"Zero-sum" salvation

When I was a Reformed Protestant, I viewed salvation as a “zero-sum” situation. This led to the question, “How much does God do and how much do I do in salvation?”

Clearly it can’t be God does 50% and I do 50%. Then there was the Arminian position that came down to God does 99.9% and I do 0.1%. The Calvinist position rejects all this and states God does 100% and I do 0% – entirely monergistic.

The Catholic position (which I argue is the Pauline position on this site and in the book) is that the “zero-sum” paradigm is misleading. If you start with a scale ranging from zero to one hundred percent, you never get to the truth…We are not completely passive. Scripture NEVER speaks like that.

Calvinism only has it half right. So the right answer is that salvation is 100% divine and 100% human – the divine grace being prior to human faith and works. That’s the Catholic position and I would challenge you to read the New Testament with this Catholic paradigm in mind. I think that you will find that it sheds light on passages, brings about a cohesive whole, and clarifies those “difficult passages” that Protestants avoid or dismiss (e.g. James 2, Hebrews 6).

http://pauliscatholic.com/2009/08/the-zero-sum-paradigm-and-the-catholic-view-of-salvation/

This is incompetent from start to finish:

1.Reformed soteriology never was “entirely monergistic” (in the sense of human passivity).

2.We need to draw an elementary distinction between subjective grace and objective grace. If, according to Paul, justification is an objective divine act, then, for that reason alone (not to mention other reasons), Christians can make no personal contribution to their own justification. It’s not a subjective process, but an objective state or standing. Forensic rather than dynamic. God imputes the merit of Christ to his elect. Something done to us and for us, not in us or with us.

Justification is monergistic because (among other reasons) the grace of justification is objective to the recipient.

3.By contrast, it’s possible for subjective grace to have a cooperative dimension. However, that also depends on the initial state of the recipient.

The unregenerate cannot give their consent their own regeneration. For a fundamental feature of their unregenerate state is their implacable enmity to the things of God. Therefore, regeneration must be monergistic.

As a result of regeneration, the regenerate are then able to make productive use of the means of grace in their sanctification. While they are passive in regeneration, they are not passive in sanctification. Of course, their perseverance in the faith is ultimately dependent on God’s gracious, sovereign preservation. The outcome is not in doubt.