@RandalRauserCalvinists often say that if we retain the ability to respond to the offer of salvation then we've contributed to our salvation. That's like saying that the man stranded on a cliff who remains sufficiently conscious to grasp the hand of his rescuer contributed to his own rescue.
i) Except that the man stranded on a cliff did contribute to his own rescue by cooperating with his rescuer. And even that small gesture may have been necessary to save him.
After all, there are people who successfully commit suicide, despite rescue efforts, because they refuse to cooperate with their rescuers. They resist and evade rescue attempts. So Rauser's illustration disproves his point.
ii) Perhaps what Rauser is laboring to say in his confused and fumbling way is that even though the man stranded on the cliff did in fact contribute to his own rescue, his contribution isn't praiseworthy. But if that's Rauser's claim, he failed to express his real point.
iii) Dropping the picturesque metaphor, if sinners have the independent ability to accept or refuse the offer of salvation, then those who accept it do contribute to their own salvation. They make a necessary personal contribution without which the outcome wouldn't occur. Rauser may deny that that gives them bragging rights, but they do contribute to the outcome since their cooperation or refusal makes a difference to the outcome.
If I forgive you a debt of a million dollars, do you take some credit for having accepted my offer of debt forgiveness? I mean, who reasons in this way? If Calvinists thought that way in their daily lives, I might get it, but nobody thinks that way. It's just rhetorical bluster.
Hmm. I can think of someone who thinks that way:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9; cf. Rom 4:2).
i) So according to Rauser, Paul's statement is just rhetorical bluster. That wouldn't be surprising, given his open disdain for biblical authority.
ii) This isn't something Calvinists say because, in the first instance, it's an inference they draw from Reformed theology. Rather, they get this direct from St. Paul. They are simply repeating or paraphrasing his principle. It's straight from Scripture.
iii) Moreover, it's easy for Christians to develop contempt for unbelievers because so many unbelievers think and act in such willfully foolish and contemptible ways. It's very tempting to look down on unbelievers. But the principle enunciated by St. Paul is a reminder that if we're wiser and more discerning than unbelievers, that's not because we're superior by nature or achievement, but because God unilaterally changed us (Eph 2:1-5; Titus 3:3-5).
--i) Except that the man stranded on a cliff did contribute to his own rescue by cooperating with his rescuer. And even that small gesture may have been necessary to save him.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, there are people who successfully commit suicide, despite rescue efforts, because they refuse to cooperate with their rescuers. They resist and evade rescue attempts. So Rauser's illustration disproves his point.--
This makes me have PTSD flashbacks to when Black Widow refused to let Hawkeye save her and die himself.
Surely even Rauser has watched Avengers End Game and would recall this scene.
"Calvinists often say that if we retain the ability to respond to the offer of salvation then we've contributed to our salvation. That's like saying that the man stranded on a cliff who remains sufficiently conscious to grasp the hand of his rescuer contributed to his own rescue."
ReplyDeleteRauser's illustration would've been more accurate to Calvinism had he used a man who was completely unconscious because he had already drowned and thus had to be resuscitated. A biblical metaphor about salvation is God bringing the dead back to life. Not God rescuing a "sufficiently conscious" man.
As you rightfully point out, Steve, sola gratia requires monergism.
ReplyDelete