Gratia prima

Around the 19 min. mark, Bishop Barron draws a distinction between sola gratia and gratia prima. He frankly says Catholic theology affirms gratia prima but rejects sola gratia. That's a useful admission to clarify a crucial difference between Catholicism and classic Protestant theology:

In Catholicism, you're not saved by grace alone.

God's foundling

Traditionally, Calvinists focus on theological metaphors like the New Birth or death in sin to illustrate the helplessness of the lost. A neglected theological metaphor is adoption. Paradigm-examples include God's "adoption" of David and God's "adoption" of Israel. A graphic example is Ezk 16, where a newborn who was left to die is rescued by a passerby. The adoption metaphor may be related to the OT concern for orphans. And it's a major theological category in the NT. 

Take the scenario of an orphanage. The kids are neglected because they don't receive the kind of individualized attention and affection that normal kids do. They have no one to call their own. No one they belong to. No adult who's their frame of reference.

Suppose an orphan like that is adopted by a loving parent or parents. This is like a second life. Although they preexisted their adoption, there's a sense in which life truly begins for them after their adoption. Now they suddenly have the life they longed for. They are showered with blessings. 

In Arminian theology, the blessings of salvation flow from the headwaters of faith. Blessings contingent on the autonomous act of faith. 

In Reformed theology, the blessings of salvation flow from the headwaters of grace. Blessings contingent on the unilateral act of God. Adoption is an image which powerfully illustrates that difference. 

A Look Back

Note: While Steve graciously provided a link back to my personal blog, I am cross-posting my post here too.

Every once in a while, it doesn’t hurt to go over some ground that can be seen as basic and trivial, to remind ourselves of some basic facts. This is a common occurrence during the Christmas season, when we remind each other of the basic truths of Christ’s birth.

In a similar vein, I’m reminded of an important facet of Calvinism and Arminianism. Namely, I want to look at one species of question in particular: why is it that historic Calvinists thought Arminians had recapitulated to the Roman Catholic Church? More specifically, why is it that Calvinists believe Arminianism is so dangerously close to salvation by works?

This question can perhaps be even better illustrated if we think of two individuals, Amy and Bill. In this illustration, Amy is saved while Bill is not. So the question bringing the distinction between Calvinists and Arminians is this: why is it that Amy is saved but Bill is not?

Calvinist soteriology (i.e., the doctrine of salvation) states that anyone who is saved is saved by grace alone through faith alone. These represent two of the five solae (or the Anglicized “solas”) of the Reformation: Sola gratia and sola fide. More specifically, Calvinism is monergistic (taken from “mono” = one + “ergon” = work, literally meaning “one worker”). Calvinism does not deny that man does good works, but instead claims that man does good works solely as a result of having been saved. Thus, the Calvinist will say that Amy is saved because God alone worked in Amy’s life such that Amy, through no contribution of her own, was regenerated, responded in faith, and was saved. Bill, on the other hand, is not saved because he was not granted the grace of God and continued on his sinful way.

In contrast, the Roman Catholic view held that meritorious works were also necessary for salvation. Faith alone was insufficient (indeed, the Council of Trent declared “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema” (Canon 9)). Thus, a Catholic would answer the question by saying that Amy was saved because she cooperated with God. It is a synergistic work (from “sunergos” meaning “working together”). In the Catholic view, Amy had the grace of God and she added her meritorious works to it, resulting in salvation. Furthermore, Bill not being saved could be due to Bill not having faith and/or Bill not having works.

What of the Arminian position then? The Arminian view does affirm sola fide (salvation by faith alone), yet denies sola gratia. Thus, the Arminian view tries to straddle the two positions. On the one hand, they will say that there is nothing that a person can do to add to the work that Christ already has done, and thus Amy is saved solely by the work of Christ. Yet because the grace of God is indiscriminate and available to all, the grace of God is insufficient to make the distinction between why Amy is saved but Bill is not. Clearly, both Amy and Bill received the same grace of God. Clearly, if God does not act differently between Amy and Bill, then the deciding factor of who is saved must lie within Amy and Bill themselves. Thus, there is some aspect by which Amy and Bill must do something on their part in order to be saved, for God’s actions are universal in this view.

If we trace out the distinction in the views, we can look at this symbolically. In all views, we can have the following format:

[God’s work] + [Man’s work] -> [Salvation] + [Good deeds]

For the Calvinist, God’s work is 100% and Man’s work is 0%. For both the Catholic and the Arminian, God’s work is some number less than 100% and Man’s work is some number greater than 0%.

Now I know that many Arminians claim that man's work does nothing to save the man, but again we ask: why is it that Amy is saved and Bill is not? God's actions toward both Amy and Bill are identical. Amy does not receive more grace than Bill in this view. Thus, if God's actions were all that were needed, there would be no difference in the outcome. Since there is a difference in outcome and since God's work is identical in this scenario, then there must be something other than God's work that determines whether or not someone is saved. (And given the fact that Arminians claim that God is unjust if He is the determiner of salvation, how much more so if the determining factor is in some quality outside of the man who is choosing?)

So clearly the Arminian view is much closer to the Roman Catholic view than it is to the Calvinist view on this point. And furthermore, I note that one of the most common reasons that I have personally witnessed Arminians say as to why one person is saved while another is not is because the one who is saved has exercised his or her will and chosen God. To quote again the passage from the Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning …that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.”

This explains why historic Calvinists believed that Arminianism was a return to Roman Catholic belief. Today, sola gratia is not as emphasized in theology. Instead, the focus on sola fide is maintained. And it is quite clear that Arminians have a vastly different view than Catholics when it comes to sola fide. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Arminianism is a synergistic salvation, whereas Calvinism remains monergistic. And this distinction is vital and necessary to be kept, especially when weighing the fact that the Bible clearly speaks of monergistic, not synergistic, salvation.

A look back

http://calvindude.org/dude/2015/02/17/look-back/

An act of pure grace

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . (John 1:14)

There is a reason why works of Systematic Theology discuss “Theology proper” and “Christology” before they bring up soteriology. In the Scriptures, some concepts must be understood in the context of other concepts, before other concepts can be brought in.

In what follows, Billings discusses a topic of Christology – bringing up the topic of precisely how “the Word became flesh”. Reformed Christology relies on the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), which according to Robert Reymond “addressed every problem that had plagued the church [up to that point] with regard to the person of Christ” (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, pg 608). In addition, he says, “In my opinion, as an apologetical, ecumenical, and clarifying statement regarding the person of Christ, the Definition of Chalcedon remains unsurpassed. No other human creed has ever been written that captures as well as it does the exact balance of Scripture and permits all that the Scripture says about God the Son incarnate to be given their just due”.

That’s not the end of the story by any means. But moving then to the concept of “Union with Christ” (a topic of “soteriology” rather than “Christology”), the following selection discussing how Augustine, relying upon the pre-Chalcedonian Christology of his day (he wrote vs Pelagius approximately in the years 412-415) ties together both the Christology and soteriology to come up with his understanding of Sovereign grace:

Roger Olson's Freudian slip

As an outspoken Arminian I find any book about predestination irresistible.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/12/a-good-relatively-new-book-about-predestination/

On Why Those Who Hold to Resistible Grace Must Hold to a Strong Form of Depravity

Even when Arminians pretend that they believe in Total Depravity, this doesn’t cash out the way it does in Calvinism. Calvinistic views are quite simple: because man is depraved, then it is only the grace of God that can change the sinner to a believer, and when that happens man is truly changed and thus he responds automatically in faith. Because God initiates this on whom He will, and because the change is effectual, those who receive this regenerating grace are guaranteed salvation.

The Arminian view is quite different, of course. Even those who hold to depravity do not hold to God’s grace being effectual grace, for such grace can still be resisted by the sinner. Thus, an Arminian who believes in depravity is left with the following system: Because man is depraved, then it is only the grace of God that can enabled a sinner to potentially believe in God, and God does this for everyone (or at least all those who have the opportunity to hear the Gospel). Arminians who do not believe in depravity have nearly the same system: man can potentially believe in God, and God does this everyone, etc.

I want to focus a bit on the concept of irresistible grace. First, it should be noted that the grace referred to as irresistible is only the regenerating grace of God; it is not everything that God graciously gives to people (elect or reprobate). Thus, when Calvinists speaks of irresistible grace, it is only saying that the regenerating power of God is effectual and must succeed at what it does: namely, bringing spiritual life to the dead sinner.

It should be obvious that this concept of grace cannot be the same concept of grace that an Arminian believes can be resisted, for in a sense it is little more than God “flipping a life-switch”*—something that happens instantaneously, and has an immediate change. Just as flipping a light switch, for all intents and purposes, instantly causes a light to go on, so God flipping a life-switch immediately causes the dead person to be regenerated.

[* I think I must trademark “life-switch” before Joel Osteen steals it.]

In any case, it is obviously impossible to resist being converted from death to life. It’s an action that happens without your input. Once you were dead, then you were alive. To paraphrase Steven Wright in reverse: Everyone’s regenerated instantly. You’re dead, you’re dead, you’re dead, you’re alive!

The key is, of course, that the living soul is radically different from the dead soul. They do not operate the same way. The dead soul is set on death and cannot submit to God’s will (Romans 8:5-8). The living soul, however, is the slave of Christ (Romans 6, especially verses 11-14). In short, being regenerated in Christ is to be dead to sin.

The Arminian view is not like this. In the Arminian view (those who believe in depravity, at least), God in essence sets man’s will to “neutral.” While man was once depraved, God sets him in a position where he can either choose to do good or evil. (Those who don’t hold to depravity believe this is where man is by default.) The Arminian seems to think that he avoids all the emotional problems associated with God’s sovereignty by allowing man to take some kind of role here. Therefore, the Arminian believes that if someone rejects God, it spares God blame (and this brings the Arminian emotional comfort).

But ask a simple question here. What kind of person would reject the grace of God? What kind of person resists the Holy Spirit?

We know that the righteous person submits to the will of God. We know that the mind that is enslaved to sin is hostile to the will of God and cannot submit to the will of God. Therefore, if someone cannot submit to God’s grace, is that not itself an indication that the person is depraved? In other words, if we resist God’s grace, it can only be because we are depraved!

The reason is because our choices do not determine our nature, but rather our nature determines our choices. This is important, and seen in such passages as Luke 7:16-20.

Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

The fruit (that is, what people do) is dependent upon the nature of the tree (that is, what people are). The key is this: “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit.” Likewise, a diseased tree cannot bear good fruit. The fruit shows us whether or not the tree is healthy or diseased, even if the two trees look identical.

Thus, who does not resist God’s grace? The healthy tree. Who does resist God’s grace? The diseased tree.

But this bears a great problem for the Arminian. If a man chooses to believe in God, then it is because he is already a healthy tree—God’s grace has been irresistible, for the sinner went from spiritual death to spiritual life! But if he chooses to reject God, then it is because he remains a diseased tree—he hasn’t had his depravity removed at all! A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, so either God’s grace was effectual or it was not and the man is still depraved.

The only way around this would be to claim that there must be a tree that exists in a state that is neither healthy nor diseased, a concept utterly foreign to the Scriptures. Indeed, Christ says plainly: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Luke 11:23).

Assuming everything from an Arminian perspective, we’re left with:

1. Those who resist grace are depraved.
2. There are those who resist grace.
3. Therefore, there are those who are depraved.

4. Those who do not resist grace are not depraved.
5. There are those who do not resist grace.
6. Therefore, there are those who are not depraved.

7. Grace changes people from depraved to non-depraved.
8. Grace can be resisted.
9. Grace is given to all.
10. But those who resist grace are depraved (1)
11. Therefore, if grace is resisted, then at least one of (7), (8), or (9) must be false.

So I merely ask our Arminian commenters (even BSman, if he wants to answer this specific question can comment): which of those options (7), (8), or (9) is wrong?