Monday, October 15, 2012

Salvation and Synergism Revisited

A recent comment thread on the facebook group "Gordon H. Clark Discussions" has been discussing this topic recently. I've written a post on these subjects before, and I've not changed my beliefs since then. However, someone called Monty Collier has publicly accused me of associating with Arminians, Roman Catholics, and Federal Visionists on these points, so while I don't plan to waste my time beating this dead horse any more than is sufficient to show that he is, indeed, a dead horse, I thought I'd publish a typical "conversation" between us for all to see. It speaks for itself, and anyone further interested can join the facebook group to verify for themselves that it is typical. Monty's posts and responses will be indented; mine will not be:
Monty: ‎@ everyone, 
Yesterday Ryan Hedrich wrote:
"Faith is an act of will, a volitional decision. In that sense, it is a [good] work. It is certainly not a work in the Pauline sense (meritorious), but then again, that is not the sort of work which is relevant to "-ergism." Also, faith is a precondition to justification. If conversion is synergistic, then it follows justification is the product of synergistic activity. The declaration itself is made by God alone, but it is conditional." 
Now, it is no secret that Hedrich got caught saying that he actually does something to save himself. I pointed this out yesterady, as well. When Hedrich made this claim, he stole Christ's glory and made himself a savior. In contrast, Calvinism teaches that it is ONLY what Christ did that saves, unless some sinful chump should come along and boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). Today, in case anyone missed it, Hedrich repeats for us all that him and Sean Gerety hold salvation to be conditional and that Christ is but half a savior. Notice above how Hedrich appeals to the act of his faith to be a "nonmeritorious" work God accepts as payment--just like Federal Vision heretic Doug Wilson, who is also publicly teaching synergistic sanctification.  
According to Hedrich and Gerety, Christ lied when He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). Poor Jesus, didn't He know that the work of salvation wouldn't be finished until Sean Gerety, Doug Wilson, and Ryan Hedrich did their part by meeting certain conditions, such as believing? Away with such synergist blasphemy! 
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Covenant of Grace is not conditional, that is, the Gospel does not require us to do anything. Why? Because it is the Law, as a Covenant of Works, that demands and requires, not the Gospel. The Gospel demands nothing, requires nothing from us! In the Covenant of Grace, it was Christ alone who met all the conditions of salvation for us! I've said it from the beginning, and I will say it again: Hedrich and Gerety, like their teacher Dough Wilson, are mixing Law and Gospel. They are teaching that we must meet conditions to be saved, and when they do this they assert human free-will and deny that Christ alone met all the conditions of the Covenant of Grace for us! They are teaching justification by faith and works. Let's see a quote from a little book I have:
"In the Covenant of Grace, God promises salvation to all members of the Covenant, and God keeps his promises: He actually gives salvation to all members of his Covenant. Not one person for whom Christ died is lost. Not one member of the Covenant of Grace goes to Hell. God does not break any promise of salvation to those who are outside the Covenant of Grace, for he makes no promise of salvation to anyone outside the Covenant of Grace. Effectual calling, regeneration, justification, BELIEF IN THE GOSPEL, adoption, sanctification, perseverence, and glorification ARE NOT CONDITIONS FOR ESTABLISHING OR MAINTAINING the Covenant of Grace; they are in fact the benefits, the blessings of the Covenant, which God gives freely, unilaterally, and UNCONDITIONALLY to all those he has chosen to save by Christ...God unilaterally made this Covenant of Grace; GOD ALONE maintains it in force, and it is an everlasting and efficacious Covenant."
(Not Reformed At All, pages 67-68, emphasis is mine)
That book, published by the Trinity Foundation, was written by John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety! Now, Sean Gerety has changed his position, for he is now a synergist claiming the Gospel has conditions we must meet in order for us to be saved! Or, maybe Gerety didn't write that part of the book! At any rate, the free-will teachings of Sean Gerety, Ryan Hedrich, and their teacher Doug Wilson are not Reformed at all. Once again, for those who are not familiar with the basic teachings of the Protestant Reformation:
It is the Law (Covenant of Works) that is conditional, that requires and demands us to meet conditions and obey perfectly in order for us to be saved. Since the fall, no sinner can do this--so the Law is the ministry of condemnation and death (2 Corinthians 3:7-9). The Law must be kept separate from the Gospel (Covenant of Grace). The Gospel is unconditional, so it does not require or demand us to meet conditions or to obey, but rather, in the Gospel, Jesus Christ perfectly obeys the Law for us and meets all the conditions of our salvation--so the Gospel is the ministry of righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:9).
The heresy of Federal Vision is led by Doug Wilson, who also teaches that faith is active in justification and that justification is synergistic. It is well known that Wilson rejects Law / Gospel Distinction and mixes the Law and the Gospel. It is sad to see one who co-wrote a book with John Robbins against Doug Wilson turn and join Doug Wilson in utter heresy. Even the current editor of the Trinity Foundation is now rebuking the false teachings of Gerety and Hedrich, but they are not listening. The Gospel is not a list of demands / conditions that we must meet: the Gospel is the radical proclamation of the free grace of Christ alone!

Ryan: I realize this will likely fall on deaf ears, however:

1. I don't speak for Sean.

2. Nothing I said implies I believe I save myself, as I have many times had to spoon-feed you the fact I believe God is the ultimate cause of all things in general and the sole efficient cause of faith in particular.

3. I never said God accepts my faith as "payment." I have consistently distinguished the instrumental (faith alone, which unites us to Christ) from the efficient (grace alone) and meritorious (Christ alone) causes of justification. You, on the other hand, have completely ignored these distinctions.

4. One cannot be justified if he is not a believer in Christ. Hence, belief in Christ is a precondition for justification. That should be obvious. But I guess that if Monty were in Paul's and Silas' place, he would have responded to the jailer who asked what he must DO to be saved by telling him to do nothing. What a joke.

5. Christ alone fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant of works and redemption according to which He procured for us all that the Holy Spirit must redemptively apply, including faith. We are not the origin of our faith, nor any other spiritual blessing.

6. As for what the "editor of the Trinity Foundation" believes, Mr. Juodaitis is comfortable calling faith the instrumental cause of justification and Christ's work its ground or merit; why aren't you? He further agrees with Sean that "Monergism and Synergism should be only used when talking about Regeneration as you state" and agrees that saving faith is active. But again, this shouldn't be about what any one person believes, it should be about what is rational.

Monty: @Hedrich, who writes: "justification is the product of synergistic activity." 
Notice Hedrich thinks man and Christ both work together to produce justification. Because Hedrich does not understand what it means for faith to be an instrumental cause, he teaches that the act of his faith is a nonmeritorious work that works with the obedience of Christ to produce justification. 
In his essay "The Gospel Of Jesus Christ versus Neo-legalism," John Robbins explains that saving faith is NOT act of obedience that meets conditions of salvation. Remember, Robbins taught that salvation was unconditional, unlike Hedrich, Gerety, and Doug Wilson. Commenting on Q&A 61 of the Heidelberg Catechism, Robbins writes: 
"Q. 61 Why do you say that you are righteous only by faith?
A. 61 Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only." 
Robbins comments: 
"Here the Catechism makes it clear that our faith itself is not a good work or an act of “faithful obedience” by which we meet the conditions of salvation. It is merely the instrument by which we receive the righteousness of Christ Jesus imputed to us." 
Notice that for Robbins, faith is not a synergistic activity that produces justification, but rather, it is only an instrument that passively recieves the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ alone.
The difference between Robbins and the synergistic conditionalists is striking! Here's the link to the essay: 
http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=112

Ryan: For the benefit of interested third party readers in whose belief systems I am sure a fastidious theologian such as Monty Collier will be able to find some detail he will pronounce a profound and heretical flaw, here is how I recommend you go about responding to him (if you bother at all): make a note of all the ambiguities, hidden assumptions, fallacies, etc. Then simply list them. So let's show some examples from his latest crusade:

"Notice Hedrich thinks man and Christ both work together to produce justification."

What does he mean by "produce" - is he denying that man's faith is instrumentally causal? Let's hope not. Or is he accusing me of believing man's faith is efficiently, meritoriously, or ultimately causal? Let's hope not. But wait... what then is the accusation? Refusal to represent an opponent in his own terms - indeed, in terms common to the tradition they both claim to follow (Reformed Clarkian) - is a sign one wishes to confuse others rather than enlighten them.

"John Robbins explains that saving faith is NOT act of obedience that meets conditions of salvation."

The appeal to authority is obvious. I might as well remind Monty that Clark and Calvin referred to the "obedience of faith" without any qualms (Today's Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? pg. 83).

But further, what is the hidden assumption in the following objection: "Ryan believes saving faith is a condition of salvation. John Robbins denies that saving faith is a condition of salvation. Therefore, Ryan and Robbins disagree." The hidden assumption is that Robbins and Ryan are using the word "condition" in the same sense. But that's false, so Monty has equivocated in his argument. Here's what Robbins says in the link:

//You asked, “Is a person ‘saved’ who disbelieves and disobeys God?” We are tempted to answer that only such a person can be saved, for the righteous do not need salvation. But if you are asking, Can a person be saved apart from belief of the Gospel, the answer is no. Faith, that is, belief, is, to use the words of the Westminster Confession, the “alone instrument of justification.” Because it is alone, belief is the indispensable instrument. Because it is alone, belief is both the necessary and sufficient instrument.//

But to refer to saving faith as an "indispensable," "necessary... instrument" is precisely what I mean by calling saving faith a condition of salvation (in this context, justification). So that Robbins denies saving faith is a condition does not necessarily imply I disagree with him. How does he mean "condition"?

//Please note: “They can never fall from the state of justification.” This is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Christ’s work applied to the lives of all believers. Believers can and do sin continually and grievously, yet they can never fall from the state of justification. To read the warnings of Scripture against unbelief and presumption as suggesting that justified sinners can either lose their salvation or that retention of their salvation depends on their faithful obedience is logically and theologically perverse.//

He is clearly speaking of meeting a "condition" in terms of the ultimate cause of faith. Saving faith does not originate in ourselves, it is a gift from God. Our active will is activated by the Spirit, as Clark said. The faith is ours, but we are not its author or ultimate cause. As such, we cannot fall away from salvation, for God has determined that those in whom He effect the act of assent to the propositions of the gospel will always assent to the propositions of the gospel. In this, Robbins and I agree. So the apparent disagreement is merely semantic.

Acts 16:30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Monty: @Hedrich, who writes: 
""John Robbins explains that saving faith is NOT act of obedience that meets conditions of salvation." 
The appeal to authority is obvious. I might as well remind Monty that Clark and Calvin referred to the "obedience of faith" without any qualms (Today's Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine? pg. 83)."  
Notice how Hedrich casually hints that Robbins has contradicted Calvin, while ignoring the obvious: Robbins is speaking of justification (so faith is called passive), while when Calvin speaks of faith being obedient he is speaking of sanctification. Hedrich and Gerety continuously try and mix justification and sanctification, that's what papists do, while Robbins and Calvin clearly separated them. Ask yourself, reader: Where has Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owen, or John Gill EVER said that "justification is the product of synergistic activity"?

Ryan: Ludicrous. Do you even own the book? Clark mentions "belief in the Gospel message" in the very next paragraph. Sanctification is nowhere mentoned in the context. If you are suggesting Clark misinterpreted Calvin, that may be true. But it is at least the case that Clark had no problem referring to faith in the divine word in general and saving faith in particular as obedience (when rightly understood as nonmeritorious with respect to justification, of course).

Monty: Do you two intellectual midgets even realize that you are now suggesting that sinners can be obedient outside of sanctification? The act of our faith is sanctification, not justification. The object of our faith is justification, not sanctification. Tom explained that to you two, but I guess it didn't take. 
@Hedrich, who writes: 
"Acts 16:30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 
Hedrich and Gerety pretend that these two verses imply that we do something to save ourselves. We shall have to find them a nice introduction to basic deductive logic, for neither questions, nor commands, imply anything. The question "What must I do to be saved?" does not imply that I can do something to be saved. The command "Believe in the Lord Jesus" does not imply that one can believe in the Lord Jesus. I keep telling people that these two don't seem to have read the basic writings of Martin Luther (see Luther's "Bondage of the Will), and they keep proving me right. We can do nothing to be saved. God alone must save. This is why God alone gets the glory! 
Ryan: "Do you two intellectual midgets even realize that you are now suggesting that sinners can be obedient outside of sanctification?" 

In what way? The beginning of sanctification is regeneration and conversion. That is the point at which we begin to be conformed to Christ's image.

"The act of our faith is sanctification, not justification."

No, the act of our faith is an instance of sanctification. It doesn't encompass it. And I never said faith is justification. You are pretty dull if you think I'm going to fall for that trick.

"Hedrich and Gerety pretend that these two verses imply that we do something to save ourselves."

No, I teach that they imply we must do something in order to be saved, viz. believe the gospel. If you don't believe the gospel, you cannot be saved. If Monty disagrees, he rejects sola fide.

"The command "Believe in the Lord Jesus" does not imply that one can believe in the Lord Jesus."

It does imply, however, that one must believe "to be saved." Otherwise, Paul and Silas are evading the question.

"We can do nothing to be saved. God alone must save."

So you can be justified if you don't believe? Here comes the backtrack.

Monty: @Hedrich and Gerety, who believe: 
"Faith is an act of will, a volitional decision. In that sense, it is a [good] work. It is certainly not a work in the Pauline sense (meritorious), but then again, that is not the sort of work which is relevant to "-ergism." Also, faith is a precondition to justification. If conversion is synergistic, then it follows justification is the product of synergistic activity. The declaration itself is made by God alone, but it is conditional." 
Compare that with some excerpts from the following essay:
"A Refutation of the Auburn Avenue Theology’s Rejection of Justification by Faith Alone"
by Brian Schwertley
"The Auburn Avenue theology (in a manner very similar to Roman Catholicism) makes the human will the most important element in justification. Because the careful distinctions that the Bible makes between faith, repentance, good works, obedience to the law, justification, sanctification and perseverance are all blurred or denied by collapsing everything under the category of covenant faithfulness, justification is ultimately defined as a covenant process rather than a judicial act of God. Like Romanism and Arminianism salvation is a joint effort (SYNERGISM) between God and man....The Auburn Avenue theologians will no doubt strenuously object to the use of this verse against them by saying, “We reject merit. We do not believe that merit plays any role whatsoever in a person’s justification.” The problem with this objection is that they contradict it by their insistence that saving faith and works are the same thing; that men can only be justified if they persevere in the covenant. In other words, SOMETHING WE DO MUST BE ADDED TO CHRIST IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. When the Auburn Avenue apologist Rich Lusk substitutes the word “value” for merit, speaks of “NON-MERITORIOUS CONDITIONS” and speaks of the REQUIREMENT OF “THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH” (i.e. good works)[64] he (like Shepherd before him) is equivocating...The Auburn Avenue theologians give lip service to forensic justification. But their doctrine of faithful obedience or covenantal perseverance as it relates to final justification renders forensic justification irrelevant and impotent. If we reject the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, replace it with forgiveness only and then make man’s personal obedience and continued effort to be faithful to the covenant the co-ground or partial instrument of final justification we clearly have a SYNERGISTIC system of salvation by faith and works." Emphasis Mine. 

Ryan: "...justification is ultimately defined as a covenant process rather than a judicial act of God."

I reject that.

"If we reject the imputation of the righteousness of Christ..."

But I don't reject that. I also rejected the idea faith is the "co-ground" or merely "partial instrument" of justification.

Also, since Clark used the phrase "the obedience of faith" in reference to justification, are you accusing him of being a Federal Visionist? 


1 comment:

Drake Shelton said...

Ryan,

You seem to hold the exact same position I do, for which I also received the same tongue lashing from MC Red Beetle.