LaGrange,
You have
finally stripped away all ambiguity and shown us exactly what drives your theology. It is not the standalone, grammatical exegesis of God's Word; it is human philosophy, scholastic tradition, and a plastic hermeneutical system that allows you to invent doctrines to fit a pre-existing sacramental framework. Let's look at the absolute collapse of your defense.
1. The Roman Road Block: The Strict Sequence of Romans 8:30
You write:
"The sequence is Calling and Justification and Glorification... There is one kind of calling and it is ongoing."
LaGrange, you are completely violating the golden chain of
Romans 8:30. Paul writes:
"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Look at the verbs—they are all aorist active indicatives. They describe completed, definitive actions from the standpoint of God's eternal decree.
- If the call is merely an "ongoing invitation" that man can resist or fall away from, then the chain breaks.
- If some who are called fail to prepare or lose their inheritance, then they are never justified or glorified.
But Paul's grammar does not allow for a single dropout. 100% of the predestined are called; 100% of the called are justified; 100% of the justified are glorified. This is why we distinguish the
Effectual Call from the general external proclamation of the gospel—because the call in Romans 8:30
infallibly guarantees justification and glorification. Your "ongoing, resistible call" turns Paul’s unbreakable chain into a broken link.
My Comment: You say: “But Paul's grammar does not allow for a single dropout. 100% of the predestined are called; 100% of the called are justified; 100% of the justified are glorified.”
This interpretation is very dangerous. This is limited atonement (Christ died on the cross only for the elect and will effectively save them). It also presupposes unconditional election (God chose certain Individuals from all eternity to save based on His sovereign Will). This means Christ died only for certain people and the rest of the people received NO GRACE. If you receive no grace, it’s God’s fault that you are reprobated. This makes God unjust.
To understand the golden chain in a better way, follow this:
When you become justified
You don’t cease to be called
When you are called
You don’t cease to be predestinated
When you are predestinated
You don’t cease to be in God’s foreknowledge
All of the previous steps are included in the present step
Each step doesn’t happen one time.
The effect of the teaching of limited atonement is that each step in the golden chain necessitates the next step. We say God has a free Will and He can choose not to necessitate the next step. He elects at each step. In God’s sovereign Will, he can permit sin. God can permit a man to sin, if the man wants to sin, and reprobate him based on that sin (if the man doesn’t confess and repent and continues to resist).
Some like to quote Is 45:17 to prove limited atonement: Is 45:17 “Israel is saved in the Lord with an eternal salvation: you shall not be confounded, and you shall not be ashamed for ever and ever.”
However, the parallel verse is: Heb 5:9 And being consummated, he became,
to all that obey him,
the cause of eternal salvation.
Notice the “obey” part.
The golden chain means God will predestinate us through each step if we do not resist (disobey). Paul is saying God is always faithful and will do His part.
2. The Sacramental Error: Justification at Water Baptism
You claim: "Cooperative grace takes place under Justification at baptism."
You have just completely abandoned the Gospel of Grace and retreated into sacramental justification by human works. You are arguing that a sinner is legally dead under the wrath of God until a priest performs a ritual with water, at which point man's "cooperative grace" kicks in.
My Comment: Here’s a quote for you on Cooperative Grace:
Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 16.32
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.5 On which account the apostle says, “I am confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil 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.
The Council of Carthage (418ad) taught the necessity of baptism:
Canon 2 Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. (Denzigers 102 [223–224])
This canon was promulgated during the life of St. Augustine. Baptism for the remission of sins was also in the Nicene Creed (325ad).
I know you are going to say that you only go by scripture. Monergism.com quotes this canon on their website. They also quote the canons from Council of Orange (529ad). The councils mean something to them. These quotes show that the early church fathers believed in cooperative grace and baptismal regeneration.
Let's apply the
Five Phases to expose this error:
- The Legal Phase (33 AD): Romans 5:9 states we are "now justified by his blood." Our legal clearance before the bar of God's justice was completely executed and finished at the cross. It does not sit idle waiting for a baptismal font.
My Comment: I think maybe you don’t understand the 5 causes of justification? Baptism is the instrumental cause (Titus 3:5). We would say Christ dying on the cross was the meritorious cause of justification.
Here’s the quote on baptismal regeneration again:
Council of Carthage (418)
“Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema.” (Denzigers 102 [223–224])
The Vital Phase (Regeneration): The Holy Spirit sovereignly quickens the dead sinner (John 3:8).
My Comment: This is the efficient cause of justification. Agreed.
- The Practical Phase (Conversion/Baptism): Water baptism is a commandment for a living child of God to walk in open discipleship. It is an outward sign of an inward, already-accomplished reality.
By making water baptism the location of justification and cooperative grace, you are looking at the finished work of the Lamb on the cross and declaring it insufficient until man cooperates via a sacrament.
My Comment: I really think what the Protestant reformers did was to substitute hearing scripture for baptism as the instrumental cause of justification at the point of the effectual call. Baptism was demoted to an ordinance. I really think this is why you and the Arminians disagree with each other on so many things. You can’t quite pinpoint when you are regenerated. You personally are deciding when you were regenerated. It’s really a guess. The Lord instituted the sacrament of Baptism so you would know when you were regenerated (Matt 3:16). Martin Luther even believed in baptismal regeneration for infants.
3. Dismantling Your Hermeneutic: "Synthesis" vs. Explicit Scripture
You run to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (114) to defend the "Analogical Method" and "Synthesis," arguing that we can combine verses using human reason to form deeper understandings over time.
My Comment: Do you analyze scripture based on what you already know and believe? If you do, you are following this method. You have already exegeted scripture and then you build or deepen your understanding based on that. I don’t think you forget everything you know and believe and start from scratch everyday.
LaGrange, there is a grand canyon of difference between a theological deduction that perfectly matches the plain literal text (like the Trinity or the Effectual Call) and a theological invention that directly contradicts the literal text (like losing your inheritance or cooperating with your own resurrection)
My Comment: The term “Effectual call” is not even in scripture. The term “Trinity” isn’t either. The doctrine of the Trinity was not easily exegeted from scripture in the early church. Many of the early heresies revolved around the Trinity. So much for the literal method alone for interpreting scripture. Your own founders used and believed in more than one method of interpretation.
Continued
