Reductio ad absurdum is the latin term for the logical reasoning of "reducing to absurdity." The way it works is that one assumes the conclusion (or the opposite conclusion) of the opponent's argument. One then deduces that down to either a negation (flaw in the argument) or its logical conclusion. Examples are as follows...
Lutherans are not monergists, for suppose they were monergists. Since monergists believe in the total inablity/deadness of Man in sin and salvation by the loving grace of a justifying God toward sinners, it follows that the sinner who is justified by God's grace will persevere in that grace to the end of his life. But Lutherans do not believe this since they affirm that a man justified by God's grace can lose his salvation on his own accord. Therefore, Lutherans are not monergists.
But since Lutherans would say they are monergists, let's see how that plays out....
God is to blame for a Christian's falling away. Suppose that were not the case. Since Lutherans affirm that salvation and sanctification are all the work of God and not of the Christian (monergism), it would follow that a Christian who falls away was never a Christian since God did not carry out His sanctifying work in that person. But Lutherans affirm that a true Christian can fall away. Therefore, the consistent Lutheran must say that God is to be blamed for a Christian's falling away.
Either way, Lutherans are inconsistent in their theology.
not saying that is what i think
ReplyDeletebut is it any worse to think that God is responsible for someone's ultimate damnation by "passing over them" in the first place and not even offering them grace?
No, the consistent Lutheran follows scripture in attributing all of salvation to God's grace and all of damnation to man's sin.
ReplyDeleteYes Lutherans are monergists. Monergists are those who believe God is the sole worker of salvation and man cannot cooperate in anyway toward his salvation. We affirm this. With your definition no one was a monergist until Calvin came along.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your posts.
Josh, that is the same objection that Paul raises in Romans 9 in regards to God's election (v.14ff).
Jordan, I know that Lutherans affirm these things, hence this post. My charge of inconsistency still stands.
It is not exactly the same. I am not questioning God's election. I believe wholeheartedly that there are elect and there are non-elect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are also those (who you are ignoring) in Scripture who, once of the faith, fall away. You cover it up by saying they were never saved when Scripture clearly points out that they were of the (invisible) family of God.
peace and love,
-Josh
Yes, I affirm that those who fall away from the faith were never saved as 1 John 2:19 says:
ReplyDeleteThey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
As I have pointed out in my post, to be a true monergist is to affirm that salvation is all the work of God. If salvation is all the work of God, it follows that those whom God saves will persevere to the end for it is ALL the work of God. To say that a christian can fall away by his own doing is to affirm synergism and perseverence based on the christian's works. Now, I know that Lutherans will deny that last part but that is where their doctrine leads. It cannot go any other way. Also, to say a christian can fall away is to deny all the scriptures that sound like John 5:24:
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
This clearly says that anyone believing in Christ will NOT come into judgment but HAS passed from death to life. I affirm that those who are justified will persevere though there may be times of sin.
WCF 11:
God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance. (section 5)
Thanks for your inquiries :)
Both sides have valid arguments, though the Calvinist side is more systematic and logically consistent. The root of the problem is both sides are building from a flawed framework, thus they both make good claims that later terminate with error.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of losing salvation is probably the central highlight of this problem. Calvinists argue on primarily logical grounds against losing salvation, while Lutherans argue primarily on Scriptural grounds in favor of. The Calvinist is accused of brushing off Scripture while the Lutheran is accused of logical inconsistency - both charges are true.
The key is to realize there is a third option, Catholicism, which doesn't fall into that dilemma. St Augustine taught that the justified could fail to persevere and be damned, yet he was neither Lutheran nor Calvinist. ;)
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI have read Augustine on the issue and he would fall under my charge of inconsistency as well. Just because he was a good church father does not mean he was perfect in his theology. I don't believe that Catholicism is a third option for many reasons. My belief of Sola Scriptura and Justification by faith alone would be the most foundational. I agree with justandsinner in the post he wrote: "A Response to Nick on the Doctrine of Justification." I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate because they have deviated from these truths. Rome has distorted the Gospel and is not a true church. Therefore, I still affirm the original statement that was written in the Westminster Confession of Faith concerning the true Church,
WCF 25:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. (section 6)
Nick, Augustine was not a Lutheran, Calvinist, or Roman Catholic. It is anachronistic to identify any father with one of these groups.
ReplyDeleteCatholicism is not really a third option here because Dogmatix and I are both assuming monergism when discussing the issue of perseverance, or any other soteriological issue.
I refuse to accept the idea that as man can choose to reject his faith he also has the ability to sustain his faith and cooperate with God. I'd rather side with the Calvinists any day than hold to this view.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteWhy specifically would Augustine fall under your charge of inconsistency on this subject of losing salvation?
Augustine was a monergist and still believed that a true Christian could lose his salvation. For example, Augustine says:
ReplyDeleteBut it seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to receive perseverance to the end. But God has judged it to be better to mingle some who would not persevere with a certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure. For that which the apostle says, checks many from mischievous elation: “Wherefore let him who seems to stand take heed lest he fall.” 1 Corinthians 10:12 But he who falls, falls by his own will, and he who stands, stands by God's will. “For God is able to make him stand;” Romans 14:4 therefore he is not able to make himself stand, but God. Nevertheless, it is good not to be high-minded, but to fear. -"On the Predestination of the Saints" Book 2 ch.19
Other chapters which are included in Book 2:
-Chapter 12.— Of His Own Will a Man Forsakes God, So that He is Deservedly Forsaken of Him.
-Chapter 19.— Why Does God Mingle Those Who Will Persevere with Those Who Will Not?
-Chapter 33.— God Gives Both Initiatory and Persevering Grace According to His Own Will.
-Chapter 46.— A Man Who Does Not Persevere Fails by His Own Fault.
Augustine says that some Christians are granted to persevere by God while other Christians are not. He also says that if a Christian falls away, it was because of his own doing. This is exactly the thing I wrote my blog about.
Also, I am in full agreement with what Jordan has said above. No one group can claim Augustine as their own.
Dogmatix,
ReplyDeleteYou are pretty well informed on this topic, but you're missing a critical component. Augustine didn't believe in PSub/LimitedAtonement, thus he is not being 'inconsistent' as Lutherans are (who are espousing 'double jeopardy' of the apostate Christian receiving the punishment Christ already took). But even here (with man's sin), God is still ultimately in control on whether to grant perseverance or not, so it's not like Augustine is espousing God's Sovereign Will is confounded.
And if Augustine was "none of the above," then what was he? A 'Lone Ranger' Christian? Impossible. I don't know how you can say 'no group can claim Augustine as their own' when Augustine is perfectly Catholic in his teaching. Obviously, issues like what you point out are incompatible with Calvinism/Lutheranism, but that's no logical nor fair grounds to rule out Catholicism. And there's nothing anachronistic here since Catholics claim a succession of Bishops from before Augustine to today.
He was not a "Lone Ranger" Christian. He was a church father. It is unfair to look at the church fathers and say that they must conform to one of our current theological systems. Our current systems are reflections upon them. They are not taking from later churches.
ReplyDeleteThere is no fair ground to rule out Romanism? So Augustine believed in Papal infallibility, the bodily assumption and immaculate conception of Mary, transubstantiation, etc?
No he didn't. Also, the condemnation of the Jansenists condemned several statements that are in perfect accord with the teachings of Augustine.
And guess what? If Augustine believed in all modern Roman dogma it would not influence either myself or the writer of this blog. Augustine was a good Christian writer and theologian. However, we bow the knee to no man but only to God's Holy Word.
Either way, the discussion Dogmatix was trying to start has nothing to do with what you are trying to make it about. If you want to respond on someone's blog, respond to the topic at hand. I'm not going to go to random posts on your blog and say things like "the sacrifice of the mass is unbiblical" unless that was specifically the issue being addressed.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteWe certainly should expect the Fathers to conform to a significant extent to our theological systems, otherwise we either need to reconsider whether they are truly people we should look to or not.
You said: "So Augustine believed in Papal infallibility, the bodily assumption and immaculate conception of Mary, transubstantiation, etc?"
I would actually contend he was very "Roman Catholic" and not in any way favorable to Protestants of any given denomination. As for what the Jansenist propositions that he held that were condemned, you'd have to be more specific.
I agree this is a tangent to the main discussion, so I won't post any further on it here.
My point was never to go on a tangent, only to suggest the reason for the "reductio ad absurdum of LUTHERAN theology" while being clearly *true* none the less doesn't get the Calvinist out of their own reductio type scenario as I've made clear for a while now and it seems you realize this yourself as your latest blog movie shows.