Francis Beckwith tried to argue that justification is synergistic. Here’s what one commenter had to say about his efforts:
Bryan said...
Hi Frank,_I think what you have done here is actually proven monergism with your analogy.
Let me explain. I think you are doing what my old OT professor, Pete Enns, did with the incarnational analogy to Scripture. You seem to be confusing the idea that because Christ is fully human and fully divine with the idea that His human and divine natures are equal in power and control of one another. That of course would be heretical, as the finite human nature does not have equal control over the infinite divine nature.
In other words, Christ is non posse pecare because, although He is able to be tempted in His human nature, His divine nature keeps His human nature in "check," since God cannot sin. The same goes for Scripture. Although men are able to express themselves and their opinions, they cannot do so to the point of theological and ethical error, so that the human will is controlled and limited by the divine will. In other words, the human will does whatever the divine wills it to do. It functions no further than the boundaries which are set for it by the divine will. This, therefore, means in your analogy that the human decision is only a response to the divine will, and cannot do otherwise than that which God has willed it to do.
So the human nature of Christ is controlled by the divine nature, the human nature of Scripture is controlled by the divine will, and the human will in salvation is controlled by the divine will.
Hence, any system of merit based upon the idea that a person joins with God to perform a task in synergism must include a human act that can act in favor of God or against Him; but this would be to deflate your analogy. If the person's salvific actions are only a response to, or set within, the boundaries of God's will, then no salvific act can be attributed to the human element at all; and thus, Roman Catholicism would be refuted.
Do you resolve this problem in some other way?
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/11/justification-and-analogy-with_02.html?showComment=1257326092725#c1676995401068665964
In other words, Christ is non posse pecare because, although He is able to be tempted in His human nature, His divine nature keeps His human nature in "check," since God cannot sin.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this flirting with monothelitism?
I don't think so. He still has a divine will and a human will. But the human will can't override the divine will.
ReplyDeleteI linked to Dr. White's answers to the RC view of being able to "merit for themselves and others grace", etc.
ReplyDeleteand it appears Dr. Beckwith has deleted my comments with links to Dr. White's answer; and also the link to his closing statement on Sola Scriptura with Mitch Pacwa.
Beckwith can't stand the competition.
ReplyDeleteJust like any apostate, he gets all bent out of shape when he's called on the carpet.
ReplyDeleteThey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Just thought I'd point out that J.C. Thibodaux is still whining about sock puppets and your arguments against Billy Birch:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.antipelagian.com/2009/09/god-is-my-co-pilot-satan.html
(just scroll toward the end to see his comments)
Ken:
ReplyDeleteBeckwith seems to prefer monologue to dialog when it comes to matters of disagreement.