A friend of mine proceeded to comment on two of Abasciano's statements:
"Let me add that I am also a bit skeptical of the approach that characterizes our response to God as merely not resisting. While that sounds noble and God glorifying because it seems to minimize our role and exalt God’s role, it does not seem to match the biblical picture of faith in my opinion. Biblical faith is not merely not resisting God but it is actively trusting in him."
This is clearly a shot at the 'ambulatory model of overcoming grace' that Keathley adapts from Richard Cross in Salvation and Sovereignty. I agree that characterizing our response to God as mere non-resistance is confusing when compared with the biblical witness. Of course, I'm equally pessimistic about Abasciano's alternative:
"Faith itself is not meritorious for various reasons. Just one of those reasons is that it cannot be exercised without God’s help (grace)."
Simply stipulating that God's activity is necessary for saving faith does nothing to deflect the merit problem. If the judge offers a pardon to ten criminals and only five accept, clearly the judge's offer was a necessary condition for their actual pardon. But if five accept while five refuse, the five accepters have something of which to boast: their wisdom, perceptiveness, initiative, etc. to take the offer while the others refused. They make the deciding difference here, not the judge. So the merit issue remains.
It looks like Arminianism is caught between a rock and a hard place: the ambulatory model evacuates biblical faith of any recognizable meaning, while the "God is the mere necessary condition" model leaves us with a meritorious faith over which we can boast.
If the judge offers a pardon to ten criminals and only five accept.... I don't see how you can refuse a pardon, you can protest or commit another crime but you cannot force your way into a prison whose doors are barded.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that the point here is: pardon = faith, (as an unconditional gift). It is only an analogy in order to facilitate our understanding. Since prior to this point, he says: "Simply stipulating that God's activity is necessary for saving faith does nothing to deflect the merit problem." The point here is the merit problem.
DeleteWhy Virginia?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>>"Faith itself is not meritorious for various reasons. Just one of those reasons is that it cannot be exercised without God’s help (grace)."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Arminianism typically hold to God's concurrence? And in that case, wouldn't merit simply be impossible with or without faith because no act can be exercised without God's help? So doesn't this logic make a meritorious act metaphysically impossible, irrespective of faith?
Indeed, it goes further. A sinner cannot sin without God's help in providing existence to the sinner, for example. So, logically, if something is not meritorious if God helps, then it cannot be culpable if God helps either.
DeleteBut the text uses GRACE, not "natural sustentation". There is a huge difference between them.
Delete"Natural sustenation" IS grace. And isn't that how Arminians typically cast it, as common grace? If you want to draw a line at salvific grace then I'd ask what's your principled reason for doing so? Why does salvific grace as opposed to common grace magically make merit disappear?
Deleteremingtonscove said, "Why does salvific grace as opposed to common grace magically make merit disappear?"
DeleteFirst, the pejorative term "magically" is poisoning the well. Secondly, the fact that there is a difference between "salvific" grace and "common" grace already answers your question, and there is nothing at all magical about affirming that salvific grace is efficacious.
It further remains that Arminians do not preach grace alone, for it is grace + [something else]. That [something else] may be, as Steve's post above highlights, a ceasing of some activity such as someone stopping resisting God, but there is still grace + that ceasing of resisting that entails salvation. It is not sola gratia, as in the Calvinistic method.
This brings us to two conclusions. 1) There is an obvious difference between grace in the Arminian and Calvinist views. 2) The Calvinist view more properly fits the term "monergistic" and the Arminian view more properly fits the term "synergistic" given this difference.
You're right about the distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism in efficacious grace, but I wasn't trying to argue that point. "Magically" is rhetorical, it highlights the fact that not just any difference arbitrarily selected can prop up the merit distinction the Arminian would (I think) want to draw. I think efficacy is a good distinction for the Calvinist, but the Arminian doesn't have access to that distinction so far as I can see... and that's who I was directing my comment towards.
DeleteHello again, Remington B.
DeletePerhaps I'm just a bit muddled today, but I don't see how "magically" applies at all (even rhetorically) when there are two different objects in view. Common grace is not salvific, and the difference isn't arbitrary--the difference is what it's intended to do. To me, it seems like saying there's an arbitrary difference between the power you get through the wall socket and the power a president wields, when in fact it's actually two completely different things that share a slight overlap in context. That is, in the analogy electrical power enables devices to function, political power enables bureaucracies to function. In the instance of grace, grace itself is "unmerited favor" but there's a world of difference between the unmerited favor of rain falling on the just and unjust alike as opposed to the unmerited favor of regenerating a sinner and bringing him to salvation.
Thus, salvific and common grace are really two different animals, even though both have the common linkage of "unmerited favor."
I'm not saying the difference between common grace and salvific grace is arbitrary. I'm saying whatever difference an Arminian might rely on to say salvific grace nullifies merit but common grace does not cannot be arbitrary chosen or undefined.
DeleteThanks, Remington B. I think I'm following what you said now. Thanks for the clarification. :-)
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete"Simply stipulating that God's activity is necessary for saving faith does nothing to deflect the merit problem...But if five accept while five refuse, the five accepters have something of which to boast: their wisdom, perceptiveness, initiative, etc. to take the offer while the others refused. They make the deciding difference here, not the judge. So the merit issue remains."
By this reasoning, do you treat your cooperation with grace/resistance of sin which leads to growth in heavenly reward/holiness in progressive sanctification as merit or something you can boast in that negates or diminishes grace? Did you make the deciding difference as opposed to your fellow regenerate?
Since in Calvinism, the degree of cooperation or resistance is predestined, we can't claim credit. To the extent that some born-again Christians are more saintly than others, the differential factor has its cause in God. We're not the ultimate source of that variable. Therefore, your comparison fails.
DeleteGrounding it in predestination seems to have the same implication I mentioned above: since everything is predestined, no one can claim credit for anything (or demerit?). I think the answer lies in such passages as Eph. 2:20, 1 Cor. 15:10 and Phil 1:6. In some significant way, the believer's good works flow from God. But it's not clear the Arminian can take this route since faith as flowing from God doesn't fit nicely into their system. Ultimately, faith has to flow from man and that explains why some men have faith and some do not.
Delete"Since in Calvinism, the degree of cooperation or resistance is predestined, we can't claim credit. To the extent that some born-again Christians are more saintly than others, the differential factor has its cause in God. We're not the ultimate source of that variable. Therefore, your comparison fails. "
DeleteWhen you sin in progressive sanctification, did God give you sufficient grace that you resisted or no grace at all? I am not sure how you avoid the issue unless you claim grace in progressive sanctification is monergistic in the same manner as it is in justification.
"We're not the ultimate source of that variable"
Certain types of synergists can agree with this (e.g. Thomism's distinction between sufficient and intrinsically efficacious grace). Moreover, I do not think Arminians would claim they have a right to boast in their sanctification either.
When I sin, that's because God predestined me to sin. Certainly God didn't give me sufficient grace to successfully resist a predestined outcome to the contrary.
DeleteThe question at issue is not whether Arminians would actually boast, but whether that's what their theologically logically commits them to. Whether they are consistent is a different, and irrelevant, question.
"When I sin, that's because God predestined me to sin. Certainly God didn't give me sufficient grace to successfully resist a predestined outcome to the contrary."
DeleteSo is grace in sanctification monergistic in the same manner as it is in justification? If he did not give you sufficient grace to resist, did he give you any grace at all or was the grace he gave "built-in" to be defective? Do you find many historical lights in your tradition would hold to such a position (that progressive sanctification should not be viewed in a synergistic sense and/or that sufficient grace is not given to the elect who sin)? One could hold that you were predestined to resist grace leading to your sin, but that you were still given sufficient grace.
I'm curious how you handle verses like james 4:6-8 and ephesians 4:30. Obviously the classic is 1 Cor 10:13 but if i remember right you believe that refers to apostasy amongst the elect rather than sin in general in sanctification.
"but whether that's what their theologically logically commits them to."
I still fail to see how you are not logically committed to boasting in progressive sanctification unless you indeed hold that it is monergistic in the same manner justification is, but that seems to open up other problems. I think you would agree that at some point we start to push into the edges of mystery and tension while trying to uphold all aspects of the biblical witness, which Arminians would freely admit.
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"So is grace in sanctification monergistic in the same manner as it is in justification?"
One problem with that comparison is that justification is an objective divine act that's concerned with our forensic status or relation to God, whereas sanctification involves a subjective change. So they are categorically distinct.
"If he did not give you sufficient grace to resist, did he give you any grace at all or was the grace he gave 'built-in' to be defective?"
For some reason you're hung up on "grace," as if that's the only way, or best way, to frame the issue. It would be simpler to say that if God predestined me to sin, then he didn't give me the ability to do other than sin on that occasion. I don't see that "grace" (rather than "ability") clarifies the issue.
If you like, you can say he didn't give me enough grace to successfully resist sinning on that occasion. Of course, that's true on Arminian grounds as well.
"Do you find many historical lights in your tradition would hold to such a position (that progressive sanctification should not be viewed in a synergistic sense and/or that sufficient grace is not given to the elect who sin)?"
"Synergism" is a term of art in theological jargon. It denotes a theological package. Although Calvinism affirms the cooperative character of sanctification, it denies the synergistic character of sanctification. In this case, different terms denote different corresponding concepts.
"One could hold that you were predestined to resist grace leading to your sin, but that you were still given sufficient grace."
That's equivocal. It was insufficient to actually prevent me from sinning. So what difference did it make?
"I'm curious how you handle verses like james 4:6-8…"
It's up to you to formulate an argument. I'm not going to shoot arrows in the dark.
"...and ephesians 4:30."
Keep in mind that Ephesians has a strong doctrine of predestination, providence, and total depravity.
"whereas sanctification involves a subjective change"
DeleteWhich is why I've been careful to use progressive sanctification so as to not confuse it with definitive sanctification.
" It would be simpler to say that if God predestined me to sin, then he didn't give me the ability to do other than sin on that occasion."
I don't see how it is not possible you could not have been given the ability (sufficient grace) yet were still predestined to resist (it was merely sufficient rather than efficacious). That you infallibly will not do something does not necessitate that you infallibly cannot do something. Subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction nonetheless.
"Synergism" is a term of art in theological jargon. It denotes a theological package. Although Calvinism affirms the cooperative character of sanctification, it denies the synergistic character of sanctification. In this case, different terms denote different corresponding concepts."
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/09/21/is-sanctification-monergistic-or-synergistic-a-reformed-survey/
I see him basically ending up appealing to tension that 2 truths must be equally upheld. Then notice the (unresponded to) comment from Jon on September 23, 2011 at 3:20 pm which is precisely how Arminians would appeal - it's invalid to just take things to their "logical conclusion" to criticize their system, and then excusing one's position from similar examination by appealing to tension/mystery.
"That's equivocal. It was insufficient to actually prevent me from sinning. So what difference did it make? "
The difference it makes is in giving one an excuse before God and to uphold the biblical witness to responsibility and sovereignty. As a Thomist wrote (not Arminian obviously but synergistic):
“Our intelligence must be held captive before the divine obscurity of this great mystery, confessing these two graces (sufficient and efficacious), the first of which leaves our will without an excuse before God, while the second does not allow it to glory in itself. In other words, “It must be admitted (in opposition to the Jansenists) that there are two interior graces, of which one (namely, sufficient grace) leaves our soul inexcusable before God after sin, and of which the other (that is, efficacious grace) does not permit our will to glory in itself after accomplishing good works.” “What hast thou that thou hast not received? For who distinguisheth thee?”
These two propositions, thus formulated, are as two very luminous semicircles surrounding the deepest obscurity of the mystery. Above these semicircles is the mystery of the divine good pleasure, combining infinite mercy, infinite justice, and supreme liberty, which are identified in the Deity. Below, however, is the abyss of our defectibility and the gravity of ... sin."
"Keep in mind that Ephesians has a strong doctrine of predestination, providence"
Yes and Thomism and other non-monergistic systems have a strong doctrine of predestination and providence while maintaining sufficient grace. Occasionalism and non-cooperative progressive sanctification has an even stronger doctrine of predestination and providence than Calvinism but that doesn't mean it would be correct by default. The question is does the holy spirit purposely grieve Himself by not giving grace for believers to resist sin when they do sin.
Cletus Van Damme "Which is why I've been careful to use progressive sanctification so as to not confuse it with definitive sanctification."
DeleteA more logical comparison would be between regeneration and sanctification.
In Calvinism, regeneration is monergistic, while sanctification is not. Yet the outcome of both is divinely predetermined. It needn't be monergistic to be deterministic.
In Arminianism, by contrast, the outcome is indeterminate.
In Calvinism, the sinner is passive in regeneration because he can't renew himself. But having been renewed by God, he can participate in sanctification. Yet his degree of participation is predestined.
"I don't see how it is not possible you could not have been given the ability (sufficient grace) yet were still predestined to resist (it was merely sufficient rather than efficacious)."
You're imputing your premise to me, then attacking the conclusion.
One problem is your ad hoc distinction between sufficient and efficacious grace. But in philosophy, a sufficient condition *is* efficacious.
"That you infallibly will not do something does not necessitate that you infallibly cannot do something. Subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction nonetheless."
Infallibility is an epistemic category, whereas predestination is metaphysical category. That's not even a subtle distinction.
"it's invalid to just take things to their "logical conclusion" to criticize their system, and then excusing one's position from similar examination by appealing to tension/mystery."
You're debating me, not Kevin DeYoung. I haven't appealed to tension/mystery. Try again.
"The difference it makes is in giving one an excuse before God and to uphold the biblical witness to responsibility and sovereignty."
i) Now you're shifting ground. Your original argument was an argument from analogy. You attempted to draw a parallel between sanctification in Calvinism and Arminianism.
Since your original argument failed, you are now switching to a different objection. However, the theodical issues raised by predestination are irrelevant to your argument from analogy. That isn't the "difference" we were originally debating.
ii) If I sin, the presence or absence of sufficient grace made no difference. If you removed sufficient grace, I'd still sin. Hence, sufficient grace is otiose. Its presence or absence had no effect on the outcome. If I can sin with or without sufficient grace.
iii) The (alleged) ability conferred by sufficient grace is chimerical. If I have sufficient grace, but succumb to temptation, then I was overpowered by the temptation. My desire to sin was stronger than my desire to resist.
"The question is does the holy spirit purposely grieve Himself by not giving grace for believers to resist sin when they do sin."
The counter-question is does the Holy Spirit purposely grieve himself by failing to give efficacious grace for believers to successfully resist temptation.