I'll comment on this post:
As some of you who have been my long-time readers know, Austin Fischer is my protégé even though I can’t take credit for his intelligence or writing skills. He’s a brilliant thinker, teaching pastor (The Vista Community Church, Temple, Texas) and excellent writer.
It's fine with me if Arminians make Fischer their spokesman.
“Monergism: Maybe True, Definitely Unnecessary”
by Austin Fischer (Author of Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed)
Monergism (“one work”) is the belief that God works alone in salvation.
No, that's not what it means. Some (but not all) divine actions in salvation involve God's unilateral action, viz. unconditional election, monergistic regeneration.
It’s usually set against synergism, which is the belief that while God alone does everything in working for our salvation,
What does it even mean to say "God alone does everything in working for our salvation" in contrast to synergism?
Seems like Fischer want to hang on to a sola element, but combine that with a non-sola element. So he simply glues them together.
humans must cooperate with grace in some form or fashion (the cooperation itself, of course, is possible only because of grace).
Calvinism doesn't deny that salvation has cooperative facets. For instance, sanctification has a cooperative dynamic in Calvinism.
However, the "cooperation" of the regenerate in their sanctification is the predestined effect of God's efficacious grace. It's not "cooperative" in the libertarian sense.
But what I would like to point out is that you don’t need monergism to prevent human boasting or protect God’s glory. Nope—all you need is a healthy doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)…or better yet, creatio continua (continuing creation).
Continuous creation denies human agency. There is no cause and effect connection within the world. Rather, it's a version of occasionalism where God is the sole agent. Human beings don't make anything happen. The future is entirely the result of God's direct fiat. There are no second causes. Just God's primary causality, through-and-through.
So Fischer's Arminian alternative to Calvinism is to replace Calvinism with a metaphysical position that denies human agency!
Fischer's post is incompetent from start to finish. He doesn't begin to know what he's talking about. His analysis is inept and counterproductive even on Arminian grounds.
This is a good example of how Arminian partisanship suspends critical judgment. They don't listen for content–they just listen for the label. If you call it "Arminian," it must be right; if you call it "Calvinist," it must be wrong.
It's like those man-on-the-street interviews where a reporter will ask Democrats what they think of a statement. The reporter will quote a statement which he attributes to a Democrat, even though it's actually a statement made by a Republican. Democrats respondents immediately agree with the statement, because they were told a Democrat said it. They stop listening after they hear the partisan label.
I'm suffering cognitive dissonance, help me out. When he says, "EVERYTHING is a gift of grace, to be received with open hands and wide-eyed wonder" is he saying rapes and murders and child cancer is a gift from God to be received with open arms (apparently making God the "author of evil"), or is he saying that all doesn't mean all?
ReplyDelete"All that exists is a gift from God."
ReplyDeleteMy choice to accept Christ is among the things that exist. Hence my choice, that very mental act, is a gift from God. Why don't some believe? Did God not give them the gift of choosing Christ (he gave them the ability sure, but Austin's gifts take wider scope than just abilities, it also includes particular instances of using the ability to do something)? What love is this?! So Austin's going to want to scale things back to include only things like the ability to chose. But then a boastful foot gets in the door. What explains why one person chose and not another? Not God! Not luck! Must be the person. Did he think his post through?
Interestingly, Vincent Cheung subscribes to occasionalism and has made the connection that continuous creation is a similar concept. I'm not certain if he specifically considers his version of occasionalism as a form of continuous creation, but his statements make me think he does (cf. p. 38 of Author of Sin). He appeals to occasionalism as safeguarding the truth of God's absolute sovereignty.
ReplyDeletePresumably, Fischer believes in a libertarian version whereby the will of man is free and God continuously creates things based on the will of man. I would assume W.L. Craig believes something like this form of presentism. However, nowhere in that guest article does Fischer mention libertarian free will. Someone like Cheung might argue that if taken to its logical conclusion Fischer's argument better fits with God also creating and controlling the wills of men as well.
But even assuming a libertarian view, doesn't that still undermine the very reason Fischer rejects Calvinism? Namely, continuous creation would seem to make God the repeated author and constant Creator of all evils that exist in the world moment by moment.
BTW, I'm open to continuous creation, occasionalism, A-theory of time etc. Just as I'm open to the B-theory of time, and of a "block universe" theory of creation in keeping with some of the implications of modern physics.
Fischer wrote: I know of very few historical theologians who would even begin to contest Boettner’s claim (and again, Boettner was a Calvinist), so I think advocates of monergism have a good bit of explaining to do here. But again, in all sincerity, I understand how people think the Bible teaches it.
A similar thing is true regarding other doctrines like justification, Sola Scriptura, unconditional elect, penal substitution, et cetera. They were hammered out, developed and refined in the church as the church grew in its understanding of Scriptural teaching and its implications. For example, many in the early church affirmed the Ransom to Satan theory of the atonement. It's antiquity and patristic provenance doesn't make it necessarily true.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI wrote: Someone like Cheung might argue that if taken to its logical conclusion Fischer's argument better fits with God also creating and controlling the wills of men as well.
DeleteIn which case, (ironically) that would seem to make salvation (along with everything else) monergistic. The very thing Fischer wants to avoid. Also, Fischer's and Cheung's continuous creation would seem to possibly make the concept and discussion of grace as a façon de parler. Continuous creation would seems to take away the actual ontological existence and influence of grace on our natures. Grace doesn't actually make us better, God merely creates a better version of us from one moment to the other. Not to mention the philosophical problem of personal identity through time as conceived of in continuous creation. Though, to be fair, B-theory also has a problem with that as well. *g*
“Calvinism doesn't deny that salvation as cooperative facets. For instance, sanctification has a cooperative dynamic in Calvinism.“
ReplyDeleteWhat is a “cooperative dynamic”? For a Calvinist, how does God cause humans to act that is not monergistic? I thought that if something didn’t have merit or didn’t originate from libertarian freedom, then it was monergistic, e.g., isn’t that why regeneration is called monergistic in Calvinism? Since in determinism there is no such thing as creaturely libertarian freedom or creaturely merit, why wouldn’t all of human action be considered monergistic?
Blogger Nondescript said:
Delete---
For a Calvinist, how does God cause humans to act that is not monergistic?
---
What do you mean by "cause" in that sentence?
Assuming I have some kind of understanding of it, let me give you a counter scenario and just get your opinion on it. Note that as I'm trying to understand your view, the following is not 100% representative of my own.
1) Assume that Adam had libertarian free will, and he chose to sin and, as a consequence, everyone born of Adam has original sin, and therefore in his natural state man will do evil.
2) Suppose that God intervenes with some level of grace to keep man from being as evil as he could be, by forcing man to do some good deeds, but at other times He lets man sin.
Now, given the above so far, we see any good that is done by men would be because of God's grace, so man only does good when God forces him to. But God is not forcing man to do evil--man's own nature is doing that. But, God can decide when to restrain evil and when to allow evil to occur. So, does God "cause" evil by not restraining it 100% of the time? Or is it the case that God is allowing men to do what they want to do--to act freely--only in those times when He stops forcing them to do good, so man is completely responsible for the evil? After all, God does not *force* anyone to do evil, only good, in this scenario.
Now, let's throw in another bit to complicate it further:
3) Suppose that God wants to save a certain bunch of people from an upcoming disaster, such as a famine.
4) Suppose that God sees the best way to do this is to get a specific person into a specific governmental role at the exact time when it is needed.
5) Further, suppose that this person will not be in that role unless his brothers sell him into slavery, he's then unjustly imprisoned in a foreign country.
6) Suppose that God knows that if he does not restrain the evil from the hearts of this man's brothers, and from the hearts of various other people, at certain times and places, that each of those men will act intentionally evilly of their own accord, but will be moving that man exactly into the position that God wants him in to save many lives.
Did God "cause" the evil in that scenario? Or is it not the case that God is forcing men to be good the vast majority of time, and allowing them to freely do what they want (which is to always sin continually) only when it suits His purposes?
"What is a 'cooperative dynamic'? For a Calvinist, how does God cause humans to act that is not monergistic? I thought that if something didn’t have merit or didn’t originate from libertarian freedom, then it was monergistic, e.g., isn’t that why regeneration is called monergistic in Calvinism? Since in determinism there is no such thing as creaturely libertarian freedom or creaturely merit, why wouldn’t all of human action be considered monergistic?"
Delete"Monergism" and "synergism" are terms of art.
i) Election is monergistic because the objects of election don't actually exist at that stage. At the outset, they are merely divine ideas. So election is inevitably one-sided. There is no other side, no other reality, at that point.
ii) Regeneration is monergistic because, due to sin, humans are indisposed to good. Evil incapacitates them from giving the Gospel a receiving hearing.
It's like someone who's insane. In that condition, they can't help themselves. They require intervention from an outside source.
iii) Sanctification is cooperative in the sense that, at that juncture, they are now disposed to do good (as a result of regeneration). There is now something to work with. They have a capacity to respond, because God restored minimal proper function.
iv) Creation isn't just a divine mental projection. It has its own existence. It has a different and distinct mode of subsistance. God is timeless and spaceless. The world is temporal and spatial. Finite.
Humans have minds. It's not reducible to God's mind. Each normal adult human has a unique, first-person viewpoint. In addition, our mental states, unlike God's, are mutable and temporally successive. We change. We learn. God doesn't.
Humans can form intentions and act on their intentions. That's because God has made a world with cause/effect connections. I will my hand to turn a key. My mind caused the hand to move, which caused the key to turn.
"God alone" didn't make that happen. God created the initial conditions to make that possible. But the transaction is not reducible to divine agency. God doesn't have hands–I do.
v) Divine predetermination doesn't make God the only agent. Predetermination means everything will happen according to plan. But that, of itself, doesn't select for how things will happen. There are different ways in which a determinate outcome could be caused. There are different way of enacting that scenario.
God normally works through ordinary providence. A system of second causes. Physical cause and effect or mind/body interactions.
“iii) Sanctification is cooperative in the sense that, at that juncture, they are now disposed to do good (as a result of regeneration). There is now something to work with. They have a capacity to respond, because God restored minimal proper function.”
DeleteWhy wouldn’t justification, in the same sense, be considered cooperative (or synergistic) then? They are now disposed to exercise justifying faith (as a result of regeneration). It’s the human mind that is believing; not the mind of God. “God alone” didn’t make belief happen. He created the initial conditions to make it possible.
Faith is a human act, but justification is a divine act. We don't justify ourselves by exercising faith. Rather, it is the Father who imputes the merit of Christ to elect believers.
DeleteSince faith is a human act, and faith is the instrumental means of justification, would you say justification has a cooperative facet?
DeleteI'd say you're someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.
DeleteSorry for the offense. I'm trying to figure out why you, as a Calvinist, would say that sanctification has a cooperative facet or dynamic but justification apparently does not, when the same conditions apply, i.e., "God alone” didn’t make belief (the human act which is the instrumental means of justification) happen. He created the initial conditions to make it possible. But I have evidently used up your goodwill, so thank you for your time.
DeleteA few Calvinists like James White would rather refrain from using terms like synergistic or monergistic in reference to sanctification. Some fringe Calvinists claim sanctification is monergistic (e.g. the folks who produce the The Monty Collier Report and RedBeetle YouTube videos). Many knowledgeable (majority?) Calvinists believe sanctification is synergistic like R.C. Sproul. I agree with Sproul and Steve. Unless one holds to something like occasionalism then Calvinists have to acknowledge that human wills and efforts are in some sense real and distinct from divine activity (though, not so distinct as to be separated from or exist apart from God's providential support, preservation and conservation). It seems to me that human effort, in sanctification, which already has been inspired by grace, combines and cooperates with more of God's grace to produce good works. Calvinists deny that efforts at good works apart from grace (before and/or after conversion) are meritorious in any way. We want to avoid the error of both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some Calvinists (me included) believe post-conversion good works antecedently aided by grace and cooperating with additional grace are "graciously meritorious" for rewards (but not for salvation). John Gerstner was willing to refer to them as a Protestant form of supererogatory works even though "gracious merit" seems oxymoronically contradictory.
Gerstner wrote: Christians will receive rewards in heaven for every one of their imperfect "good" works for a very good reason. Those post-justification good works are not necessary for heaven because Jesus Christ purchased heaven for those in Him by faith. The works are necessary to prove the genuineness of professed faith but they are not necessary for earning heaven. They are real "works of super-erogation," if you wish. Anyone who goes to heaven does so for the merit of Christ’s work alone, apart from any merit in any and all of his own works of obedience. If faith could exist apart from works, which it cannot, the believer could go to heaven without ever doing one good work. As it is, he goes to heaven without one iota of merit in anything and everything he does. But every post-justification good work he ever does will merit, deserve, and receive its reward in heaven. You protest, "But post-justification works have sin in them, and therefore cannot merit any reward." You forget that their guilt of sin has been removed. Moreover, do you dare impugn the justice of God by saying that He would "reward" what did not deserve reward? (P.S. I confess my own and Augustine’s past error in using the oxymoron: "rewards of grace.")