I apologize for straying off topic.

Blessings,

Jay

Thanks folks.

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

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.”

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?

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

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?

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

“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

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.

Apologies,

Jay

If you have time, Dr. Wallace, I’d love to hear your response.

God Bless,

Stephen Stallard

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.