The key passage on justification by faith is Romans 3.21-26. Some have even called this the most important paragraph ever written. I don’t know if I would go that far, but I would certainly put it on my short list. I want to give a brief exposition of it—really just touching on the contours of the text in this blog. But I hope that it will open up some discussion.
First, the background that is vital to keep in mind is that Paul’s overarching theological agenda was the vindication of God’s righteousness. He had been viciously attacked by other ‘Christians’ for his stance on the gospel. Essentially, he said that Christians were not under the law, that works added nothing to what Christ had done on the cross, that salvation was a free gift from God. To some, this stance of Paul’s was a theological compromise, designed to get Gentiles ‘in’ without having to become Jews first. They felt it was a betrayal of what the Old Testament clearly taught. And since the Old Testament was the only Bible that they had at this time, they viewed Paul as heretical and as basing his gospel on thin air rather than on scripture. And most importantly, they thought that Paul was hawking cheap grace—grace that didn’t cost anything because Paul essentially added nothing to faith.
With this background in mind, note what Paul says in Rom 3.21: “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed.†His opening volley explicitly says that God’s righteousness was both attested by the Old Testament AND could not be gained through the old covenant.
In verse 22, he claims that this righteousness comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (NET Bible translation), and it is accessed by all who believe. God makes no distinction in the matter. God is not partial. If the phrase is legitimately translated ‘the faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ rather than ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ (as most translations have it), then it is saying that the object of our faith is more important than the means. It is also saying, I believe, that Christ’s faithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant and to God fulfilled the law, thus freeing us from the lordship of the law.
Verse 23 says that all have sinned and STILL fall short of God’s glory. Paul uses the past tense to sum up our sinfulness, the present tense to show that we still cannot attain heaven by our own efforts. But the ‘all’ here is referring back to the ‘all’ in v 22 I believe. That means that Paul is not commenting on all sinners, but he is saying that all believers are those who have sinned, do believe in Christ, and yet still fall short of God’s glory. This sets up the major point that Paul will make in the next verse.
Verse 24 starts off with a participle in Greek. It is dependent on the two verbs in verse 23. The idea of verses 22-24 thus is: all believers have sinned and still fall short of perfection. Yet perfection is required to gain heaven. Consequently, the only way they can attain it is by the redemption that Christ has provided. Thus, verses 23 and 24 can be translated “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, although they are freely justified by his grace…†The juxtaposition of our continued failure before God in verse 23 and our righteous standing in verse 24 seems to me to be strong affirmation that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Of course, not all interpret the text this way, but even many who do not would end up with the same resultant theological meaning. Especially because of Romans 3.24, I am a Protestant. My justification does not in any way depend on me. It is given ‘freely,’ ‘by his grace,’ ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,’ and is based on faith in the faithful one. It seems to me that Paul could not be much clearer that salvation is a gift from God.
The problem this creates, of course, is that up till this point Paul has not really vindicated God’s righteousness. He is playing into the hands of his enemies who think he has sold out on the gospel. Paul will begin to answer that question in the next verse.
Romans 3.25 says that God has publicly displayed Christ “at his death as the mercy seat, accessible through faith†(NET). This links God’s justice to the sacrifice of his Son and links that sacrifice to the Mosaic Covenant.
Paul then notes that “This was to demonstrate his righteousness.†Essentially, he’s arguing that those who place believers under the law and require of them that they get circumcised, follow the food laws, etc., have actually lowered God’s standard. Why? Because the Mosaic Covenant was temporary and could not ultimately satisfy God’s righteous requirements. In this one verse, Paul has argued that only his gospel vindicates God’s righteousness precisely because in his gospel the payment for our sins—the entire payment for our sins—was made by Christ alone. He is the perfect paschal lamb who has died in the place of sinners. And we cannot add one iota to his finished work.
Paul finishes out this verse by saying, “God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.†I believe that the author of Hebrews got his ideas about Christ as our final sacrifice from Paul. As that author points out, Christ has made the final payment for our sins—a payment that the Old Testament could only point to but not satisfy. Paul says the same thing here.
Then in verse 26, the apostle again accents the vindication of God’s righteousness: “This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.†The idea is that God is now showing his righteousness through the death of Christ. And his justice is completely upheld because Christ alone could pay for our sins.
In sum, although grace is free it is not at all cheap. It cost God dearly to provide it for us. I believe that when we embrace Christ as our Savior we must come to him without bargaining, without thinking that we have anything to put on the table. Salvation is not a two-way negotiation. It is a unilateral gift that God has given us when we place our trust in Christ.
Now, the question that we need to wrestle with is this: Is it essential to believe that faith alone saves in order to be saved? That is, is it faith in faith that saves? Or is it rather that we must embrace Christ alone as our Savior to be saved? I take it that the latter is the truth. I do believe that faith alone saves us, but whether one consciously holds to sola fide is a different matter. If we put our faith in Christ, and understand that he, as the God-man, was able to offer the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and that God has raised him from the dead, we can be saved. I believe that Paul’s gospel is the clearest articulation of salvation in terms of God’s justice. But it is not the only way to explain the gospel. Most of the other New Testament writers did not speak of it in the same way. Did they understand it the same way as Paul did? That’s difficult to tell. Paul puts an emphasis on the legal issue of our standing before God as judge; James, Matthew, Peter, etc. focus on our organic connection to Christ. Both of these are right, and they are compatible with one another. But some Christian groups emphasize one to the neglect of the other. Hence, confusion, accusations of anathema, and division are the result. How do we balance these two views of salvation? Or, to put it more bluntly, where is grace in our discussion of grace?
38 replies to "Paul and Justification by Faith"
I think you are absolutely right in your conclusion: it is what we believe, not how we theologically conceptualize what we believe that brings salvation.
This is vital and something that those of us who are “thinkers” can lose sight of. That first century Christian who had NO gospel text, not even a letter of Paul, but merely a sermon by a roving apostle about the Good News is JUST as fully saved and justified if he believed and accepted the free gift of God’s sacrifice. That tribesman who doesn’t know Paul from Peter, but simply reaches out to God upon hearing the message of a missionary will be in heaven as surely as the most sophisticated theologian (dare I say MORE surely?).
The vast majority of Christians throughout history, saved, justified and even sanctified, had no concepts of these theological niceties. The just believed and, as a result, sought God and His righteousness. And, I suspect that many who may never have heard the gospel at all, other than as written on their hearts, may have come under the same grace.
No, you are absolutely correct, It is what be believe, not what we believe about what we beleive.
[…] Dan Wallace on Paul and Justification by Faith. […]
Great piece. Faith Alone!
It seems that an issue that is vitally connected to this is the question, “what is faith?” If we asserted that salvation is by eating baloney sandwiches, it would be very important to define what a boloney sandwich is, how to get one, and what it means to eat it.
In another piece where you described your meeting with a roman catholic, you listed some basic doctrines. You called them “precious truths.” Your excellent point, with which I agree, was that there are many roman catholics who can heartily affirm basic evangelical doctrines.
Though I agreed with much of that piece, I had trouble with one of your initial statements, “by putting our faith in him [Jesus] we are saved.” I’m pretty sure that what troubles me amounts to more than just semantics. It seems to me the statement contains a categorical fallacy.
The NT teaches that faith is a type of confidence and that it originates from God. A man cannot simply put his faith in Jesus any more than I can put Bill Gate’s fortune into my savings account. Bill Gates would have to give his fortune to me and God must give faith to a man. In order to put something someplace, one must have access to it and be able to move it. In order for a person to have access to something, the thing must exist. If it doesn’t exist, it can’t be “put” anywhere.
There is a significant difference between working to persuade men to “put their faith in Jesus,” and working to persuade men that the Gospel is true. It seems to me, the first promotes an ambiguous concept, open to all kinds of superstitious notions, and implies that faith is something a man does. This is wrong. Faith is something a man has, something God must give him.
This is not a trivial issue. Our churches are filled with people who think they are saved because they “responded” when someone challenged them to “put their faith in Jesus.” Unless a man has been given genuine faith by God, he is not saved. I think there will be people in hell who “put their faith in Jesus”, whatever that meant to them, but had no genuine God-given faith, that is confidence, in Jesus.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
I would agree that many throughout history who had an incorrect view of justification are indeed now in Glory. Augustine, Anselm, Bernard, and many of the pre-Reformers such as Tyndale and Huss all come to mind.
However, those men held a very low view of human ability and merit before God. Just read Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works or Anslem’s prayer for the dying, and you’ll know what I mean.
There is a stark contrast between their works and disposition toward merit and that of Trent and most modern Catholics.
I do believe that there are many RC’s that are justified (though a small minority amongst the billion or so out there), but I would like for you to exegete Galatians 1:6-10 and tell me where I am wrong when I say that this passage anathematizes someone with a prideful disposition toward their own good works.
Here are a few questions I have for Dr. Wallace to pick his brain.
Is the justice whereby God is intrinsically just the same justification we receive via imputation or is it something else, that is, something merited and created by Christ’s earthly activityies?
If yes to the second, then I am wonderning. Is this also true for the glory that we receive from God? If not, why the disjunct between justice and glory?
Thanks for the input, folks. Thanks, Vance, for your thoughts. You’ve articulated things very well.
And sthomsen, where I would take issue with you is over whether faith is a gift. I don’t believe that it is. I would say that the act of believing is the act of consciously receiving the gift that God has for us in Christ. That act, of course, cannot occur unless the Holy Spirit prompts us to believe (a point that both Calvinists and Catholics agree on). The trouble I have with how some define salvation is that they take such a Calvinistic or Arminian or dispensational or inerrantist position that they load up all sorts of extra baggage on what the gospel really is. Do we really have to believe that faith is a gift to be saved? If so, I guess I’m going down in flames. I just hope I’m not on the same level with those who drive slow in the left lane (:-)!
I don’t disagree with you, Saint and Sinner, that a prideful disposition toward one’s own good works is anathema. The question is whether a Roman Catholic inherently must have such a posture. Frankly, to suppose that they must be prideful about their works is a silly notion. The Catechism speaks against this loudly, and says that only by God’s grace one is able to do these things that please God. I do believe that the gospel is often muddled in Catholicism. And while it is much clearer in evangelical Protestantism, that view of the gospel often misses a number of important elements as well: the value of community (e.g., that we are baptized into the body of Christ), our organic connection with Christ, and respect for traditions of the church. When a person is saved, he is both saved from something and saved TO something. Too many evangelicals have such a strongly individualistic notion of the gospel that the saving to involves no sense of the broader Christian community.
Luther had a better balance than this, and Paul certainly did. The proclamation of the gospel, in its fullest and most accurate sense, is a proclamation that includes both forensics and organics, one that looks both how to get in and how to stay in, that speaks of what we get from God and what we give to God, a focus on both individual lostness and salvation into a community of believers.
You suggested that “there are many RC’s that are justified (though a small minority amonst the billion or so out there)…” Perhaps so, but let’s put this in perspective. The problem with the gospel within Catholicism is that it is not clear about our legal status before God through Christ; the problem with the gospel within evangelicalism is that it is not clear about our organic connection with Christ. One doesn’t emphasize enough our total lack of ability to bring anything but our sin to the table, while the other doesn’t emphasize enough our deep dependence on Christ personally and communally. So, I see deficiencies in both treatments of the gospel, though not enough necessarily to pronounce an anathema. The fact that evangelicals for the most part do not practice weekly communion–a practice that the apostles followed and the church followed through the first 15 centuries–should tell us something. We simply don’t have an adequate understanding of community, of our organic connection to our Lord. American Christianity is Lone Ranger Christianity all too often. It is maveric, hero-worship, motivational speaker, Christianity. I think we’re missing something here, and I think we’ve replaced a good deal of proper piety with downright arrogance. So, although it’s true that many Catholics cling to their own works for salvation, many evangelicals also cling to their own works for salvation. It’s just different works that we’re clinging to.
Dr. Wallace:
You wrote:
“That act [faith] of course, cannot occur unless the Holy Spirit prompts us to believe (a point that both Calvinists and Catholics agree on).”
Yes but the fundamental difference in systems is that Roman Catholicism teaches that the Holy Spirit prompts all who hear the Gospel to believe. So what determines whether a person actually responds to the prompting? Ultimately, the person himself does.
Calvinism teaches that the Holy Spirit does not prompt all who hear the Gospel to believe. What determines whether a person actually believes or not? Ultimately, God does through his prompting.
I think this is an important distinction that many who are not conversant with the systems need to unserstand before they make the assumption that Roman Catholicism and Calvinsim basically teach the same thing with regard to the gracious prompting of the Holy Spirit in salvation.
Don’t you agree?
Respectfully,
Jay
Of course, that concept that ALL have the theoretical possibility to believe and have faith is also perfectly palatable to the majority of Protestants as well. Those mainline churches that follow the Arminian path, and most of the newer denominations are comfortable with the concept that God makes his gift of salvation freely available to all who hear, and that there is SOME degree of acceptance, surrender, turning, etc, that takes place on the part of the individual. Of course, God gives even THIS ability to react to God’s call, so it is still ALL His work ultimately, regardless. We non-Calvinists just see that ability to respond being given to all, with a degree of free will added in to the equation.
Old, well-worn battlefields, I know, and we need not re-hash them here, but I just wanted to throw out the reminder that we must not equate Protestantism with Calvinism.
jybnntt,
I am not convinced it is true to say that Rome thinks that God gives equal prompting to everyone. This certainly isn’t true of Aquinas or Scotus who think that God elects some to glory, but only others to regeneration. For the former group what “ultimately” explains their perseverance to the end is divine causation.
Thomists and Scotists aren’t Arminian.
Dan you said…
“And while it is much clearer in evangelical Protestantism, that view of the gospel often misses a number of important elements as well: the value of community (e.g., that we are baptized into the body of Christ), our organic connection with Christ, and respect for traditions of the church.”
With thousands and thousands of individual churches, hundreds of denomination and non-denominational churches, and protestant Christians spread out among all these individual bodies is it any wonder that we don’t feel baptized into a common “body of Christ?”
Each of these individual churches are building buildings (including my church), raising money, adding staff, and trying to appeal to the un-churched in a less formal, contemporary manner putting less and less emphasis on historical church traditions. Contemporary praise songs, most often almost devoid theological principles, is now the norm. Small group bible study is now the wave with each person contributing what he/she thinks God is saying to them through the passage most often (at least in my experiences) without any historical, traditional church teaching.
Could it be that the call to the “body of Christ” is becoming stronger today and that the Roman Catholic Church is a more catholic body than thousands and thousands of individual Protestant churches?
If those moving toward the RCC take with them their belief in salvation by faith alone willthey not continue to be saved?
Bill
Right, I think we always must keep in mind that among both Catholic and Protestant groups there is a broad spectrum of thought on this theological point, and while some Catholics may be at one extreme, and some Protestants (like the hyper-Calvinists) may be at the other extreme, the best we can say is that Catholics “tend” toward one direction.
This gets back to the whole discussion Michael and Dan have been raising, which is the points of discussion and agreement among the groups. I am finding more and more that the variations and differences seem to be found more among the “templates” than anything else. The varieties among Catholics and the “flavors” of Protestant seem to overlap a great deal nowadays and some Protestants have more in common with Catholic and EO than other Protestants on some points, etc.
Kind of a hybridization phenomenon going on lately, I suppose.
Perry Robinson,
I agree that throughout church hsitory there have been many views on the issue of the relationship between divine and human agency in salvation. That’s not my point.
My point is that contemporary Roman Catholicism (remember the “ism”) (i.e. the dogma of the Catholic Church) officially teaches that the Holy Spirit prompts all who hear the Gospel to believe.
The most recent full statement of dogma issued by the Roman Catholic Church is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) (CCC). The CCC reads:
“153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven.” Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'”
“Makes it easy,” is far different than makes it necessary. The Calvinist system teaches that the Spirits inward prompting (i.e effectual calling) makes it necessary that the person so prompted willingly accept and believe the truth.
Also the CCC teaches:
“Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Calvinism does not teach that a person can lose the gift of faith. If God has called a person to faith by the inner prompting of the Holy Spirit that person will indeed, without fail, come willingly and persevere willingly till the end.
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:37, 44,).
Blessings to you Perry,
Jay
Jybnntt,
My point is that both Scotism and Thomism are papally approved systems for understanding Catholic dogma. If your understanding of Roman teaching were correct, then it is not possible that they could be, but they are. While it is true that Rome teaches that the Spirit moves all men to believe, both Thomism and Scotism teach that there is more than one way of movement and assistance. Hence it is imperative when interpreting the documents of another tradition to keep in mind what the whole tradition says and how they employ specific words. There is for example a difference between sufficient grace and efficient grace. Aquinas’ answer as to why some receive efficient and persevering grace and some do not is simply that God loves some more than others. Aquinas is no Arminian.
As for the loss of genuine faith, while it isn’t Calvinism, it isn’t Arminianism either, unless of course the Lutherans and Augustine were Arminians. I think you need to be a bit more fair here. There are plenty of points to object to Rome, but here I don’t think you can cast aspersions of heresy without tossing the Lutherans and Augustine, not to mention the vast majority of professing theologians from the first 1500 years into the 9th circle of hell.
As for John 6, I disagree with your interpretation since all are raised, even the wicked and so as in Adam all died, in Christ all are resurrected. (1 Cor 15:19ff) Christ loses nothing that the Father gives him but raises IT up, meaning humanity, whole and entire. Jn 6 contains no mention of election or predestination and neither does Jn 5 with Jesus’ teaching there about the Resurrection.
[…] too much church jargonThoughts on leadershipDan Wallace on Paul and justification by faith (HT: iMonk at BHT)Abbey of the ArtsPray as You Go daily prayer […]
Perry,
Correct me if I am wrong (please with direct references or quotes), but my understanding is that both Aquinas and Scotus taught that the grace by which God initiates salvation is ultimately resistible. I assume that when you say Thomism and Scotism you mean the systems taught by each of these men.
And while Augustine may have a different doctrine of justification than Luther, he certainly held firm to unconditional election and predestination. Not only does he articulate as much, his doctrine of sin absolutely required it.
You wrote:
“As for the loss of genuine faith, while it isn’t Calvinism, it isn’t Arminianism either, unless of course the Lutherans and Augustine were Arminians. I think you need to be a bit more fair here. There are plenty of points to object to Rome, but here I don’t think you can cast aspersions of heresy without tossing the Lutherans and Augustine, not to mention the vast majority of professing theologians from the first 1500 years into the 9th circle of hell.”
Please, let’s do be fair. Throughout this discussion I have consistently maintained that what I am NOT saying if that someone has to be a conscious Calvinist as defined during the Reformation in order to be saved. Please hear me on this point. I am arguing against systems of belief, not the condition of people’s hearts.
Also, I’ve made the distinction at some point previously that the soteriology of Luther and Lutheranism are two different things. I do believe that Lutheranism is in error in its doctrine of salvation.
With respect to whether Roman Catholicism is Arminianism, I don’t think I have made that equation. Roman Catholicism is semi-Pelagian. So is Arminiansim. Both Arminiansim and Roman Catholicism involve more than semi-Pelagianism but no less.
My point is really not to quibble over labels. My point is that there is a serious dicontinuity between the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation and that of Reformed Protestantism. The simple truth is that Roman Catholic dogma teaches a system of cooperation or synergism in salvation. God has done and is doing his part through the Catholic Church. Now by his enabling grace one must decide to believe what he has done and is doing. That enabling grace does not irresistibly draw a person to faith. It makes faith an easy option, so that salvation is possible.
Here’s what the official dogma says about faith:
“Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York:Harper, 1877), Volume II, pp. 244-245).
Reformed Protestantism does not teach that at all. It teache a system of monergism. God is the only efficient operator in causing the salvation of anyone. Those whom he calls come to him irresistably. All is by his grace and for his glory.
With regard to your interpretation of John 6, first if you are going to argue from Scripture for Roman Catholicsim you will have to demonstrate that the magisterium has sanctioned the interpretation you offer in order for it to be valid. You cannot argue for a system by violating that same system. Nonetheless I will offer you a reason (though by definition, according to Roman Catholicism, you cannot trust it) for the interpretation I offered earlier.
I agree that all people whether saved or condemned will be resurrected, but why should we assume the reference to the resurrection in Jon 6:44 is meant to be taken universally (i.e. the condemned and the saved) when there is a reference to resurrection just 4 verses prior (i.e. the immediate context) that clearly can’t universal? John 6:40 reads:
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.â€
Now clearly the only way this text can be taken as referring to the resurrection in a universal sense is if one also understands believing in Christ and eventually having eternal life as universals. But surely you are not suggesting that official Roman Catholic dogma is universalist? If so, we have much more to discuss.
Thanks for the interaction Perry! Blessings to you!
Jay
Jay, you said:
“The Calvinist system teaches that the Spirits inward prompting (i.e effectual calling) makes it necessary that the person so prompted willingly accept and believe the truth.”
Is this not an internally inconsistent statement: can a person be forced to do something “willingly”? Does not “doing some willingly”, by definition, include the ability NOT to do it?
Sorry, I missed a paragraph:
I wrote above:
[[Here’s what the official dogma says about faith:
“Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York:Harper, 1877), Volume II, pp. 244-245).
Reformed Protestantism does not teach that at all. It teache a system of monergism. God is the only efficient operator in causing the salvation of anyone. Those whom he calls come to him irresistably. All is by his grace and for his glory.]]
There should be further explanation between the quote from the Vatican Council and the following paragraph to connect the quote to a previous quote from the CCC (162). The explanation should read:
If that is true (the quote from the Vatican Counsel) and the previous quote from the CCC (162) as quoted in comment #12 above (stating that a person can lose his faith), then the teaching is that a person can lose his salvation.
Vance,
Great question! Let me refer you to some excellent resources on that very question. See Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edwards’s Freedom of the Will. Both are excellent treatments of the classic doctrine of compatibilism.
Compatibilism (i.e. the doctrine that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible) teaches that there is a difference between compulsion (or constraint) and necessity. Compulsion speaks to forcing someone to do something against his will. That is not what Calvinism teaches at all. Necessity speaks to fundamentally changing a person’s perception of and affections toward God (i.e. seeing him as supremely beautiful and loving him accordingly) so that he wants to believe God and so he does just what he wants–he comes to God. In other words, Calvinists teach that, morally speaking, we are free to do whatever we please; but we are not free to please whatever we please.
I think many people make the error of understanding the irresistible in irresistible grace as God steamrolling a person to make him do something he does not really want to do. But in fact the doctrine is better pictured as a young woman meeting the man of her dreams. He is irresistible to her. He asks for her hand in marriage and she gladly and necessarily accepts. It is exactly what she pleases to do!
Thanks for those resources, I will definitely check them out and it sounds like I could probably find them online. In the meantime, your explanation is helpful, but it sounds like semantics on first glance. If the girl is not able to say no, even theoretically, then regardless of her current desire, it seems free will has, indeed, been lost. Or, another way around would be to say that a person who has been changed to such a dramatic degree that only one course of action is open to them, in absolute terms, they have lost free will. To my mind, free will and true responsible behavior, true humanity, only exists to the extent true choice exists. Asking God to change our heart is one thing, it is asking that we be taught and guided and led in a direction. What you describe, even under the necessity approach, seems much more than this. In any real world hypothesis, that girl could still, theoretically, say no. And if she was not even able to do so theoretically, then her responsibility and free will, and thus her innate humanity, would seem to have been removed.
But, still, it is not fair to ask you to lay out concepts that you have already pointed me to, so I will check those out and maybe follow up with some questions in a later discussion.
jybnntt,
Scotus and Thomas think in some cases it is resistable and some cases not. This in part depends on the kind of grace that the person receives. Some are elected to receive this kind of grace and some to receive this other special grace.
Augustine and Luther are not co-extensive on predestination and they aren’t on original sin either. Luther is much closer to Jansenism than to Augustine at key points in his view of Original Sin and Predestination.
If you do not wish to speak of eternal destiny that’s fine. How about heresy? Is Lutheranism semi-pelagian and hence heretical?
Trent and Aquinas before Trent condemn semi-pelagianism, specifically the semi-pelagianism of Ockham and Biel (Aquinas anticipates it-Luther was a student of Biel). That being the idea that man can move himself to faith of his own natural powers apart from the influence of grace and that such a motion is pleasing to God or meritorious. Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism are theses about the nature of humanity and the relation of nature to grace. If anything, Trent is semi-Augustinian however wrong that may be.
I agree that Rome and the Reformers teach different views of justification, but that is hardly news. And much of the difference turns on philosophical commitments such as realism vs. nominalism. This not only affects justification, but discussions on providence to hermenutics to Christology. Continually tarring Rome with unjustified labels doesn’t help your case. Simply because you have read that Augustine was a monergist a million and one times and that Rome is semi-pelagian in popular and standard reformed books doesn’t make it so. I’d suggest reading some peer reviewed analysis, specifically patristic monographs by Bonner, Brown, Markus, Dodaro, Weaver, et al on Augustine’s doctrine of grace. Reading at least some good secondary literature on exactly what medieval scholasticism taught wouldn’t hurt either.
I don’t contest the quotes you cite, I contest that you aren’t interpreting them fairly and correctly. The passage you cited here only speaks of those things and their sources that are required for belief to the end. It says nothing about the causes and how those causes that bring about that end function.
I don’t need a lesson on Reformation theology as I used to be Reformed and I have an extensive personal library. For my part I can’t affirm monergism since it entails monergism in Christ, or more specifically the heresy of monothelitism or monoenergism, which is contrary to the Scriptures (Jn 6:38 & Matt 26:39) but also condemned at the 6th Ecumenical Council. The human will of Jesus is not determined by the divine and so neither are ours. So I would argue that you hold to monergism in anthropology because you have implicitly embraced a defective Christology. So from my perspective I’d rather hold on to Chalcedonian Christology than Calvinism. 🙂
Since grace is not opposed to nature it simply doesn’t follow that all of grace
excludes human activity no more so than being fully human excludes being fully divine. It certainly didn’t in Jesus. I agree that all are irresistibly drawn to Christ, which is why all are raised. All are made immortal, but they will spend that immortal existence is up to them. (1 Cor 15:19ff) I simply distinguish between person and nature and it seems you don’t. Christ is hypostatically united to human nature whole and entire (the second Adam) and not to each and every human hypostases, which would entail universalism.
And I am not arguing for Catholicism, since, funny thing, I am not Catholic. All I have argued is that you have unfairly tarred them and misrepresented their position. I would do the same if some Catholic were saying that Calvinism is gross fatalism or mechanistic determinism. So I don’t need to offer an official document to show why I don’t accept your interpretation of Jn 6. I only need to offer good reasons, which I did. Though I could offer formally normative ecclesiastical documents to show that my interpretation is correct or at least permissible by Roman standards. But why bother since you would reject them out of hand anyway, even if they were not the exclusive domain of Catholicism?
V. 39 has textual indicators that indicate I believe that the general resurrection is in view. Per Carson and other commentators, there is a play between v. 37 and v. 39 between the individual and the collective. The individual in Jn 6 includes an element of personal faith whereas verses that indicate a collective sense do not. So the contrast is between those who come with faith and those who do not, and not a contrast between those who come and those who do not come. So I did not in fact argue that v. 44 has the general resurrection in view without distinction. V. 39 does. Consequently the thrust of the narrative is that Christ and not Moses is the source of life and an inescapable life at that. Christ comes so that we might have life, and have it abundantly so that he is the savior of all men but particularly of those who believe, so that he can be said to redeem even those who deny him. (2 Pet 2:1)
As an aside, granted that there is a legitimate distinction between compulsion and necessity, but both are compatible with external manipulation and manipulated agents aren’t free or morally responsible. So here is a question to you, is God free to create or not to create, redeem or not to redeem, or do you think via internal necessity he choose one of those options?
Even faster than the last blog, this one has taken on a life of its own. Unless I missed something, by my count only one biblical text was mentioned in any of the above comments. What is ironic here is that the comments are really just a continuation of comments from my last blog. No one has really interacted with my exposition of Romans 3, but several church fathers, creedal statements, and authorities were cited plentifully. Yet, if most of the people are commenting, shouldn’t we be interacting with scripture a bit more? And, of course, I fully expect our Catholic brothers and sisters to interact with the biblical text, too. This is not meant to be a criticism of anyone; but it is an observation that as substantive as the comments are, I suspect they are driven by concerns other than an intent to interact with the current blog.
However, bnelson asked a good question, relevant to the blog: “If those moving toward the RCC take with them their belief in salvation by faith alone will they not continue to be saved?” On the one hand, since I am a Calvinist I believe in once saved, always saved. As well, I don’t think it’s belief in salvation by faith alone that saves a person, but belief in Christ that does. To use an analogy (that many would disagree with): If a person believes that he can lose his salvation, that doesn’t mean that he can. A Calvinist would say that such a person has loss of assurance but not loss of salvation. Similarly, if a person does not believe in salvation by faith alone, but is trusting Christ alone to save him, recognizing that he adds nothing to the finished work of Christ and that salvation is by grace, then his is saved.
Well, Perry Robinson has made a liar out of me because he posted his comment before I could post mine! Now, at least, several passages from the Bible are mentioned! But where is Romans 3 in this discussion?
Dan, I would even go further. What if he is so misinformed, or just ignorant, of theological matters that he has no concept of anything other than that he believes Christ died for his sins and cries out to God to save him. Period.
This is an intensely relevant question because, regardless of our fine arguments and attempts to understand exactly what God and Man are doing in this process, SOMETHING does happen and the VAST majority of those who have called themselves Christian have no idea of ANYTHING we have been discussing. Again, the first century Christian who had never heard of Paul, much less analyzed Romans. The native who hears a flawed, but sincere message from a missionary. Even more compelling the large majority of people who have lived and died on this planet who never heard the Gospel at all.
If eternal life with Christ is limited those who happen to articulate the correct variation which best describes the soteriological process, then I am afraid heaven will be a massively empty and echoing space.
It is a bit off-putting to find out that I am both a semi-pelagian and a heretic and assuredly not going to heaven in the course of a single thread! 🙂
It sounds like the Elect come down to Western Europeans since the time of the Reformation who have studied theology and are 5-point Calvinists! 🙂
Perry,
You wrote:
“Scotus and Thomas think in some cases it is resistable and some cases not. This in part depends on the kind of grace that the person receives. Some are elected to receive this kind of grace and some to receive this other special grace.”
Yes, I understand that. But, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe they teach a chronological priority between the two so that the resistible kind of grace always precedes the special kind. In other words you can get the special if you persevere in the resistible long enough. That is semi-pelagianism. Granted a very very subtle form of it, but semi-pelagianism all the same.
You wrote:
“Augustine and Luther are not co-extensive on predestination and they aren’t on original sin either. Luther is much closer to Jansenism than to Augustine at key points in his view of Original Sin and Predestination.”
I would ask what source you might offer to substantiate your claim here. I would offer Luther’s work Bondage of the Will, where he clearly articulates a doctrine of unconditional election, as well as this quote from Timothy George:
“Luther did not shrink from a doctrine of absolute, double predestination, although he admitted that ‘this is very strong wine, and solid food for the strong.’ He even restricted the scope of the atonement to the elect: ‘Christ did not die for all absolutely.’ (Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H, 1988), 77).
You wrote:
“Is Lutheranism semi-pelagian and hence heretical?”
Semi-pelagianism is false doctrine.
You wrote:
“Continually tarring Rome with unjustified labels doesn’t help your case.”
I really do not wish to “label” anyone. I only wish to ask: Who is the ultimate efficient cause of a person’s salvation? Rome’s answer to that question is false.
“The passage you cited here only speaks of those things and their sources that are required for belief to the end. It says nothing about the causes and how those causes that bring about that end function.”
I don’t know. If I, according to Roman Catholicism, am justified by faith, but then lose that faith, which according to the references I quoted is both possible and leads to condemnation who would you say Rome would say was the ultimate cause of my falling away? Someone has to be.
On the monotheletism thing, I think you have misunderstood exactly what monotheletism is or what the Reformed understanding of the human will is or both. Monotheletism is the doctrine that Christ did not have a human will, but only a divine will. That is the false doctrine. But that does not equate to the Reformed understanding of the human will. That understanding is not that we have divine wills at all. It is that we have human wills that act according to our strongest desire. We can always do whatever we please, but we cannot please what we please. I wonder, do you believe the glorified saints can fall from glory? When we enter our eternal rest, will we be able to fall away? If not, does that mean we will no longer be humans with free wills?
You wrote:
“Since grace is not opposed to nature it simply doesn’t follow that all of grace excludes human activity no more so than being fully human excludes being fully divine.”
I think your arguing against a straw man here. I’ve never said such in all our discussion. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite over at Dr. Tucker’s post.
You wrote:
“I agree that all are irresistibly drawn to Christ, which is why all are raised. All are made immortal, but they will spend that immortal existence is up to them.”
I am supposing you are speaking to your interpetation of John 6 (Again, were you able to dig up an interpretation from the magisterium on this one. If not, I’m not sure how you can assert that your interp. is correct). This simply is not what the text says. Again, look at the resurrection language in John 6:54:
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Are you suggesting that this verse is talking about all people universally?
You wrote:
“I don’t need to offer an official document to show why I don’t accept your interpretation of Jn 6. I only need to offer good reasons, which I did.”
But still, I think it is noteworthy to point out that you are violating the system you are defending against misinterpretation. In a sense you are practically misinterpreting it in order to defend a correct interpretation. I’m not saying that means we can’t compare interpretations, I am happy to do that any day against Roman Catholicism.
You asked:
“So here is a question to you, is God free to create or not to create, redeem or not to redeem, or do you think via internal necessity he choose one of those options?”
I would say that God always necessarily acts according to the perfection of his holy character.
Dr. Wallace,
I enjoyed your exegesis of Rom. 3:21-26 very much. And I totally agree with your assessment of what Calvinism teaches with regard to the object of our salvation. If one does not believe in sola fide that does not mean he is not saved. However, I would question how he could be assured of his salvation? How does he know if he has been sincere or diligent enough in his cooperation with God? Ultimately, if anything is added to trusting in the finished work of Christ, then the doubt of salvation must also be added. I think that is exactly what drove Luther crazy. How could he be assured that God was really for him if he had any ultimately causative part to play in his salvation? Answer: he coudn’t.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVneekandfclksdn jefbnrfbik efnwefn wuefheirb owefeorero oertheorghno eorghoerghno oerhgeoh.
Sorry just trying to add enough to the post so it will post. Had a computer error and now it sees what I tried to post as a duplicate.
You wrote:
“Scotus and Thomas think in some cases it is resistable and some cases not. This in part depends on the kind of grace that the person receives. Some are elected to receive this kind of grace and some to receive this other special grace.”
Yes, I understand that. But, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe they teach a chronological priority between the two so that the resistible kind of grace always precedes the special kind. In other words you can get the special if you persevere in the resistible long enough. That is semi-pelagianism. Granted a very very subtle form of it, but semi-pelagianism all the same.
You wrote:
“Augustine and Luther are not co-extensive on predestination and they aren’t on original sin either. Luther is much closer to Jansenism than to Augustine at key points in his view of Original Sin and Predestination.”
I would ask what source you might offer to substantiate your claim here. I would offer Luther’s work Bondage of the Will, where he clearly articulates a doctrine of unconditional election, as well as this quote from Timothy George:
“Luther did not shrink from a doctrine of absolute, double predestination, although he admitted that ‘this is very strong wine, and solid food for the strong.’ He even restricted the scope of the atonement to the elect: ‘Christ did not die for all absolutely.’ (Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H, 1988), 77).
You wrote:
“Is Lutheranism semi-pelagian and hence heretical?”
Semi-pelagianism is false doctrine.
You wrote:
“Continually tarring Rome with unjustified labels doesn’t help your case.”
I really do not wish to “label” anyone. I only wish to ask: Who is the ultimate efficient cause of a person’s salvation? Rome’s answer to that question is false.
“The passage you cited here only speaks of those things and their sources that are required for belief to the end. It says nothing about the causes and how those causes that bring about that end function.”
I don’t know. If I, according to Roman Catholicism, am justified by faith, but then lose that faith, which according to the references I quoted is both possible and leads to condemnation who would you say Rome would say was the ultimate cause of my falling away? Someone has to be.
On the monotheletism thing, I think you have misunderstood exactly what monotheletism is or what the Reformed understanding of the human will is or both. Monotheletism is the doctrine that Christ did not have a human will, but only a divine will. That is the false doctrine. But that does not equate to the Reformed understanding of the human will. That understanding is not that we have divine wills at all. It is that we have human wills that act according to our strongest desire. We can always do whatever we please, but we cannot please what we please. I wonder, do you believe the glorified saints can fall from glory? When we enter our eternal rest, will we be able to fall away? If not, does that mean we will no longer be humans with free wills?
You wrote:
“Since grace is not opposed to nature it simply doesn’t follow that all of grace excludes human activity no more so than being fully human excludes being fully divine.”
I think your arguing against a straw man here. I’ve never said such in all our discussion. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite over at Dr. Tucker’s post.
You wrote:
“I agree that all are irresistibly drawn to Christ, which is why all are raised. All are made immortal, but they will spend that immortal existence is up to them.”
I am supposing you are speaking to your interpetation of John 6 (Again, were you able to dig up an interpretation from the magisterium on this one. If not, I’m not sure how you can assert that your interp. is correct). This simply is not what the text says. Again, look at the resurrection language in John 6:54:
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Are you suggesting that this verse is talking about all people universally?
You wrote:
“I don’t need to offer an official document to show why I don’t accept your interpretation of Jn 6. I only need to offer good reasons, which I did.”
But still, I think it is noteworthy to point out that you are violating the system you are defending against misinterpretation. In a sense you are practically misinterpreting it in order to defend a correct interpretation. I’m not saying that means we can’t compare interpretations, I am happy to do that any day against Roman Catholicism.
You asked:
“So here is a question to you, is God free to create or not to create, redeem or not to redeem, or do you think via internal necessity he choose one of those options?”
I would say that God always necessarily acts according to the perfection of his holy character.
Dr. Wallace,
I enjoyed your exegesis of Rom. 3:21-26 very much. And I totally agree with your assessment of what Calvinism teaches with regard to the object of our salvation. If one does not believe in sola fide that does not mean he is not saved. However, I would question how he could be assured of his salvation? How does he know if he has been sincere or diligent enough in his cooperation with God? Ultimately, if anything is added to trusting in the finished work of Christ, then the doubt of salvation must also be added. I think that is exactly what drove Luther crazy. How could he be assured that God was really for him if he had any ultimately causative part to play in his salvation? Answer: he coudn’t.
Perry,
You wrote:
“Scotus and Thomas think in some cases it is resistable and some cases not. This in part depends on the kind of grace that the person receives. Some are elected to receive this kind of grace and some to receive this other special grace.”
Yes, I understand that. But, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe they teach a chronological priority between the two so that the resistible kind of grace always precedes the special kind. In other words you can get the special if you persevere in the resistible long enough. That is semi-pelagianism. Granted a very very subtle form of it, but semi-pelagianism all the same.
You wrote:
“Augustine and Luther are not co-extensive on predestination and they aren’t on original sin either. Luther is much closer to Jansenism than to Augustine at key points in his view of Original Sin and Predestination.”
I would ask what source you might offer to substantiate your claim here. I would offer Luther’s work Bondage of the Will, where he clearly articulates a doctrine of unconditional election, as well as this quote from Timothy George:
“Luther did not shrink from a doctrine of absolute, double predestination, although he admitted that ‘this is very strong wine, and solid food for the strong.’ He even restricted the scope of the atonement to the elect: ‘Christ did not die for all absolutely.’ (Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H, 1988), 77).
You wrote:
“Is Lutheranism semi-pelagian and hence heretical?”
Semi-pelagianism is false doctrine.
You wrote:
“Continually tarring Rome with unjustified labels doesn’t help your case.”
I really do not wish to “label” anyone. I only wish to ask: Who is the ultimate efficient cause of a person’s salvation? Rome’s answer to that question is false.
“The passage you cited here only speaks of those things and their sources that are required for belief to the end. It says nothing about the causes and how those causes that bring about that end function.”
I don’t know. If I, according to Roman Catholicism, am justified by faith, but then lose that faith, which according to the references I quoted is both possible and leads to condemnation who would you say Rome would say was the ultimate cause of my falling away? Someone has to be.
On the monotheletism thing, I think you have misunderstood exactly what monotheletism is or what the Reformed understanding of the human will is or both. Monotheletism is the doctrine that Christ did not have a human will, but only a divine will. That is the false doctrine. But that does not equate to the Reformed understanding of the human will. That understanding is not that we have divine wills at all. It is that we have human wills that act according to our strongest desire. We can always do whatever we please, but we cannot please what we please. I wonder, do you believe the glorified saints can fall from glory? When we enter our eternal rest, will we be able to fall away? If not, does that mean we will no longer be humans with free wills?
You wrote:
“Since grace is not opposed to nature it simply doesn’t follow that all of grace excludes human activity no more so than being fully human excludes being fully divine.”
I think your arguing against a straw man here. I’ve never said such in all our discussion. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite over at Dr. Tucker’s post.
You wrote:
“I agree that all are irresistibly drawn to Christ, which is why all are raised. All are made immortal, but they will spend that immortal existence is up to them.”
I am supposing you are speaking to your interpetation of John 6 (Again, were you able to dig up an interpretation from the magisterium on this one. If not, I’m not sure how you can assert that your interp. is correct). This simply is not what the text says. Again, look at the resurrection language in John 6:54:
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Are you suggesting that this verse is talking about all people universally?
You wrote:
“I don’t need to offer an official document to show why I don’t accept your interpretation of Jn 6. I only need to offer good reasons, which I did.”
But still, I think it is noteworthy to point out that you are violating the system you are defending against misinterpretation. In a sense you are practically misinterpreting it in order to defend a correct interpretation. I’m not saying that means we can’t compare interpretations, I am happy to do that any day against Roman Catholicism.
You asked:
“So here is a question to you, is God free to create or not to create, redeem or not to redeem, or do you think via internal necessity he choose one of those options?”
I would say that God always necessarily acts according to the perfection of his holy character.
Dr. Wallace,
I enjoyed your exegesis of Rom. 3:21-26 very much. And I totally agree with your assessment of what Calvinism teaches with regard to the object of our salvation. If one does not believe in sola fide that does not mean he is not saved. However, I would question how he could be assured of his salvation? How does he know if he has been sincere or diligent enough in his cooperation with God? Ultimately, if anything is added to trusting in the finished work of Christ, then the doubt of salvation must also be added. I think that is exactly what drove Luther crazy. How could he be assured that God was really for him if he had any ultimately causative part to play in his salvation? Answer: he couldn’t.
Blessings,
Jay
Perry,
You wrote:
“Scotus and Thomas think in some cases it is resistable and some cases not. This in part depends on the kind of grace that the person receives. Some are elected to receive this kind of grace and some to receive this other special grace.”
Yes, I understand that. But, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe they teach a chronological priority between the two so that the resistible kind of grace always precedes the special kind. In other words you can get the special if you persevere in the resistible long enough. That is semi-pelagianism. Granted a very very subtle form of it, but semi-pelagianism all the same.
You wrote:
“Augustine and Luther are not co-extensive on predestination and they aren’t on original sin either. Luther is much closer to Jansenism than to Augustine at key points in his view of Original Sin and Predestination.”
I would ask what source you might offer to substantiate your claim here. I would offer Luther’s work Bondage of the Will, where he clearly articulates a doctrine of unconditional election, as well as this quote from Timothy George:
“Luther did not shrink from a doctrine of absolute, double predestination, although he admitted that ‘this is very strong wine, and solid food for the strong.’ He even restricted the scope of the atonement to the elect: ‘Christ did not die for all absolutely.’ (Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H, 1988), 77).
You wrote:
“Is Lutheranism semi-pelagian and hence heretical?”
Semi-pelagianism is false doctrine.
You wrote:
“Continually tarring Rome with unjustified labels doesn’t help your case.”
I really do not wish to “label” anyone. I only wish to ask: Who is the ultimate efficient cause of a person’s salvation? Rome’s answer to that question is false.
“The passage you cited here only speaks of those things and their sources that are required for belief to the end. It says nothing about the causes and how those causes that bring about that end function.”
I don’t know. If I, according to Roman Catholicism, am justified by faith, but then lose that faith, which according to the references I quoted is both possible and leads to condemnation who would you say Rome would say was the ultimate cause of my falling away? Someone has to be.
On the monotheletism thing, I think you have misunderstood exactly what monotheletism is or what the Reformed understanding of the human will is or both. Monotheletism is the doctrine that Christ did not have a human will, but only a divine will. That is the false doctrine. But that does not equate to the Reformed understanding of the human will. That understanding is not that we have divine wills at all. It is that we have human wills that act according to our strongest desire. We can always do whatever we please, but we cannot please what we please. I wonder, do you believe the glorified saints can fall from glory? When we enter our eternal rest, will we be able to fall away? If not, does that mean we will no longer be humans with free wills?
You wrote:
“Since grace is not opposed to nature it simply doesn’t follow that all of grace excludes human activity no more so than being fully human excludes being fully divine.”
I think your arguing against a straw man here. I’ve never said such in all our discussion. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite over at Dr. Tucker’s post.
You wrote:
“I agree that all are irresistibly drawn to Christ, which is why all are raised. All are made immortal, but they will spend that immortal existence is up to them.”
I am supposing you are speaking to your interpetation of John 6 (Again, were you able to dig up an interpretation from the magisterium on this one. If not, I’m not sure how you can assert that your interp. is correct). This simply is not what the text says. Again, look at the resurrection language in John 6:54:
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Are you suggesting that this verse is talking about all people universally?
You wrote:
“I don’t need to offer an official document to show why I don’t accept your interpretation of Jn 6. I only need to offer good reasons, which I did.”
But still, I think it is noteworthy to point out that you are violating the system you are defending against misinterpretation. In a sense you are practically misinterpreting it in order to defend a correct interpretation. I’m not saying that means we can’t compare interpretations, I am happy to do that any day against Roman Catholicism.
You asked:
“So here is a question to you, is God free to create or not to create, redeem or not to redeem, or do you think via internal necessity he choose one of those options?”
I would say that God always necessarily acts according to the perfection of his holy character.
Dr. Wallace,
I enjoyed your exegesis of Rom. 3:21-26 very much. And I totally agree with your assessment of what Calvinism teaches with regard to the object of our salvation. If one does not believe in sola fide that does not mean he is not saved. However, I would question how he could be assured of his salvation? How does he know if he has been sincere or diligent enough in his cooperation with God? Ultimately, if anything is added to trusting in the finished work of Christ, then the doubt of salvation must also be added. I think that is exactly what drove Luther crazy. How could he be assured that God was really for him if he had any ultimately causative part to play in his salvation? Answer: he couldn’t.
Blessings,
Jay
Dr. Wallace: I agreed with everything you said until the last paragraph. Even then, I’m not sure that it’s really a disagreement, just uncertainty. You said: “Is it essential to believe that faith alone saves in order to be saved? That is, is it faith in faith that saves? Or is it rather that we must embrace Christ alone as our Savior to be saved?” Obviously, the correct answer is the latter. Trusting in Christ’s sacrifice is the only means of salvation. If I understand correctly, you are saying that a person does not have to theologically articulate a position of sola fide in order to be saved. As long as a person puts their faith solely in Christ’s sacrifice, they will be saved. I have to wonder about this point (assuming I understand you; if not please forgive and enlighten me). I agree in principle, but I wonder how this would work in application. If a person advocates faith plus works, are they truly embracing Christ alone as Savior? I know that salvation results from our decision to either embrace or reject the substitionary death of Christ; it is not determined by our ability to recite an appropriate systematic theology. However, it seems to me that a person who does not believe that faith alone saves will not truly be able to exercise saving faith in Christ alone. Does not the belief, one way or the other, influence the ability to exercise saving faith in Christ alone?
If you have time, Dr. Wallace, I’d love to hear your response.
God Bless,
Stephen Stallard
Sorry for the duplicate posting. For some reason I didn’t see the comment immediately after I submitted it, so I created a new account (from “jybnntt” to “M. Jay Bennett”) and submitted again.
Apologies,
Jay
Hello Dr.Wallace,
I appreciate your article above along with your grammar and work in
text criticism. But for my part, I just don’t see how there can be unity
with the RCC and protestants.
Correct me if I am wrong but it is not so much that Roman Catholics are
ignorant of sola fida, but rather there official church documents reject it.
If they truely understand what is meant by the protestant definition & turn
it down, then how can there be any unity?
Off the top of my head, was it not the council of Florence which condemned
anyone who did not follow RCC teachings and did not belong to the RCC?
If that is their official teaching on the matter, I don’t see how we cannot
respect what they believe and agree to disagree.
And just recently, did not the new pope just make the claim that all other
churches outside of the RCC were not “true churches?” If the head pontiff
denies the protestant church then we must respect their teachings. And I would
question any person who claims to be Catholic and rejects their official
dogmas (i.e papal infalibility, indulgences, bodily assumption of mary etc) if
indeed that person is truely Catholic.
I just received a question from a reader regarding what I wrote in comment 15. I wrote:
“Luther and Lutheranism are two different things. I do believe that Lutheranism is in error in its doctrine of salvation.”
The fellow questioned how I could say this if I evaluate Lutheranism by its official dogma, The Book of Concord? He provided links to the document and I read through the section in question.
Here was my response:
Thanks for taking the time to comment and ask about this. I think I may have been imprecise in my language. I am currently reading Timothy George’s book Theology of the Reformers. It is quite good. I highly recommend it.
In his chapter on Luther, George writes:
“Although Luther never softened his doctrine of predestination (as did later Lutherans), he did try to set the mystery in the context of eternity.”
I had this quote in mind when I made my comment. I also understand that, historically speaking, Lutheran churches declined in faithfully holding to their theological heritage quite quickly after Luther’s death leading to German liberalism. The movement away from Luther’s was a bad one and led to what I would consider false soteriological teachings.
But the trouble is, and I think where you are coming from, is that I have been defining traditions according to their official dogma all along in this discussion. So it is only fair that when I refer to Lutheranism, I should mean The Book of Concord. George is not doing that here. He is simply referring to the stance later Lutherans took on the issue of predestination.
I just read through the Formula of Concord on election at the link you provided. It is softened a bit, but not so much so that I would consider it false. You are right, given the way I have been treating -isms all along, I should have evaluated Lutheranism according to its official dogma. Given that clarification, I withdraw my statement.
Apologies,
Jay
Ok, I may be the only one (is that me I see waaay out there on a limb?)
Dr Wallace – you lost me with your response regarding faith being a gift or not being a gift. You indicated that you felt it wasnt, but then seemed to imply that it was caused/given by the Holy Spirit at least to some degree depending on ones soteriological system.
Perhaps you can (at some later point) address this deeper for us? I realize it’s hard to do with everyone hitting the blog with questions and comments from all over – not to mention that we do know, but often forget, that you have a day job as well. ;^)
Specifically, how do you understand 1 Cor 12, Eph2, and other passages perhaps where it indicates that faith is a gift?
Let’s be clear one one thing for sure- I’m not asking or arguing if a belief that faith is a gift is required for salvation. That equine is long since dead. ;^)
Again, some other time, some other blog entry perhaps.
Thanks,
-steve
M. Jay Bennett
For Scotus and Thomas, no there is not that kind of priority. Persevering grace is not given at the end, but at the beginning. You are thinking of Okhamism and not Thomism or Scotism. Both Thomas and Scotus have very robust and strong theories of predestination. Where do you think many of the Refomers got the schema from?
Mr. Bennett,I don’t think you are listening to me. I used to be Reformed. I have read a good deal of Reformation theology. I have read Bondage of the Will a number of times. (I have also read Erasmus two volume response, which most people ignore.) In any case, BOTW is an early work of Luther’s and in his early works he makes arguments he later retracts. So for example he argues for determinism on the basis of corpuscular motion, logical necessity and most specifically Stoic determinism. This Augustine never taught and in fact argued against in his dealings with the Manicheanism. So you miss the point. Augustine and Luther are not co-extensive conceptually-they don’t have the same exact idea in mind regarding predestination. As I said, Luther is much closer to Jansenism.
I didn’t ask you if Semi-Pelagianism was a false doctrine. You seem eager to say that Rome has a false gospel and is heretical because you think they via a denial of perseverance of the saints are semi-pelagian. Well Lutherans deny it too. So what I want to know is, is Lutheranism heretical too or not? Yes or no will be sufficient.
Well as I noted before you confuse “ultimate” with “solitary. ” For Rome God is the ultimate cause (first cause) of perseverance without being the only cause. And you shift the issue regarding the citations from the CCC that you gave. The question was, do they establish your point? No, since they say nothing about the causes of salvation and how those causes function. You simply misquoted.
Again it might be helpful to go read better Roman theologians than go on a cherry picking junket to spoof text Rome into a heretical corner.
I have studied monothelitism extensively and no I am not confused about it. Monothelitism came in a variety of forms, not the least of which was the idea that the human power of choice was subordintated to the divine will via determinism so that there was in fact only one genuine and free power of choice operating in Christ. That is monergism and not synergism in Christology, otherwise known as Monoenergism or Monothelitism. Orthodox Christology requires synergism.
I agree that you have correctly summarized the Reformed view regarding desires and such, but I think it is mistaken. Desires aren’t causes but states and states cause nothing. Secondly if desires did cause things then choices would simply be desires, but this is a mistake since a choice is an execution of an intention, a plan of action but not a desire since desires are not directed by practical means-end reasoning.
It is funny that you bring up the question about the saints in the eschaton since that is the very same argument that the Monothelites used. The answer is “no†I don’t think that they could fall from grace anymore than Christ could sin, but that doesn’t exclude libertarian freedom. Libertarianism only says that one has to have alternative possibilities available to them-it doesn’t require that those possibilities be of opposite moral value, which is what you are assuming. So just as long as there is a plurality of good things to choose from in heaven, the saints can have libertarian freedom.
You did imply that grace was opposed to nature in saying that if salvation is all of grace then none of it can be of human activity. But that presupposes that grace and nature are opposed such that it has to be one or the other. Like I said, this is pretty much Jansenism and not Augustinianism. See, you are worried about Pelagianism without remembering that Augustine had twin errors to combat, the other one being Manicheanism. For Augustine, you can’t argue that humanity is intrinsically evil without falling into Manicheanism and you can’t argue that humanity is sufficiently good without falling into Pelagianism. This is why grace perfects nature because sin is not in the nature but in the persons for persons sin and not natures. Augustine is very clear about this, not the least of places would be in the City of God books 12-15.
I know exactly where and what Fathers and Councils support my interpretation of John 6 but you don’t accede to their authority anyhow. I know what v. 54 says, but 54 adds a condition not found in v. 39, namely belief. That is what in part eating and drinking his body and blood mean. The contrast is not between elect and non-elect in Jn 6 anymore than that was the contrast in the Exodus when they ate the manna because according to Scripture all of Israel is elect, even to this day (Rom 10-11) even in unbelief. The contrast is then between those who come with belief and those who come without belief (Jn 6:26) just as it was in the Exodus, except this time the true source of life is made known, not Moses, but Christ.
So no, v. 54 isn’t talking about anyone but believers, but v. 39 is talking about humanity in totality since that is what Christ takes up. If we are to follow the recommendations of the blog authors and try to look past what may in some places be old prejudices or misunderstandings it is important to get the concepts right. I don’t have to agree with the concepts to accurately represent them so I am not being inconsistent in any way.
If God necessarily acts according to the perfection of his character, does that character determine him to choose only one of two options? If as you suggest following Edwards that the nature of an agent determines their desires and those desires determine their actions, is this true for God such that creation and redemption are necessary acts for God or not?
Perry,
I invite you to please cite one historical-theological scholar in support of the equation you have erected between monergism and monotheletism. That is a very odd equation to say the least.
I think we are just going to have to remain at loggerheads on relationship between the will and the affections. I am in agreement with a compatibilistic understanding as expressed best by Jonathan Edwards’s Freedom of the Will.
You wrote:
“The answer is “no†I don’t think that they could fall from grace anymore than Christ could sin, but that doesn’t exclude libertarian freedom.”
But regardless of the options available to us in heaven, you have just said that Christ could not have sinned. However, he certainly had sinful options to choose from. Therefore, according what you have said, since libertarian freedom is required in order to avoid monothelitism, and libertarianism requires the ability to choose from available options, and since Christ had the sinful option available to him, yet Christ could not have sinned, then Christ could not have had a libertarian-type of will, which, according to you is equivalent to monothelitism. Are you not violating your own argument?
I have argued that Aquinas held to a synergistic view of salvation (as opposed to monergistic). I offer a quote from Dr. John D. Hannah in support of my understanding of Aquinas (I invite you to offer any scholarly quote in support of your understanding). On Aquinas’ doctrine of the steps to salvation Hannah writes:
“Another way to describe the progress of salvation is to view it in steps. The beginning of salvation is rooted in the infusion of divine grace, which results in the ability to cooperate with God. This effort is manifested in the performance of the sacraments and moral obedience in general. Increased merit is eventually rewarded with eternal life. The Reformers, on the other hand, would see God’s grace as imputed instantaneously, not progressively infused” (Charts of Ancient and Medieval Church History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001)
My point is really quite simple and based on a simple question. The question is this:
Ultimately, who is the efficient cause of one’s salvation?
Both Aquinas and Roman Catholic dogma give a synergistic answer to that question, which is actually inconsistent with the word ultimate which necessarily implies one cause (see my previous comment on this as well as Jonathan Edwards’s excellent philosophical argument on this same topic in his introduction in The End for Which God Created the World). Roman Catholic dogma affirms that both God and the person cooperating with God are ultimate efficient causes of salvation.
You have attempted to sidetrack my point with doctrinal subtleties that would impress the best scholastic. Those points are really irrelevant to my point, so much so that I concede them (though only for the sake of my main point). At the end of the day Roman Catholicism teaches a synergistic view of salvation. That, in my estimation as well as the Reformer’s understanding, is a false teaching, a false gospel.
You write:
“Again it might be helpful to go read better Roman theologians than go on a cherry picking junket to spoof text Rome into a heretical corner.”
Please, I invite you to quote any Roman Catholic scholar who understands official Roman Catholic Dogma as teaching a monergistic answer to the question I’ve posed above. I would be thrilled to be proved wrong on this point. The error of Roman dogma is not something I rejoice in. It makes me very sad.
Thanks Perry,
Jay
M. Jay Bennett,
As to scholars who connect monergism with monoenergism/monothelitism, how about Andrew Louth, Robert Wilkins, Norma Russell, John Romanides, John Meyendorff, Jaroslav Pelikan, Lars Thunberg, Demetrios Barthrellos, John McGukin, Hans urs von Balthasar, Vladimir Lossky, Georges Florovsky, and Polycarp Sherwood?
Stating your agreement with Edwardian compatibilism doesn’t constitute an intellectual defense of it against the criticisms I made and so they remain unanswered by you.
Your attempt to catch me in an inconsistency regarding the freedom of Christ fails for the following reasons. I think Jesus had a plurality of good options to choose from, even though he could not sin. Just the same as God in creation, to create or not to create. Neither of those options are bad but good. Consequently the inability to sin is perfectly compatible with the libertarian freedom of the two wills in Christ in synergy. I also notice that you ignored my question regarding synergy between the two wills in Christ.
Uh, John Hannah is not a medieval scholar. He has no publications on the medieval era, save one and that was on Anselm’s view of the Atonement thirty years ago. His area of specialization is Edwards and Owen, not Aquinas, Scotus or Albert. Citing popular charts which tend to over simplify things isn’t going to cut it.
So how about Aquinas himself instead?
“The divine assistance therefore is not given to us because we are advanced to receive it by our good works; but rather we are proficient in good works because we are forestalled by the divine assistance. Hence it is said: Not by the works of justice that we have done, but according to his own mercy he hath saved us (Tit. iii, 5): It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom. ix, 16): because man needs must be forestalled by the divine assistance for purposes both of willing well and doing well.†Summa Contra Gentiles, bk 3, q.149
“The power of free will regards matters of choice/election: but a matter of election is some particular thing to be done; and a particular thing to be done is what is here and now: but perseverance is not a matter of present and immediate conduct, but a continuance of activity for all time: perseverance therefore is an effect above the power of free will, and therefore needing the assistance of divine grace… Hence it is said: He who hath begun a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus (Philip. i, 6): The God of all grace, who hath called us to his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, himself will perfect us through some little suffering, confirm and establish us (1 Pet. v, 10)… And therefore, when we say that man needs the aid of grace for final perseverance, we do not mean that, over and above the habitual grace first infused into him for the doing of good acts, there is infused into him another habitual grace enabling him to persevere; but we mean that, when he has got all the gratuitous habits that he ever is to have, man still needs some aid of divine providence governing him from without.†Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 3, q 155
“And as He does not give sight to all the blind, nor heal all the sick, that in those whom He heals the work of His power may appear, and in the others the order of nature may be observed, so He does not forestall by His aid all who hinder grace, to their turning away from evil and conversion to good, but some He so forestalls, wishing in them His mercy to appear, while in others He would have the order of justice made manifest. Hence the Apostle says: God, though willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that he might show forth the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory (Rom. ix, 22, 23). But when, of men who are enthralled in the same sins, God forestalls and converts some, and endures, or permits, others to go their way according to the order of things, we should not enquire the reason why He converts these and not those: for that depends on His sheer will, just as from His sheer will it proceeded that, when all things were made out of nothing, some things were made in a position of greater advantage than others (digniora). Hence again the apostle says: Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? (Rom. ix, 21.)†Summa Contra Gentiles, bk 3, q. 161.
“But that predestination and election have no cause in any human merits may be shown, not only by the fact that the grace of God, an effect of predestination, is not preceded by any merits, but precedes all merit, but also by this further fact, that the divine will and providence is the first cause of all things that are made. Nothing can be cause of the will and providence of God; although of the effects of providence, and of the effects of predestination, one effect may be cause of another. For who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? For if him and by him and in him are all things: to him be glory forever, Amen (Rom. xi, 35, 36).†Summa Contra Gentiles, bk 3, q. 163.
As for your actual quote it clearly indicates that for Aquinas, there is no cooperation logically prior to regeneration since it is condign or operative grace working. On the other hand, Hannah has it wrong since for Aquinas congruous grace doesn’t result in eternal life, but is a manifestation of eternal life had now. If it weren’t it wouldn’t be grace since that is what grace is, the divine life.
It is true that Rome and Aquinas are syngergists, but so is Augustine and as I noted before synergism doesn’t logically entail semi-pelagianism, the idea that of our own unaided natural powers we can move ourselves to faith that pleases God. And the term “ultimate†as used by Aquinas means “first†and not “only.†If you wish to continue to misuse the word, that’s fine, but you aren’t free to impose meanings on people that they reject. God is the first cause of every real thing for Aquinas, but he is not the only cause in the universe. If you wish to argue that Calvinism teaches Ocassionalism, that there is only one cause in the universe then you will run up against the Westminster Confession, which clearly affirms the existence of secondary causes. Chapter 3 reads,
“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.â€
And as my citations from Aquinas prove, Catholic teaching doesn’t ascribe “ultimate†causation to humans as to perseverance. Again, you are reading semi-pelagian Ockhamism into Catholic teaching.
Again I ask, if synergism implies semi-pelagianism, and a denial of perseverance of the saints implies semi-pelagians and hence a false gospel, does Lutheranism teach a false gospel since it denies perseverance? Yes or no?
Perry,
Yes those quotes from Aquinas are crystal clear that grace precedes all. That is not the question. The question is divine grace the sole, ultimate, efficient cause of salvation? I see no part of any of Aquinas’s statements above that say it is. Therefore he is teaching synergism. As the old puritan put it, “The most subtle form of semi-pelagianism ever devised.”
As I have said over and over hear, I am not concerned with debating the fine nuances of Augustine’s doctrine of justification. That is completely beside my point.
I have asked a simple question several times now, which you seem determined to skirt around at all costs:
Ultimately, who is the sole efficient cause of one’s salvation?
(I even added the word “sole” to make it more clear for you, even though it is technically redundant.) 🙂
Can you offer any evidence that Roman Catholic dogma would answer that question with “God alone?”
“Unless I am convinced by the clear testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradict themselves. I am bound to the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand. May God help me, Amen.”
Farewell Perry,
Jay
This discussion is great. But could you please continue this on the forums (I reopened them), not here on the blog; it is not really what a blog is for. Only issues that are directly relevant to the post can be posted here.
Thanks folks.
Michael,
I apologize for straying off topic.
Blessings,
Jay