Sorry, I'll to see if this works in separating my response from your quotes, if it doesnt work I apologise I disagree I think we are going round in circles a bit now. I probably wont convince you to change your mind, but I'll post a link that explains how reformed interpret "foreknew", and our interpretation doesnt require an added clause to be read into the text. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreknew.html Even a staunch Arminian like David Pawson in his book "Once saved always saved?" admits foreknew means this. This is a beautiful picture. God is saying He intimately knew us and loved us and desired to save us before He even created us, Amazing! If nothing else, I have learnt much more about Arminianism through this. However the 39 articles mention God's secret counsel in repect who He chooses, not the timing or place, or whether for a time their free will should be withheld. So this argument doesn't hold water to me. Synergism v monergism refers to the argument over regeneration. Monergists say that our regeneration is passive, we do not cooperate in any way in this. In progressive sanctification however calvinists believe that we dont grow in holiness apart from human effort, thus we cooperate with the Spirit within us. . I found a good summary of reformed theology of sanctification by Packer: http://www.monergism.com/sanctification_the_christian_g.php Some quotes from Calvin and the puritans to uphold this as traditional calvinist theology: “As it is an arduous work and of immense labour, to put off the corruption which is in us, he bids us to strive and make every effort for this purpose. He intimates that no place is to be given in this case for sloth, and that we ought to obey God calling us, not slowly or carelessly, but there is a need of alacrity” – John Calvin commentary 2 Peter) “Albeit sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, yet it is equally true that the Holy Spirit makes us active agents in our own sanctification.” (Spurgeon) “The Holy Spirit works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us” (John Owen) So the question remains, is this part of the 39 articles referring to regeneration or sanctification? The answer is it refers to our good works so it's sanctification therefore in agreement with calvinist theology. True, but Lutheran theology is paradoxical at heart. You speak to any confessional Lutheran and you will find they are staunchly in support of monergism. True, they believe in the ability to fall away from the faith, but they also believe this does not overrule God's unconditional predestination. I think I have already answered this in my post
Much better, thanks a lot. But how can you disagree that foreknowledge must come first, of all things? Paul lays out the ordo salutis right there. You may disagree on what we mean by 'foreknow' (see below), but you absolutely can't disagree that foreknowledge comes before predestination, which was my point for that part of my post. My response is pretty lengthy, but stay with me. I put a lot of effort into it. The article cites verses like these which demonstrate the usage of the word 'know' in the Bible: Amos 3:2: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Jerem 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" Matt 7:22-3: “many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’ “ 1 Cor 8:3: “if one loves God, one is known by him” This is a pretty intricate argument on the Reformed part, I'll give them that. And I agree with the meaning they derive for the word 'know', namely: that it refers to an intimate relationship with His people. So far so good, we're on the same ground. But notice that unlike the word 'love', the word 'knowledge' is reciprocal, namely that his people had some merit, and God affectionately knew this merit in them. But we still don't know where they got that merit. Calvinists say it's one thing, Arminians say it's the other. The issue thus gets pushed back one level further; not onto the definition of 'know', but onto the definition of 'merit'. And it's here (not in trying to define foreknowledge) that your Monergism article tries to score a victory, by quickly proclaiming that the source of merit is already clear, and lists off the well-worn Reformed litany of quotes against Works. The problem with that move, and it is a fundamental fallacy of of the Reformed system, is that they equate merit with works. In other words, there is no other meritorious act that we can do, other than works. And since works are secondary, and cannot justify, nothing in our own Merit can justify. An act of faith becomes just another work, and the logical argument is complete. Except for a slight wrinkle: in Paul's teaching, faith is unique in not being a work. While being a merit! There is a disjunction in the Bible between works and merit, that the Monergism article (and the Reformed tradition) does not wish to acknowledge. Thus, going back to our original point, if foreknowledge is a reciprocal act of God based on some merit within the person, it does not follow that all of that merit was implanted by God as well. Firstly, because faith is not a work, and secondly, because then it becomes an absurd game of shuffling cards where God injects merits, and then judges people, blames and damns them, on the very merits or demerits that he himself injected into them! The system reduces itself to absurdity, not to mention not being Biblically supportable. But there's an even stronger argument to be made for my case, and it was provided by the very Monergism article. In the process of frantically prooftexting their points and providing a massive list of verses, the Reformed frequently have a habit of quoting a counter-refutation to their system. Take a look at the Verses above, and think whether any of them fit into the Arminian scheme of there being some merit in the person himself; not a work, but at least some merit, which affects God's judgment of that person. I guarantee you that your Monergism site had found for me a pro-Arminian verse that I've never found before. Do you see it? Here it is, as strong a proof of Arminianism as anything else in the Bible: 1 Cor 8:3: “if one loves God, one is known by him” !!! What this teaches us that if one loves God, he will be known/foreknown by Him, and God will have an intimate relationship with them on that basis before they're even born! This is a checkmate, in my view. Ok, and for a staunch Calvinist like John MacArthur the traditional Calvinist arguments agains free will are inadequate, when he says that the issue is 'contradictory' and he doesn't have a clear answer. I don't think dropping individual names will do anything, especially since I don't even know a name like David Pawson and it doesn't mean anything to me. I'm only interested in historic Anglicanism. Plus, the contemporary arminian scene is also riddled with a lot of errors. To be honest with you, this is shocking for me. This shows that Arminianism has now made its way into a portion of Reformed theology. None of the classic Reformed theologians ever taught this doctrine. No, not really. It refers to the totality of human action. The only reason for good works among the Puritans was (along with proving their justification) a way to discern whether they were elect or not. The whole concept of progressively sanctifying themselves, and cooperating with God, would mean that He isn't 100% deterministic in some area of life. And if he isn't 100% deterministic in sanctification, why shouldn't he be 100% deterministic in justification? We can work with God too, to have faith. If synergism at all was possible, one could shift it from works to faith. This is precisely what Arminius did, and what the Puritans opposed by teaching a complete monergism, over the whole range of human life. If you adopt at least a partial synergism, even over works, then the Puritans lost the battle. Doesn't prove anything. The Bible too has many horatory optatives (urging us to have faith, etc), which Calvinists don't admit to teaching Arminianism. Of course I do think all those quotes teach Arminianism, but Calvinists pull off logical pretzels and lexical twistings on passages like this , so it's easier to leave those passages as no-mans-land. 19th century quote. Incipient arminianism Here's what John Murray says: "God's working in us [in sanctification] is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works. Neither is the relation strictly one of co-operation as if God did his part and we did ours so that the conjunction or coordination of both produced the required result. God works in us and we also work. But the relation is that because God works we work."This is both the kind of sophism and fake lexical logic that (to me) are what makes Calvinism convulse itself into pretzels, and also, a genuine attempt by Murray to maintain the old Puritan doctrine of a complete and true monergism. Correct, and if Lutheranism is paradoxical and I'd say contradictory at heart, there's no point in quoting it. Let us say, it both teaches Arminianism and Calvinism at once. How that is possible no one knows, not even they, so nothing will be accomplished by quoting them
Ok sure I have no problem agreeing to that. This leaves me scratching my head, I really don't know what logic you used to make such a leap :think: Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that knowledge is reciprical? It can be read this way, however it can also be read that if a man loves God it is a sign He is known by Him. This quote shows Calvin believes we must be active in our sanctification, hence we don't have an entirely passive role. lol, Spurgeon, one of the staunchest calvinists preaching incipient Arminianism? He is saying exactly the same as Calvin above! You also fail to comment on Owen's quote: “The Holy Spirit works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us” This shows one of the greatest puritans using the same language as that of the 39 articles. He most certainly is not preaching arminianism so therefore the clause "and working with us, when we have that good will. cannot be regarded as teaching Arminianism. However to avoid the charge of producing only one puritan quote here is another: "After regeneration the Spirit works upon a complying and willing mind — we work, and He assists. It is therefore an error that sanctified persons are not bound to strive in the way of duty without a sensible impulse of the Spirit." (John Flavel) What is this but the Holy Spirit working with us? A seperate thread should probably be started for discussing the intricacies of sanctification doctrine. You found one later writer who dislikes the term cooperation being used. I found many in favour. What does this prove? However to get back to the main point, is the language used in the 39 articles indicative of arminianism I am satified I have shown it is not. Stalwart, the purpose of mentioning Lutheranism was to show how all the original branches of protestantism held strongly to unconditional election. Whether Lutherans can logically argue against the remaining 4 points of calvinism is beside the point.
"[Arminians] ... say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God ... But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular. Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it's the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done? The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?" ~ Steve Hays Question: If a disobedient toddler runs into traffic and her parent runs into the street to scoop her up in order to save her from being struck by a car ... is the parent being unloving because he "forced" the toddler to safety, without consulting her will first? We are God’s children not through nature but through grace. Not all people are God's children. The Bible plainly and repeatedly testifies to this. As JI Packer said, "The gift of sonship to God becomes ours not through being born, but through being born again." - If you saw many children in the street, including yours, you would feel sorry for the others but you would do your utmost to save your own. This argument is aimed at those still considering the arguments between monergism and synergism because it shows that the love the synergist claims God has to men is a conditional one. Does anyone on earth believe this is love? Even in every day life no one loves like that. i.e., "you must meet a condition or I will not save you," whereas the Bible teaches that Jesus DOES EVERYTHING we need for salvation. Speaking to some unbelieving Jews, Jesus clearly testifies that some will not believe because they are not of God, they are not God's children: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. hy do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8:42-47)
Simply because the word knowledge refers to awareness of something in the object that is being known. One can have affection for the qualities one knows in the other person, but the initial act of those qualities existing, and being thus seen, is first and paramount, from the definition of the word knowledge. No, because I am not convinced that the theology of cooperation is an orthodox piece of Calvinism. If you manage to make your case, I will certainly correct my initial statement. Here Paul teaches that faith is not a work: Romans 4:4-5: "4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." And although I don't like posting arminian blogs since many of them have errors, you did post from monergism.com, so here is the corollary article from the other side: http://arminiantoday.com/2012/11/29/is-faith-a-work/ Here is the quote once again, 1 Cor 8:3: “if one loves God, one is known by him”. I fear you are trying to twist the Biblical quote to fit it into Calvinism, rather than agreeing to twist Calvinism to fit it in with the Bible. The quote does not say it's a sign, but that God actually knows you as a consequence of your love for him. That's literally what the quote says. What would the Bible have to say for you to be convinced of Arminianism? Paul teaches that faith is not a work, and that if you love God, you will be known by him. Also God, the Prophets, the Messiah, the Apostles, all ask, require, demand, urge you to have faith as if you had any role to play in that. They don't urge rocks or animals, but they urge man, expecting him to have some role in that decision. If none of this convinces you of Arminianism then are you not falling pray to Luther's warning, that 'anyone can turn the Bible like a wax nose, in their own direction'? The quotes are clear unambiguous propositional statements. Arminianism accounts for original sin, for total depravity, all the things you thought had no other explanation than in Calvinism. What else is there that you need? ... Ok so if I give you a quote from the Bible where it says that we have to do something, you'll agree that the Bible teaches cooperation? I'll look further into the quotes. Looks unpersuasive for now. However, you left the most important part of my post unanswered, and even cut it out as if it didn't exist, which was a perplexing move on your part. I claim that Calvinism admits of no cooperation in anything, which is what distinguishes it from Arminianism. You claim that Calvinism does assert of cooperation, in Sanctification. So if we can assert cooperation in Sanctification, can we assert cooperation in Justification? Ok then, but if we agreed that Luthernism paradoxically teaches both Calvinism and Arminianism, then we can in the same way say that "all original branches of protestantism held strongly to free will"? Since you bring Lutheranism in as a witness for your side, I can bring it in as a witness for mine.
I didn't answer this because I wanted to, as much as possible keep to the original points I was debating, namely the interpretation of foreknowledge in Romans and whether or not the 39 articles support Arminianism. Otherwise this debate will go on forever. I think we have presented our evidence so anyone reading this thread can make up their own minds
I wish it could be let go as that, but the reason my question was important was because it materially touches upon the 39 articles and our whole discussion. The articles contain a clear language of cooperation, I don't think anyone can deny that now. Furthermore, I'd claim, the language of cooperation cannot be a part of orthodox Calvinism. This then forms the marrow of my point: Articles = synergistic, calvinism = monergistic, so Articles cannot = calvinism. Monergism is the very essence of calvinism; monergism.com could only be a site stated by the reformed, as simply no other people have it be such a core of their theology. Now here you claim that Calvinism is actually synergistic? And had been so all the way back from the beginning? The whole war with arminianism was over a secondary issue? After I get over choking over my food from the shock of seeing this, my response becomes: at least they couldn't have done it consistently . If they did embrace synergism in sanctification, I must see how they avoided synergism in justification or why they were willing to go to war over what then becomes a minor issue. Surely they had to address this apparent contradiction in some of their writings. Barring that, I return to the default position that monergism underpins Calvinism on every level. This helps explain why Reformed sites carry titles like monergism.com, or why the Puritans and Scottish Covenanters were willing to go to war over this issue. The language of cooperation also does not seem to exist in Calvin or the Westminster Confession. The quotes you found then would need to be seen as aberrations, and interpreted in the light of those other more definitive documents.
I wish you guys would hurry up and solve this already...because I just have no clue which is the right answer.
I read this just today and it seems rather clear to me but I would like to hear how this is interpreted from a Calvinist point of view: The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:2-14)
We need to define a few words first of all: Monergism = from the Greek mon (alone) and ergon (to work) Any theological dictionary will define monergism in relation to regeneration Synergism = from the greek synergos (to work together) Calvinism teaches a strict monergism in relation to regeneration however the reformed doctrine of progressive sanctification cannot strictly be called monergistic unless the definition is changed. It upholds that both God and man work together in sanctification Hence why Packer can say in a sense it is synergistic. However the parts God and Man play are not equal. As L Berkhof explains: It is essentially a work of God, though in so far as He employs means, man can and is exected to co-operated by the proper use of the means. Scripture clearly exibits the supernatural character of sanctification in several ways. It describes it as a work of God, 1 Thes 5:23; Heb 13:20,21, as a fruit of the union of life with Jesus Christ, Jn 15:4; Gal 2:20; 4:19, as a work that is wrought in man from within and which for that very reason cannot be a work of man, Eph 3:16; Col 1:11, and speaks of its manifestation in Christian virtues as the work of the Spirit, Gal 5:22. It is a work of God in which believers co-operate. When it is said that man takes part in the work of sanctification, this does not mean that man is an independent agent in the work, so as to make it partly the work of God and partly the work of man; but merely, that God effects the work in part through the instrumentality of man as a rational being, by requiring of him prayful and intellegent co-operation with the Spirit. So! The next question is, is article 10 with it's language of cooperation referring to regeneration or sanctification? The context shows it's sanctification Does this language contradict reformed teaching? no it doesn't Can this language be seen in calvinist writings from this period? yes it does: ont top of the quotes I gave before: Francis Turretin (1623-87) The question does not concern the second stage of conversion in which it is certain that man is not merely passive, but cooperates with God (or rather operates under him). Indeed he actually believes and converts himself to God; moves himself to the exercise of new life. Rather the question concerns the first moment when he is converted and receives new life in regeneration. We contend that he is merely passive in this, as a receiving subject and not as an active principle. ( Institutes of eclentic theology 2.15.5) .Wilhelmus A Brakel (1635-1711) “Man, being thus moved by the influence of God’s Spirit, moves, sanctifies himself, engages in that activity which his new nature desires and is inclined toward, and does that which he knows to be his duty” (The Christian's reasonable service) Walter Marshall (1628 - 1680) Believing on Christ, is a work that will require diligent endeavour and labor for the performance of it. We must labour to enter into that rest; lest any man fall by unbelief" (Hebrews 6:11). We must show "diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end", that we may be "followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (Hebrews 6:11, 12). It is a work that requireth the exercise of might and power; and therefore we have need "to be strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man, (the gospel mystery of sanctification) This is not just a few abberrant cases.
Sure. Will it? I contend that the language of cooperation, which entered Reformed theology in the 19th century, was entirely alien to it since the inception in the 16th century. Let's find some pre-19th c. dictionaries and/or definitions of monergism, and they will define it in the context of man's salvation, as God saving man monergistically. See my quote from the Synod of Dort below, and the Westminster Confession passage already cited above. To really pin down what you as a Reformed believe, let me ask you this: If you really believe that sanctification is synergistic, can you refuse sanctification? I'm sorry, no, you are entirely incorrect. You haven't quoted any language of cooperation from Calvin, or from the founding Reformed confessions at all. All clearly cooperative statements, with words like 'cooperation' etc are entirely post-19th century. Here is the language from the Synod of Dort: Here is the entire Reformed doctrine on human life. God elects, accomplishes 'his good pleasure' in the elect, opens their hearts, quickens, actuates, strengthens, and produces forth the fruits of election, in his elect. God does all alone. There is no hint of cooperation or synergism in any of the traditional classical Reformed documents. I see your Berkhof, and raise Herman Hoeksma: "The relation between our walking in sanctification of life and God's work of sanctification must not be conceived in the Arminian or synergistic sense. God is first also in the work of sanctification. Without Him we can do absolutely nothing. Only when He works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure can we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12,13)." -Reformed Dogmatics, Volume II, Page 128
Just a historical correction The Scottish covenanters actually went to war to defend their religious liberty
It was however a religious dictatorship was it not, according various authors? It was a religion that disallowed freedom of religion to others both in Scotland and in England. The Calvinists had a successful meeting and passed the Covenant? They didn't even try to change things legally, they also intervened in England, most successfully capturing the Anglican King and selling him to the English Protestants/ calvinists for grain? All this from memory, i admit but am willing to justify?
I am not saying all that the covenanters did was right or good. However the initial spark to the uprising as far as I understand it was the king's desire to unite his Kingdom under one church through the prayer book. When the Scottish people rejected this, it was enforced through force of arms and thus the covenanting conflict began
I have given you citations from major 17th century theologians who have used cooperation. I haven't been able to find any pre 19th century definitions of monergism, if you find any it would be great to see. Ultimately it doesn't matter how we use the word as long as long as we know what we mean by the terms and they are consistly applied. See my quote from the Synod of Dort below, and the Westminster Confession passage already cited above. No, all the elect will ultimately persevere to the end. All the reformed uses of cooperation are in agreement with these statements. What the reformed statments and Calvin himself do aree with is the fact that God works in sanctification and we work, but our working is reliant on God's working. This is how cooperation has been used in all the quotes given. What I have shown beyond doubt is how the language of cooperation has been used by reformed theologians throughout history. If you read Hoeksma and Berkhof you will find they are in agreement. What you seem to assume is that whenever cooperative language is used by reformed theologians is that it is used in an arminian sense. This is not the case. What would strengthen your case about the articles being Arminian is if you could find any of the authors of the articles speaking in favour of conditional election?