Edwards on Grace
Miscellany 522.
NO PROMISES TO UNCONVERTED MEN’S SEEKING SALVATION
It was not meet that God should make any promises of success to unregenerated seekers of salvation. For it is not meet that any should have absolute promises of success, unless they do what they can, or if they are slack and partial and ben’t through in seeking. Nor is it meet that absolute promises should be made to such as are thorough in seeking, unless they are persevering in it. It is not meet that God should promise men success, if they would be engaged in seeking during any limited time, as for a day or month or year. Therefore, it was not meet that God should make any absolute promises of success to any unconverted seekers; for no unconverted man will be thorough in striving for eternal life, and be fixed and persevering in it.
The Arminians say that God has promised that if men will make a good improvement of common grace, he will give special. Then I would ask, how long must a man make good improvement of common grace, in order to be entitled to that promise? Will it be a performance of the condition of the promise, if a man doth it for a day or a week? If it be said, that a man must go on in making a good improvement of it, waiting for the fulfilling of the promise in God’s time; I answer, that I believe that God has promised special grace to those that are faithful in the improvement of common grace, and continue so to be: but there are none but those that have special grace, that do thus. There is no promise of grace but what is implied in that, “To him that hath shall be given” (Lk 8.18). God make promises of grace only to grace.
Edwards establishes in the first paragraph that God is not obligated to promise anything to humankind. At the chagrin of the average Arminian or theologically inept person regarding the main facets of Reformed Theology, this fact might be offensive. However, it is requisite that a promise of grace or mercy on the part of God is just that, grace or mercy—but by God alone. You see, grace and mercy are never obligatory in any way shape or form because grace and mercy would (1) be nonsensical categories of thought, and (2) they would be self contradictory ideas that would leave nothing more than absurdity. What does this mean then? It means, as Edwards has pointed out, that God is not under any obligation to promise anything to the one who is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This fact, however, is always seen in light of God’s love for the world in his Son Jesus. But even then the Atonement by Jesus was not obligatory on the part of God, but God’s own free decision. God is the only one who is truly free. Speculators about this fact would do well to hold their tongues until the eschaton.
In the second section, Edwards points out the pelagian tendencies of Arminianism to make a necessary connection (falsely I believe) from common grace to special grace, or said another way, common grace to salvation grace. Arminians tend to argue that the common grace that God gives all people, whether regenerated or unregenerated to exist second by second and moment by moment physically and spiritually, can inevitably lead to a position of attaining special grace. An easier way to understand this is that Edwards is stating that Arminians believe that humans can effect their own salvation by common grace. Keep in mind that I said effect and not affect. This is the essence of the Arminian heresy presently in the church, but it’s not just Arminian, it’s human nature. We tend to think we’re always better than we are, but the truth is that we’re worse than we can realize. We also must bear in mind that God loves us more than we can imagine in our own sinfulness and depravity. This is a mystery.
In any case, Edwards’ point, I believe, is that by common grace we can affect our own salvation in the sense that God has provided common grace to do so. However, special grace which is salvific in nature does not occur by our own causation, but only the Spirit’s regeneration of our being by the special grace which is given by God. Edwards is pointing out in the second section that anything else would be absurd because one would have to wait an eternity for common grace to lead to special grace. Again, said another way, special salvific grace is always given and never achieved.
Why this matters:
This whole situation matters because Christianity is the story about how God reaches down and lifts us out of our own depravity by his mercy alone. As he lifts us out of a slough of despond we may grab onto him as a child would a parent, but the child cannot lift himself out alone. For some children, they grab on harder to God’s grace. For others, they let him do all the work.
On the other side of the coin is the exact opposite of Christianity, i.e., Religion. Religion typically has a story about how you and you alone are the arbiter of your own salvation. You need to be good, you need to be nice, you need to be loving, etc. etc. All of these concepts of religion are indeed good, but they do not save. Instead, the typical person who attempts to abide by them often sees them as a means of works righteousness. In religion, humanity saves humanity by some strange and corrupt form of rugged individualism. In Reformed Theology, and, I would argue, Christianity in general, the only saving possible is by and through the person of Jesus Christ.
We are saved by Grace alone through Faith alone, and consequently unto good works alone.
Basically, Arminians just have the whole dynamic of soteriology backwards.
Church Dogmatics I.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, by Karl Barth
Jonathan Edwards: A Life, by George Marsden
America's Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards, by Robert Jenson
Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern & Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda
The Trinity, by Karl Rahner
The Orthodox Way, by Kallistos Ware
Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis, by George Sayer
J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, by Humphrey Carpenter
Discipleship, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Great blog Phil. Amen.
“Basically, Arminians just have the whole dynamic of soteriology backwards.”
All I read was the last sentence of this blog. Couldn’t agree more!
As someone who has been told that he makes a lot of “Arminian” sounding statements in spite of leaning toward Reformed theology
, I’m not sure where we disagree… I wonder if maybe the issues presented here are more semantic misunderstandings and not as soteriological as you think?
I don’t know personally any Arminians who believe that there is a “necessary connection… from common grace to special grace, or said another way, common grace to salvation grace.” But no doubt there probably are.
I think the question is more of a speculative one than a doctrinal one… if that makes sense. Let me see if I can put it into a point-by-point structure:
1. Either God has given everyone common grace or God hasn’t. It seems very difficult to argue, Scripturally or otherwise, that God hasn’t.
2. But if God has already given everyone common grace, then God may also choose to give everyone salvation grace. Of course, this would be universalism, which generally goes against established Christian doctrine.
3. So, if everyone is given common grace, and only some are given salvation grace, on what basis is the distinction made? It sounds as though the given response is: Reformed Christians believe God decides it, and Arminian Christians believe we help God with the decision.
4. If that is the duality, then I (and, I would suggest, many Arminians) actually come down on the side of Reformed theology. It seems to be a false duality. But this seems to beg the question, which the Arminians then ask: On what basis does God decide?
5. Reformed folks then say, more or less, there is no way to know, simply trust in God’s sovereignty, justice, and love. Fair enough. But Arminians say, fair enough, but God doesn’t just expect us to assume we’re saved, right? Surely there must be some response involved? (Here’s where that pesky book of James shows up!)
6. Yes, say the Reformed folks, but it’s a response that is brought about by the Holy Spirit, it’s nothing that you would do otherwise. The Arminians respond: But that would make any ability to distinguish truly Christian action impossible, because someone could “do” all the right things, and still not be saved.
7. Yes, say the Reformed folks, that’s exactly right. There’s no way to know, simply trust God and obedience will be the fruit of that.
8. It’s right here that we enter a paradoxical reality that falls apart logically. Essentially we’ve established a tautology, which is: “You are saved by God because God saves you.” But even to state this tautology means that I have to give assent to it, which throws the whole thing back up in the air, because the point is that I (a mere human) can never give assent to what God alone can claim.
9. This is why faith is such an absurd mystery, but one that we have to cling to nevertheless; faith presupposes a subject that cannot logically be presupposed, if God truly always has priority, and yet we are asked to do that by faith.
All of this makes me sympathetic to the Arminian position, not because it is more theologically sound, but because it appears to push the ramifications of the paradox a bit further, and that opens up a lot of interesting space that it sometimes appears Reformed theologians are hesitant to pursue because of the “danger” that they will fall into some sort of Pelagianism.
But, my thought is that if God always retains the priority (ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically) then God will retain that in spite of our forays into strange theological territory. So, I guess what I’m saying is, I like and support the Reformed view, but the Arminian questions tend to be a lot more interesting!
G.
Hey Geoff!
Thanks for the response to my post. I kind of chuckled when I read your first line, about sounding Arminian, haha. You know I wasn’t trying to be incendiary or anything like that when I made those comments.
In any case, I have good reason to think that you and I agree more than we disagree, for we both view Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith, and it is by grace through faith that we are saved. Our principle inquiry (which will never be known until the eschaton
) concerns how we are to understand ‘salvation by grace—through faith’ and what that actually means and why it matters. But there are indeed more issues present in the inquiry than just semantic misunderstandings and/or ambiguity.
I suppose where I generally disagree with Arminian perspectives on how to explain soteriology is when it comes to “helping God with the decision” of salvation, and I think you stated it well and the dilemmas that go along with the whole situation in your points. It’s almost as though Arminian theology creates more problems than it solves because of the doctrinal perspective of synergism relative to monergism. That said, your concluding remarks are indeed well thought out and buttress the ultimate paradoxical scripture (from my perspective), Romans 9! If James is that little pesky book, as you stated, then chapter 9 of the Book of Romans is the titan of faith dilemmas. Whatever the case, though, I think we are not only called to have faith in God alone, but we are to have faith in the goodness and love of God alone. This—alone—makes the whole dynamic of God’s sovereignty a tenable venture, both philosophically and theologically.
Again, all and all, I generally can’t really disagree with your theological line of reasoning, and that’s because I believe that your reasoning is basically just another way to state a genuinely Reformed perspective on theology, while being honest about the limitations of our finite minds concerning God’s grace and how his grace is administered to the world, and how we apprehend the mystery of it. But consider this: at least the Reformed perspective is actually 100% dependent on God’s sovereignty, kind of like Kierkegaard’s perspective on Abraham.
The only thing I can challenge you on from reading your response is your point about being more “…sympathetic to the Arminian position…” Are you sure that you’re more sympathetic to the Arminian position? Doesn’t seem like you are at all because you just defaulted in your previous statements to a non-arminian theological perspective. I suppose that maybe just being honest about the dilemmas is in itself pushing the ramification of the paradox further and further.
How does the Arminian position, by saying that election is dependent upon faith, push the boundary? I personally think the Reformed position does a much better job because it’s at least saying that we’ve got to deal with the paradox—through faith. The Arminian position, on the other hand, attempts to “solve” the problem by tweaking the concept and nature of “faith.” They make faith, well, not true faith because faith now “does” something. (By the way, this is a tangential point but the Word of Faith movement within Pentecostalism sees faith just this way—and they run with it. They see faith as a causal force; words being the container of that force, and through saying and speaking the right words through faith they can literally create their own reality. Of course this usually entails getting rich! Wow, if we have faith, then that “does” something. Faith helps God in his decision for us, yada yada yada…) Basically, I just don’t buy it because I think the Arminian position that faith somehow “helps” God in his decision for us is absurd and in fact denies the paradox.
In the end, an unnamed author says it well: “Arminians believe that they owe their election to their faith, whereas Calvinists believe that they owe their faith to their election.”
hehe… good call Phil, we are probably not that much different in our views.
I would only add that I think a lot of so-called “Arminians” are actually closer to this than people realize… I know some Arminians who would fall into the error that you describe, but I think many more are simply trying to deal with the paradox and don’t want to fall into the absolute “determinism” held by some hardcore Calvinists. So my guess is that those of us in between the extremes, Calvinists and Arminians, are probably not that far apart. I think you’re right though, at the end of the day, I’m a bit more on the Reformed side. But I don’t think it’s a clear boundary that anyone can point out.
What you say seems very agreeable to me Geoff. Thanks for the dialogue. We need to get together for coffee and talk, perhaps with Josh as well. We’ll come over to your neck of the woods if you like.
Yeah, that sounds cool! Let me know when you have time… too bad you won’t be at AAR… we definitely should hang out. I’m pretty flexible, you know, with no job and what not!
One other quick thing — I do think it’s important to remember that, though it’s not from us, we are called to “do” something in response to Christ. That’s why I like the language of surrender. In surrendering, you’re “doing” nothing but you are still responding. That seems the best way to describe our response to Christ, at least to me at this point.
Yes, we are definitely called to “do” something. Indeed, this is what the Great Awakening was built on, for example, by Edwards and Whitfield, both of whom were classically reformed. They called the people to repent and follow Christ, just as the gospel does. I like your point about surrendering too…
I’m sorry you still don’t have a job. I didn’t know that. What are you doing all day? Reading… That’s pretty cool…
P.S. On a side note, I once had a theology professor at NU mock Calvinists in general by saying that they’ve had “weak” missiology throughout history. I immediately objected and said that was just not true, and then proceeded to present counter evidence. This was easy and he shouldn’t have been so cavalier about Reformed Theology. It’s easy to point the finger at a system that is seemingly difficult and sometimes downright offensive to our “personal” autonomy and “freedom.” I just fear that sometimes we proclaim “our” freedom as ours, and in that case it can become slavery. Again, this is why I like your emphasis on surrender.
Got to go…