**I wanted to post this because of some discussion in the previous post on ‘Irresistable Grace’, and the distinction between Federal and Evangelical Calvinism, respectively. I see Affective-Free Grace Calvinism commensurate, in many ways, with what we have been calling ‘Evangelical Calvinism’ here.** (This is a repost, I’ve modified it a little, but not my opening paragraph).**
The following is a lengthy quote highlighting the differences between Federal Calvinism and ‘Affective-Free Grace Calvinism’. William Perkins represents the Federal “Vision” side, while Richard Sibbes the “Free-Grace” perspective. The quote is taken from Ron Frost’s unpublished PhD dissertation on Richard Sibbes and English Puritanism. He is providing conclusion to a discussion he had previously undertaken where he had articulated, in detail (with bibliographic support), the disparate “covenantal approaches” reflected by Perkins and Sibbes. The primary disjunction between the two is how they framed the Adam-motif (i.e. first and second Adam theology, see Rom. 5, etc.); and the different trajectories this placed their soteriological outlooks upon. Perkins forwarded the “Federal” model, which assumes continuity between the “law-keeping” of the first Adam and second Adam (i.e. think “Covenant of Works”); while Sibbes forwarded the “Marital Mystical” construct, which assumes some discontinuity between the “two Adams;” viz. while Christ truly represents us before the Father (juridical–i.e. forensic or legal), He also takes us as His spouse, which is presupposed by a real union with Him. The main difference, then, between Perkins and Sibbes, according to Frost, is that Perkins framed salvation purely as legal and “juridical”, which did not assume a “real union” with Christ; while Sibbes framed his view, not just as legal, but beyond that, as a Marriage framework, which is presupposed by a “real union” with Christ.
A Brief Glossary of Terms: **Privative Sin = the privation or absence of God’s righteousness [negative definition of sin] — **Positive Sin = Self love vs. God’s love.
Enough said on my part, lets hear from Frost:
Some final observations may be made about the positive and privative views of sin. The two approaches differ fundamentally on the reason for sin; while man is identified as responsible for sin in both views, he tends to be portrayed more as a pliable innocent overcome by the serpent’s deceit in the privative model. It is Adam presented as inadequate, not because he was unable to fulfill the law, but, because, in his mutability as a creature, he was vulnerable to moral change. This the serpent exploited while God was willfully away. In scholastic terms, the formal cause of sin was twofold, given the double causality associated with God’s sovereignty. God, as the primary agent for all things, determined the outcome by his withdrawal. In this he was arbitrary but just. The second agent, Adam, failed to apply the grace he had available and thus was culpable for his own fall, albeit as something of a victim. In both considerations the issue of grace is pivotal in its absence. For the privative model, as seen in both Thomistic and Reformed theology, this leads to a greater emphasis on the acquisition and application of grace in hypostatized or commodity-like terms, and a tendency toward Aristotelian moralism — the establishing of one’s righteousness through righteous actions based on grace. To the degree that grace becomes an impersonal quality, the greater the impression one has that something worthy of appreciation, if not merit, is being accomplished.
The doctrine of positive sin, on the other hand, rejects any tendency to see man as a victim; Adam is always the culprit in that he willfully replaced the Creator with the creature as the object of absolute devotion. It also recognizes human mutability as a fact which allows the fall, but rejects it as a meaningful explanation. The fall, in positive sin, remains an impenetrable mystery; Adam is not portrayed as deceived and God is not portrayed as withholding grace. In the positive model sin is always a competition: Adam seeks to usurp God’s role while God confounds Adam’s autonomy.
Thus, the most important difference between the two models is found in the way God is portrayed. In the privative view, as Aquinas and Perkins have it, he remains a supplier of grace — withholding what is needed for salvation except to the elect. He even remains parsimonious to the elect but, as their efforts prevail, is increasingly generous. In the positive view, on the other hand, he is an enemy until conversion which comes by the Spirit’s direct intervention. He invites the elect to see God as he really is: righteous, strong, and loving. Conversion, in fact, is a litmus for the two views: the privative model generally adopts a catechetical process which culminates in an affirmation of faith. The positive model, while recognizing that the Spirit uses prevenient stirrings, expects a more distinct Paul-light conversion which displays the moment in which selfish autonomy melts before God’s self disclosure. For the one, nature remains very much in view; for the other, God, once unveiled by grace, dominates the scene.The importance of the affections for Sibbes and the nomists differed in profound ways. For Sibbes the affections were both the avenue by which sin entered the world and the avenue by which God, through the Spirit, restores the fallen soul. Slavery of the will was seen to be an enslavement by one’s own desires, something broken only by transforming vision of God as more desirable than anything human autonomy offers. Perkins and the nomists, on the other hand, saw the affections as a subordinate element of the will; they also provided a suitable theology for the prominent will by adopting the Thomist privation-enablement model of sin and grace.
Perkins and the nomists thus established human responsibility as the center-theme of salvation; the moral law became the locus of the soul in the process of sanctification. The belief that the covenant of grace is essentially a legal contract shaped all spirituality into a restorative stance: life is seen as an effort to regain and sustain Adam’s original obedience through the Spirit-enabled will. This generated a Christology which emphasized the juridical work of Christ to the point that, for pastoral ministry, the purpose of restored communion was easily reduced into the preaching of moralist endeavor.
Against this view, Sibbes, in line with Augustine, emphasized the place of Christ as much more than the source of justification, but primarily as one to be loved. The promise of the indwelling Spirit, whose ministry in Christ’s life is now allocated to the Christian, gives promise of a greater hope than the nomists offered: full and eternal intimacy of the Godhead through a true, although mystical, union with Christ. The feet of the soul are the affections and the affections are meant for communion with God. (Ron Frost, “Richard Sibbes’ Theology of Grace and the Division of English Reformed Theology,” [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1996 University of London Kings College], 94-96)
What is of note, in regards to a discussion on “Grace” and “Sin;” is that if Frost’s argument is true (and I’m convinced that it is), then you can be a Federal Calvinist, and still be as “Semi-Pelagian” as Roman Catholics. That’s why I would want to avoid the TULIP’s understanding of “Irresistable Grace,” and at least understand it in the ‘re-framed’-Trinitarian ways provided by someone like Richard Sibbes.
September 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Does any of the statements below make any sense in relation to Unlimited Atonement and the idea of Irresistible Grace (light turned on)? Anyway what comments do any of you have on the statements and am I on the right track?
1)Before Adam sinned he was spiritually attuned to the things of God. When he disobey God, he died spiritually as if a light switch was turned off and left him in total darkness. He became unable to comprehend the things of God, totally unable to sense the will of God. Man can do nothing more then grope in the darkness-totally depraved. All men as descendants of Adam are now born with the light switch turned off by default.
2)God’s elect are regenerated (light turned on) by the Holy Spirit through the call of God (Irresistible Grace) and then naturally respond to God’s command for faith & repentance. Basically God turns on the light switch and shows them the correct path to take through the word of God, but even then it's dim compared to what Adam had before the fall. God’s elect responds to the Gospel because they can now see their need for salvation and are drawn to it like a bug to a bright light-they have no choice but to obey the light.
3)Jesus Christ propitiated the wrath of God for the benefit of all mankind, given as a love offering. Basically God reached down His hand to help anyone who calls out to him but unless one was elected none were to be found. How one responds to this gift ratifies, sets in stone one’s eternal destiny. One who responds positively through the call of God (light turned on) gains life but one who rejects this gift become reprobate. That is divine reprobation in which God leaves the nonelect to their own choices. Being in darkness is no excuse to reject God’s offer. Because one is not selected for salvation doesn’t in any way absolve them of their sin and condemnation. The rejection of God’s love offering leads to a judgment far worse then those who break God‘s law but have never heard the Gospel.
4)Christ died for all but only those God elects by turning on the light switch will respond to the Gospel. The man in darkness is also presented with the Gospel but is unable to respond because he is in darkness. Only God knows why one man is elected for salvation and another is condemned. A man who can see may try to help the blind man but until that blind man can see for himself, he will never see a need for the Gospel. Even though a man may be dead spiritually, God provides the conscience to bear witness to the things of God and therefore will be held responsible for his actions.
September 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Mike,
I think your thoughts get right at what Myk has been describing. I'm still parsing this out a bit for myself, in re. to the two-pronged approach of supralapsarian for the "elect" and infralapsarian for the "non-elect." I want to speak about Christ's reprobation (like Barth) in ways that are central to "His" election for us; I actually think Myk nails it here, I just want to think on it a bit further.
I also want to reframe "irresistable grace," Mike. To see this trinitarianly (the Holy Spirit as the application of God's grace vs. the typical idea of grace as a "quality").
I think you have a great grasp though, thus far, Mike!
September 9, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Mike,
As I'm rereading Myk's essay on TFT and election, my questions are being clarified. Carnal Union and Spiritual Union with Christ have everything to do with how we work out this idea on irresistable grace, universal atonement, and particular salvation.
In the days to come I will be getting into this key point — carnal/spiritual union — in the theology of TFT. It makes beautiful sense.
September 9, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Thanks for posting the Frost material – I really enjoyed it and would be keen to read more. I will email him to ask for a copy. I really like what he is saying about Sibbes (who I know of but have not spent a good deal of time in), the Trinitarian basis, etc. Lovely and right on target with where all this disucssion is going. More please.
One point, TFT often says, and I think correctly, that grace is actually not a what but a who – Jesus Christ, so much so that in actual fact he is the one True Sacrament. Now normally the Holy Spirit is the Divine Person to be associated with grace (or Mary in RC thought!), but this merely highlights the mutual reciprocity between Word and Spirit and the Augustinian formula: Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt. TFT doesn't make that link between Christ and Spirit but those after him like us should. This dovetails nicely with what Frost says above.
Do you have more on 'Affective free-grace Calvinism' – ie where does this phrase come from and what does it mean etc?
On another note, this is a great discussion – why aren't more Calvinists taking part in it? I mean, amongst the young bloods like Ben Meyers, and the PTS lads like Congdon, Flett, etc – are they not interested? Are you guys out there on a Google 'auto alert'? If so, what do you think?
Blessings y'all (trying to contextualize for you Americans :-))
September 10, 2009 at 9:15 am
Yes, I do have some more; I think you'll be enriched as you read his dissertation — it's quite in line with the points of Scottish Theology.
I like what you underscore with TFT, this is something I've noticed as I've read him as well.
Well I kind've compounded the "Affective-Free Grace" label. Frost calls his approach "Affective Theology," because of the anthropology at play (i.e. He sees the heart — within the tripartite faculty psychology nomenclature — as the defining feature of man [heart=motive center/value center]. This is "versus" the Thomist Intellecutalist which sees the "mind/will" as the defining feature (Norman Fiering is also helfpul here). Anyway, Affective comes from this approach; and tying it in, or from, the motive/heart language of the bible (God alone searches the mind and heart, etc.). And then "Free-Grace" is what folks like Sibbes and others seemed to emphasize.
Yes (I would like to see more response), although blogging certainly has its own set of dynamics — it is blogging after all ;-).
You know, Myk, I think you're the first Kiwi (besides Jason Goroncy) I've ever really interacted with; before this, my only interactions with Kiwis involved eating a little brown and green fruit with black seeds . . . thank you so much for all the time you've been investing here! I think its been a great encouragement for all those reading here, me included :-).
September 10, 2009 at 9:39 am
It is amazing what a sabbatical allows 🙂
September 10, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I agree that Myk adds a lot to this blog and I enjoy his dialog. I'm not educated in theology and struggle just trying to understand the terms and concepts being discussed but I always look forward to the next post. Getting a few scraps here and there is worth it, especially when your hungry for deeper learning.
Mike
September 10, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Bobby it seems a common presupposition among Reformed theologians that grace, faith, regeneration and salvation are all synonymous. I really appreciate what Dr. Habets highlighted concerning Torrance’s perspective on grace:
“One point, TFT often says, and I think correctly, that grace is actually not a what but a who – Jesus Christ, so much so that in actual fact he is the one True Sacrament.”
It would take more time and far greater ability than I have to fully develop this but unless a man receives the Sacrament/Christ he cannot be saved. Now if we are saved by grace through faith then we do not receive the Sacrament/Christ prior to faith but through it. The Holy Spirit reveals the Sacrament/Christ in us, and this is truly irresistible, but we receive It/Him by faith. I think the Immaculate Conception best illustrates this concept. Just as the birth of Jesus was consequential to the Immaculate Conception, so the spirit birth is consequential to the conception of the grace of God and our faith. I don’t wish to sound vulgar in this but if faith were imposed on us it would be tantamount to rape.
The first Adam perceived the Light/Truth but did not believe It/Him. As a result of the fall men can no longer see (perceive) the Light/Truth and this is our inability. The Holy Spirit reveals the Light/Truth in us and those who both perceive It/Him and believe are created a new creature in Christ. The first Adam was created by God but not of God. The second Adam is of God as are all who are born of the Spirit. The first Adam is not the second Adam and neither is the new creature created in Christ the old man born of the will of the flesh. The Holy Spirit was not indwelling the first Adam nor does He indwell any flesh. The first Adam was not the elect Savior and neither is the flesh elect to salvation. The elect are of God in Christ and those not in Christ are already condemned in the knowledge of the law. This should negate the existence of a “condemned elect”. 😉
I have several other thoughts but I’ll see how well this mixes before adding anything more to the stew. 😉
I really appreciate everyone’s effort here.
September 10, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Mike,
Part of my goal with this blog is to make things "theological," understandable . . . so I will continue to try and do a better job at this.
Kc,
I think what would really help what you're getting at is a distinction between objective and subjective. If the former, which is what you're talking about with Mary and such, then any notion of 'spiritual rape' — which really is not helpful language — disappears.
I think what also would help clarify what you're saying is to understand the presupposition of vicariousness that folks like TFT and others are assuming. It seems that what you're getting at assumes that we can talk about "our humanity" as separate from Christ's Humanity for us; and this is exactly what TFT and myself, for that matter, want to avoid. In this way, "faith," "grace shed abroad in our hearts," "regeneration" becomes a truly HUMAN venture; it's just that this is all realized — FIRST — in Christ's humanity for us. So there is no flattening of these components of salvation, at least in the Evangelical Calvinist approach, instead these truly nuanced realities find there reality "lived out" in the Life of Christ.
As far as the language you're using with the Adams, I'm not following you, per se. It seems like you're saying that there is another kind of "humanity" beyond the kind that Adam (the first) represented — if so this just cannot be sustained.
Thanks, Kc! See my next post on Carnal/Spiritual union; maybe this well help clarify further, in fact it dovetails into what you're talking about here.
September 11, 2009 at 7:58 am
Bobby thanks always for your consideration and for your reply.
I really did not intend to be inflammatory and I agree that there can be no perception of rape objectively nor should there be subjectively. There are at least a few of us who find that equally offensive. 😉
My reference to the Adams was a feeble attempt to sketch out a framework for understanding our election in Christ but I’ll have to let that go for the moment.
I really do appreciate your approach to these things and especially in regard to UA but you may want to consider the possibility that the views on election expressed here so far actually necessitate the two humanities, one elect and one not.
I look forward to learning from you as always.
September 11, 2009 at 8:14 am
Hey Kc,
You said:
but you may want to consider the possibility that the views on election expressed here so far actually necessitate the two humanities, one elect and one not.
It's not two humanities, it's just one in Christ. The elect and "reprobate" both find their humanity (the 'carnal union') in Christ's; but for some inexplicable reason the "reprobate" prefer to stay in their sins and thus are not included in the 'spiritual union' of the elect. This is why it's important to hold both of these "unions" (carnal/spiritual) together in Christ. It is because *reprobate* humanity is carnally united to Christ (along with the elect), and taken to the cross, grave, and resurrection — and thus forgiven — that their rejection of this forgiveness is tantamount to a "Second Fall" (as I believe Torrance makes clear, thanks Myk); which really is inexplicable.
I understand the offense, Kc; but I don't think these things are framed in such a violent way (think of your love for your wife, there is a dynamism there — this is the frame I think Paul — Eph 5 — would think of and through).
Kc, you know I love you brother; I always appreciate your feedback, and your passion to test all things by scripture. Thanks for being a good brother! And thanks for enduring my theological growing pains with me, you certainly have and are stretching me towards Christ (so thank you).
September 11, 2009 at 9:07 am
Bobby it is a great blessing to me, and to many more I’m sure, to follow after you in your struggles.
The idea of a “second fall” fits very well with my understanding and I look forward to reading more on that. I also appreciate very much the marital aspect of our relationship with Christ. I think our contention in this will center on the courtship and who can and cannot be wed. 😉
I love you too brother and I pray we can continue together in this until Christ returns. 😉
September 11, 2009 at 9:16 am
Me too, Kc . . . til Christ returns, hopefully soon!
I'll quit struggling, btw, when Christ comes ;-).
Yes, I think you're probably right on the courtship and the wedded non-wedded. I don't really like that part either, Kc; but my desire to avoid Pelagianism leaves me no choice at the moment . . . :-).
Does it ever scare you, Kc, that you can track with my line[s] of thinking . . . even a little 😉 hehe?
September 11, 2009 at 9:21 am
Well it didn’t until I just read Molnar’s piece and clearly understood why you thought so highly of it! (hahaha)
September 11, 2009 at 9:31 am
Watch out, Kc, Molnar maybe reading; seriously.
September 11, 2009 at 9:32 am
🙂
September 11, 2009 at 9:42 am
Hopefully then he’ll be pleased that at least two of his separated brethren appreciate his perception. 😉
BTW I, of course, think I have the Pelagian rap beat. Oddly enough my strongest prof text comes from Romans 9. Logically I claim Pelagianism is only conceivable in the absence of omniscience or omnipotence. Maybe one day you can set me straight. 😉
September 11, 2009 at 9:53 am
All I can say about Pelagianism is: I think therefore I am.
I hope Molnar does too.