LIGHTWEIGHT SAID:
“You asked the question, ‘What is grace?’ You then went on to describe the different technical and nontechnical ways that term grace is used in Reformed Theology, but, as far as I could tell, never went on to explain exactly what grace is. I have a couple of questions: What exactly is grace? and, What is the opposite of grace? Thanks.”
i) Saving grace has reference to all the things that God does to and for the elect to ensure their salvation, viz. election, redemption, regeneration, justification, sanctification, preservation, glorification.
ii) Common grace denotes all the things that God does to and for the reprobate to enable them to perform natural goods.
iii) The opposite of grace is:
a) A negative condition: the absence of saving grace and common grace,
along with:
b) A positive condition: to be the object of retributive justice.
Thanks for the reply. What is the relationship of merit to grace?
ReplyDeleteChrist merits grace for the elect.
ReplyDeleteWho merits the common grace for the non-elect? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that common grace needs to be merited. It represents a postponement of punishment, not a pardon. The reprobate will still receive their just deserts.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if it needs to be merited, it would, in that event, be merited by Christ for the benefit of the elect.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIs it proper to speak of grace being merited at all? The grace of God in the Incarnation wasn't merited by Christ, was it? Would it be more precise to speak of God's saving grace preceding Christ's merits?
Thanks for the reply. What is the relationship between grace and works? I.e., how do you understand Romans 11:6?
ReplyDelete"And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (NET Bible)
"And if it is by grace, it is no longer by works.."
ReplyDeleteIt is by God's grace that he elected Jacob and not Esau, before either had done any works, so that it would be no doubt that it is by God's gracious mercy alone.
"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, ACCORDING TO the riches of His grace." Eph. 1:7
JUGULUM SAID:
ReplyDelete“Is it proper to speak of grace being merited at all? The grace of God in the Incarnation wasn't merited by Christ, was it? Would it be more precise to speak of God's saving grace preceding Christ's merits?”
Since the merit of Christ is applied to the elect, there’s a sense in which election is logically prior to redemption. It’s applied to those who are elect. At that level, it presupposes their elect status. So it’s not the differential factor that accounts for who is elect and who is reprobate.
But on another level, the only reason some people can be justly elected is because the merit of Christ will cover their sins. Therefore, the merit of Christ is still a necessary, albeit insufficient, condition of their election. A moral prerequisite. The Father elects with a view to redemption, while the Son redeems with a view to election. The two are complementary.
LIGHTWEIGHT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Thanks for the reply. What is the relationship between grace and works? I.e., how do you understand Romans 11:6?”
For Paul, “works” denote “works of the law.” And that, in turn, is shorthand for what the Mosaic law demanded of Jews in terms of it prescribed and proscribed.
For Paul, law-keeping (in that sense) can never justify the sinner before God. Only the merit of Christ, received through faith (which is, itself, a gracious gift) can justify the sinner.
In systematic or dogmatic theology, there is also a category of god works. This is the result of sanctification–which has its source in the grace of regeneration.
Good works are a necessary condition of our salvation, but they contribute nothing to our justification. Rather, good works are necessary because regeneration is necessary.
In both the Pauline and dogmatic usage, good works can never be the basis of our justification, whether in whole nor in part.
Steve, Thanks again for the reply. You wrote, “Good works are a necessary condition of salvation…” How do you understand 1 Corinthians 3:15? Doesn’t that verse suggest that it is possible (at least hypothetically) to be saved without any good works, i.e., a person's works are burned yet he is saved?
ReplyDelete"Good works are a necessary condition of our salvation, but they contribute nothing to our justification."
ReplyDeleteGood works do contribute to sanctification, correct? If so, is sanctification synergistic? And if that is so, can one ever speak of cooperation/works meriting grace in the context of progressive sanctification?
THE DUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Good works do contribute to sanctification, correct?”
You’re reversing the order of cause and effect. Good works don’t result in sanctification. Rather, good works result from santification.
“If so, is sanctification synergistic?”
You’re equivocating. “Synergism” is a term of art. It has a very specific meaning in Catholic theology. It’s not equivalent to the etymology of the Greek compound word (i.e. work with) or some neutral synonym like “cooperation.”
“And if that is so, can one ever speak of cooperation/works meriting grace in the context of progressive sanctification?”
In Scripture, good works are not meritorious. Our good works don’t merit the grace of God. Apart from God’s grace, we have no good works.
If you want to bring merit into conjunction with good works, then Christ merits good works for the Christian because the work of Christ merits the work of the Holy Spirit. Those whom Christ redeemed, the Spirit renews.
lightweight said...
ReplyDelete“How do you understand 1 Corinthians 3:15? Doesn’t that verse suggest that it is possible (at least hypothetically) to be saved without any good works, i.e., a person's works are burned yet he is saved? “
i) You need to distinguish between biblical usage and dogmatic usage. Paul isn’t referring to “good works” in the dogmatic sense (i.e. the good works of Christians).
ii) Apropos (i), in context, Paul is referring, not to the good deeds of Christian laymen, but to the work of missionaries and evangelists.
Steve, Thanks for the reply regarding 1Cor 3:15. That seems to make sense. What is the “work” of a missionary or evangelist that could be burned up?
ReplyDeleteSteve, You wrote, “Good works are a necessary condition of our salvation, but they contribute nothing to our justification.” Wouldn’t good works be a necessary condition for our justification as well (in the same way they are a necessary condition for our salvation) since there is justification if and only if there is salvation?
ReplyDeleteLIGHTWEIGHT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Wouldn’t good works be a necessary condition for our justification as well (in the same way they are a necessary condition for our salvation) since there is justification if and only if there is salvation?"
I already discussed why that is not possible in my reply to Perry Robinson.
You're also committing a level confusion: to say that food and oxygen are necessary to stay alive doesn't mean that food is necessary for oxygen.
beowulf2k8 said...
ReplyDelete“Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. (Gen 6:8) What was it? (1) Mercy (2) A plan by which he could be saved.”
A blatant equivocation of terms. You’re not even attempting to be honest. Noah found “favor” with God, as a result of which he was “delivered” from “death.”
That is not the same thing as “saving grace.”
Steve, You wrote, "I already discussed why that is not possible in my reply to Perry Robinson."
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to your post "Pelagian Calvinism"?
Steve, You wrote, “You're also committing a level confusion: to say that food and oxygen are necessary to stay alive doesn't mean that food is necessary for oxygen.”
ReplyDeleteI’m understanding your comparison as saying: to say that justification and good works are necessary for salvation doesn’t mean that justification is necessary for good works. Is that how you are meaning your comparison?
"What is the “work” of a missionary or evangelist that could be burned up?"
ReplyDeleteThese would be works done "from selfish ambition" (Phil. 1:16;2:3) I would think.
I also think that the wood, hay, and straw surely could apply to me as well, though I'm not an apostle or evangelist.
I know that as Paul says here in the context of this passage, that "according to the grace of God which was given to me", I too will have reward when I labor for the kingdom in His grace alone.
Yet, all that I do that I am obliged to do, I am an unprofitable servant.
And all I do in conceit and selfish ambition will be burned up.
But all that I do for Christ sacrificially, will be precious stones upon the foundation of Jesus Christ. Though never without His grace, power, and love could I in any possible way accomplish a good work for the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father.
LIGHTWEIGHT SAID:
ReplyDeleteSteve, You wrote, "I already discussed why that is not possible in my reply to Perry Robinson."
Are you referring to your post "Pelagian Calvinism"?
******************************
Correct.
lightweight said...
ReplyDelete"I’m understanding your comparison as saying: to say that justification and good works are necessary for salvation doesn’t mean that justification is necessary for good works. Is that how you are meaning your comparison?"
The reverse: good works are unnecessary for justification.
"You’re reversing the order of cause and effect. Good works don’t result in sanctification. Rather, good works result from santification."
ReplyDelete"In Scripture, good works are not meritorious. Our good works don’t merit the grace of God. Apart from God’s grace, we have no good works."
Right, God crowns nothing but His own gifts. I could not tell if you view sanctification as synergistic in contrast to justification, but presuming you do, in that one can resist or cooperate with grace (cooperation itself being an effect of grace) in performing good works, would you say one who does (and continues to) cooperate in some sense predisposes himself to cooperating with grace more and more (progressive sanctification)? Or, another way, if prayer and sacraments are means of grace (not in the sense of RC/EO of course), the believer who engages in those acts seems to be "meriting" grace in some sense. Otherwise, it would seem there is no growth in holiness, it's always square one. Or, perhaps "merit" should not be used when one is speaking of "accepting" or "cooperating with/not resisting" grace and you mean it in a strict sense of earning as payment.
Steve, I appreciate your generosity in sharing your time by fielding questions from readers of your blog posts. I reread your “Pelagian Calvinism” post last evening, but how you addressed my previous question about good works being a necessary condition of justification in your reply to Perry has eluded me (I suspect, however, it has something to do with your mention of the different dimensions of saving grace and my committing some sort of a level confusion).
ReplyDeleteI suppose my thinking is along these lines:
1) salvation exists if and only if justification exists
2) good works exist if and only salvation exists
3) therefore, justification exists if and only if good works exist
I believe 3 follows logically from 1 and 2, in which case it seems that good works are a necessary condition of justification. Would you mind setting me straight here? Thanks.
Lightweight said:
ReplyDelete"but how you addressed my previous question about good works being a necessary condition of justification in your reply to Perry has eluded me"
Me:
S=Salvation
J=Justification
G=Good Works
I believe that you are assuming this:
G--->J--->S
The Biblical theology of salvation, though, is thus:
S--->J&G
When God saves us, He does two main things, regeneration and justification. One is subjective and the other objective. Regeneration necessariliy results in good works and justification is the declaration of innocence. They are two totally separate acts of salvation (and thus one does not cause the other), but God never does one without also doing the other.
Thus, we can say that one cannot be saved without producing good works without saying that good works are the cause of justification (or salvation as a whole).
Saint and Sinner, Thanks for the reply. I’m not sure how one can say something is “totally separate” and also say “God never does one without also doing the other.” Since God never does one without the other, I think it would be safer to say that I am assuming (using your designations above):
ReplyDeleteJ<-->S<-->G
If this is an accurate representation of “saving grace,” I think one can logically conclude that good works are a necessary condition of justification. I am not saying that good works are the cause of justification; only that they are a necessary condition. But, once again, I remain open to the possibility that I am misunderstanding something here.
LIGHTWEIGHT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve, I appreciate your generosity in sharing your time by fielding questions from readers of your blog posts. I reread your ‘Pelagian Calvinism’ post last evening, but how you addressed my previous question about good works being a necessary condition of justification in your reply to Perry has eluded me (I suspect, however, it has something to do with your mention of the different dimensions of saving grace and my committing some sort of a level confusion).”
Justification is the possession and/or imputation (as the case may be) of a righteous standing. In the case of sinners, good works cannot be a necessary condition of justification since the sinner cannot be personally righteousness, as Paul defines it. (ditto: James).
As I said in reply to Perry:
As for “righteousness,” Reformed theology uses this term in the Pauline sense, where it denotes moral perfection. The holiness of God sets the standard.
(Incidentally, James has the same concept. If you transgress a single commandment, you’re guilty of the whole nine yards.)
As such, an actually righteous person always does right. Righteousness, in Pauline usage, does not admit degrees of righteousness. So, by definition, a sinner cannot be actually righteous.
However, a righteous standing can be imputed to a sinner via the righteousness of a second-party (Christ).
“I suppose my thinking is along these lines:__1) salvation exists if and only if justification exists_2) good works exist if and only salvation exists_3) therefore, justification exists if and only if good works exist__I believe 3 follows logically from 1 and 2, in which case it seems that good works are a necessary condition of justification.”
i) One problem with your syllogism is that it suffers from a chronological equivocation inasmuch as justification is prior to good works.
ii) The fact that two things necessarily coexist doesn’t entail that one is the necessary condition of the other. For example, two things can be the inevitable effect of a common cause. One effect is not the cause of the other effect–even though both effects always occur in tandem.
iii) It is not logically or causally necessary that justification and sanctification coexist. That’s a contingent truth, due to God’s will.
iv) And even if necessary coexistence did entail that one was the necessary condition of the other, that fact doesn’t indicate which is which. It doesn’t furnish the direction of the conditionality.
THE DUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete“I could not tell if you view sanctification as synergistic in contrast to justification, but presuming you do, in that one can resist or cooperate with grace (cooperation itself being an effect of grace) in performing good works, would you say one who does (and continues to) cooperate in some sense predisposes himself to cooperating with grace more and more (progressive sanctification)?”
i) You’re treating “cooperation” and “synergism” as if these were synonymous. While, at the level of ordinarily language, they may be synonymous (as Greek and Latin synonyms), they are not synonymous in theological usage. “Synergism” is a technical term in Catholic theology, with a specialized meaning.
ii) Yes, sanctification involves an element of cooperation. That doesn’t make it synergistic in the dogmatic sense of the term.
iii) Up to a point, sanctification is resistible. However, it is God’s will that his people be sanctified. So while there are degrees of sanctity, which vary from one Christian to another, no true believer is devoid of sanctity. Sanctification is still inevitable.
iv) Even if we’re uncooperative, God will use that to refine us (e.g. remedial punishment).
v) I also don’t think of grace as an objective, quantifiable commodity, such that we receive larger or smaller doses of grace–like using up the first batch, then receiving the next batch. That’s getting carried away with a picturesque metaphor.
“Or, another way, if prayer and sacraments are means of grace (not in the sense of RC/EO of course), the believer who engages in those acts seems to be ‘meriting’ grace in some sense.”
i) Why do you cast this in terms of “merit”? There’s nothing meritorious about doing what I’m supposed to do, or refrain from doing.
Is it meritorious that I don’t rob little old ladies of their life savings? Do I deserve a civic reward because I restrain myself from robbing little old ladies?
ii) And God sanctifies us, not because we merit sanctifying grace, but because we need it.
“Otherwise, it would seem there is no growth in holiness, it's always square one.”
There’s no logical connection between growing in holiness and “meriting* sanctifying grace. While progressive sanctification requires sanctifying grace, there’s no good reason to make that contingent on the meritoriousness of the Christian. Indeed, the need of Christians to undergo a process of sanctification points to their lack of merit. To their demerit. They are sinners. That’s why they need to undergo sanctification.
My take on this exchange:
ReplyDeleteLightweight is using the phrase "necessary condition" to mean "litmus test for the presence of". ("If !G, then !J. If true G, then J.") This works because if God justifies you, he will sanctify you.
Steve and S&S are not accepting the phrase "necessary condition", because they're stressing that G is not a pre-condition for J.
Precondition == ground, in this case.
ReplyDeleteTo put it in pseudo-programming terms:
bool human::Justify () {
human H = this;
if (H.Faith) return H.Right_Standing = true;
else return H.Right_Standing = false;
}
int human::Sanctify () {
human H = this;
if (H.Faith) return H.Pure_Desire_To_Work++;
else return 0;
}
In the default constructor for a human, both H.Pure_Desire_To_Work and H.Faith equal 0. The above functions will return 0 or false, unless Faith has been set. This requires the following function to have been called:
void human::Regenerate (grace G) {
human H = this;
if (G.Applier==Holy_Spirit) H.Faith ++;
}
Furthermore, the compiler would throw an error if either the Justify() or Sanctify() function were used without also using the other.
(It could also be noted that Faith should be named Faith_In_Christ. But, like a parable, this was not intended to capture all dimensions of the situation.)
P.S.
ReplyDeleteI said this:
"Steve and S&S are not accepting the phrase "necessary condition", because they're stressing that G is not a pre-condition for J."
I would guess that they're also stressing that G is not a condition for keeping J.
Jugulum, Thanks for the feedback. You wrote, "Steve and S&S are not accepting the phrase 'necessary condition', because they're stressing that G is not a pre-condition for J."
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that is probably the case. I think my confusion is caused, in part, by the ambiguity of the expression "necessary condition."
I think that standard logic textbooks say that if a relationship is biconditional,then the terms are sufficient and necessary conditions of each other. But I think there is some ambiguity with reference to these terms.
Lightweight,
ReplyDelete"I think that standard logic textbooks say that if a relationship is biconditional,then the terms are sufficient and necessary conditions of each other. But I think there is some ambiguity with reference to these terms."
Hmm... The ambiguity may also be in "relationship". The relationship isn't directly between good works and justification--they both have a relationship to something else.
Jugulum: Hmm... The ambiguity may also be in "relationship". The relationship isn't directly between good works and justification--they both have a relationship to something else.
ReplyDeletelightweight: Yes, that may also be the case. But even though two concepts may be related to something else, I see no reason why they can’t somehow be directly related to each other. If neither justification nor good works exist without the other in God’s “saving grace,” then it seems to me that they are somehow directly related.
I guess I’m thinking of it like this: If justification exists, then good works exist. Logically the consequent (good works exist) is the “necessary condition.” In a similar way: If I cross the river, then I use a boat. Using a boat is the necessary condition of crossing the river.
But again, there is ambiguity with regards to the concept of “necessary condition.” Furthermore, I’m still trying to think through Steve’s statement, “It is not logically or causally necessary that justification and sanctification coexist. That’s a contingent truth, due to God’s will.” My thinking is that if God has decreed that justification and good works coexist in His “saving grace,” then it is logically necessary that they coexist. But admittedly, I am probably confused on this issue.
Usage of the word Grace refers to any obvious or apparent benefit unmerited by the one receiving the benefit. With regard to Christian theology, specifying salvific or common grace helps us distinguish between gracious patterns covered by scripture, whether with regard to justification (or even sanctification) or the capacity of good to be worked through the unregenerate.
ReplyDeleteThere's perhaps a logical fallacy that I've never considered before, and that's the use of an objective term in a logical relationship that is inappropriate to its meaning.
For example, I wouldn't say that "I borrowed the ballet today. If you need it back I'll bring it by after work."
Or, "I'm preparing my thoughts for the symposium in a few weeks. I'll need to freeze them so they'll keep and thaw them out a day before."
It seems less ridiculous to misconstrue the logical relationships between theological terms by confusing similar ideas, but it is no more logical to do so.
Jim, I'll need the ballet back by next Wednesday. Enjoy it until then.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I believe such fallacies might be called "category mistakes." That may be a problem here. Would you mind elaborating on what you mean when you say, "...the use of an objective term in a logical relationship that is inappropriate to its meaning." Thanks.
LIGHTWEIGHT SAID:
ReplyDelete"My thinking is that if God has decreed that justification and good works coexist in His “saving grace,” then it is logically necessary that they coexist. But admittedly, I am probably confused on this issue."
Yes, you're confused. If it's contingent on God's will, then it's not logically necessary.
More to the point, this is not a question of trying to infer the nature of justification from the nature of good works.
You need to start with the teaching of Scripture, not artificial syllogisms.
Lightweight,
ReplyDeleteMy examples didn't do it for you? :) "Category mistake" sounds like a close candidate and the concepts overlap in that they may often produce concurrent categories.
But I believe you're confusing the logical relationship between theological grace and other things such as works, merit, etc. You may even be mixing variant definitions based on usage. That's why I mentioned it before.
It's also a task to phrase definitive arguments in such a way as to engender clarity and help someone embrace categories for analysis they've never before considered. Haggling between people who don't agree on categories and definitions and don't understand that their opponent's understanding is so divergent from their own is a key factor in perhaps 99% (I'm guessing) of debate frustrations. Intelligence is the capacity to ascertain and employ divergent sets of categorizations, whether for the purpose of clarification or obfuscation.
As for grace, it always entails unmerited favor whatever the tangential differences in definition coincide with distinctions in usage. Therefore it is rather more descriptive of a general pattern of relational transaction than it is an operator in the transaction although linguistically it has been used objectively to represent the operation or perhaps even the transaction in general.
Make sense?
Jim, Yes, I think it makes sense. Your last paragraph confuses me a bit, but I think I get the gist of it. Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDelete