Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Baptism a Work? Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 91 09:21:02 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 110 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu The moderator wrote: [Calvinism doesn't exactly say free will has no part. It's just that its role is entirely a result of grace. That's why for Luther and Calvin there's no question of resisting grace. I'm never sure what people mean when they talk about irresistible grace. This term is the result of the question "could we reject God's grace if we wanted to", the answer being no. However in the Reformed view the question is ill-posed. When God gives grace, he regenerates us, after which we will not make any such choice. It's not that he short-circuits our will somehow. So it's not that we are unable to reject God's grace if we want to, but that given God's grace we won't want to. At least this is what I understand Reformed theologians to be saying. (Certainly it's what Jonathan Edwards said. Calvin isn't quite as clear, but I think it's what he means.) Thus I think the distinction you are drawing is real, but your description of the Calvinist side is probably not quite what a Calvinist would say. --clh] I think Calvin's idea of grace corresponds closely to the Catholic idea of "efficacious" grace. A man nevers resists efficacious grace, by definition. It seems to me that Calvin got ahold of a profound truth, but oversimplified, to the point of excluding another profound truth. Catholic systems have the idea of a resisted grace. I can think of a couple examples in the New Testament to support this, such as, St. Stephen's speech, "...you always resist the Holy Ghost," or our Lord's "how often I would have gathered thee together... but thou wouldst not." In some fashion, God gave enough for men to be good, but they instead were bad. Not because God did not give enough, but because the men involved were morally perverse. The Catholic system that I find most appealing is Congruism, the Jesuit system. It states that God, knowing the free response that any man will give when any particular motive (i.e., grace) is granted to him, predestines someone to Heaven by willing to grant those graces that He foresees to be efficacious in the end. That seems to me to be profoundly scriptural. It preserves God's grace as primary in salvation, yet preserves man's free will: two things necessary in any Catholic system of grace. God *infallibly* causes the predestined to *freely* choose salvation. On the other hand, the damned end in Hell through their own fault. Though God foresaw that they would not persevere, it is in no sense attributable to Him that they did not. It is attributable to one thing only, man's free will. The motives that God presented were truly sufficient, just not efficacious, through the free (and morally perverse) choice of man's will. There is nothing unjust in Congruism, because though God foresees that some men will be damned, He in no sense *causes* it, anymore than our knowledge of the past causes the past to happen. The great question in Congruism, of course, is *how* God knows the future acts of a free will. I think Trent's problem with Calvin is that he would not allow as how the grace that the damned received was truly and properly grace. He sees grace as intrinsically efficacious, and thus makes salvation or damnation depend solely on God, without reference to man's free acts. This seems to be confirmed by what you've said above. [Your view seems to be almost exactly that of Luther. I find this hilarious, since as you've already observed, most Protestants now deny election, even of the moderate kind that you hold. Your position -- together with Luther's -- says that ultimately God is responsible for determining which people are saved, although he does so without doing violence to their status as responsible human beings. As I understand it, most Protestants now believe that God offers grace to everyone equally, and it is up to them whether to accept it. In your terms, this denies that God ever uses efficacious grace, or at least that he "crafts" his grace to be efficacious for particular people. This modern Protestant position is precisely that of Erasmus, which got Luther so upset in "On the Bondage of the Will". The relationship of this position to Calvin's is open to debate. Calvin certainly acknowledges that grace of a kind (which others have referred to as "common grace") is involved in all good actions, whether people are saved or not. Furthermore, Calvin certainly believes that people who are damned have in fact deserved that condemnation through their own choices. I think Luther (with you) and Calvin differ, not in their opinion of how God works, but in the degree of responsibility we should attribute to him. Luther, like you, says that while God forsees that the damned will be lost, he does not positively will them to be lost. He simply permits it. Calvin takes the view that we have to regard God as responsible for all the results of his actions. If he gave efficacious grace to some, and chose not to give it to others, he have to say that he intended those from whom he withheld it to be damned. This leads to very interesting issues, among which is how to reconcile this with the Bible's assertion that God wants everyone to be saved. Calvin's approach is to distinguish between what one might call God's public announcements and his secret decisions. God announces publically that he wants everyone to be saved. This is simply part of his general invitation. The fact that he invites everyone doesn't mean that he has arranged it so that everyone will actually come. "Many are called, but few are chosen". It seems to me that Calvin's position is the more logical. However in matter of theology, logical consistency may not be everything. Unfortunately in this case it may have the result of turning God into a hypocrite. In my own opinion, Calvin is right that God is responsible for everything, both good and bad, but he has failed to do full justice to the scope of God's intent. Rom 11:25-36 makes it clear not only that God has willed both salvation and hardness of heart, but that what at first appears to be damnation is intended ultimately for salvation. --clh]