Dr. James White vs. Dr. Michael Brown on Calvinism

Here's a peaceful and definitely God-honoring three-part discussion between Dr. James White (5-point Calvinist and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries) and Dr. White Brown (staunch proponent of Libertarianism and host of the Line of Fire radio program) concerning one of the most controversial topics in Christian theology - God's Sovereignty in Salvation.

Part I (audio only)
Part II (audio only)

Part III (audio only)

Source: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com

I commend both Dr. White and Dr. Brown for being consistently gracious in all their exchanges. May God use this debate to enrich many of His children with the knowledge of His truth. To God be the Glory!

- Jeph

Divine Predestination: A Southern Baptist Teaching

The first SBTS classroom, formerly the Greenville First
Baptist Church. (Photo courtesy: SBTS official website)

It's really sad when self-professed "Bible-believing" Christians reject God's truth revealed in Scripture in exchange for man-made ideas that the world would deem more logical and palatable. About a week ago, I had a nice intellectual discussion with a good friend concerning the doctrine of predestination. This godly lady, a fellow Southern Baptist whom I have known for quite some time now, claimed that if my interpretation of Romans 9 is correct, then it is pointless to go and preach the gospel to all nation. If God "has mercy on whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18) and in fact chooses to show mercy only to some with regard to salvation (Rom. 9:18-24; i.e. Matt. 13:11; Luk. 10:22; Jn. 6:63-65) and that none of those whom God has chosen will finally perish (Jn. 6:39-40, 44-45), whatever change would it make whether or not we fulfill Christ's Great Commission? I had anticipated this kind of objection from her, and I have responded by saying that as far as my personal experience is concerned, this glorious doctrine of election never killed my passion for reaching the lost, but instead rekindled it. The doctrine of predestination should not be regarded as a strange doctrine that Christians should fear or avoid. Aside from its being clearly taught in Scripture, it has been in fact a Southern Baptist teaching ever since (though neglected by many Southern Baptists today). Unfortunately very few Southern Baptists are aware of their theological heritage that used to be "reformed." Even for the most part of today's Christianity, the humanistic (and erroneous) notions of Pelagianism (i.e. that man should first turn to God before God can do any move) is widely embraced.

In this paper I will try by the help of God's grace to provide a brief presentation of the fact that the doctrine of Predestination is indeed a Southern Baptist teaching. May God use this simple work for His own purposes.

Predestination in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858)

I won't be citing very long references here, but would focus only on a single old document from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary archive. The name of the document is Abstract of Principles formulated in 1858 before the official founding of the SBTS a year later. The intent of the document was to maintain doctrinal purity among the teachers and leaders of the seminary, and to oppose all kinds of false teaching and doctrines. Affirming all the doctrines stated in the document was mandatory to all Southern Baptist scholars who would want to assume professorship in the seminary. In its introduction, we read (emphasis mine):

Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees, to wit:

So, what's so special about the Abstract of Principles? It is the fact that the document is essentially Calvinistic in its anthropology and soteriology. For example, concerning the fall of man it states (emphasis mine):

VI. THE FALL OF MAN

God originally created Man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

This is perfectly in agreement with what the Scripture says about the man's fallen nature being "hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8; see also Rom. 3:9-12, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, & Eph. 2:1-3). Being spiritually dead in Sin, the fallen man is not able to fulfill any spiritual duty accompanying salvation (i.e. faith & repentance) unless he is first quickened by God monergisitcally. This means we are spiritually regenerated by God, not in response to our faith, but in order that we may be drawn to saving faith in Christ. The Abstract of Principles agrees with this teaching, and I quote (emphasis mine):

VIII. REGENERATION 

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

Again, this is in total agreement with Scripture which says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pe. 1:3). Note the verse didn't say, "we first had our living hope (saving faith) and then God made us born again," but rather, "he has caused us to be born again *TO* a living hope." Thus, our conversion (i.e. saving faith & repentance) is not our own doing. It is God's gift of grace, and this humbling truth is affirmed in the next two articles in the Abstract of Principles (emphasis mine):

IX. REPENTANCE 

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being led by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things. 

X. FAITH 

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority, of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

The Bible says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (Jn. 6:29). Again, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Php. 1:26). Again, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Mat. 13:11). Again, "And they glorified God, saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life'" (Ac. 11:18). And again, "...correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:25-26). Clearly, we have nothing to boast of our own conversion because it was God who has granted us this gift according to His gracious predestination (1 Cor. 1:28-31; Eph. 1:3-5, 11). The Abstract of Principles states clearly (emphasis mine),

V. ELECTION 

Election is God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life-not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ-in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

By "foreseen merits," the AoP refers to all kinds of human worth. Merits always means worth, and anything given according to worth cannot be properly called grace (Rom. 4:4, 11:5-6). Thus, when the Bible says God predestined us "for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph. 1:5-6), it actually denies all kinds of human worth as basis for its attainment. In other words, it is unconditional. "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16). Moreover, this choice is not merely a divine initiative in an attempt to save sinners, but it is the basis upon which the saving benefits of Christ's work is communicated effectually to those chosen of God:

[29]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30]And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [31]What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? [32]He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Rom. 8:29-32)

Hence, none of those whom God has chosen for Salvation will totally fall away and perish. All true Christians, being chosen of God from eternity past and preserved by God through His grace, will persevere in the faith unto the end and finally attain to final glorification (Jud. 1:24). The 13th article of the Abstract of Principles reads,

XIII. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 

Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Paul expressed the same confidence in his words: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php. 1:6). And again, "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38-39).

Does this mean men have no freedom of choice? Nope. Back in the third (3rd) article of the Abstract of Principles, we read (emphasis mine):

IV. PROVIDENCE 

God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.

In other words, God's sovereign kingship over all His creation is perfectly compatible with man's free agency and responsibility (Prov. 19:21). When a sinner is drawn by God to saving faith in Christ (according to His eternal decree of predestination), the sinner freely chooses Christ and attains salvation (Psa. 65:4; Jn. 6:37, 44-45; Ac. 16:14). But when a sinner is passed over by God to be left on his own sinful nature (i.e. not by infusing evil in his heart, but by permitting him to do just whatever he pleases according to the inmost desires of his naturally sinful heart - Jer. 13:23, 17:9; Mat. 12:33), the sinner freely rebels against God and deservedly ends up in hell because of his own sins (Rom. 1:21-26, 3:9-12, 8:7-8). All of these come to pass "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11; cf. Rom. 11:35).

Predestination and Evangelism

Now let's turn to the question whether the doctrine of predestination kills the Christian's passion for evangelism. Does it? Perhaps, if you malign or pervert the doctrine. Misinformed people often think of predestination as God's decreeing all the end (outcome) without also decreeing the means to accomplish those end. Thus, they conclude that predestination makes evangelism (and all Christian virtues) completely superfluous. Such is a perverted view of the biblical doctrine of predestination and must be clarified by those who know the truth. The Baptist Faith & Message, Southern Baptist Convention's official statement of beliefs, is clear enough concerning this matter:

V. GOD'S PURPOSE OF GRACE 

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. 

God's decree of election (i.e. predestination unto Salvation), according to the BF&M, "comprehends all the means in connection with the end." Evangelism is one of the means through which God calls His elect unto salvation (Ac. 13:48l Jas. 1:18), hence the necessity for preaching the Gospel to all men since we don't know who the elect are (Mat. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). In his book Christian Theology, the basic textbook we used back when I was still studying at the Southern Baptist School of Theology (Makati), Dr. Millard J. Erickson stated:

Predestination does not nullify incentive for evangelism and missions. We do not know who the elect and the nonelect are, so we must continue to spread the Word. Our evangelistic efforts are God's means to bring the elect to salvation. God's ordaining of the end includes the ordaining of the means to that end as well. The knowledge that missions are God's means is a strong motive for the endeavor and gives us confidence that it will prove successful. (Christian Theology, Unabridged one-volume edition, pp. 927-928 under Chapter 43)

The thought that God never fails to bring His elect unto Salvation (when He calls them inwardly by His Word) should be, to a Christian, a ground for motivation to go out into the world to preach the Gospel to the lost, not a license to be idle and unproductive. The doctrine of predestination comforts us whenever our message is rejected by sinners because we are reminded that it isn't our job to convert them; it is God's, and so when we have done our best, we can leave the matter to Him. Jesus Himself didn't win all His hearers (Jn. 6:64), but He found comfort in the fact that all those whom the Father gives Him will surely come to Him (Jn. 6:37, 44-45, 10:3-5, 26-29).

Conclusion: 

The biblical doctrine of predestination held by Calvinists, as shown in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858), is a Southern Baptist teaching. In fact, even before the founding of the SBC, it has already been a Baptist teaching tracing back to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and ultimately, to Scriptures. This doctrine does not kill evangelism but mobilizes it. Many godly men thorough the history of Christendom held to the glorious doctrine of predestination, and are proved to be ardent preachers of God's Word to the lost. I am talking about men like Martin Luther, C.H. Spurgeon, Adrew Fuller, William Carey, John Gill, John Piper, and John Calvin himself, just to name a few.

Again, the main purpose of this paper is not for any Calvinistic triumphalism, but to present a historical truth, namely, that the Southern Baptist Convention is Calvinistic in its theological roots. I'm not saying that one cannot be Southern Baptist if he/she refuses to subscribe to the tenets of Calvinism. The SBC allows for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists to remain in the convention, and neither any of them should pass condemnation to another. My point here is that Calvinism should not be considered heresy by Southern Baptist people. Otherwise, we should be willing to accept that the SBC was born of heretical roots (since it can be proven from history that most of its founding fathers are outspoken Calvinists).

To God alone be the glory!

-Jeph

A Response to Vivator on St. Augustine and Monergism

"The human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but
obtains freedom by grace." ~ St. Augustine of Hippo

Catholic apologist and "certified structural engineer" Vivator has a three year old post over at his blog in which he asserted that St. Augustine was not really a monergist (i.e. one who holds that God works alone in drawing sinners to faith in Christ) as widely believed among reformed folks and all honest scholars of Church History, but that he was actually a synergist (i.e. one who holds that God's drawing to faith requires man's willing cooperation). Now being an avid reader of St. Augustine, I knew from the start without any spark of doubt that Vivator has failed to accurately represent St. Augustine in his article. Hence, in the comment section of that post, I gave this reaction (emphasis added):

Certainly in some sense St. Augustine is synergistic. He taught that in order for a good work to be done, one must willingly cooperate with God’s grace. But unlike Rome’s position today, St. Augustine is always careful to explain that man’s willingness to cooperate with Grace is itself God’s gift of Grace. This prior work of Grace which makes man willing is God’s doing alone – in other words, monegistic. 

Therefore, St. Augustine’s synergism is just on the secondary level. Men must cooperate with co-operating grace in order to perform a good work (*synergism in the secondary level), but God must first and foremost operate in man’s heart to make him willing (*monergism in the prime level). (link)

Vivator responded by directing me to another post he wrote about St. Augustine's view on merits and grace, but I insisted that it doesn't contradict my last explanation over St. Augustine's seeming synergism. His next reply was interesting (emphasis mine):

As far as I know (based on what other wrote) in his later days Augustine’s view changed and became closer to what we know today as Calvinism. Thus when Reformed scholars quoted from him they use his later works. (link)

In response to my assertion that St. Augustine was also monergistic, Vivator conceded that the bishop's thoughts drifted towards a more Calvinistic direction during "his later days." To this I agree. What's interesting about this comment, though, is that it show's Vivator's complete ignorance of the fact that all the citations he used in an attempt to prove St. Augustine was a synergist were in fact taken from a book which was written by St. Augustine himself "in his later days"; the time when St. Augustine's view was supposed to have already "changed and became closer to what we know today as Calvinism"! This supports my case that St. Augustine was primarily monergistic in his soteriology, and in some way or another, also synergistic - since both ideas seem to have been held by him at the same time. I will prove this further later. Meanwhile, let's examine what Vivator exactly had in mind when he used terms "monergism" and "synergism" (emphasis added):

The key difference between Monergism and Synergism is whether we can exercise our freewill in our salvation or not. Note that Monergism believes we do have freewill but to them it is under bondage of sin – it is not really free, i.e. we cannot choose to act rightly. (link)

Alright. Now this makes me ask myself how come I haven't met any monergist who teaches that man's freewill doesn't have any role to play in salvation? For example, John Calvin himself was an ardent preacher of the God-glorifying doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc., yet he also contended that man's will is not wholly passive under the sovereign influence of grace (see Institutes, Book III). In particular, Calvin taught and defended justification by faith, which alone is a conspicuous proof that man's uncoerced positive willingness has a role to play for the attainment of salvation!

The truth is, monergism doesn't mean man cannot exercise his freewill in his salvation as Vivator would have his readers to believe. What monergism states is that God works alone effectively and irresistibly in quickening spiritually dead sinners so that they should freely play their proper role in salvation, that is, to believe the Gospel and repent of their sins. Vivator is clearly misrepresenting the monergist position here.

Now in support of his dishonest definition of the reformed view of monergism, Vivator cited a reformed source which says:

It would be correct to say man HAS A WILL and that his choices are VOLUNTARY (not coerced) but this does not make the choices free. Fallen man chooses sin of NECESSITY due to a corruption of nature, and this is just as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ, and a more properly biblical way of expression.

- J.W.H.

http://new.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Free-Will/Essays/

Great. Now pleace note that Hendryx's point here isn't whether man has a role to play on salvation, but he is rather discussing the condition of man's will as a fallen being. In a nutshell, what Hendrix is trying to say here is that even though totally depraved sinners can't help sinning due to their corrupt nature (necessity), their choices remain voluntary (not coerced). This, according to Hendryx, is "as much a form of bondage of the will from which we need to be set free by Christ." In other words, we are not able to make right use of our will unless we are first set free by Christ, and guess what... this is exactly what St. Augustine taught against the Pelagians of his time! For example, in response to the Pelagian objection that St. Augustine's idea of total depravity is tantamount to saying that "men are forced to sin by the necessity of their flesh" and therefore cannot be responsible for their sins, the blessed doctor of grace defended himself and wrote (all emphasis mine):

It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that "all are forced into sin," as if they were unwilling, "by the necessity of their flesh"; but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. "For everything which is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. (Habakkuk 2:4) And it pertains to faith to believe in Christ. And no man can believe in Christ— that is, come to Him— unless it be given to him. (Romans 1:17) No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Ch. 7)

Isn't this exactly what Hendryx wrote concerning the fallen man's will? Hendryx says sinners choose sin voluntary, but they necessarily choose sin due to their corrupt nature, and for this reason Christ's liberating power is needed. St. Augustine agrees by saying that "by their own will [sinners] are hurried from sin to sin" (voluntarily), but "this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things (necessity), for the reason that it has not been made free." St. Augustine's words couldn't have been any more clearer!

In another treatise commonly known as Enchiridon, St. Augustine advanced a similar yet more explicit view of man's total depravity (emphasis all mine):

But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, "If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed?" (Enchiridon, Ch. 30; cf. see also On Man's Perfection In Righteousness, Ch. 4 [9th Breviate])

Please observe how St. Augustine explicitly stated in favor of Calvinism that when man fell in Sin by his own freewill, he destroyed both his liberty and himself! This is essentially what Hendryx's meant in his statement above! Notice also how St. Augustine argues for a monergistic regeneration when he likened man's plight to a suicide: "For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost." Now how can a dead person bring himself to life? Of course that's impossible. So how can Vivator inject any synergistic notion of regeneration here when St. Augustine was more than clear that man's freedom to choose good, much less cooperate with God's grace, was lost in him when he sinned? I'd really really love to know how Vivator will respond to this!

Now let's turn to those statements of St. Augustine cited and used by Vivator to make him appear to be a thorough synergist. Taken from St. Augustine's book On Grace and Free Will, the first quotation reads (original emphasis by Vivator retained):

Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 7)

 Taken also from the same book, the second and last quote reads (original emphasis by Vivator retained):

When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,”[Zechariah 1:3] one of these clauses–that which invites our return to God–evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 10-v)

There you have it... St. Augustine denying monergism! What Vivator fails to show here, unfortunately, is the exact statement where St. Augustine actually denies that God alone operates in the heart of the sinner, apart from any cooperation on man's part, in drawing him to fait in and obedience to Christ. What we only have here are statements from the blessed doctor of grace saying that (1) man possesses freedom to live rightly - provided he is under the influence of grace [as clear from its immediate context], and that (2) our turning to God is an act of the human will. Monergism doesn't deny any of these! What monergists deny is that man, though dead in his sins and transgressions, still has a cooperating role in the illuminating, heart-softening, regenerating work of God, and this denial is clearly seen on St. Augustine's words: "For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost" (Enchiridon, Ch. 30).

So, was St. Augustine a monergist or a synergist? I would say both, but not on equal terms. Let me explain further. St. Augustine teaches that God alone efficaciously works within man to make him willing (monergism), but when man is made willing, God cooperates with him to the execution of good (synergism). His own words (all emphasis mine):

But yet, however small and imperfect his love was, it was not wholly wanting when he said to the Lord, "I will lay down my life for Your sake"; (John 13:37) for he supposed himself able to effect what he felt himself willing to do. And who was it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by His operation? Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will. On which account the apostle says, "I am confident of this very thing, that He which has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:6) He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: "It is God which works in you, even to will." (Philippians 2:13) While of His co-working with us, when we will and act by willing, the apostle says, "We know that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love God." What does this phrase, all things, mean, but the terrible and cruel sufferings which affect our condition? That burden, indeed, of Christ, which is heavy for our infirmity, becomes light to love. For to such did the Lord say that His burden was light, (Matthew 11:30) as Peter was when he suffered for Christ, not as he was when he denied Him. (On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 33-xvii)

This proves what I've asserted above that St. Augustine's seeming synergism was only on the secondary level under the umbrella of his monergism, which is first and foremost in his soteriology. The blessed doctor affirms that man has a role to play in salvation (faith, repentance, etc.), but unless God first enables him and operates within his heart to make him willing (which Calvinists equate to spiritual regeneration), man will never perform the role he has to play. As St. Augustine puts it elsewhere in the same book: "It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will" (cf. On Grace and Free Will, Ch. 32-xvi). This divine operation, according to St. Augustine, needs no willing cooperation on man's part because it is in the first place performed by God for the purpose of making us willing. Therefore, this gift cannot be resisted by any hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. In his famous two-volume book On Predestination of the Saints, St. Augustine wrote (emphasis added):

...This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory. (On Predestination of the Saints (Book I), Ch. 13-viii)

This is exactly what Calvinists mean when they talk about God's grace being irresistible. Not that men are drawn by God against their will, but that they are wondrously drawn by God so that they should certainly and freely choose to come to Him for Salvation. St. Augustine wrote in another treatise: "[the sinner] is drawn in wondrous ways to will, by Him who knows how to work within the very hearts of men. Not that men who are unwilling should believe, which cannot be, but that they should be made willing from being unwilling" (cf. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Ch. 37-xix).

Furthermore, St. Augustine taught (again, in favor of Calvinism) that this divine gift of conversion is not given to all but only to those particularly chosen by God in eternity past. Evidence of this is found everywhere in his lengthy treatise On Predestination of the Saints, but this is already a topic of another post.

Now back to the question: Was St. Augustine a monergist? Certainly. Was he a synergist? In some way, yes, but it should be noted that in his system monergism is always prior. Was he a thorough synergist? In Vivator's dreams, maybe.

- Jeph

Do we then by grace make void of free will?

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

St. Augustine | Do we then by grace make void free will? God forbid! Nay, rather we establish free will. For even as the law by faith, so free will by grace, is not made void, but established (Rom. 3:31). For neither is the law fulfilled except by free will; but by the law is the knowledge of sin, by faith the acquisition of grace against sin, by grace the healing of the soul from the disease of sin, by the health of the soul freedom of will, by free will the love of righteousness, by love of righteousness the accomplishment of the law. 

Accordingly, as the law is not made void, but is established through faith, since faith procures grace whereby the law is fulfilled; so free will is not made void through grace, but is established, since grace cures the will whereby righteousness is freely loved. Now all the stages which I have here connected together in their successive links, have severally their proper voices in the sacred Scriptures. 

The law says: "Thou shall not covet" (Exo. 20:17). Faith says: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee" (Psa. 41:4). Grace says: "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (Jn. 5:14). Health says: "O Lord my God, I cried unto Thee, and Thou hast healed me" (Psa. 130:2). Free will says: "I will freely sacrifice unto Thee" (Psa. 54:6). Love of righteousness says: "Transgressors told me pleasant tales, but not according to Thy law, O Lord" (Psa. 119:85). 

How is it then that miserable men dare to be proud, either of their free will, before they are freed, or of their own strength, if they have been freed? They do not observe that in the very mention of free will they pronounce the name of liberty. But "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17). If, therefore, they are the slaves of sin, why do they boast of free will? For by what a man is overcome, to the same is he delivered as a slave (2 Pe. 2:19). But if they have been freed, why do they vaunt themselves as if it were by their own doing, and boast, as if they had not received? Or are they free in such sort that they do not choose to have Him for their Lord who says to them: "Without me ye can do nothing" (Jn. 15:5); and "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?" (Jn. 8:36).

~ On the Spirit and the Letter, Ch. 52 [XXX]

Mary's (Supposed) Impeccability And The Catholic Objection On Irresistible Grace

I remember engaging myself in a somewhat fierce discussion with an online Roman Catholic apologist concerning Irresistible Grace some time ago. The guy insisted upon the typical anti-Calvinist objection that if Reformed theology is true that God is absolutely sovereign in Salvation (i.e. that God effectively leads to saving faith and repentance those whom he chooses to be saved by His free grace), then men are no better than puppets who have no freedom of choice. 

On the contrary, however, Calvinists insist that God's sovereignty is perfectly compatible with man having a free will. St. Augustine of Hippo, the greatest post-apostolic church father of the Christian religion and a distant mentor of Martin Luther and John Calvin, puts it this way:

"We maintain," says he, "that men are the work of God, and that no one is forced unwillingly by His power either into evil or good, but that man does either good or ill of his own will; but that in a good work he is always assisted by God's grace, while in evil he is incited by the suggestions of the devil."  To this I answer, that men, in so far as they are men, are the work of God; but in so far as they are sinners, they are under the devil, unless they are plucked from thence by Him who became the Mediator between God and man, for no other reason  than because He could not be a sinner from men. And that no one is forced by God's power unwillingly either into evil  or good, but that when God forsakes a man, he deservedly goes to evil, and that when God assists, without deserving he is converted to good. For a man is not good if he is unwilling, but by the grace of God he is even assisted to the point of being willing; because it is not vainly written, "For it is God that works in you, both to will and to do for His good  pleasure," (Philippians 2:13)  and, "The will is prepared by God." (Proverbs 8:35) ~

 Source: St. Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, I, Ch. 36-XVIII

Now here's what interests me. There are plenty of Romanist apologists today who falsely accuse Calvinism of doing away man's freedom of choice and human responsibility; all this while affirming Mary's supposed lifelong perfection in holiness by the sovereign preservation of God. They view Mary as someone who has been purified from every stains and corruption of original sin the very first moment of her conception, and was constantly  and effectually moved by God's grace unto all holiness throughout her entire life.

Does this make Mary a puppet, too? Well, obviously, the anti-Calvinists of Rome won't apply to themselves the same line of objection they use against Calvinists who hold to Irresistible Grace. Why the double standard?

-Jeph

St. Augustine Of Hippo On Effectual Calling

The Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine of
Hippo, 354-430 AD

St. Augustine of Hippo | Accordingly, our only Master and Lord Himself, when He had said what I have above mentioned,— "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent,"— says a little afterwards in that same discourse of His, "I said unto you that you also have seen me and have not believed. All that the Father gives me shall come to me" (John 6:36). What is the meaning of "shall come to me," but, "shall believe in me"? But it is the Father's gift that this may be the case.

Moreover, a little after He says, "Murmur not among yourselves. No one can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all teachable of God. Every man that has heard of the Father, and has learned, comes unto me." What is the meaning of, "Every man that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me," except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who comes not to me? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly every one who does not come has not heard from the Father; for if he had heard and learned, he would come. For no one has heard and learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.

Far removed from the senses of the flesh is this teaching in which the Father is heard, and teaches to come to the Son. Engaged herein is also the Son Himself, because He is His Word by which He thus teaches; and He does not do this through the ear of the flesh, but of the heart. Herein engaged, also, at the same time, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; and He, too, teaches, and does not teach separately, since we have learned that the workings of the Trinity are inseparable. And that is certainly the same Holy Spirit of whom the apostle says, "We, however, having the same Spirit of faith" (2 Corinthians 4:13). But this is especially attributed to the Father, for the reason that of Him is begotten the Only Begotten, and from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit, of which it would be tedious to argue more elaborately; and I think that my work in fifteen books on the Trinity which God is, has already reached you. Very far removed, I say, from the senses of the flesh is this instruction wherein God is heard and teaches. We see that many come to the Son because we see that many believe in Christ, but when and how they have heard this from the Father, and have learned, we see not. It is true that that grace is exceedingly secret, but who doubts that it is grace?

This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.

~ On Predestination of the Saints (Book I), Chapter 13.