Sanctification & Calvinism

[Tranquil Bondservant]

When I was a Calvinist I was told that sanctification was synergistic and at the time I recognised it as truth. But now that I've come out of the dogma I can't help but see somewhat of a contradiction. I have many other problems with the Calvinistic doctrines but I was just wondering if somebody who is still a Calvinist could explain to me the reasoning as to why "God does not try" works for salvation but not for sanctification? Is there something I'm missing here?

P.S I'm not anti Calvinist, most of my favourite preachers come from the Reformed tradition. Just thought I would mention because I remember what it's like being on the receiving end of this stuff. There's a tendency to put the walls up.

 

[Jonaitis]

Actually, there are a number of people, including myself, that hold to a monergistic view of progressive sanctification. I, too, saw a synergistic framework in any part of the ordo salutis contradictory to the whole system. If God works and wills in us to obey the gospel call, then it must necessarily follow that He works and wills in us for our holiness as well (Philippians 2:13).

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Actually, there are a number of people, including myself, that hold to a monergistic view of progressive sanctification. I, too, saw a synergistic framework in any part of the ordo salutis contradictory to the whole system. If God works and wills in us to obey the gospel call, then it must necessarily follow that He works and wills in us for our holiness as well (Philippians 2:13).

Within the systematic if then we sin during our progressive sanctification does that mean that God decreed it? Per Monergism that is

 

[Jonaitis]

Within the systematic if then we sin during our progressive sanctification does that mean that God decreed it? Per Monergism that is

Of course, for nothing is outside of his Decree.

"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
WFC 3:1

In John Owen's work 'Mortification of Sin', somewhere (I can't remember the chapter) he cites Scripture to support the idea that often God will use our sins to teach, chastise, and/or punish us (for former or hidden evils) in our sanctification. If God wanted to rid us of sin, there would be no problem on his part to do so; but even sin is a lifelong schoolmaster designed toward our own good in Christ (Romans 8:28).

 

[fhansen]

Within the systematic if then we sin during our progressive sanctification does that mean that God decreed it? Per Monergism that is

That’s a good question. And can/does that sin, if grave and persistent, constitute a return to the flesh, a turning away from God such that one could lose their justified status?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Of course, for nothing is outside of his Decree.

If that includes God initiating/decreeing temptation then it would go against the scripture in James 1:13-15. It would have God decreeing people to be dragged away by their vices as apposed to it being "their own evil desire". I understand the notion of God using agents to fulfill their own desires and then in turn being glorified by it, you can't read Job without believing that. But the decree has God initiating both the temptation and the carrying out of the sin itself. Whereas a synergistic view has the being who had the evil desire being held responsible.

In John Owen's work 'Mortification of Sin', somewhere (I can't remember the chapter) he cites Scripture to support the idea that often God will use our sins to teach, chastise, and/or punish us (for former or hidden evils) in our sanctification. If God wanted to rid us of sin, there would be no problem on his part to do so; but even sin is a lifelong schoolmaster designed toward our own good in Christ (Romans 8:28).

I understand God in His grace meeting us in our sin and teaching us but that's not what the issue is here. In order to make that case [Edit: within the systematic] you would have to say that God is responsible for decreeing the temptation and sin, as apposed to an evil agent in rebellion doing so.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've had this question on my mind for a while and if there was an answer I'm willing to accept it. This isn't the reason I'm not a Calvinist anymore so it doesn't really have any bearing on me personally. I'm just curious.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That’s a good question. And can/does that sin, if grave and persistent, constitute a return to the flesh, a turning away from God such that one could lose their justified status?

I never went that far down the road mentally so thank you for pointing that out. One thing to keep in mind is The Perseverance of The Saints. If a Calvinist would hold to God decreeing sin (writing that makes me feel a bit icky lol) they would also probably hold to the idea of OSAS (once saved always saved). OSAS might even be a kind of justification for it.

 

[Jonaitis]

If that includes God initiating/decreeing temptation then it would go against the scripture in James 1:13-15. It would have God decreeing people to be dragged away by their vices as apposed to it being "their own evil desire". I understand the notion of God using agents to fulfill their own desires and then in turn being glorified by it, you can't read Job without believing that. But the decree has God initiating both the temptation and the carrying out of the sin itself. Whereas a synergistic view has the being who had the evil desire being held responsible.

Gotcha.

I understand God in His grace meeting us in our sin and teaching us but that's not what the issue is here. In order to make that case [Edit: within the systematic] you would have to say that God is responsible for decreeing the temptation and sin, as apposed to an evil agent in rebellion doing so.

I suggest reading the confessional standards that state the position on this.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've had this question on my mind for a while and if there was an answer I'm willing to accept it. This isn't the reason I'm not a Calvinist anymore so it doesn't really have any bearing on me personally. I'm just curious.

Well, I hope you eventually find the answer you are searching for.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Well, I hope you eventually find the answer you are searching for.

Thanks Brother, I always enjoy conversing with you .

 

[Clare73]

When I was a Calvinist I was told that sanctification was synergistic and at the time I recognised it as truth. But now that I've come out of the dogma I can't help but see somewhat of a contradiction. I have many other problems with the Calvinistic doctrines but I was just wondering if somebody who is still a Calvinist could explain to me the reasoning as to why "God does not try" works for salvation but not for sanctification? Is there something I'm missing here?

P.S I'm not anti Calvinist, most of my favourite preachers come from the Reformed tradition. Just thought I would mention because I remember what it's like being on the receiving end of this stuff. There's a tendency to put the walls up.

No works are required for salvation (Eph 2:8-9), no need to try them, while
works of obedience are required for sanctification; i.e., righteousness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19) and are tried for their effects (1 Co 3:10-15).

 

[fhansen]

I never went that far down the road mentally so thank you for pointing that out. One thing to keep in mind is The Perseverance of The Saints. If a Calvinist would hold to God decreeing sin (writing that makes me feel a bit icky lol) they would also probably hold to the idea of OSAS (once saved always saved). OSAS might even be a kind of justification for it.

Yes, and they would also hold to the notion that they, individually, you can know that they are numbered among that elect. Otherwise the doctrine of OSAS really wouldn't make much difference to anyone.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

No works are required for salvation (Eph 2:8-9), no need to try them,

Sorry my friend but because of my faulty writing I think you've misunderstood. I was asking why saying "God does not try" (in other words His decree always brings to pass) works for monergistic salvation but is not the case for sanctification. I didn't realise how awkward that reads in my OP sorry.

while works of obedience are required for sanctification

This is the synergism I was speaking about.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Yes, and they would also hold to the notion that they, individually, you can know that they are numbered among that elect. Otherwise the doctrine of OSAS really wouldn't make much difference to anyone.

This is the dilemma that caused me a bunch of stress when I was a Calvinist haha. It effectively turned saved by grace through faith into a kind of works salvation and me judging my own fruit. Due to omni-determinism it really puts you in a bind as to why I sinned and if my behaviour was good enough to count myself as among the truly saved.

 

[fhansen]

No works are required for salvation (Eph 2:8-9), no need to try them,
while works of obedience are required for sanctification; i.e., righteousness (Ro 6:16, Ro 6:19) and are tried for their effects.

No works of the law can ever justify a human being. That would require our own efforts and our own righteousness to begin with. But we have none on our own; all righteousness comes from God exclusively. God, alone, can justify man. So Hebrews 12:14 tells us to make every effort to be holy, without which we will not see God. And that's why in Rom 6:22 we're told that being set free from sin makes us slaves of God, slaves of righteousness as we're told earlier in the chapter, and that leads directly to holiness which results in eternal life. Romans 8:12-14 echoes that as do many other places in Scripture. The New covenant is all about a new righteousness that the law can only attest to but cannot accomplish in us. The New covenant is all about union with God first of all, 'apart from whom we can do nothing'.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

 

[BobRyan]

When I was a Calvinist I was told that sanctification was synergistic and at the time I recognised it as truth. But now that I've come out of the dogma I can't help but see somewhat of a contradiction. I have many other problems with the Calvinistic doctrines but I was just wondering if somebody who is still a Calvinist could explain to me the reasoning as to why "God does not try" works for salvation but not for sanctification? Is there something I'm missing here?

P.S I'm not anti Calvinist, most of my favourite preachers come from the Reformed tradition. Just thought I would mention because I remember what it's like being on the receiving end of this stuff. There's a tendency to put the walls up.

J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul taught that sanctification is “synergistic.” That is , they accept that an exercise of the will is needed to cooperate in Sanctification. As you point out - this is also true in Salvation , in Justification in the entire walk of faith.

God alone causes someone to be born again - but before that happens the person must choose the gospel which is a synergistic work - with God drawing and convicting the person - enabling their choice and the person choosing to respond.

 

[BobRyan]

Within the systematic if then we sin during our progressive sanctification does that mean that God decreed it? Per Monergism that is

Exactly! That is the flaw in monergistic sanctification and is one of the reasons why R.C.Sproul and J.I. Packer likely reject that Monergism for Sanctification

 

[BobRyan]

This is the dilemma that caused me a bunch of stress when I was a Calvinist haha. It effectively turned saved by grace through faith into a kind of works salvation and me judging my own fruit. Due to omni-determinism it really puts you in a bind as to why I sinned and if my behaviour was good enough to count myself as among the truly saved.

The problem with the assurance of salvation in classic 3 and 5 point Calvinism is that you get 100% of your assurance today - "retro-deleted" if 10 years from now - you fail to persevere. In that case - no matter your strong claims to assurance today - it all goes up in smoke when 10 years from today you fail. Which means you were never saved to start with so you could not have had any assurance at all no matter all your claims to the contrary and even the one who claims it today will confess that truth when he/she sees their failure 10 years from today.

The Arminian can know for certain he/she is saved today within the Arminian logical framework - .- but can't know today - that he will still be saved 10 years from today (given that same framework).

However the 3 and 5 point Calvinist cannot logically know even that much given the 3 and 5 point Calvinist logical framework - all they can do is say "well I know that I know that I know -- no matter that the logical framework for 3 and 5 point Calvinism does not provide for that certainty".

 

[Jonaitis]

What does the Scriptures say?

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."
- Philippians 2:12-13

It is better to say that we 'participate' in sanctification, but not 'co-operate' with God in it.

 

[BobRyan]

What does the Scriptures say?

It is better to say that we 'participate' in sanctification, but not 'co-operate' with God in it. Our own will contributed nothing to obey the gospel, much less toward holiness.

Synergism does not say God is not working ...

But while God is working "I buffet my body and make it my slave lest after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified from it" 1 Cor 9. That is pure synergism.

 

[Jonaitis]

Synergism does not say God is not working

I never said it didn't, but it clearly says that God is the one at work in us to work out our salvation. It is not a shared work, but a sovereign one from God through us.

But while God is working "I buffet my body and make it my slave lest after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified from it" 1 Cor 9. That is pure synergism.

Please read this in light of Philippians 2:12-13.