousness, regardless of our struggles with sin and
waywardness. God is pleased with us through Christ – no
matter who we are or were, and what we did, do and will
do. However, hilaskomai is not generally applied to all, but it
is of special application, for God, even as a Father, does not
spoil his children, but disciplines them so that his children
may walk according to his ways. Instead of allowing his
children to keep sinning, he enables them by his grace to
walk a holy life by his spirit. Such grace is costly, because it
calls us to follow Christ (Bonhoeffer 1959:43–45) and turn
from our own ways. However, such grace is not for ourselves
to choose, but for God. He chooses to whom he will
appropriate such special grace so that the chosen may come
to the knowledge and salvation of Christ, because, without
this kind of grace, we cannot at all choose to walk in his
ways. Besides, how can the dead independently will or do?
Thus, an anti-Pauline (unbiblical) grace asserts that sinners
are not totally dead in their state of being so that they can
choose to walk in the ways of God and thus work their merit
towards salvation.
Conclusion
Pauline grace presents the biblical origins of Christian
anthropology, soteriology and perfection. It was first
conveyed to the Church Fathers and then to the Reformist
Fathers. Any teaching departing from the message of Paul
shall be treated as mere speculation. Calvin says that it is
imperative to be sure of the message of the Scripture not so
that we can theorise or discuss theological conjectures, but so
that we can be founded concretely on the basis for trusting
God, to ‘banish all doubt’ (Inst. 1.6.3). The Reformists read
the Bible from a redemptive-historical perspective in which
God’s grace is acknowledged as a ‘self-revelation of God’
(Vos 2003:5–9). Calvin’s writings hinged on the notion that
the Bible was a means for human beings to come to the
knowledge of God (Inst. 2.1.6). Calvin stresses that the point
is not that we should know Scripture, but that we should,
through Scripture, know God.
It is important to examine grace teachings with utmost
diligence, as we should to other teachings so that there can
be a faithful exaction of teachings with the message of
Scripture; hence, the need to trace the message through its
anthropological thesis. In such case, exegesis to determine
its origins and intentions, is proper. This is the challenge that
Paul calls Christians to live up to – the same challenge he
gave to Timothy: ‘Do your best to present yourself to God as
one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed

Page 9 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
and who correctly handles the word of truth’ (2 Tm 2:15 – NIV)
so that, before God, we can all say what Paul said:‘I have
fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept
the faith’ (2 Tm 4:7 – NIV).
There is no better time to be adept and faithful with the
message of Scripture than in contemporary Christianity
which is inundated with various teachings that claim to bear
the seal of the gospel truth, but in fact depart from the
message of Scripture, leading many believers to a misplaced
belief. Packer (1926:1) said, ‘to recover the old, authentic,
biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back
into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need’.
Like Calvin and the Reformers, the church today needs to
stand on the shoulders of the church fathers, just as the
church fathers stood atop the apostles and the prophets
(Brunner 2014:90–91). By this we mean that the church ought
to learn from the experience of the Church Fathers and
avoid the errors of the past. There is no space for subjective
inference and personal colourings in biblical hermeneutic.
Permission is given not to be guided by human personal
considerations, but to be guided by the pronouncement of
the Scripture. Van Genderen and Velema (2008:478–479) warn
that those who pursue scenarios that are not supported by
the Scripture ‘engage in pure speculation and does not
therefore bear authority’.
Therefore, a new, progressive or revolutionary teaching on
grace must be tested through the scriptural crucible. We need
to be certain – not just confident – that the tradition we follow
is in keeping with the true message of grace. In terms of the
role of grace in human salvation, the test for theologies will
always be whether the grace taught, will ultimately and
exclusively attribute glory to God - all Glory, to God alone.
Acknowledgements
To my fiancée, Stephanie L. Baucas, for all the support you
have showed me in my academic journey in South Africa and
for your relentless love to me. I got so much motivation to
accomplish this article because of you.
Compeng interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced
him in writing this article.
References
Arminius, J., 1853, Complete works of Arminius (On the free will of man and its
powers), vol. 1, Derby & Miller, Auburn, New York, NY. (Public disputaons of
Arminius, Disputaon 11).
Arnold, C., 2008, Exegecal commentary on the New Testament, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Arnold, C., 2011, Ephesians, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Augusne, A., 1953, Augusne: Earlier wrings, vol. 6, Westminster John Knox Press,
Louisville, KY.
Augusne, S., Gerald, G.W.S. & Honan, D.J., 2010, The city of God, books xvii–xxii,
The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. (The fathers of the
church, 24).
Barclay, J.M.G., 2015, Paul and the gi, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, MI.
Barclay, M., 1988, Obeying the truth: Paul’s ethics in Galaans, T&T Clark, Edinburgh.
Bavinck, H., 1989, ‘Common grace’, Calvin Theological Journal 24(1), 35–65.
Becker, J., 1993, Paul: Apostle to the genles, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY.
Bellah, R.N., 1999, ‘Max Weber and world-denying love: A look at the historical sociology
of religion’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 67(2), 277–304. hps://
doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/67.2.277
Berkhof, L., 1996, Systemac theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, MI.
Bible Hub, 2016, Propiaon: Ephesians 1:7, viewed 06 October 2016, from hp://
biblehub.com/ephesians/1-7.htm
Bonhoeer, D., 1959, The cost of discipleship, Touchstone, New York, NY.
Brown, M.L., 2014, Hyper-grace: Exposing the dangers of the modern grace message,
Charisma Media, Lake Mary, FL.
Brown, M.L., 2016, The grace controversy: Answers to 12 common quesons, Charisma
House, Lake Mary, FL.
Bruce, F.F., 1984, The epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians,
vol. 10, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Brunner, E., 2014, The Chrisan doctrine of the church, faith, and the consummaon:
Dogmacs, vol. 3, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.
Buord, R.K., 2015, ‘Encountering grace march’, PhD dissertaon, George Fox
University, Newberg, OR.
Calvin, J., 1536, Instutes of the Chrisan religion, transl. L. Bales, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Calvin, J., 1961, Concerning the eternal predesnaon of God, James Clarke & Co.,
Cambridge, UK.
Campbell, D.A., 2009, Deliverance of God: An apocalypc reading of juscaon in
Paul, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Carson, D.A., 1992, Juscaon in the Bible and the world, Paternoster Press, Carlisle, UK.
Carson, D.A. & Moo, D.J., 2009, An introducon to the New Testament, HarperCollins
Chrisan Publishing, Nashville, TN.
Chester, S.J., 2017, Reading Paul with the Reformers: Reconciling old and new
perspecves, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Coleridge, S.T., 1858, Specimens of the table talk, John Murray, London.
Cortez, M., 2012, What did God do aer Adam and Eve sinned?, viewed 24 April 2017,
from hps://www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2012/04/16/what-
did-god-do-aer-adam-and-eve-sinned-a-childs-answer-reveals-a-big-problem/
Crowder, J., 2010, Myscal union, Sons of Thunder, Santa Cruz, CA.
Crowder, J., 2015, Jesus the refugee — the Jesus trip, viewed 21 April 2017, from
hps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5h74LK3ZA
Dodd, C.H., 1929, ‘Ephesians’, in F.C. Eiselen, E. Lewis & D.G. Downey (eds.), The
Abingdon Bible commentary, pp. 1224–1225, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.
Drury, D., 2006, Three: Sixteen this changes everything: A message manuscript,
viewed 06 September 2017, from hp://www.drurywring.com/david/06.three.
sixteen.htm
Dunn, B., 2011, The happy gospel: Eortless union with a happy God, Desny Image,
Shippensburg, PA.
Dunn, J.D.G., 1998, Theology of Paul the Apostle, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids, MI.
Ellis, P., 2012, The gospel in ten words, KingsPress, Birkenhead, NZ.
Field, D.N., 2015, ‘John Wesley as a public theologian: The case of thoughts upon
slavery’, Scriptura 114(1), 1–13. hps://doi.org/10.7833/114-0-1136
Furnish, V., 1968, Theology and ethics in Paul, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.
Gan, Jr. R., 2006, By faith, not by sight: Paul and the order of salvaon, Paternoster,
Waynesboro, GA.
Gan, Jr. R., 2012, ‘The redempve-historical view’, in S.E. Porter & B.M. Stovell
(eds.), Biblical Hermeneucs: Five views, pp. 89–110, InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove, IL.
Gore, B.W., 2016, ‘Pelagian controversy’, viewed 18 February 2017, from hps://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=s6_GcYp-9xA
Hoehner, H.W., 2002, Ephesians: An exegecal commentary, Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Heil, J., 2007, Ephesians: Empowerment to walk in love for the unity of all in Christ,
vol. 13, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA.
Inst. see Calvin 1536
Jakes, T., 2008, Life overowing, 6-in-1: 6 pillars for abundant living, Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Kainer, G., 2015, God’s grace: A gi freely given, 1st edn., Lulu.com, Morrisville, NC.
Kostenberger, A.L., Kellum, L.S. & Quarles, C.L., 2012, The lion and the lamb: New
Testament essenals from the cradle, the cross, and the crown, B & H, Nashville, TN.
Lindsay, J., 1939, ‘Predesnaon’, in J. Orr, J. Nuelsen, E. Mullins, et al. (eds.),
Internaonal Standard Bible Encyclopaedia Online, vol. 4, pp. 2435–2437, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.,Grand Rapids, MI.
Manning, B., 2008, The ragamun gospel: Good news for the bedraggled, beat-up,
and burnt out, Multnomah, Colorado Springs, CO.
McCarthy, J.G., 2010, Eklego, eklogee, eklektos, suneklektos: John Calvin goes to
Berkeley, City Chrisan Press, Portland, OR. (Word study, 1).

Page 10 of 10 Original Research
hp://www.indieskriig.org.za Open Access
McCartney, G., 2003, Should we employ the hermeneucs of the New Testament
writers?, viewed 07 August 2017, from hp://www.bible-researcher.com/
mccartney1.html
Meyers, R., 2016a, Predesnated – a commentary to Ephesians 1:5, viewed 26 March
2016, from www.e-sword.net
Meyers, R., 2016b, Thayer’s denion of προορζω, viewed 26 March 2016, from
www.e-sword.net
Meyers, R., 2016c, Vincent’s word studies, viewed 28 March 2016, from www.
e-sword.net
Meyers, R., 2016d, Thayer’s descripon of φεσις, viewed 28 March 2016, from
www.e-sword.net
Moo, D., 1996, The epistle of the Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, MI.
Mueller, T., 1982, ‘Juscaon: Basic linguisc aspects and the art of communicang
it’, Concordia Theological Quarterly 46(1), 21–38.
Nestle, E.B., 1967, Novum Testamentum Graece, United Bible Sociees, London, UK.
Nicole, R.R., 1985, ‘John Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement’, Westminster
Theological Journal, 47(2), 197–199.
O’Brien, P., 1979, ‘Ephesians: An unusual introducon to a New Testament leer’, NTS
25, 504–516. hps://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850000521X
Olson, R.E., 2009, Arminian theology: Myths and realies, InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove, IL.
Packer, J.I., 1926, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Lulu.com, Morrisville, NC.
Prince, J., 2007, Desned to reign: The secret to eortless success, wholeness and
victorious living, Harrison House Publishers, Tulsa, OK.
Prince, J., 2010, Unmerited favour, Charisma House, Lake Mary, FL.
Ravenhill, D., 2013, ‘Would you recognize the decepon of hyper-grace?’,
CHARISMANEWS, viewed 19 April 2017, from hp://www.charismanews.com/
opinion/39494-would-you-recognize-the-decepon-of-hyper-grace
Rees, B.R., 1991, The leers of Pelagius and his followers, Boydell Press, Suolk, UK.
Robichaux, K., 2000, Perspecves on grace, viewed 08 August 2017, from hp://www.
acrit.com/pdfs/2000/04/00_04_a1.pdf
Robinson, J.A.T., 1907, St. Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, 2nd edn., Macmillan & Co.,
London, UK.
Robinson, J.A.T., 1979, Wrestling with Romans, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Rondinone, J., 2012, Overcoming: Living victoriously in Christ, Xulon Press, Maitland, FL.
Rufus, R., 2011, ‘Totally forgiven! Totally united! Totally lled! Sermon preached at the
grace and glory conference’, viewed 10 June 2017, from hp://ryanrufus.
blogspot.com/2011/06/ryan-rufus-on-morfying-sin.html
Russell, W., 1995, ‘The Apostle Paul’s redempve-historical argumentaon in
Galaans 5:13–26’, Westminster Theological Journal 57, 333–357.
Ryrie, C.C., 1963, The grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, IL.
Sanders, E.P., 1977, Paul and Palesnian Judaism, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Schreiner, T., 2000, ‘Does scripture teach prevenient grace in the Wesleyan sense?’ in T.R.
Schreiver & B.A. Ware (eds.), Sll sovereign: Contemporary perspecves on elecon,
foreknowledge, and grace, pp. 229–246, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Schreiner, T., 2011, Interpreng the Pauline epistles, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Scoeld, C., 2004, The Scoeld Study Bible, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Sell, A.P, 1998, The great debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and salvaon, Wipf & Stock,
Eugene, OR.
Sproul, R.C., 1996, Augusne and Pelagius, Ligonier Ministries, Orlando, FL.
Strong, J., 1997, Greek diconary of the New Testament (PDF), The AGES Digital
Library, Albany, OR.
Stuhlmacher, P., 2001, Revising Paul’s doctrine of juscaon: A challenge to the new
perspecve, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Thayer, J., 1996, Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, Hendrickson,
Peabody, MA.
The Internaonal Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1986, Paul, the apostle, vol. 3, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Van Genderen, J. & Velema, W.H., 2008, Concise reformed dogmacs, P&R Publishing,
Phillipsburg, NJ.
Vos, G., 2003, Biblical theology: Old and New Testaments, Wipf & Stock Publishers,
Eugene, OR.
Wareld, B.B., 1905, Augusne and his confessions, s.n., The Princeton Theological
Review 3(1), 81–126.
Wareld, B.B., 2000, The plan of salvaon, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.
Weaver, R.H., 1996, Divine grace and human agency: A study of the Semi-Pelagian
controversy, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C.
Weber, M., 1988, ‘Die Wirtschasethik der Weltreligionen: Vergleichende
religionssoziologische Versuche,’ in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie,
9th edn., UTB/Mohr, Tubingen, Germany.
Wesley, J., 1755, Predesnaon calmly considered, ed. H. Cock, Tine Bridge, Newcastle.
Wesley, J., 1828, The journal of the rev. John Wesley, London, UK.
Wesley, J., 1856, Sermons, vol. 2, Carlton & Lanahan, New York, NY.
Westerholm, E., 1992, Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI.
Whiord, D. (ed.), 2012, The T&T Clark companion to reformaon theology, T & T
Clark Internaonal, New York, NY.
Whien, C., 2012, Pure grace: The life changing power of uncontaminated grace,
Desny Image Publishers, Shippensburg, PA.
Wigram, G. & Winter, R., 1978, The word study concordance, William Carey Library,
Pasadena, CA.
Wommack, A., 2011, Eortless change: The word is the seed that can change your life,
Kindle edn., Harrison House, Tulsa, OK.
Wright, N.T., 2013, Paul and the faithfulness of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Yarchin, W., 2004, History of biblical interpretaon: A reader, Hendrickson Publishers,
Peabody, MS.