While writing a review the Appendix to Scripturalism and the Senses, a slightly off-topic comment Mr. Lazar made recalled to mind a similar position staked out by John Robbins. Mr. Lazar writes, "Clark denied an Arminian can 'consistently be assured of his salvation' because they deny divine monergism. Instead, they believe in synergism—that man cooperates (ergism) with (syn) God in salvation" (pg. 162).
Mr. Lazar provides no relevant citation for this assertion. Instead, what is referenced - and is true - is that Clark denied that Arminians can consistently have assurance due to their affirmation of libertarian free will, freedom which would logically preclude knowledge of whether they may deny the faith in the future. For example:
...if predestination is false, what becomes of our assurance of salvation and the perseverance of the saints? If God has not from all eternity decided to preserve me in grace, do I have any spiritual power in myself to persevere to the end? And if I have such power, would not salvation be achieved through my own efforts and by my own merits, rather than by God's grace? (link)
Clark, of course, rejected libertarian free will. Yet - as I've argued elsewhere (link, link, link, link) Clark also held that synergism - "that man cooperates (ergism) with (syn) God in salvation" - does occur, at least within the salvific context of progressive sanctification. While a proper understanding of such synergy presupposes the predestination of God to preserve us in grace, these two ideas do not conflict. The following eight citations, all written at various times in Clark's life, are evidences of this fact:
When we consider the omnipotence of God, we may wonder why he does not accomplish the work of purification and sanctification in us instantaneously. God could, no doubt, make us perfect all at once, but, none the less, he takes time. Some people chafe under the burden of becoming righteous slowly; they look for some short-cut. If God justifies by faith, they ask, why does he not also sanctify by faith? And because of impatience, a few Christians try to satisfy themselves with a perfection which, though not perfect, is at least apparently attainable all at once. The Scriptures, however, teach something different. We have seen that our members must be instruments of righteousness; in the verse following, (Rom. 6:16ff) we have the illustration of slavery and servitude, which obviously is not an instantaneous act, but a continuous condition of life. The point is stressed in other passages of Scripture. Phil. 2:12, 13 says, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling of course, God works in us; the point to be noted is that it is a work and not a single act. Or we may turn to Gal. 6:5, which says, every man shall bear his own burden. The Christian life, then, has burdens that take time to bear. Or again, in 1 Cor. 3:9, we are laborers together with God. Therefore we should not indulge ourselves in the hope of an easy, instantaneous sanctification, but rather run with patience the race that is set before us. (1945. Romans Six. The Quarryvillian, 1 June, 2, link)
That sanctification is a struggle is plainly stated in Scripture. Romans 7:23 and its context show how Paul struggled. Note that he is here describing his experiences after regeneration. He could not earlier have said, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” The phrase in 2 Corinthians 10:3, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh,” indicates a war. Paul here makes a play of words by using flesh in two different senses First Timothy 1:18 describes Timothy’s sanctification as a good warfare. And in 6:12 Paul urges him to “Fight the good fight of faith.” See also 2 Timothy 2:3.
But the fullest statement that the Christian life is a warfare comes in Ephesians 6:10-17. The whole armor of God is needed to withstand the wiles of the devil; we wrestle against the rulers of darkness; we need a breastplate, a shield, a helmet, and especially a sword. And we need perseverance.
The theologian today and the man in the pews must recognize that this warfare is conducted in the power of the Spirit. Were not the right man on our side, our striving would be losing.
But there is a difference between regeneration and sanctification. As to the former, “we are altogether passive therein.” In the latter we struggle. One must not deny either the Spirit’s power or our activity.
Certain popular Bible teachers have been so impressed by the power of the Spirit that they deny our need to struggle. When I was a boy, my aunt, previously a missionary to the Mormons, gave me Hannah Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. Fortunately I was too young to understand it. Somewhat hypocritically, as it seems to me now, Mrs. Smith wrote in her Preface, “I do not want to change the theological views of a single individual. The truths I have to tell are not theological, but practical” (p. vi). When she adds, “They will fit in with every creed, she is certainly asserting a falsehood.
The Keswick movement, of which I think Mrs. Smith and her husband were a part, used such phrases as “Let go, and let God”; “We must not try to sin”; “Let him do it all.” For example, Mrs. Smith declares, “Man’s part is to trust, and God’s part is to work…. Either we must do it for ourselves, or someone must do it for us… it is something we are unable to do…. Plainly the believer can do nothing but trust…. Surrender and trust… is positively all the man can do We do not do anything, but He does it” (p. 29-31).
As a dedicated, and many will say extreme, Calvinist, I more than gladly insist on God’s doings. No one understands much of the Bible unless he believes in sovereign predestination. But if God predestinated Calvin to write the Institutes, and if God has predestinated me to write this greatly inferior booklet, it was nonetheless Calvin and it is nonetheless I who must put down the words on paper. Mrs. Smith’s statement, “Either we must do it ourselves, or someone must do it for us,” is in its context a false disjunction. Both Calvin and God did the Institutes. And in an even stricter sense both God and Moses wrote the Pentateuch. They cooperated, and as in all cooperation their precise activities in producing the result were different. God is the source of our abilities and the effective determiner of how we use them. But it is we ourselves who must fight the good fight and run the straight race through God’s grace. (The Holy Spirit, pgs. 46-48)
But there is a difference between regeneration and sanctification. As to the former “we are altogether passive therein.” In the latter we struggle. One must not deny either the Spirit’s power or our activity. The two of us must cooperate. You see there is no synergism is regeneration, but there is in sanctification. (Audio lecture on Sanctification, link)
Sanctification is the life process of growing in holiness. And this requires effort (Gal. 5:17; Jas. 4:7; I Pet. 2:11). (The Biblical Expositor: Volume III, pg. 249)
Not only do destructive critics make such mistakes; many sincere and devout worshippers are also confused. They often say that we are saved by faith alone. This of course is false. We are justified by faith alone; but we are regenerated without any previous faith or works; we are sanctified by faith and works; and we shall be glorified by neither. A closer study of Scripture would help us avoid confusion relative to the several distinct phases of an all-inclusive salvation. (The Pastoral Epistles, pg. 133)
What then is the object of fear in these verses? To begin with, is it plausible that Paul is warning the Philippians to fear damnation when he himself was confident (1:6 says confident or being persuaded) that God would complete the work he had begun? Notice that in some instances the antonym of fear is pride. Proverbs 23:17 speaks of fear as reverence or submission. Proverbs 28:4 contrasts fear with the hardening of the heart. Hebrews 12:28 speaks of reverence and godly fear. In 1 Peter 1:17 fear is virtually gratitude and awe. Jeremiah 32:40 says, “I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me.” The fear itself is a basis of assurance and confidence. Does this not cover the Arminians with shame?
It must also be noted that salvation has several aspects. Some people say, “I was saved on December 31 at 6:05 p.m.” If the statement is true, it can mean only that they were regenerated at that time. But sanctification and eventually glorification are also parts of salvation. Therefore when Paul says, “Work out your own salvation,” thereby indicating a process, he is referring to sanctification and not to regeneration. Once again this ties in with God’s beginning a work that proceeds go to completion. In this process, as is absolutely not the case in regeneration or justification, we have some work to do. And God works in us, not only to do such work, but beforehand to will such work. (Philippians, pgs. 73-74)
Let us be quite clear on the fact that the Bible does not teach salvation by faith alone. The Bible teaches justification by faith alone. Justification then necessarily is followed by a process of sanctification, and this consists of works which we do. It consists of external actions initiated by internal volitions. We must therefore work out our own salvation; and this in fear and trembling, because we must depend on God. (Predestination, Chapter 6)
An associated group, the World Evangelical Fellowship, has a slightly different creed. One of its phrases is ‘salvation by faith apart from works.’ This surely is not Romish, but neither is it evangelical; for while the Bible definitely teaches justification by faith alone, it also teaches that sanctification, an essential part of salvation, involves a life of good works. See Romans 6. (1958. Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Billy Graham, The Reformed Presbyterian Advocate Vol 92 No 6, June-July: 65-66, 70, 76, link)
I believe these demonstrate that in Clark's mind (and mine), a proper understanding of "synergism" or co-operation does not entail libertarian free will. That is, contrary to Arminians, "God is the source of our abilities and the effective determiner of how we use them." But, contrary to Mr. Lazar, we are not "altogether passive" in progressive sanctification (as monergism would imply), a phase or aspect of "salvation." In progressive sanctification - indeed, in the normal case of saving faith, a point to which I will return below - we use our own abilities in cooperation with God, having been predestined or determined by Him to use those abilities.
I am aware of others who admire Clark yet disagreed with him about this. While I think it was a bad idea (for more than one reason), John Robbins, for instance, inserted a rare, editorial rebuke of Clark in the 1987 TrinityFoundation reprint of Predestination, writing:
From here to the end of the paragraph Dr. Clark errs in two ways. First, the Bible emphatically teaches salvation by faith alone: “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:50). “Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the Word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved” (Luke 8:12). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). “Who will tell you words, by which you and all your house shall be saved” (Acts 11:14). “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). “That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Romans 10:9). “By which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:2). “For by grace are you saved, through faith” (Ephesians 2:8). “…it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21). “…them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). “God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). “But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:39).
We see in these verses that justification is not an aspect of salvation on a par with other aspects, but is so identified with salvation that the terms are interchanged repeatedly. To be justified – to be declared righteous because of the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness – is to be saved. All else – sanctification, good works, glorification – flow from that.
Second, Dr. Clark errs when he says that sanctification “consists of works which we do” and “of external actions initiated by internal volitions” and that “we do the things that produce sanctification.” All these statements are in error. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit; it is not something we do, nor is it the result of something we do. Question 75 of the Larger Catechism asks, “What is sanctification?” and answers: “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace….” In the Westminster Confession of Faith, the chapter on Sanctification is separate from and precedes the chapter on Good Works. To show that sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of ourselves, it cites such verses as 1 Corinthians 6:10: “…but you are washed, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” John 17:17: “Sanctify them through your truth: Your Word is truth.” Ephesians 5:26: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23: “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly….” Good works neither are sanctification nor do they produce sanctification. Good works are an effect, a result of sanctification by the Spirit.
Dr. Clark knew all this, for in his book Sanctification, he wrote, “Chapter 13 of the Westminster Confession emphasizes the fact that we are sanctified by God, not by our own efforts; an imperfect obedience to the moral law is a result of that sanctification, not the cause of it.” He concludes his book with the words of Christ from John 17: “Sanctify them by your truth. Your Word is truth.” (John Robbins, Predestination, footnote 9 in the chapter on Free Will)
What can be said in reply to Robbins? Personally, I consider the aforementioned citations of Clark sufficient to show what Clark actually believed, why, and why his beliefs are well founded. But a few further comments can be made. To the first of Robbins' criticisms, there can be no question what Clark's view about the meaning of "salvation." As already has been alluded to above and will be highlighted again, Clark believed "salvation" could, depending on a context, refer to related but distinct events or to the broad encompassment of all of these events:
Furthermore, although there is no space here to argue it, justification inevitably issues in sanctification. True grace and true faith never fail in this life to produce good works. Nothing in this article is to be thought to contradict the necessity of preparing for a future life on a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Salvation has several elements, including regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification. But they are different elements. (1973. Concerning Justification. Christianity Today Mar. 16, link)
In light of all of this, I can easily conceive of how someone might mistakenly (or deceptively) believe how what I have put in bold in the following quotations could suggest Clark believed that "salvation" is monergistic (ignore the italics for now, to which I will return below):
It is sad that some Christians – perhaps some even in our own church, do not enthusiastically receive the doctrine of election, for if God did not take the initiative, it is certain that the sinful heart of man never would.
There is a story of an elderly gentleman, a faithful Christian for many long years, who once testified, “I am saved because God and I cooperated; I did my part, and God did His.” The people were astonished at this testimony, as he expected them to be; and after waiting a moment to let the people wonder what he might have contributed to his salvation, he continued, “I resisted, and God did the rest.”
Peter knew that God had taken and had kept the initiative in his case. He was not offended at the notion of election, for he saw in it the source of all his blessings. Therefore he could write to us with joy that “ye are a chosen generation . . . that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” We also should rejoice in God’s electing grace. (1947. Elect Unto Obedience, A Sermon Prepared at the General Conference of Quarryville. The Witness Jul: 3-4.)
The Arminian system holds (1) that God elects persons to eternal life on the condition of their reception of grace and their perseverance as foreseen; (2) that Christ died, not as the substitute for certain men, definitely to assume their penalty, but to render a chance of salvation indifferently possible to all men; (3) that all men have the same influence of the Holy Ghost operating on them, so that some are saved because they cooperate, and others are lost because they resist, thus in effect making salvation depend on the will of man; and (4) that since salvation is not made certain by God's decree nor by Christ's sacrifice, and since man's will is free or independent of God's control, a regenerate man can unregenerate himself and ultimately be lost.
In contrast the Calvinist, the Confession, and the Bible teach (1) that election is unconditional and that sovereign grace is irresistible; (2) that Christ offers us a difference, you know; (3) that human cooperation is not the cause of regeneration, which depends on God and not on the will of man; and (4) that the new birth begins an eternal life, i.e. a life that does not end in a year or two. (1955. Assurance. The Southern Presbyterian Journal, Jan. 19)
In contrast with the pope’s claim to be the vicar of Christ, in contrast also with the practice of praying to the Virgin and to saints, the Scriptures place no barrier between man and God. The apostle Paul in 1 Tim. 2:5 says, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Sinful man indeed needs a mediator in order to approach God, but that mediator is the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Any reliance on priests, saints, the Virgin, or the pope constitutes a rejection of Christ. Christ is sufficient for our salvation; he does not need to be helped out. (link)
A hasty glance would perhaps lead one to mistakenly infer that Clark is, at times, inconsistent. For these citations do initially seem to suggest that unlike, say, Arminians or Roman Catholics, a Calvinist should not think that we "cooperate" or "help out" in "salvation." But when we look at the bold quotations in context - specifically, the italicized statements - one should begin to understand that what Clark is actually saying is that man does not cooperate or help out in certain soteric or salvific events.
The context of the first citation discusses election. The context of the second citation discusses regeneration. The context of the third citation discusses mediation. Strictly speaking, in each of these aspects of salvation, I certainly agree with Clark that there is no synergism. But such does not deny a proper understanding of synergism in other "elements" of salvation or in "salvation" broadly considered as an overarching concept that includes some synergistic elements (like sanctification).
Returning to Robbins' first argument against Clark, then, he strangely cites 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as support for his position (which is contrary to Clark's) that "salvation" and "justification" are interchangeable and equivalent. But read the verse and try to substitute "justification" for "salvation." Would Robbins say that Paul meant, "God has from the beginning chosen you to [justification] through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth"? Does Robbins think justification comes through progressive sanctification? On the contrary, Clark's own commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 aims to show that Robbins is wrong to equate "salvation" with only one event:
Since God is omniscient, which a pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago discreetly but in consistency denied some fifty years ago, since, therefore, all his plans form an inviolable system, his choice has several determinate results. Here Paul mentions two: first, salvation in the form of sanctification; and second, belief in the truth. Common parlance among evangelistically-minded witnesses is usually confused. In witnessing, when one asks a prospect, “Are you saved?” he really means, “Have you been regenerated?” But regeneration is only a part, the initial part, of salvation. Then salvation continues in the form of sanctification; and finally, there is glorification, which comes at death and is to be completed at our resurrection. Here Paul has confined his thought to sanctification and its immediate cause, belief in the truth. (Commentaries on Paul's Epistles, pgs. 319-320)
Perhaps Robbins would object to this as well and argue that in this context, sanctification refers to regeneration.
Even so, on Robbins' own position, justification and [progressive] sanctification depend on faith, something we do indeed "do" (Acts 16:30-31). God alone indeed declares a man righteous in Christ - and in this sense, justification can be viewed as monergistic. But because justification in turn depends on saving faith, and because saving faith is something we "do," God's monergistic declaration depends on a synergistic cooperation. Of course, having faith is something we can "do" solely by God's grace, but this is besides the point.
Or to put things another way, we are, as Robbins says, sanctified by the truth, but not by a passive experience of truth. A reprobate can hear truth without it sanctifying him. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 shows that it is our belief in the truth through which we are saved, and actual belief is a volitional activity or act of will, as Clark argued (link). Thus, the point is that even on Robbins' view, a proper understanding of synergistic cooperation is involved in our "salvation" (link).
Incidentally, I think this admission enables admirers of Clark to revisit his view of the nature of saving faith. Once it is admitted that all sides agree saving faith is an obedience to the gospel - not that it is itself our merit or ground for justification (link) - there is less worry about what additional element (e.g. "trust" or "dependence") saving faith might include besides understanding and assent, so long as said element is also not taken to be merit or ground for justification. But I have attempted this elsewhere (link, link) and will look to reexamine such things in my final review of Mr. Lazar's book.
Finally, then, what of Robbins' last point about what Clark wrote on the last page in his book Sanctification? The following could be read as contradicting what I have noted Clark has said elsewhere about progressive sanctification:
Dr. Clark knew all this, for in his book Sanctification, he wrote, "Chapter 13 of the Westminster Confession emphasizes the fact that we are sanctified by God, not by our own efforts; an imperfect obedience to the moral law is a result of that sanctification, not the cause of it." (Sanctification, pg. 100)
What is slightly deceptive about this quote is that Robbins does not include Clark's next sentence which rounds out an entire paragraph: "Sanctification begins with regeneration." Robbins really ought to have included this line for transparency, for with this context, I think what Clark says above is easily harmonized with the many statements already cited. For I don't consider Clark to be talking about progressive sanctification at all.
Reread Clark's statement Robbins cites with the context of regeneration in mind: "we are all sanctified" (read: a salvific completed event in the past = "regenerated") "by God, not by our own efforts." Regeneration is, as was already mentioned, monergistic. Further, any "imperfect obedience to the moral law is a result of that sanctification" (read: regeneration), "not the cause of it." We don't obey to become regenerate, we become regenerate by which we can and will then obey. In other words, I would argue that in what Robbins cites, Clark is speaking about regeneration, not progressive sanctification.
If anyone does not find this interpretation of Clark's final page in Sanctification convincing, the coup de grace is that Sanctification was not originally written as a standalone book. Clark initially intended it to be chapter 8 in a systematic theology of sorts (link).
Why is this important? Because in chapter 7 (appropriately entitled Salvation!) of that same systematic theology to which we now have access - and perhaps Robbins did not at the time when he published Sanctification (1992) - Clark makes statements that support the same, consistent interpretation of him that I have already provided above. In the first section of chapter 7, Clark confirms his position (against Robbins) about the meaning of "salvation":
The title Salvation is doubtless too broad as an accurate indication of this chapter's contents. But it is not so narrow as one of its common uses. Some untutored people use the term as a synonym for regeneration. They speak of someone or themselves as being "saved" at a certain time, without having in mind any notion of justification or sanctification. Salvation, however, includes these. It is regeneration plus all the spiritual blessings that succeed upon it. For this reason salvation is incomplete without resurrection and glorification in heaven.
Nevertheless, eschatology with the promise of resurrection, the return of Christ, glorification, heaven, and the penalty of hell too, is such an extensive topic, that though all of it is a part of salvation, it will be reserved for the final chapter. The main topics here are Regeneration, Faith, Justification, and Sanctification. This is already too much for one chapter, and to alleviate the length there will be a division into parts...
That Clark believed salvation includes justification, sanctification, et al. should be obvious by now. But note what Clark means by the last paragraph. Remembering that this is chapter 7 of a larger systematic theology, and taking note of what is outlined in the table of contents for this systematic theology, Clark is saying that in the rest of this chapter on Salvation, he will discuss regeneration, saving faith, and justification. He will reserve comment on sanctification and eschatology for following chapters, because it would be too much material to include in this chapter.
Thus, Sanctification, chapter 8, will follow what else Clark says in this chapter. Anything in chapter 8 - that is to say, any inference that Robbins or anyone else makes from Clark's statements in Sanctification, the book published by the TrinityFoundation in 1992 - really ought to be agree with what Clark writes in chapter 7. But in chapter 7, Clark repeatedly says that [progressive] sanctification involves [a proper understanding of] synergy between God and man:
At this point, between regeneration and faith, it is appropriate to insert a paragraph or two on the idea of grace. Not that such paragraphs will contain much more than what has already been said, or at least implied, for the material on regeneration is particularly clear on the point that it is God's work, not ours. Of course, after regeneration there comes a process of sanctification, to be considered in the next chapter, in which process there is ample room for our good works. But even so, we depend on grace to accomplish them…
What the Romanists call justification most assuredly depends partly on works; but what they call justification is not what the Bible means by the term. Their use of the term is essentially the equivalent of sanctification. Of course this requires good works…
God is judged, and pronounced just. God is not made just; he is pronounced or acknowledged to be just. The fourth verse, "By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified," supports the same conclusion because the works of the law are essential to sanctification…
Regeneration produces (subjective effects, particularly faith) and sanctification inevitably follows justification. An alleged faith that results in no good works is not saving faith at all. (link)