Michael,

I apologize for straying off topic.

Blessings,

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.

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

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.”

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,

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
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?

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

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

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.

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