Saved by Grace Through Faith. Part 3. How Did We Get Here?

Jan 12, 2026 

We now turn to how Augustine altered the early church consensus on grace. 

Augustine, later in life, compared the Greek Fathers to those who read Scripture differently. Augustine (especially post-Pelagius, c. 412–430). 

Augustine’s new convictions: 

• Humanity is massa perditionis (a “mass of perdition”) 

• Fallen will is incapable of faith without prior regeneration 

• Grace is particular, effectual, and determining 

• Election precedes and causes faith 

Hermeneutical tendency: 

• Interprets difficult texts from the perspective of predestination (eisegesis).  

• Emphasizes God’s hidden will over human response 

• Interprets universal language qualitatively (“all kinds”) rather than numerically 

This is the lineage that flows into Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy from their theological father, Augustine. 

Greek Fathers (pre-Augustinian consensus) 

Key convictions: 

• Human will is wounded but not destroyed 

• Grace is synergistic (God acts first, humans truly respond) 

• Election is corporate or foreknown, not decretal or individualistic 

• Apostasy is genuinely possible 

Hermeneutical tendency: 

• Read Scripture pastorally and morally 

• Emphasize divine invitation and human response 

• Take the universal language at face value (exegesis) 

This line runs through Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius, Cyril, and, later, Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as much of Wesleyan-Arminian theology. 

We will now consider a number of important passages relative to the subject of grace. 

Romans 9 

The text’s problem: Why have so many Israelites rejected the Messiah if God’s promises cannot fail? 

Augustine and the Reformed reading of Romans 9: it teaches unconditional individual election. 

• Jacob and Esau = individuals chosen or rejected before birth 

• “Not of him that willeth” (9:16) = denial of free response 

• Pharaoh = example of reprobation 

• “Vessels of wrath” = eternally decreed objects of judgment 

Grace here is: Selective, unilateral, and determinative, all by God 

Calvin famously said, “Paul is not speaking of nations, but of the eternal salvation of individuals.” 

Greek Fathers’ reading (esp. Chrysostom) 

Romans 9 is about historical roles, not eternal destinies, and not individual salvation. 

• Jacob/Esau = corporate election (Israel vs. Edom) 

• God’s “hatred” = judicial rejection of vocation, not damnation 

• Pharaoh’s hardening = God confirming a self-chosen hardness 

• Vessels = categories based on response 

Chrysostom: “God does not make one wicked and another virtuous, but He uses each according to his choice.” 

Grace here is: Sovereign yet responsive, judicial rather than decretal 

John 6 

The key phrases 

• “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (6:37) 

• “No man can come to me, except the Father draw him” (6:44) 

Augustine / Reformed reading of John 6 

John 6 teaches effectual calling. 

• “Given” = eternally elected individuals 

• “Draw” = irresistible inward regeneration 

• Coming to Christ = result of prior grace 

• Apostasy in 6:66 = false disciples, never truly given or elect 

Augustine said, “This grace is not given according to merits, but merits are produced by grace.” 

Grace here is: Irresistible, regenerating, faith-producing, all of which come from God and none of which comes from us. 

Greek Fathers’ reading of John 6 

“Drawing” is persuasive, not coercive. 

• “Given” = those who respond to God’s revelation 

• “Draw” = teaching, illumination, attraction 

• Many are drawn but do not remain (6:66) 

• Judas was included among those “given,” yet fell away 

Chrysostom said, “To be drawn does not compel, but makes one willing.” 

Grace here is: Illuminating and inviting, not determinative. We choose. 

Hebrews 6:4-6 

The theological landmine for “Can someone who truly shares in the Holy Spirit fall away?” 

Augustine / Reformed reading of this passage. The passage describes near-Christians rather than regenerate believers. 

• “Enlightened” = intellectual exposure 

• “Tasted” = partial experience, not full participation 

• Impossible to renew = hypothetical or rhetorical 

• True believers persevere by definition 

Grace here is: Indefectible for the elect. God never changes His mind. 

Greek Fathers’ reading (virtually unanimous) that this passage describes real Christians who apostatize. 

• “Partakers of the Holy Spirit” = genuine participation 

• “Fall away” = actual apostasy 

• Warning is real, not hypothetical 

• Restoration is morally impossible, not metaphysically 

Theodoret said, “He speaks of those who have truly received grace and afterward despised it.” 

Grace here is: Real, saving, yet resistible and forfeitable 

Titus 2:11-15 

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men…” 

This is the test case for universal grace. 

Augustine / Reformed reading of Titus. “All men” = all kinds of men, not every individual. 

• Grace “appears” through preaching 

• Saving efficacy applies only to the elect 

• Grace trains only those regenerated 

• Universal language is rhetorical 

Grace here is: Particular in application, universal in proclamation 

Greek Fathers’ reading of Titus 2 

“All men” means all people without exception. 

• Grace truly appears to everyone 

• Grace instructs but does not compel 

• Moral transformation requires cooperation 

• Condemnation is self-chosen rejection 

Cyril of Jerusalem said, “The grace of God visits all, but benefits only those who receive it.” 

Grace here is: Universally offered, synergistically effective 

Synthesis: how doctrine drives exegesis 

Text	Augustine / Reformed	Greek Fathers
Romans 9	Individual predestination	Corporate vocation
John 6	Irresistible drawing	Persuasive drawing
Hebrews 6	False believers	Real apostasy
Titus 2	“All kinds”	All persons
Grace	Effectual, selective	Universal, resistible
Faith	Caused by grace	Response to Grace

Final theological takeaway 

The disagreement is not primarily about prooftexts, but about whether grace determines the human will or heals it. And in what way is our will healed? 

• Augustine / Calvinism: Grace replaces human inability with divine determination. 

• Greek Fathers: Grace restores human freedom, so love may be real. 

• Arminianism: A mediated retrieval of the Greek view using Protestant categories 

The Book of Titus on GraceTop of Form 

Bottom of Form 

Titus does not define grace primarily as pardon, but as a power that trains, disciplines, and produces holiness. That emphasis has been minimized, sometimes badly, in modern evangelical usage. 

Titus 2:11-14 (KJV)  

1. What does Titus actually say grace does? 

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” 

The controlling verb here is παιδεύουσα (paideuousa) — training, disciplining, forming character. 

This is not: 

• a legal declaration only, 

• not merely forgiveness, 

• not merely an offer. 

Grace is an active educator/teacher and a moral-forming principle. 

In Titus, grace consists of the following: 

1. Appears (historical incarnation of Christ) 

2. Trains (ongoing moral formation) 

3. Renounces ungodliness 

4. Produces righteous living now 

5. Purifies a people now 

6. Creates zeal for good works 

That is a definition, not an add-on. It is a precise definition of the grace of God that brings salvation to all men. 

2. Grace in Titus is inseparable from holiness 

Notice what Paul does not do: 

• He does not contrast grace with holiness 

• He does not oppose grace to obedience 

• He does not treat holiness as optional or secondary 

Instead: 

Grace is the cause and source of holiness, not its enemy. Grace is not an excuse for sinful failures but the remedy for sinful behaviors. 

This fits perfectly with: 

• Titus 1:1 – “the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness.” 

• Titus 3:8 – “they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.” 

Titus simply does not allow a category of: “Saved by grace, unchanged in life, and eternally secure in ongoing unrepentant sin.” That category would have been unintelligible to Paul. But today, Titus’s understanding is unintelligible to almost all evangelical Christians. 

3. Patristic reading: grace as healing and formation. The Greek Fathers immediately recognized this in Titus. 

• Chrysostom: 

“Grace has not only delivered us from punishment, but trained us to virtue.” 

• Theodoret: 

“Grace does not merely free from sins, but makes men lovers of righteousness.” 

• Athanasius (incarnational logic): 

Grace restores the image of God through participation, not merely through acquittal. 

For them, grace is therapeutic: 

• sin = disease 

• grace = medicine 

• holiness = health 

This is why Orthodoxy speaks of theosis rather than merely justification. 

Where modern evangelicalism went wrong. Something was lost. 

• Grace reduced to pardon 

In popular evangelical preaching: 

• Grace = “God forgives you though you don’t deserve it” 

• Holiness = gratitude response (optional, uneven, secondary) 

This is not Titus. Therefore, it is not the true grace of God. 

• Justification detached from real transformation 

Post-Reformation categories (especially in revivalist Protestantism) often: 

• Isolate justification from sanctification 

• Treat sanctification as a second concern 

• Make obedience evidential rather than constitutive 

Titus collapses that separation: the same grace that saves trains in righteousness and godliness. 

• Fear of “works righteousness.” 

In reacting (rightly) against merit theology, evangelicals sometimes: 

• Treat moral exhortation as legalism or trying to earn heaven 

• Read holiness language defensively 

• Soft-pedal commands to avoid “confusion.” 

Paul does the opposite in Titus: 

• He intensifies moral demand 

• Grounds it in grace 

• Never worries about confusion 

Calvinism and Arminianism both struggle here (differently) 

Calvinism 

• Strong on transforming grace (but it really never does fully transform anyone because Christians sin daily according to Calvinism) 

• Weak where assurance becomes detached from actual holiness 

• “Grace guarantees perseverance” mutes Titus’s urgency 

Arminianism 

• Strong on moral responsibility 

• Sometimes weak on grace as inner power 

• Holiness can slide into effort rather than formation 

The Greek patristic vision avoids both: Grace is powerful, but not coercive; effective, but not mechanical. 

According to ChatGPT, Titus gives us a definition that evangelicals need to recover 

If we let Titus define grace in its own terms: 

Grace is God’s active, saving presence in Christ that trains sinners into holiness and forms a purified people zealous for good works. 

That is not moralism. That is not legalism. That is New Testament Christianity. 

Why this matters pastorally and spiritually 

When grace is reduced to pardon: 

• Sin becomes manageable 

• Repentance becomes episodic 

• Holiness becomes optional 

• Assurance becomes abstract 

When grace is understood as paideia: 

• Repentance is ongoing if there is sin 

• Obedience is normal 

• Holiness is expected 

• Assurance is embodied 

Titus is a corrective to modern evangelical theology. 

Let us now consider the following. 

1. Titus and Romans on grace and works (not contradictory, but complementary) 

2. Bonhoeffer’s “cheap grace” as a modern diagnosis of the loss I identified 

3. James is the canonical bridge that modern evangelicalism often sidelines 

4. The Council of Orange (529): why the Church stopped short of resolving the tension 

Throughout, I’ll return to the central insight: grace in the New Testament is fundamentally formative—aimed at holiness—not merely forensic pardon. 

1. Titus and Romans: different problems, different uses of “grace.” 

Romans: grace against works of the Law 

Romans is written to answer one question: On what basis is a sinner initially put right with God? 

Paul’s target: 

• Jewish boundary markers 

• Merit-based righteousness 

• Boasting before God 

Thus: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom 3:28) 

Here, works means: 

• Torah observance 

• Human achievement as grounds for justification 

• Anything that could establish a claim on God 

Grace in Romans is: 

• Justifying 

• Non-meritorious 

• God’s initiative apart from human earning 

But Romans does not define grace exhaustively here. Paul will later say: 

• “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” (Rom 6:1–2) 

• “Being made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Rom 6:18) 

Romans assumes transformation, but does not foreground it in chapters 3-4 because that is not the debate he is fighting. 

Titus: Grace against moral laxity 

Titus is addressing a different crisis: 

• False teachers 

• Nominal Christianity 

• Ethical disorder in the churches 

So Paul answers a different question: What does saving grace actually do in the life of the believer? 

And his answer is blunt: Grace trains, disciplines, purifies, and produces good works (Titus 2:11-14). 

Here, works are: 

• Sobriety 

• Righteousness 

• Godliness 

• Zeal for good works 

Grace in Titus is: 

• Pedagogical 

• Transformative 

• Holiness-producing, sin-killing 

Key point: Paul is not inconsistent. He is contextual. 

Romans	Titus
Grace justifies apart from works	Grace produces works
Works excluded as grounds	Works required as fruit
Polemic against merit	Polemic against antinomianism
Courtroom imagery	Formation imagery

Modern evangelicalism often absolutizes Romans 3-4 and marginalizes Titus 2, and that is precisely the imbalance you are noticing in much Christian theology today. 

2. Bonhoeffer: “Cheap Grace” as a prophetic retrieval of Titus 

When Bonhoeffer speaks of cheap grace, he diagnoses what occurs when grace is severed from discipleship. 

“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.” 

That is anti-Titus theology. 

For Bonhoeffer: 

• Grace that does not train to holiness is not biblical grace 

• Forgiveness without obedience is a lie 

• Justification without sanctification is self-deception 

He contrasts it with costly grace: “Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again… it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ.” 

Bonhoeffer is not rejecting justification by grace. He is rejecting grace reduced to pardon alone, which is what goes on today in most evangelical churches. 

In other words, Bonhoeffer is doing in the 20th century what Titus did in the 1st. 

3. James: the text that refuses to be tamed 

James aligns closely with Titus and Bonhoeffer, which is why the Book of James has been uncomfortable for certain Protestant systems. 

What James denies 

“Not by faith only.” (James 2:24) 

James is not contradicting Romans. He is denying a dead, non-transforming faith. That dead faith is falsely believed to be saving faith in most evangelical churches today. 

James’s definition of saving faith: 

• Faith that acts 

• Faith that obeys 

• Faith that is completed by works (τελειοῦται) 

This is not merit theology. This is teleological theology: Faith reaches its intended goal in obedience. 

James’s logic is the same as Titus’s: Grace that does not produce holiness is not saving grace. Faith that does not produce obedience or holiness is not saving faith. 

The Reformers struggled here: 

• Luther called James an “epistle of straw” (early, later moderated) 

• Protestant theology often treated James as secondary 

But the early Church never did. James was read through the lens of normative Christian moral theology. 

4. The Council of Orange (529): where the Church stopped short 

We now return to the Council of Orange, which is crucial to understanding why this tension persists. 

What Orange affirmed (against Pelagianism) 

• Grace is absolutely necessary 

• No one can come to God without prevenient grace 

• Even the beginning of faith is God’s gift 

This is anti-Pelagian and biblical, according to Chat.  

What Orange refused to affirm: 

• Double predestination 

• Irresistible grace 

• The idea that grace renders human cooperation unnecessary 

Orange explicitly rejected the later Augustinian move toward determinism. 

Why did the tension remain? 

Orange affirmed both: 

1. Grace is primary and initiating 

2. Humans must cooperate with grace 

But it refused to explain mechanically how these two relate. 

In effect, the Church said: “We will confess both truths and refuse to resolve the mystery by collapsing one into the other.” 

That is why: 

• Augustine goes one direction (determinative grace) 

• The Greek Fathers remain synergistic 

• The Reformation reopens the question 

• Evangelicalism inherits the fracture 

5. Pulling it all together 

If we let Titus, James, Bonhoeffer, and Orange speak together, we get this: 

• Grace does not merely forgive sinners; it forms saints. 

Or more precisely: 

• Romans guards grace from merit 

• Titus guards grace from moral emptiness 

• James guards faith from dead orthodoxy 

• Bonhoeffer guards grace from cheapening it 

• Orange guards the Church from false resolution 

Modern evangelicalism often resolved the tension by: 

• Over-privileging forensic justification 

• Minimizing grace as discipline and holiness 

• Treating holiness as optional or secondary 

You are right to sense that something essential has been lost. Let us now consider the following. 

1. How the early Church assumed a Titus-style grace (not argued for, but presupposed) 

2. How assurance functioned when grace was formative rather than merely forensic 

1. The early Church assumed Titus-style grace 

A. Grace was not primarily a “concept” but a process 

In the early Church, grace was not defined first in courtroom categories. It was assumed to be: 

• Transformative 

• Educational 

• Habituating 

This is exactly Titus 2’s paideia. 

When the Fathers speak of grace, they routinely describe it as: 

• illumination 

• healing 

• strengthening 

• re-ordering desires 

They simply assumed that if grace is real, it changes how one lives. This is why the New Testament moral exhortations were never treated as a threat to grace. 

B. The catechumenate: embodied Titus 2 

Perhaps the clearest evidence is the catechumenate (roughly 2nd–5th centuries). 

Becoming a Christian normally involves: 

• 1-3 years of moral formation 

• instruction in doctrine and conduct 

• observable repentance from pagan practices 

• gradual incorporation into the Church’s life 

This only makes sense if: Grace is expected to train individuals prior to baptism. 

Titus 2:11-12 was not controversial—it was operational. 

You do not spend years training someone if grace is merely declarative, as most evangelicals think of it today. 

C. Baptism presupposed transformation, not instant assurance 

Early baptismal theology assumed: 

• renunciation of Satan 

• concrete moral change 

• lifelong discipline afterward 

Cyril of Jerusalem: 

“You have put off the old man… do not put him on again by your deeds.” 

There was no category for: 

• “saved but unchanged.” 

• “justified but undisciplined.” 

Grace was understood as entering a new way of life, not merely receiving a verdict of pardon as it is today. 

D. Church discipline made sense only under Titus-style grace 

The early Church practiced: 

• exclusion from communion 

• public penance 

• restoration after repentance 

This presupposes: 

• Grace can be resisted 

• holiness matters 

• Salvation is not treated as a past transaction, as most evangelicals think of it today. 

Paul’s exhortations in Titus (“rebuke sharply,” “maintain good works”) were taken literally. 

E. Why none of this felt like “works righteousness.” 

Because works were never seen as currency. 

They were: 

• symptoms of healing 

• habits of the new life 

• cooperation with grace 

The early Church did not fear moral exhortation because it did not imagine grace as fragile. 

2. Assurance in a Titus-style framework 

This is where modern assumptions feel most challenged. 

A. Assurance was relational and lived, not abstract and absolute, as most Christians today think of it 

Early Christians did not ask: “Am I eternally secure regardless of my life?” 

They asked: “Am I remaining faithful and obedient to God?” 

Assurance was drawn from: 

• ongoing repentance 

• participation in the sacraments 

• growth in virtue 

• perseverance in faith 

1 John was read very straightforwardly: “Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” 

B. Assurance was dynamic, not static 

Assurance functioned like: 

• a marriage, not a legal contract 

• a journey, not a completed transaction 

• a relationship, not a receipt 

This does not mean constant anxiety. It means watchfulness. 

“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12) was not a problem text. 

C. Why early Christians could live without “once-for-all” certainty 

Because certainty was not grounded in: 

• a past decision 

• an inward experience 

• a doctrinal formula 

It was grounded in: God’s faithfulness experienced in the Christians ongoing obedience 

That kind of assurance is: 

• humbler 

• less speculative 

• more resilient to presumption 

D. Contrast with modern evangelical assurance 

Modern evangelical assurance often seeks: 

• immediate certainty 

• crisis-moment salvation 

• confidence detached from conduct 

This makes sense only if: 

• Grace is primarily a legal declaration 

• Salvation is entirely in the past 

• holiness is secondary 

But under Titus-style grace, Assurance grows as holiness grows. 

E. Why this is pastorally healthier than it sounds 

This model: 

• discourages hypocrisy 

• encourages repentance rather than denial 

• avoids false assurance 

• keeps grace central as power, not permission to sin without consequences 

People were not told: “Never doubt.” 

They were told: “Remain faithful, and God is faithful.” 

3. Pulling it together 

What you are seeing is this: 

• Titus gives us the definition of grace 

• The early Church assumed that definition 

• The catechumenate embodied it 

• Church discipline protected it 

• Assurance flowed from living within it 

Grace was not fragile. Holiness was not legalism. Assurance was not abstract. 

Grace trained people into a way of life, and assurance was found in continuing to walk in that life. 

Our next phase is this:  

1. What does it mean to say “grace determines the will” vs. “grace heals the will” 

2. Augustine → Calvinism: grace replacing human inability by divine intervention 

3. The Council of Orange (529): what it affirmed, what it rejected, and why it didn’t settle the tension 

4. Modern Orthodox vs. Reformed soteriology (with confessional anchors) 

5. Exegetical analysis of James 1, 1 Timothy 2, and 2 Peter 3 in light of these systems 

1. “Grace Determines the Will” vs. “Grace Heals the Will.” 

This is the conceptual heart of the debate. 

A. Grace Determines the Will 

This view holds that: 

• Fallen humanity is unable (Total Depravity & Total Inability) to will the good toward God 

• The will is not merely weakened but incapacitated 

• Therefore, grace must decisively move, incline, or determine the will toward faith 

Key claims: 

• The decisive cause of faith is God’s action alone 

• Human willing follows regeneration, not vice versa 

• Grace is effectual, not merely enabling 

In short, Grace does not cooperate with the will; it creates the will. 

B. Grace Heals the Will 

This view holds that: 

• The fall of Adam wounds, enslaves, and disorders the will 

• Grace restores the will’s capacity to choose rightly 

• Human response is real, synergistic, and morally meaningful 

Key claims: 

• Grace precedes, enables, and sustains 

• But does not override or necessitate the human response 

• Salvation is cooperative, though grace is always primary 

In short: 

Grace does not replace the will — it restores and heals it. 

C. The Real Difference 

This is not about whether grace is necessary (both sides agree). It is about what grace does: 

Question	Determinative Model	Healing Model
Does grace cause faith?	Yes, unilaterally	Yes, enablingly
Is human assent contingent?	No	Yes
Is resistance possible after grace?	No (for the elect)	Yes
Is synergy real?	No	Yes

This is the model of the early church, the Healing Model described above. If you consider my comments in the Titus articles, you will see that I do not fully agree with this explanation. Grace ‘fortifies and strengthens’ our own will; it doesn’t cause our faith, as Chat states. Nor do I believe that the early church held that grace caused faith, as Chat’s chart implies. Grace does not cause faith as in cause and effect, where the cause always produces the effect. That is only true in Calvinism. 

2. Augustine → Calvinism: Grace as Divine Intervention 

A. Early vs. Late Augustine 

Early Augustine speaks more synergistically. Late Augustine (anti-Pelagian) asserts: 

• Total inability due to original sin 

• Grace is irresistible for the elect 

• God’s predestination is prior to foreseen faith 

Key texts: 

• On the Spirit and the Letter 

• On the Predestination of the Saints 

Late Augustine says: God does not merely show what ought to be done; He causes it to be done. 

B. Calvin’s Development 

Calvin systematizes Augustine: 

• Total Depravity → inability 

• Unconditional Election → selective grace 

• Irresistible Grace → determinative action 

• Perseverance → ensured outcome 

Faith is: 

• Not a cooperative response 

• But the result of regeneration 

Westminster Confession (10.1): God effectually calls… enlightening their minds… renewing their wills. 

This is grace as replacement, not restoration. 

3. The Council of Orange (529): What It Did — and Didn’t — Do 

What Orange Affirmed 

• Original sin seriously damages the will (Did Jesus have a seriously damaged will?) 

• Grace is absolutely necessary for faith (Cause and effect thinking) 

• Even the beginning of faith is a gift of grace 

Canon 7: 

No one can assent to the preaching of the gospel without illumination. 

What Orange Rejected 

• Double predestination 

• Irresistible grace 

• God causing damnation 

• Any denial of real human cooperation after grace 

Canon 25: 

We do not believe that some are predestined to evil. 

Why It Didn’t Resolve the Tension 

Orange: 

• Affirms prevenient grace 

• Affirms human cooperation 

• Rejects Pelagianism 

• Rejects determinism 

But it never explains how: 

• Grace can be necessary 

• Faith can be a gift 

• And yet human responses remain non-determined 

So: 

• Catholics read Orange synergistically 

• Reformed read Orange as proto-Augustinian 

• Orthodox accept Orange but reject later Augustinian determinism 

The tension is deliberately left unresolved. (And I do not understand why that needs to be that way. It seems to be an unnecessary compromise.) 

4. Orthodox vs. Reformed Soteriology (Modern Confessions) 

A. Orthodox Soteriology 

Key features: 

• Synergy (συνεργία) 

• Healing, not forensic replacement 

• Salvation as participation (theosis) 

Representative sources: 

• Confession of Dositheus (1672) 

• St. John of Damascus 

• Modern catechisms 

Dositheus: 

Grace does not destroy free will but strengthens it. 

Grace: 

• Precedes 

• Enables 

• Sustains 

• Never compels 

B. Reformed Soteriology 

Key features: 

• Monergism 

• Forensic justification 

• Grace as causative 

Westminster, Canons of Dort: 

• Faith is the result of regeneration 

• Human response is real but inevitable 

Grace: 

• Is not resistible (for the elect) 

• Guarantees the outcome 

C. Fundamental Contrast 

Issue	Orthodox	Reformed
Grace	Healing	Determining
Freedom	Restored	Superseded
Faith	Cooperative	Effected
Salvation	Therapeutic	Judicial
Synergy	Essential	Denied

5. Scriptural Analysis 

A. James 1:13-18 

Key points: 

• God does not tempt anyone 

• Desire arises from within (ἐπιθυμία) 

• Sin follows consent 

Implication: 

• Moral responsibility presupposes real capacity to resist 

• Desire is not necessitated by God 

Orthodox reading: 

• God enables endurance (v. 12) 

• Human failure is genuinely self-caused 

Reformed reading: 

• Describes secondary causes 

• God ordains outcomes without being the immediate cause 

Tension: James strongly supports non-determined moral agency. 

B. 1 Timothy 2:1-6 

God “will have all men to be saved.” 

Greek: θέλει — desires, wills 

Orthodox: 

• God’s salvific will is universal 

• Human resistance explains unbelief 

Reformed: 

• Distinguish between: 

• Will of desire 

• Will of decree 

Critique: 

• The text itself makes no such distinction 

• The burden is on theology, not exegesis 

C. 2 Peter 3:9 

Not willing that any should perish 

Orthodox: 

• God’s patience presupposes real contingency 

• Delay exists because repentance is genuinely possible 

Reformed: 

• “Any” refers to the elect 

• Patience guarantees the eventual salvation of those chosen 

Problem: 

• The audience includes scoffers 

• The language is expansive and pastoral, not restrictive 

Final Synthesis 

• Grace determining the will protects divine sovereignty but risks moral incoherence 

• Grace healing the will preserves responsibility but leaves mystery in divine foreknowledge 

• Augustine’s late views decisively shaped Calvinism 

• Orange tried to guard both grace and freedom — without systematizing either 

• Orthodox theology embraces the mystery; Reformed theology resolves it decisively in favor of causation 

Next, we will consider the following. 

1. Romans 9 — how it is read differently 

2. John 6 — divine drawing and human response 

3. John 12 — universal drawing and judicial hardening 

4. Pre-Augustinian Fathers on grace and freedom (with direct engagement of these texts) 

1. Romans 9: Competing Readings 

The Textual Problem 

Romans 9 raises three explosive claims: 

1. God’s purpose in election stands “not of works but of Him who calls” (9:11) 

2. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” (9:15) 

3. God hardens whom He wills (9:18) 

The question is what kind of election Paul is discussing. 

A. Reformed Reading: Individual, Salvific, Determinative 

Romans 9 is read as: 

• Individual election to salvation 

• Prior to faith 

• Unconditional and decisive 

Jacob/Esau: 

• Chosen/rejected before birth 

• Representative of individual destinies 

Pharaoh: 

• Hardened by God’s decree 

• His resistance serves divine glory 

Romans 9:16: 

“So then it is not of him that willeth…” 

This is taken as: 

• A denial of libertarian freedom in salvation 

• Proof of monergism 

B. Orthodox / Patristic Reading: Corporate, Historical, Vocational 

Romans 9 is read as: 

• Corporate election (Israel vs. nations) 

• Historical roles in redemptive history 

• Not final salvation destinies 

Jacob/Esau: 

• Nations, not individuals (Gen 25:23) 

• Concern election to service, not heaven/hell 

Pharaoh: 

• Hardened after persistent self-hardening 

• God confirms a freely chosen path 

Romans 9:16: 

• Denies merit, not response 

• Salvation is not earned, but it can be refused 

C. The Pivot Text: Romans 9 → 10 → 11 

Patristic interpreters insist: Romans 9 cannot be read without Romans 10 and 11. 

Romans 10: 

• Faith comes by hearing 

• Whoever calls will be saved 

Romans 11: 

• Branches broken off for unbelief 

• Can be grafted in again 

This continuity undermines a deterministic reading. 

2. John 6: “No One Can Come Unless the Father Draws Him.” 

The Crux 

John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” 

A. Reformed Reading 

• “Can” = moral inability 

• “Draw” = effectual compulsion 

• All that are drawn are raised up 

Drawing is: 

• Irresistible 

• Limited to the elect 

John 6:37: “All that the Father giveth me shall come…” 

This is read as a closed set. 

B. Patristic / Orthodox Reading 

“Draw” (ἑλκύω): 

• Persuasive, not coercive 

• Use of attraction (cf. John 12:32) 

John 6 must be read with: 

• John 6:45 — “They shall all be taught of God.” 

• “Everyone who hears and learns comes.” 

Hearing and learning are conditions, not results. 

C. The Desertion Narrative 

Many disciples leave Jesus in John 6. 

If drawing is irresistible: 

• Why do those drawn fall away? 

Patristic answer: 

• They were drawn, taught, and invited 

• They refused to endure the hard saying 

3. John 12: Universal Drawing and Judicial Hardening 

A. John 12:32 

“And I, if I be lifted up… will draw all men unto me.” 

This creates a canonical tension with John 6:44. 

B. Reformed Resolution 

• “All” = all kinds (Jew/Gentile) 

• Or all the elect 

This is a theological, not a lexical, harmonization. 

C. Patristic Resolution 

• Christ draws all 

• Not all respond 

This is reinforced by John 12:37-40: 

• People refuse to believe 

• Then God judicially hardens 

Hardening is: 

• Consequential 

• Not arbitrary 

4. Pre-Augustinian Fathers on Grace and Freedom 

The most important fact: No Father before Augustine teaches irresistible grace or total inability. 

They affirm: 

• The necessity of grace 

• The reality of free response 

• Moral responsibility 

A. Justin Martyr (2nd century) 

“Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions.” 

Grace: 

• Enlightens 

• Does not compel 

B. Irenaeus (Against Heresies) 

“God made man free from the beginning.” 

Hardening: 

• Result of rejecting light 

• Not imposed without cause 

C. Clement of Alexandria 

“Neither praise nor blame would be just if the soul did not have power.” 

Grace: 

• Pedagogical 

• Cooperative 

D. Origen 

• God foreknows choices 

• Does not necessitate them 

Hardening: 

• God withdraws grace already rejected 

E. Tertullian 

“I find no place for compulsion in God.” 

F. Summary of the Fathers 

Theme	Pre-Augustinian Consensus
Grace	Necessary
Freedom	Real
Election	Corporate/vocational
Hardening	Judicial
Faith	Synergistic

No Father teaches: 

• Regeneration before faith 

• Irresistible calling 

• Predestination to damnation 

Final Integration 

• Romans 9: about God’s freedom in history, not denial of human freedom 

• John 6: divine initiative is necessary, but not coercive 

• John 12: universal drawing explains universal responsibility 

• The Fathers read Scripture as preserving both grace and accountability 

Augustine’s later theology represents a novel development, not a repetition, of patristic consensus. That is not a compliment. 

Final Comments 

Grace, like other biblical terms, was largely rewritten and redefined when Augustine incorporated pagan ideas into Christianity. Luther and Calvin, over 1,000 years later, expanded, clarified, and solidified Augustine’s change in Orthodoxy. It is from this polluted fountain that much of what is in error in modern evangelicalism flows. 

If only Christians were interested enough to consider the cost before they blindly believe what Big Eva and the Christian religious complex promote all day, every day.