Justification By Faith Alone, part 2
February 6, 2008 at 11:53 am (Federal Vision)
Continuing on in chapter 21 of RINE (first part here).
Wilson has a rather interesting suggestion on page 173. He argues that good works and justification are definitionally inter-related, much like husband and wife. In other words, if you don’t have one, then you don’t have the other. He is not saying that good works are part of justification itself, any more than the wife is part of the body of the husband. They are two people, however much they may be one flesh. He is saying that we can distinguish sanctification, but we cannot separate them. He says, “We should be able to tell at a glance who is the husband and who is the wife- but we cannot remove one without removing the other.”
Now, at first glance, this proposal is attractive. We certainly do want to say that justification and sanctification are distinct, yet inseparable. You cannot have the one without the other. Justification without sanctification is antinomianism, and sanctification without justification is legalism. However, this definition will still make Reformed folk a bit skittery. Reformed folk are so used to excluding works categorically from justification, that any language such as “definitionally related” is going to cause angst. Certainly, works are related to justification. But how are they related? I would argue that they are related as the effect to the cause. There is no time lapse between justification and good works. But the former is the cause of the latter, logically speaking. Good works are an always-accompanying effect of justification; collateral results, if you will. Ultimately, I think we are saying the same thing. I just want to guard more especially against any idea of works entering into justification itself. The difficulty with the marriage metaphor is that husband and wife do become one flesh, which creates ambiguity in the analogy: do good works become one flesh with justification in the definitional sense? This would leave the door open for works to be part of justification itself. Husband and wife become part of something bigger. Wilson has put some guards against this interpretation by saying “distinct, yet inseparable” and “we should be able to tell at a glance.” However, a qualification such as I have outline above seems to me to guard better against works entering into justification.
Ronnie said,
February 6, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Yes, Doug Wilson’s analogy is problematic, and of course most analogies are but the analogy shouldn’t be problematic in the exact area of the controversy.
Justification is not justification because sanctification or works are added to it like a husband is only a husband when he finds a wife. The wife constitutes a part to making one a husband, however sanctification does not constitute a part in one experiencing justification. Doug’s analogy would work much better with the Catholic concept of faith being formed into “saving faith” when charity is added.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 6, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Perhaps Wilson’s analogy would fit better if he changed “justification” to “salvation.”
There are two parts to salvation: justification and sanctification. Are good works necessary for justification? We deny against the Federal Visionists. But are good works necessary for salvation? We affirm, along with Turretin.
tim prussic said,
February 6, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“Are good works necessary for justification? We deny against the Federal Visionists.” It just seems like more of the ever-present misrepresentation.
Anyway, in what sense in “necessary” being used? As a basis on which God declares a sinner righteous? Absolutely not - I’ve never read or heard an FV proponent contradict. Is necessary meant in the sense of a necessary EFFECT from a cause? If so, we’d affirm. Another way to ask this question: Is sanctification necessary for justification? Yes and no. Sanctification is NOT the basis of justification but is inseparable from it, as is glorification. The ordo necessarily hangs together, no? Justification is vitally important, but it is just one of many parts of our great salvation.
As to Pr. Lane’s analysis, all analogies have their issues. I don’t see your problem, however. Just because a hubby and wife become one flesh, doesn’t at all mean they’re no longer distinguished one from another. That’s the point that Pr. Wilson made. I can, on the other hand, understand your desire to guard justification from our works - I have the same desire. I also have to admit that I’ve not heard this analogy before Pr. Wilson. He seems quite fond of marriage analogies.
greenbaggins said,
February 6, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Tim, I already noted Wilson’s qualifications that you mentioned. I am well aware of them. So, no misinterpretation can be laid at my doorstep on this one. My problem with the analogy is that the place of works is not necessarily made clearer by it.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Jason, aren’t good works necessary for justification, in the sense of being the necessary fruit, evidence, and result of justification? Necessary does not, however, mean that they are the grounds of or contribute to justification; it is not an antecedent necessity, but rather a subsequent necessity. And even that subsequent necessity does not contribute any merit toward justification. Perhaps the preposition is specific: do you mean “for” to reflect only antecedent necessity? Would it be better to say that good works are necessary “in” justification? Hmm…no, because that sound operative. Good works are necessary “from” justification? “In regards to”? Dunno. But necessity does not mean the same thing as cause, grounds, or merit.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Also, I don’t have the reference handy, but Calvin did not make sanctification result from justification–both resulted directly from union with Christ. His analogy was with the heat and light from the sun: they can never be separated, but nor can you confuse them. But notice also that one does not produce the other; rather, both come directly from Christ.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Lane, I don’t think that good works are specifically caused by justification, but rather the result of faith. Justification is the legal declaration, entirely forensic; this is not what causes the good works, but rather the faith and the continuing work of the Spirit (WCF 16.2-3, which makes no mention of justification as a cause of good works).
Jeff Cagle said,
February 6, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Would it be better to say that good works are necessary “in” justification? Hmm…no, because that sound operative. Good works are necessary “from” justification? “In regards to”? Dunno.
“A necessary logical consequence of” would be my choice.
JRC
tim prussic said,
February 6, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Mr. Smith, I appreciate your clarification. I think you’re right that both flow from union with Christ. Further, I think that justification (J) is surrounded by sanctification. By that I mean, a justified man is already definitively sanctified (DS, that is, spiritually reborn) and is being conformed to Christ’s image, which continues throughout his life (progressive sanctification - PS). Justification’s right in the middle, but is quite distinguished from its co-blessings. It might look like this:
DS is apart from faith and prevents it - it’s absolutely monergistic.
J is through faith alone - is accomplished when a man, by God’s grace, he believes in the Messiah (thus, graciously synergistic).
PS is by grace and though faith but is tied in very much with our works (that is, God working in us to will and do), and is thus graciously synergistic.
greenbaggins said,
February 6, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Justification cannot be synergistic in any sense of the word, since the word means “works with.” Man does not work with God in justification. I am sincerely hoping that you mis-typed. Justification is monergistic from beginning to end.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 6, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Certainly justification is not synergistic in the etymological sense, i.e., connected to the erga, but I think Tim’s point is that man does do something: he believes. God creates the faith, and the faith is not the basis of that justification, but faith is exercised, it “acts” in justification (see WCF 11.2 w/ 14.2). I agree, though, that given the standard connotation of “synergistic,” that I would not say that justification is so. We don’t do “our part,” in any way that is contributing or meritorious or whatever. Nevertheless, faith “acts,” by receiving, resting, etc. But I wouldn’t call receiving and resting “synergistic”–they are not contributing to the justification, just accepting what God has done.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 6, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Regarding #8, the works are still necessary in some relation to justification. So, Jason’s statement of the question would have to be
Are good works necessary with respect to justification? We distinguish.
And then would enter a discussion of antecedent and consequent necessity, which, come to think of it, doesn’t Turretin do somewhere (although not, I think, with good works and justification)?
So, we can say that good works are necessary with respect to justification– by consequent necessity, which is thus non-causal.
Of course, good works are antecedently necessary to the final verdict of ‘not guilty,’ which Lusk confusingly calls a “justification.”
tim prussic said,
February 6, 2008 at 7:20 pm
#11 is correct. Justification MUST be synergistic (carefully guarded). God doesn’t believe for the sinner, does he? God doesn’t receive, rest upon, and trust in Christ for the sinner, does he? It must be that the sinner believes, but that believing is not the basis of our justification - that would be Christ and his merits alone. Faith itself is not imputed for righteousness, but is the alone instrument to link us to our Righteousness.
So far as I can tell, the only temporal part of our salvation that is *strictly* monergistic is regeneration - it is the holy rape of the soul, indeed. We’re not actively involved in our regeneration - we’re passive. It’s something being done to and in us. Justifying faith is not like that. There’s no merit in it, to be sure. It’s not the basis of justification; it’s the means. At the same time, we’re not altogether passive in it, as in regeneration. By God’s grace, we believe.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 6, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Affirming with our Confession that justification is irrespective of anything wrought in, or done by, us, is not the same as saying that “God believes for the sinner.” The former is true, the latter obviously false.
Faith is the receptive, non-contributory, instrumental means of receiving the righteousness of Christ. It is itself Spirit-wrought and therefore non-boastworthy.
So Joshua, saying that “good works are necessary for justification” as you did is not the same as saying that “sanctification is necessary for salvation,” as Turretin did.
And Tim, I am not “misrepresenting” the FVists by what I said in #2. They are very clear that our final justification takes into account our good works. According to Lusk, our works are not merely demonstrative but causal in some sense.
I can’t believe we’re actually arguing about whether justification is monergistic or not.
tim prussic said,
February 6, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Final justification CAN be distinguished from forensic justification without necessarily doing any injustice to the latter.
Sola fide does not equal mongergism strictly considered.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 6, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Tim,
You’re begging the question, assuming what you should be trying to prove.
Where, in confessional Reformed theology, do you find a treatment of “final justification” that is “distinguished from forensic justification”? And where have we ever said about it what Lusk and the FV have said?
Tim Harris said,
February 6, 2008 at 10:22 pm
“Justification without sanctification is antinomianism”
But the fact that antinomianism is logically possible (though shown to false in the event by the whole of Scripture), is sufficient to prove that justification and sanctification are not definitionally inter-related.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 6, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Back when I was in the process of becoming Reformed, about five years after I formally left “Calminianism” for 4-point Calvinism, I had a talk with my pastor about what it meant to affirm that God was entirely responsible for my salvation. The term ‘monergism’ was not used, but that’s what the discussion was about.
In the middle of that discussion, I realized that for years, I had subtly given myself credit for having believed. The Gospel made sense, therefore I believed it; my atheist friends in high school and college were simply behind the curve. Were they smart? Yes. But not as enlightened as I.
It was a point of repentance for me to realize that my faith in Christ functioned in part as a source of my intellectual contempt for others. Because I had “figured out” the truth, I was superior to my non-believing friends.
At the same time, I understood in a new way that my faith was all of God. My belief was not an “act of the will” in the sense that I, a rational person, looked at the option to believe and the option to not believe, and then chose to believe.
No indeed; at some point, God changed my nature, and I believed. I just did; there seemed no real option to it.
I have to side with Lane on this one. Tim P, I grant that the subject of the clause “I believe in Jesus” is myself, and I grant further that the will is the agent of belief. Still and all, the reason that my will believes is not that I’ve actively chosen belief. I haven’t “willed myself to believe.” Rather, the reason that my will believes is that I’ve been given a regenerate nature by the Spirit.
So despite agreeing that a living faith is active, and that faith is an act of the will, I do *not* agree that our faith is synergistic in the sense that we supply cooperation in the act of believing, that we “consider the options” and then choose belief (as Erasmus would have had it). Rather, I would hold that our faith is monergistic in the sense that we believe as a result of a changed nature given through regeneration. It just makes sense; we just believe on account of the changed will given us in regeneration.
Ironically, atheists themselves often understand this at some level. The most effective criticism of Pascal’s Wager in its popular form is that Pascal is speaking as if we have a choice whether or not to believe. Atheists will often point out that they do not have the ability to tell themselves to believe something they simply hold to be false.
In other words, it’s not at all clear that “a choice to believe” is really available to either the regenerate or the unregenerate.
Given that state of affairs, the notion of synergism in the sense it’s usually used — our cooperation with God — simply does not apply to justifying faith.
Jeff Cagle
Tom Wenger said,
February 7, 2008 at 12:03 am
Joshua and Tim, hear again the words of Calvin on this; he is directly contradicting you:
“It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; ONLY WE CONTEND THAT FAITH ALONE IS SUFFICIENT FOR JUSTIFICATION. The Papists themselves are accustomed to tear faith after a murderous fashion, sometimes presenting it out of all shape and unaccompanied by love, and at other times, in its true character. We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; BUT WHEN THE QUESTION COMES TO BE IN WHAT MANNER WE ARE JUSTIFIED, WE THEN SET ASIDE ALL WORKS.
With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. WHEN YOU ARE ENGAGED IN DISCUSSING THE QUESTION OF JUSTIFICATION, BEWARE OF ALLOWING ANY MENTION TO BE MADE OF LOVE OR OF WORKS, BUT RESOLUTELY ADHERE TO THE EXCLUSIVE PARTICLE.” (Calvin, Commentary on Gal 5:6)
Why do you feel the need to claim the Reformed tradition for your views? Part of being innovative is having the guts to admit it. Just say that you disagree with Calvin, like Andrew Sandlin in pitting him against James, and like Gabe did in endorsing Trent. But your smoke and mirrors keep fruitful conversation from happening.
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 1:59 am
Mr. Cagle, I appreciate your comments. I think, however, that you’re confusing things. You say “I do *not* agree that our faith is synergistic in the sense that we supply cooperation in the act of believing, that we “consider the options” and then choose belief.” The two things mentioned are two very different things. I’m not at all trying to slide some Arminian view of the freedom of the will into conversion or faith. Please reread my post #9. No sinner dead in his trespasses “considers the options” and opts for Christ. That’s altogether impossible. What I am saying is that once the Spirit gives us life, the gift of faith and the power to trust Christ, we trust Christ. I’m distinguishing believing from regeneration in that the latter is strictly monergistic. We have no active part in it, but are completely passive. In the former, we DO have a part in it - we believe. That involves us more than passively, doesn’t it? Or are we passive in believing - that is, is faith something completely done to us?
For the record, I’m more than willing to be taught on this. I just have not been able to understand it any other way.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 7, 2008 at 8:19 am
Hi Tim,
I definitely was not accusing you of Arminianism!
Rather, I was simply saying that “synergism” usually refers to cooperation, not merely the fact of doing something.
So for instance, if Joe Schmoe hears the preached Word and God uses it to regenerate him, then Joe has “done something” — but he hasn’t been cooperative in his regeneration.
Are we merely passive in believing? Seems like the answer is Yes and No.
Yes: the faith that is created in us via regeneration is created entirely without our cooperation.
No: the faith once created is genuinely ours; we ourselves are the subject of the verb “believe.”
Does that help?
Jeff Cagle
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I am accusing him of Armnianism along with the rest of the FV sophists and heretics. I mean, look at the reply to this post by DW on his blog. What do you all make of this obscurantist tripe:
Justification by faith alone in Wilson’s theology is where WE FULFILL what God has done. These men believe in a conditional covenant and a salvation which can be lost if these (unspecified) conditions are not met. In Wilson’s theology, the good news of salvation by belief of the Gospel alone is replaced by the unspecified duties of “covenantal faithfulness” in order to keep the grace and salvation conferred by one’s baptism.
Is this what he means by justification by faith alone is synergistic and we fulfill what God has done? Who really knows, but you can bet if he were to answer this question it wouldn’t be with a simply yes or no. Rather, it would be another analogy or word picture designed for no other reason than to mislead. After all and returning to his addled analogy, Wilson asserts in RINE: “No one assumes that every husband will automatically have a successful marriage. Nor should we assume that every Christian will go to Heaven.”
In Wilson’s theology some Christians go to Hell and he’s busy leading the way for those gullible enough to get mired in his endless and misleading analogies. It’s a theology of smoke and mirrors where even technical theological terms are bandied about, misused and misapplied. IMO his reply to Lane’s post is a priceless example of sophistry in its finest. Mongerism and syncretism are morphed and contorted to fit a theology that is not only not Calvinisitic, it is barely Arminian. I do admit it is something, just not Christianity. FWIW I think Gabe has it right.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Re #14 & 19:
On another thread, Tim Wilder accused the FV of being unable to understand the difference between necessity and cause. My whole point was specifically about this distinction: something can be necessary without being causal/ Furthermore, there are two very different types of necessity–antecedent and consequent. I stated that good works are *consequently* necessary with respect to justification; that is to say, if no good works are produced *later*, that means that there was no justification to begin with. Consequent necessity is evidentiary, which is the traditional Reformed view. But that in no way entails that the good works are the cause of justification, or that they enter into justification at all, so you can whack me with that Calvin quote all you want and I will simply say: “I agree…in fact, it’s what I keep saying: even if an obedient attitude is an aspect of faith, as the WCF seems to indicate, that aspect does not enter into justification *at all.* Only the receptive aspect of faith is instrumental in justification.” And I have said this over and over again–so quit accusing me of smoke and mirrors and take the time to read my comments.
The other issue is that there is equivocation going on about “justification.” Lusk’s whole point is about what he calls “*final* justification,” but which he means the final judgment–and the confessions and Scripture are clear that works have something to do with the verdict rendered at the final judgment. As I have said several times before, I do not think that calling the verdict at the final judgment a “justification” is helpful, but it is understandable, since the final judgment is the preeminent forensic setting. So, when Lusk says that works play a role “FINAL justification,” he simply means that works are considered at the final judgment. Is it the best way of putting it? I would say no, but to interact with an opponent means understanding his use of terms…
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Jeff, I agree. God gives faith and the power to exercise it (that is, to believe). The subject of faith (the believer) is operating even as God is operating in him to do so. Thus, there’s cooperation and synergy.
Mr. Stellman says, “Faith is the receptive, non-contributory, instrumental means of receiving the righteousness of Christ. It is itself Spirit-wrought and therefore non-boastworthy.” I agree with this, I think. Faith is receptive by nature - it receives Christ and his benefits (including his active and passive obedience). Faith is non-contributory in that it’s given to us not produced by us (lest we boast). It’s certainly the alone instrumental means of our justification. The problem is that none of that touches my assertion. Put as a question: How is it that human beings believe without some form of synergism?
As to the differences between forensic and eschatological justification - I’d confess a good deal of ignorance and won’t pretend to be a teacher. At first blush, it seems that the very thing that is explicitly excluded from the forensic is explicitly included in the eschatological, that is, our words and works. Further, they’re at different points in time: one at the beginning of our Christian experience and the other all the way at the end. Thus, it seems infelicitous if a man claims works are included in eschatological justification, to accuse him of denying forensic justification. But, again, I have plenty to learn on that score.
Sam Steinmann said,
February 7, 2008 at 1:30 pm
OK, Sean, answer me this:
When we are justified by faith, who has the faith?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Tim,
Regeneration, effectual calling, or whatever we want to call it… to say it is monergistic does not necessarily mean we do not have to believe, or that it is God who believes for us. It does mean, though, that our faith is non-meritorious and non-contributory. Was it actually Lazarus who walked out of the tomb in John 11? Yes. Does that mean he contributed to his being raised from the dead?
As to the justification issue, I would agree that our forensic justification is an example of the eschatological verdict intruding into the present. The problem with positing that the former is based on one thing (faith) while the latter is based on another (works, at least in part) is that now you’ve got two justifications instead of one. If we want to maintain a single verdict that we receive proleptically in the here and now, we must also maintain that there can be only one basis for that verdict, not two different bases.
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Re. #19, Mr. Wegner, I’ve maintained very clearly multiple times that faith is the alone instrument of justification. I’ve also clearly asserted that faith is a gift and we exercise it by God’s power working in us. Also, I’ve put forward in no uncertain terms the absolute monergistic work of regeneration. Please read my posts more closely.
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Tim P writes:
You must be in the process of digesting Doug Wilson’s reply. But, I was hoping you can help me out with something. Since Wilson calls justification by faith alone “Calvinistic synergy,” would it be accurate to conclude that there is cooperation and “synergy” in your understanding justification by faith alone as well Tim?
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Jason,
I think the wording of your post above is misleading when you say we can only have one “basis” for justification. That statement is correct but the sentence above claims that “faith” is the basis of this proleptic juridical declaration. I dont think you believe that (Christ being the “alone” basis, if by basis we are using in the sense of grounds). So the question must come down to instrumentation and whether faith is the sole instrument or if works play an instrumental role in justification.
I believe the former is correct (faith alone as instrument) but also would argue, with Gaffin and others, that this vindication will be done “out in the open” using works as the “by sight” evidence that the one in question was united to the vindicated one through faith. It is in no way a “second” justification but only an “open acquittal” or a by sight justification.
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Sam and Tim P would you guys have any problems with this definition of monergism by John Hendryx (it was the first I can across when I googled, but I think it will suffice). Notice that faith or the act of believing is included in his definition:
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Jesse,
Yes, thanks for letting me clarify: the basis of our justification is Christ and his work, the alone instrument is faith.
One passage that needs some more airplay in this discussion if the sheep and goats judgment in Matt. 25. A pretty significant detail that needs to be brought up more is the fact that Jesus first separates the sheep from the goats, and then turns to highlight their respective works, or lack thereof.
So it’s not that the shepherd begins with works and then figures out who gets to stand on his right and who must stand on his left, but the distinction is made at the beginning.
And as it turns out, the sheep acted like sheep. Because they are sheep.
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Magma… umm… YES. That’s what all my posts have been about on this thread. Read, say, the middle paragraph of #24 and answer the question (if you please) at the end of it.
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:14 pm
OK, Sean, answer me this:
When we are justified by faith, who has the faith?
Are you a lawyer, just playing one, or do you just like answering a question with a question?
NB. It seems to me you folks are equivocating on a number of terms, not just monergism and syncretism but also with words like “by” or “through.” Perhaps if you folks would answer my questions first it would straighten things out, yes?
As to your question, we believe of course, i.e., have the faith. God doesn’t believe for us.
Does that help? If so, why don’t you take a stab at clearing up some of the Wilsonian confusion. Is justification by faith alone an act of synergism? Something we cooperate in?
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Got that Tim, but it really was little help since you ask: “How is it that human beings believe without some form of synergism?” Now I’ve provided what I think is a pretty good definition of monergism. Does that answer your question?
Jeff Cagle said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Jason (#31):
I just posted the same thing over in the Turretin thread. Eerie…
JRC
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Magma, #30, ‘faith’ is not included in his mongergistic regeneration (with which I wholeheartedly agree). Read that passage more carefully. In our monergistic regeneration, “we are granted the spiritual ability” to believe and repent. Regeneration is not that faith and repentance, but in it we’re given the power to repent and believe. I’ve been arguing that the whole time. The flip side is that belief and repentance ARE synergistic (with all the qualifications I’ve listed above.. I’m tired of rehearsing them).
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Mr. Stellman, #26, your first paragraph confuses me. You wrote:
Regeneration, effectual calling, or whatever we want to call it… to say it is monergistic does not necessarily mean we do not have to believe, or that it is God who believes for us. It does mean, though, that our faith is non-meritorious and non-contributory. Was it actually Lazarus who walked out of the tomb in John 11? Yes. Does that mean he contributed to his being raised from the dead?
You seem here to conflate faith and regeneration. Man is altogether passive in his REGENERATION, but is active in believing (that’s been my point the whole time). See Magma’s quotation from Jimi Hendrix up in #30. Faith and repentance are completely dependent upon regeneration - they necessarily flow from it, but are quite distinct from it. Have I misunderstood you?
‘Scuse me while I kiss the sky…
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Tim,
Yes, faith is dependent upon regeneration and flows from it, just like Lazarus’s walking out of his grave was dependent upon his physical regeneration and flowed from it.
But in the same way that, just because it was LAZARUS himself who walked out of the tomb does not mean that his resurrection was a team effort between him and Jesus, so our believeing doesn’t make our justification an example of what Wilson apparently calles “Calvinistic synergy.”
Dig?
Sam Steinmann said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Sean,
I’d have no problem with your definition of monergism.
I’m pretty sure Pr Wilson wouldn’t either.
Note, however, that monergism in that definition applies to REGENERATION specifically. Justification is on the surface synergistic (man has the faith); that synergism is only “on the surface” because God GAVE the faith, so it is ultimately monergistic.
I do find it amusing that you argue with Wilson by posting someone else saying the same thing.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Tim P (#24):
Jeff, I agree. God gives faith and the power to exercise it (that is, to believe). The subject of faith (the believer) is operating even as God is operating in him to do so. Thus, there’s cooperation and synergy.
I think I was unclear. You and I, it seems, agree on the mechanism. But we disagree about whether to call this mechanism a “synergistic” one.
Now, the term “synergism” isn’t in the Bible, so at one level we have the freedom to use the word however we wish. But the reality is that the Reformed community has been working with that term for some time, and has generally used it to mean “cooperation” rather than “action.”
So it’s very confusing to begin speaking of “our faith is synergistic” when you mean (1) “we are the subject of the clause ‘I believe’, even though God creates our faith entirely apart from our cooperation.”
I would look at (1) and say that that’s monergism, not synergism, because it lacks the element of human/divine cooperation.
And, I would strongly encourage the use of those terms in the standard way so as to avoid the kind of confusion we see on this thread. Not that it’s a matter of heresy — we both agree to (1), right? — but rather a matter of charitable conversation.
I say ‘charitable’ because doing theology in community places a certain burden both of seeking to understand and also seeking to be understood. It seems to me that certain formulations can be deliberately provocative for no good reason.
One boundary case is Rich Lusk’s speaking of “Final Justification.” I understand why he uses that wording — he believes that James 2 and Romans 2 speak of justification in that sense. But still and all, with the baggage of the Reformation battles onward, it becomes very very difficult to have to keep re-re-re-examining the question of how “final justification” differs from the Roman Catholic terminology of “final justification.”
So I would put it more strongly than Joshua has. For him, Lusk’s term “final justification” is unfortunate. To my mind, it’s a teaching error: failing to avoid an obvious misunderstanding, all for the sake of being more broadly Biblical (in his opinion) with the use of the word “justification.”
I contrast that approach with Gaffin’s, who has taken to speaking of a ‘future acquittal’ (also a valid translation of dikaosis) in order to concede a certain linguistic ground to established convention concerning the word “justification.”
I would put “Calvinistic synergism” in the same category as “future justification.” Here are Doug’s words:
His terms ‘monergistic’ and ’synergistic’ are almost entirely orthogonal to the way that those terms are generally used. Monergism is not concerned with the ultimate efficient cause of all things. Rather, it is concerned with the level of creaturely contingencies.
EVEN IF we look only at secondary causes, man still does not cooperate with God in his justifying faith. That’s the entire point of the debate in the “Bondage of the Will.” And Doug knows this, I think, and so it makes me wonder why he’s gone and recycled this word in such a confusing way.
Anyways Tim, I would strongly discourage using “synergism” in the way that you have. But even if you continue to, I still won’t call you an Arminian.
Jeff Cagle
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Oh, baby, I was diggin’ right up till the end. The Lazarus analogy is good. New life is God’s work and his alone. Dun and dun. Lazarus walking (analogous to faith and repentance) is Lazarus, having been given new life and new dispositions, a cooperation between him and God, no? Is not justification dependent upon the subject of faith believing? Is that believing not analogous to Lazarus walking out of the tomb? Is not, then, justification (non-meritoriously, etc, etc) synergistic?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Tim,
Again, no, justification is not (even non-meritoriously) synergistic.
Justification is an act of God’s free grace, in which he acquits the sinner upon the basis of Jesus’ work on his behalf.
I think the question you should be asking is whether good works are necessary for salvation (salvation being broader than justification). The answer is yes, they are. But on the strict question of justification, the Reformed view for 500 years has been that works are excluded from that equation.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jason, I’m glad you brought up the eschatological issue again, as I had asked about it previously, but my question, I think, had gotten buried.
As I understand Horton’s view, the eschatological verdict is the primary one (eschatology precedes soteriology), and that future verdict is brought into the present as present justification. Now, both Scripture and the confession teach that the final verdict will have *something* to do with works…I’m intentionally leaving this loose to avoid any terms that will raise hackles: not necessarily *by* works, or *on the basis of* works, since Paul’s phrase “according to” seems looser than these more causal prepositions. Nevertheless, works will have some role in the final judgment, and there’s no way around that.
So, here’s the question: if present justification is the future verdict brought into the present, and that future verdict has something to do with works, then how are works not involved in present justification, which is simply the intrusion and application of the final, works-related verdict?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Joshua,
I would not agree that “the future verdict has something to do with works” (emphasis mine).
As I tried to point out from the sheep and goats judgment, the verdict of “sheep” or “goat,” “righteous” or “wicked” takes place before works enter the equation. All the works prove is that the sheep acted like sheep, and the goats acted like goats.
That’s why the final judgment, according to our Confession, is not really a verdict that determines who were are and where we go, but is an “open acknowledgement and acquittal” of us before the eyes of our accusers, and its purpose is to glorify God’s mercy in having saved us.
And that’s why we distinguish between present justification and future vindication.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Plus, your formulation cannot make sense of the insistence of our Confession that justification does not occur because of anything wrought in, or done by, us. Obviously, the divines did not consider the final judgment a “justification according to works.”
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm
So, can we agree not to say that man “co-operates” in justification, because that term is so loaded with Tridentine baggage? Same with “synergistic”? I can see that on an absolutely technical level you could argue that these terms describe justification, but it doesn’t seem to be helping at all…
But could we call faith “active” in justification? As the WCF says, accepting, receiving, and resting on Christ are “acts” of faith, and it is those very “acts” that are the instrumental application of justification to us. It doesn’t seem to me that the term “active” has as much baggage as “co-operative” or “synergistic.” This gets us back to some good comments that Jeff C. had elsewhere on “active” and “passive” faith, distinguishing between “receptive” and “generative,” which seemed more helpful…
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm
What was it about this sentence that gave you trouble Tim P.?
It is that supernatural power of God alone whereby we are granted the spiritual ability to comply with the conditions of the covenant of grace; that is, to apprehend the Redeemer by a living faith . . .
Are you saying that a living faith, i.e., apprehending Christ the Redeemer, is a cooperative act? Like when someone talks of God enabling us to do works in sanctification? Also, I realize that FV men like to contrast living faith with dead faith and that a living faith includes works as they understand James, but here is a use of “living faith” that includes no works at all.
Also, and on a related note, I thought that the conditions of the CoG for FV folks was ongoing faithfulness to the demands of the covenant? I also thought that you entered into the covenant by water baptism and the mumblings of an authorized representative of the church? I’m a little unclear how you can say you agree with the definition since you assert that the act of believing is synergistic and the FV rejects the idea that covenant is entered into by mere belief alone?
[And, to answer Sam, I can't see Wilson agreeing with the definition without immediately adding to it and qualifying it in such a way that his agreement simultaneously turns into disagreement. That's what those old dead Greek guys used to call "sophistry."
]
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Joshua,
I think we’re going in a circle. You should address Tom’s point in #19, which has not been answered. I’ll even paste it for you:
“It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; ONLY WE CONTEND THAT FAITH ALONE IS SUFFICIENT FOR JUSTIFICATION. The Papists themselves are accustomed to tear faith after a murderous fashion, sometimes presenting it out of all shape and unaccompanied by love, and at other times, in its true character. We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; BUT WHEN THE QUESTION COMES TO BE IN WHAT MANNER WE ARE JUSTIFIED, WE THEN SET ASIDE ALL WORKS.
“With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. WHEN YOU ARE ENGAGED IN DISCUSSING THE QUESTION OF JUSTIFICATION, BEWARE OF ALLOWING ANY MENTION TO BE MADE OF LOVE OR OF WORKS, BUT RESOLUTELY ADHERE TO THE EXCLUSIVE PARTICLE.” (Calvin, Commentary on Gal 5:6)
He then asks:
“Why do you feel the need to claim the Reformed tradition for your views? Part of being innovative is having the guts to admit it. Just say that you disagree with Calvin, like Andrew Sandlin in pitting him against James, and like Gabe did in endorsing Trent. But your smoke and mirrors keep fruitful conversation from happening.”
I’m curious to hear your, or anyone’s, response to Calvin here.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Jason, it’s not my formulation–I’m simply asking the question. It is my understanding of the proleptic view of justification that leads to this formulation, so if I’ve misunderstood that view, I’m happy to be corrected. Just don’t attribute it to me when I haven’t claimed it. As far as I can see, Mike’s proleptic view, which you are espousing, reverses the direction as understood traditionally. The traditional view is that the present justification is the primary one, and the future one is simply a public restatement of that earlier verdict. The proleptic view, however, seems to make the future verdict logically primary. Have I misunderstood that?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:01 pm
No, I don’t think you’ve misunderstood Horton’s view.
Any thoughts on my argument from Matt. 25? Or on Calvin’s exegesis of Gal. 5:6? Or on Tom’s contention that innovators “should have the guts to admit” that they’re innovators?
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Jason, I already did address it. See #23, in which I said that I completely agree with Calvin, and have done so repeatedly in my comments in various threads here at GB. No *consequently* necessary good works are at all considered in faith as the instrument of justification. I have said this probably half a dozen times in different ways, so I’m not sure how I could be clearer.
“The obedient aspect of faith does not justify, but only the receptive aspect of faith.”
“even if an obedient attitude is an aspect of faith, as the WCF seems to indicate, that aspect does not enter into justification *at all.* Only the receptive aspect of faith is instrumental in justification.”
“I would say that we seek to obey because of what faith is…but that obedient aspect of faith is not at all in view in justification.”
“the obedient aspect of faith is not at all that which makes it the instrument of justification.”
“no obedience that is part of, produced by, or included in the definition of faith has anything to do with justification.”
So, even where I have maintained that a proneness to obedience is a defining aspect of faith, I have also maintained Calvin’s dictum: when the question is in what manner we are justified, I set aside all works. Repeatedly and explicitly, yet Tom still charges me with “smoke and mirrors” and you repeat his claim. Why exactly are we going around in circles, then?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Gotcha. Missed that one….
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm
You and Jeff C. have a good point on Matt. 25. But I have never said that the final judgment is “based on” works or anything like that. I have simply said, deliberately loosely, that the final verdict has *something to do* with works, which both Scripture and the confession are clear on. But, with the confession, Calvin, and Paul, I would say that present justification has nothing to do with works. And that makes the full half-dozen times now that I have agreed with Calvin and the traditional view.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Okay, then.
It is exactly my agreement with the traditional view that makes the proleptic view confusing.
The final acquittal (and how is that not a verdict?) has something to do with works.
Present justification has nothing to do with works.
BUT, on the proleptic view, present justification is based on the final acquittal.
Thus, present justification is connected to the final acquittal.
BUT, the final acquittal has something to do with works.
SO, it seems to me that thus, indirectly, present justification has something to do with works.
Clearly, you would say that I’ve gotten one of these points muddled. That is entirely likely, and that’s what I’m trying to clear up in my own understanding.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm
If I were an innovator, I would have the guts to say it. In my first ST paper at WSC, I expressly rejected the Reformed position on one particular detail of the Lord’s Supper, so I have no problem making clear any “innovations.” But, the fact is, that on this Calvin-on-Gal.-5:6 thing I am not an innovator, and anyone who thinks I am just doesn’t read carefully or doesn’t understand some basic distinctions like necessity/cause or antecedent/consequent necessity.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Oh, and it was Mike Horton’s class I wrote that paper for. He not only didn’t have a problem with my position, he actually directed me to Klein’s work for additional argumentation along the lines I was already going. So don’t anybody jump on me for being a “heretic” in Lane’s idiosyncratic sense.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Tim P (#36):
In our monergistic regeneration, “we are granted the spiritual ability” to believe and repent. Regeneration is not that faith and repentance, but in it we’re given the power to repent and believe.
I think this is an example of the confusion that can occur. Notice that this account of regeneration — monergistic granting of the ability to repent and believe — is agreeable entirely to Wesley’s account of prevenient grace!
Clearly, monergism needs to distinguish itself more effectively than that. In regeneration, we are not simply given the ability to repent and believe; we are given a new nature that *does* repent and believe. Hence, our repentance and belief flow as a logically necessary consequence of having been regenerated.
Contrast that with the prevenient grace view, that we are dead in sins until we are given the ability to repent and believe, and that the additional element of our choice or cooperation makes the difference between those who do and those who do not repent and believe.
It is for the purpose of distinguishing those kinds of views that the terms monergistic and synergistic are usually used.
JRC
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Magma, you ask, “Are you saying that a living faith, i.e., apprehending Christ the Redeemer, is a cooperative act?” Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not impressed with the speed of the uptake around here. Magma, do you believe or does God believe for you? If God believes for you and you’re altogether passive, then you may rightly say that justifying faith is monergistic, okay? Your quote from Mr. Hendryx DOES NOT say that faith is monergistic. Read it again. It says that regeneration is. This conversation is moving like magma in January.
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Mr. Cagle, I absolutely agree with #57. It’s TRUE that regeneration give us the ability to repent and believe. However, we’d want to say more than that to distinguish the historic Reformed/Calvinistic position from the multifarious Arminian errors - including prevenient grace. Incidentally, I’ve NEVER met anyone who holds to Arminius’ doctrine of prevenient grace. I’m not too familiar with Wesley’s version.
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Then I find it hard to see why Jeff Cagle is hesitant to call you Arminian? Perhaps he has changed his mind with his brief discussion of Wesley above.
The argument from mongerism is that God is the cause of faith. It is the necessary (as in logical and inevitable result) of regeneration. You know; it’s not of yourself, it is the gift of God and all that.
No argument here. My uptake is slow. =8-(
Sam Steinmann said,
February 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm
The argument from monergism is that God is the cause of faith. It is the necessary (as in logical and inevitable result) of regeneration. You know; it’s not of yourself, it is the gift of God and all that.
Right. That’s true of the whole Christian life: sanctification included; good works included.
But monergism says that REGENERATION is the act of God alone. (Versus the more-traditional and more-widespread position that belief and obedience come first, and regeneration is God’s response.) Faith is the GIFT of God, not the ACT of God.
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Magma, most Arminians will argue that faith precedes regeneration and that regeneration is synergistic. I’m arguing that mongergistic regeneration precedes God-given, synergistic faith. You still have not answered these very simple questions: Do you believe or does God do it for you? Are you absolutely passive in your believing?
tim prussic said,
February 7, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Note to all concerned: “Monergism” doesn’t mean “God is the source or cause” of a thing. It means he the only actor in it. A monergistic work of God is a work where God alone (that excludes everybody but God, that’s right, everybody) does the working. Regeneration is that way - God alone does it. Faith is not that way - we believe.
A strictly-monergistic justification is something quite foreign to my readings in the Bible and among our Reformed fathers. Once again, I gotta lot to learn, but this one seems pretty easy.
I think that those arguing for it here are simply zealous to maintain the gracious nature of faith. After all, both faith and repentance are GIFTS from God, right? Amen. But that does not mean they are monergistic. It means they are gracious.
magma2 said,
February 7, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Magma, most Arminians will argue that faith precedes regeneration and that regeneration is synergistic.
Tim, please, no lectures on Arminianism. As a former Wesleyan and card carrying Arminian (complete with my picture in the corner and the Methodist seal of approval), I think I have a handle on it.
Belief isn’t “synergistic.” You are not only wrong, you’re confused. Faith necessarily and logically follows from being one of Christ’s sheep; “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.” Faith is not something we cooperate in with God or that we have a role in. Does that answer your question? That’s why it’s called a gift and something which is “not of yourselves.” Christians play no role in believing whatsoever. It is one of the great blessings of the Covenant (contra Wilson mock Covenant).
IMO, you have spent too much time under the tutelage of false teachers like Wilson. Sinners come to faith IN SPITE OF THEMSELVES, not in cooperation with God or even the result of secondary causes. Do you even understand what is meant by synergism or did you learn its meaning from Wilson? Because Wilson denies faith is alone. He derides “raw” or mere faith. For him believing means doing, and, at least at one time, even argued that faith and belief were different things. I imagine he still does. He seems unable to be taught. I mean why would he be, he knows everything. Claiming omniscience can’t be far behind (just be wary when they start using Koolaid for the Lord’s Supper - the real reason for paedocommunion).
As per your assertion that monergism “doesn’t mean ‘God is the source or cause’ of a thing,” then perhaps you can explain it to Wilson (good luck) who seems to think the idea conveyed in monergism is that God is the cause of everything. His exact quote is:
No wonder you’re confused. Feeding from the hand of such a competent Sophist (and an incompetent theologian) will have that effect. Wilson is not even a Christian. He is a false teacher. What the old Puritans (and the Bible) called an Antichrist. But since you say of Wilson’s utter irrational nonsense posted on his blog in response to Kiester’s post above; “Dude, that’s what I’ve been tryin’ to say,” perhaps I’m wasting my time.
Tim Harris said,
February 7, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I think from Wilson’s latest post, we can say that Wilson is a Wesleyan, but unless all Wesleyans are non-Christians, I don’t think we can infer that he is not a Christian. What makes it dicey is that he has “set himself up in the temple” i.e. claims to be “Reformed” yet without the need to join a Reformed church. But the way to fix that is to stop acting as though he is Reformed. If he were the self-proclaimed “pastor” of Moscow Monophysite, would anyone be paying attention to him? The very fact that the Reformed interact so intensely with him but not with, say, Chuck Smith or any of a hundred other of the self-proclaimed (just in Southern California alone!) reinforces Douglas in his delusion.
Terry W. West said,
February 7, 2008 at 9:40 pm
A few folks have mentioned Calvin in some earlier comments. Here is an interesting quote from Calvin dealing with the relationship between Justification and sanctification.
Calvin says:
“We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification,
to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ
cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation
of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.
John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 1
Jeff Cagle said,
February 7, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Mr. Prussic (#63) (Or “Tim” if you prefer):
Note to all concerned: “Monergism” doesn’t mean “God is the source or cause” of a thing. It means he the only actor in it. A monergistic work of God is a work where God alone (that excludes everybody but God, that’s right, everybody) does the working. Regeneration is that way - God alone does it. Faith is not that way - we believe.
A strictly-monergistic justification is something quite foreign to my readings in the Bible and among our Reformed fathers. Once again, I gotta lot to learn, but this one seems pretty easy.
I think that those arguing for it here are simply zealous to maintain the gracious nature of faith. After all, both faith and repentance are GIFTS from God, right? Amen. But that does not mean they are monergistic. It means they are gracious.
and also in #62:
I’m arguing that mongergistic regeneration precedes God-given, synergistic faith. You still have not answered these very simple questions: Do you believe or does God do it for you? Are you absolutely passive in your believing?
Mr. Prussic, I believe that we’ve gotten ourselves wrapped around an axle unnecessarily on this one.
A couple of notes:
(1) As I understand your argument, you hold that (a) we are the actors in our faith, the subject of the verb “believe.” Hence, (b) we are cooperators in our faith; hence, (c) faith is “in a sense” synergistic.
I agree with (a) whole-heartedly. The Bible gives no indication whatsoever that when Alice believes, it’s really God believing on her behalf.
But (b) is not as obvious a point as one might think. A moment’s reflection shows that not all action verbs are cooperative. In the sentence “I die”, the subject is certainly “I.” But my will in all likelihood does not cooperate with my death. I am the actor, but I’m not a cooperator.
Lots of verbs are like this: “I fall.” “I snore.” “I dream.”
Some verbs are on the boundary of cooperation: “I breathe.” — yes, I can consciously influence my breathing. But any two-year-old who tries to stop breathing discovers that she can’t, since people who stop breathing pass out — and then resume normal breathing.
What about “I believe”, then? Is it a matter of cooperating? To get at that, I think we need to define “cooperation.” And I would argue that cooperation requires exercising of options. That is, I cooperate if I have the option to assist or not assist, and choose the former.
It’s fairly clear Scripturally that this is not the situation with faith. Once we have been born again, our belief is a certain result; hence our calling is “effectual.” There are no options to exercise. All those whom He calls, he also justifies.
So I would argue, going all the way back to Luther in his famous debate with Erasmus, that the bare fact that I am the subject of “I believe” does not make me a cooperator in the creation of my faith. Faith is not a choice.
Luther’s Bondage of the Will, by the way, is an example of a Reformed father who argues for a monergistic faith. Here is a sample:
(2) As I mentioned in #40, the terms “monergism” and “synergism” have not historically referred (AFAIK) to “one actor” vs. “two actors.” I know that it’s popular to speak of monergism as if it means “we don’t do anything”, but that’s a very crude approximation. Rather, the two terms have usually referred to “non-cooperative” and “cooperative.” Hence, I would urge a different vocabulary when making your point (which I agree with!) that we and not God are the ones believing.
Jeff Cagle
magma2 said,
February 8, 2008 at 8:46 am
I think from Wilson’s latest post, we can say that Wilson is a Wesleyan, but unless all Wesleyans are non-Christians
True, but his denial of justification by faith alone, which is refashioned under the FV into justification by faith and works (what they call a “living faith”
does.
Sam Steinmann said,
February 8, 2008 at 10:31 am
So Sean–to make sure I’m understanding correctly–your position is that EVERYTHING is monergistic in salvation–even progressive sanctification/obedience/good works?
That seems a bit strange to me.
magma2 said,
February 8, 2008 at 2:09 pm
So Sean–to make sure I’m understanding correctly–your position is that EVERYTHING is monergistic
Care to quote me where I said that? I thought I was as plain as a block of wood. This is really rudimentary stuff Sam. Calvinism 101.
FWIW my guess is some of your confusion comes from reading Wilson who, aside from misleading analogies and mutilating technical theological terms, says idiotic and irresponsible things like, “Justification by faith alone is Calvinistic synergy.” JBFA is only a synergistic concept for those in the FV who deny this very doctrine they feign to uphold. Men who claim to be, but who are not, Calvinists.
That seems a bit strange to me.
I imagine it would be if you spend your time listening to and learning from men like Wilson. But, hey, if you don’t like what I’ve said, read some of the other posts in this thread above by others who are all making essentially the same point. JBFA is not syncretistic. Wilson’s Arminianism is showing.
tim prussic said,
February 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Sorry, Jeff, but I’ve been outta commission for a bit. I’m happy to pick this up with you now, though. Also, thanks for the dialog, give and take, and actual interest in the subject. I run out of steam pretty quickly with the Wilson-can-say-nothing-correct crowd. Frankly, rants are boring. I’m happy you’re not in that silly crowd!
I do think we’re only differing over definition. So, I won’t quibble there. The only *possible* substantive difference is where we see the will fitting into belief.
You say, “It’s fairly clear Scripturally that this is not the situation with faith. Once we have been born again, our belief is a certain result; hence our calling is “effectual.” There are no options to exercise.”
I think you are confusing two things: 1) The available external options and 2) the disposition of the mind/heart that drives the will. In the ordinary course of events, the external options are there (say, A) sin and die, or B) repent, believe and live). Everyone externally called faces that choice. Those who are unregenerated will ALWAYS choose A. The real choice is there: A or B. There is true freedom. That is, the man may choose which ever he wants. However, the unregenerate man, because his mind is at enmity with God, will ALWAYS choose A, that is, sin and death. Now, the regenerate will (as you mentioned) always choose B. He’ll necessarily choose it, but that doesn’t mean (because of the necessity involved) that there’s no REAL choice. Rather, it’s because of the work of God in regeneration that a man can and will choose B (life). Thus, your statement quoted above is simply a non-sequitur. Just because an outcome is certain doesn’t mean there wasn’t an option. Were that so, there’d be no Reformed doctrine of the freedom of the will - including that testified to by Luther.
The interesting thing with your Luther quote (which I love - Luther’s one of my heros) is that I don’t think it teaches monergistic faith AT ALL, but I think it underscores my point.
Thus saith Luther: “But again, on the other hand, when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord…”
After God works in us, changing us, we desire and act. This occurs NOT FROM COMPULSION (that is, we’re not forced against our wills) but responsively and from pure willingness, inclination and accord. That is, we choose and act freely! Once God works in us changing us (monergistic regeneration), we desire and act freely (synergism). This jives exactly with what I said above.
It’s times like these when I’d long for a smoky pub and a few beers, Jeff. I find this sort of things discussed on blogs to be slightly dehumanizing, but discussed over beer and pipes to be wonderful. Maybe someday, huh? Where do you live? I’m in Olympia, WA. Have a great day!
tim prussic said,
February 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Magma, you’re correct. All this IS very rudimentary, but I fear you simply have not got it. You still (best I can tell, anyway) have not answered my VERY simple questions: Do you believe, or does God believe for you? Are you actively involved in your believing or not?
magma2 said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:21 am
Even if you failed to notice, while I have answered and re-answered your question Tim, the question is not do I believe or does God believe for me, but rather why do I believe at all? Is the answer to this attributed to monergism as I’ve argued or syncretism as you and Mr. Wilson have?
You and Wilson are syncretists on the question of JBFA. Wilson’s thinly veiled Arminianism in his reply to this blog is evident to most of us here, you and Sam I suppose excepted. So, while I don’t want to impute the errors of your teacher to you, Wilson denies JBFA simply because he denies there is a such thing as “faith alone. For Wilson believing means doing and evidently it does for you too.
magma2 said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:22 am
*should have be “such a thing.”
magma2 said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:23 am
where’s my coffee =8-()
Jeff Cagle said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hi Mr. Prussic,
We can leave it there. I agree with your notion of the will. The Luther quote was deliberately chosen to show both aspects of the issue: that we “freely and willingly” cling to Christ, but also that Luther refused to characterize this as “free will.”
And again, I think communication is best served by using the terms ‘monergism’ and ’synergism’ in their historical senses. The fact that Wilson felt the need to qualify his term as “Calvinistic synergism” strongly suggests that he knew he was departing from standard usage.
Be that as it may, I’ll take you up on your offer if you’re ever in Maryland.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Bret McAtee said,
February 9, 2008 at 11:49 am
So far as I can tell, the only temporal part of our salvation that is *strictly* monergistic is regeneration - it is the holy rape of the soul, indeed. (13)
You know to equate God’s gracious act of regeneration with a violent sadistic criminal act, I hope is the sign of youth.
Here it is the case that in Adam we were genuinely raped. And then in our own sinful acts we were sodomized and raped over and over again so that we were the sex slaves of the sadistic devil. Gang banged by his demons. Given over to every imaginable perversity. Then, in God’s wondrous Grace the virginity of our soul is returned to us and we call that ‘RAPE’? It’s like saying that rescue from a gulag is abduction or that adoption out of the Manson family is kidnapping.
Lose the rape analogy.
Bret McAtee said,
February 9, 2008 at 11:55 am
“In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, we act all. For that is what produces, viz. our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.”
Jonathan Edwards
Who was seldom accused of being synergistic.
This is what I took Mr. Wilson to be saying in his blog post, though I quite agree that inventing terms like ‘Calvinistic synergism’ doesn’t help his cause any.
Matt Beatty said,
February 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Brett,
The citation from Edwards is from where, exactly? ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL?
Thanks.
Bret said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Please give me the exact quote. Page number.
I looked this up and my research indicates that Edwards, while reputed to have said it, never did indeed say it … and if he did — my point still holds.
Bret
Bret said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Sorry, I had two posts and I thought you were referring to the former and not the latter.
In light of the fact that you are referring to the emboldened quote I’m not sure what your point is.
Bret
Bret McAtee said,
February 9, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Matt,
So… what’s your point?
Bret
Sam Steinmann said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:39 am
Sean,
I’m taking the “everything is monergistic” understanding from this:
Belief isn’t “synergistic.” You are not only wrong, you’re confused. Faith necessarily and logically follows from being one of Christ’s sheep
Obedience (progressive sanctification) also necessarily and logically follows from being one of Christ’s sheep, no?
tim prussic said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Jeff, let’s be friends, you and I. Whaddya say?
Magma, you’re simply being silly. Once again, you’ve managed NOT to answer the question. Why is it that you avoid answering it? Could it be, El Guapo, that the obvious answer will DEMONSTRATE that you’re wrong? So, instead of answering, you assert that you have answered it and then posit a NEW question: “the question is not do I believe or does God believe for me, but rather why do I believe at all?” That’s NOT the question, but I’m happy to answer it. The reason I’m happy answer it is that I love God and his free grace. I love his absolute and unmitigated sovereignty - especially in the gift of salvation. Here it is: You believe because God chose is before all worlds to be his own. He destined you to heaven and appointed all the means thereunto, including your birth, external calling, rebirth, faith and repentance, all to the praise of his glorious grace. I love that sovereign grace and am always pleased as porter to talk about it. So much for my Arminianism.
Now, as to a bit more of the mechanics of HOW that salvation is brought about: do you believe or does God believe for you? Are you absolutely passive in your faith, as you are in your regeneration, or do you take an active role in believing? Hmm?
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Re #77
I agree with you, Brett, that it is not a very good image…but it does have an illustrious pedigree. John Donne uses the image in one of his ‘Holy Sonnets’– ‘Batter My Heart, Three-Personed God.’ So, while I don’t like the image, it is not necessarily the product of youth.
tim prussic said,
February 11, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The holy rape of the soul, as I understand it, made its way to us from the pen of the (youthful?) Jonathan Edwards. It’s a shocking phrase, no doubt, but it does get very quickly at the idea that fallen man don’t want God or his life, and that God has necessarily to overcome them. He has, against their will, to subdue them. If I’m not mistaken, the same source called justification a holy lie - which, once again, is shocking, but cuts right to the idea of unrighteous men being declared righteous by God. Important stuff.
Sometimes we can be too sanctimonious for our own good. Sometimes a little shock goes a long way in communication of truth. I’ll start thinking of Edwards as the Howard Stern of the American Reformed landscape!
Jeff Cagle said,
February 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm
The ‘holy rape of the soul’ image was not well Donne.
Bret McAtee said,
February 11, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Tim,
Edwards did not use the phrase.
Neither is justification a Holy lie which would be the equivalent of calling it a ‘legal’ (Rome) or ‘judicial’ (Wesley) fiction.
I’ve been called a number of things in my life. This is the first time ever I’ve been called sanctimonious.
I’ll have to tell my wife that… she may not stop laughing for a week.
Bret
Bret McAtee said,
February 11, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Jeff,
Not only was it not well Donne, neither was it done by Donne.
This is the closest he gets.
Sonnet XIV
Batter my heart, three-person’d God, for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp’d town to’another due,
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be lov’d fain,
But am betroth’d unto your enemy;
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Brother Tim, Joshua, Jeff Moss, anyone else interested:
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Jeff Cagle
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Bret, are you saying that Donne doesn’t view regeneration as the rape of the soul? Then what the heck is he talking about in the last line of the sonnet you included in full?
tim prussic said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Bret, I’ll take Sproul’s Edwards-scholarship over yours… sanctimonious or otherwise! Would have thought that Gerstner (that great Edwards scholar), who was in such close cahoots with Sproul, would have corrected such a grievous error in scholarship.