Questions Concerning Beza's Questions and Responses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justified

Puritan Board Sophomore
What exactly does Beza mean here:

"Q99 Therefore, in the receiving of the first grace, men are merely sufferers of, not co-workers with the grace of God

A99 Yes, if you are only looking at it from the point of view of the order of causes, and the first initiation of grace, whereby the Lord reshapes us anew, it is necessary to admit that it comes wholly from God, who loved us first while we were still his enemies, and truly, we are only receivers of it. But if you consider the exact instance of time in which God works in us, at the same time and in the same moment it is given to us that we can want to receive it, and we want to receive it, otherwise grace would be in vain.

Therefore, he who fights the synergism of this type as if it were repugnant to the grace of God, they show their own inexperience in many ways, since this synergism is itself a gift of the grace of God, in such a way co-operating with it, so that in the order of causes it is the latter, as if it follows the effect that effects the cause; thus, all things accepted are wholly brought by the one grace of God..."

Do you think that he is saying that, when we believe, we do so willingly, insofar as this itself is a gift from God? I think that is what he is trying to say.

Another interesting Q&A that I have a question about:

"Q133 Therefore, explain fully this sanctification of ours in Christ

A133... Furthermore it [sanctification] happens in two ways. First, as I have said, we are reckoned righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ fully before God, not in ourselves, but in Him to whom we are united through faith. So also I say that our persons, by the imputation of His perfect holiness and integrity, are reckoned holy and whole and thus acceptable to the Father, not in ourselves, but in Christ. Finally, the force and energy of this most pure holiness which is in the flesh of Christ, I say it flows also into us by the working of the Holy Spirit in us , so that we become holy in ourselves, that is, segregated from the defilements of this world, and we serve God in spirit and body..."

In the first instance is Beza talking about positional sanctification? If so, does imputation play a role in it? (He isn't talking about justification here, because he has already dealt with that question at this point.)
 
Is he making the distinction between monergism and synergism?

In the first we are only sufferers such as being drawn in Joh 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Concerning the later we are co-laborers synergistically.

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
 
Is he making the distinction between monergism and synergism?

In the first we are only sufferers such as being drawn in Joh 6:44, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Concerning the later we are co-laborers synergistically.

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

I think the first part of Q99 he is denying synergism and affirming monergism. However, he is wanting to say we cooperate, insofar as we actually willingly believe, which is a gift given by the grace of God as well. He means that we don't believe against our will, but rather our wills being regenerated, we truly desire and long after God and place our trust in him. This affirmed when he says, "since this synergism is itself a gift of the grace of God." I think I'm right in my assessment, but I wanted clarity from others who have also read Beza.
 
I think you correctly interpret the first answer. Beza seems to want to guard his strong teaching of the monergistic work of God in regeneration from an accusation that the objects of grace are so passive, that when they receive the divine gift they are purely unmoved sufferers (like a nerveless block of wood carved upon). No, but willingness is the happy result of such grace, and is drawn into the exhibition of the gift, a second-cause so to speak of the reality; because without it the gift is "vain." There could also be some reliance on traditional (Aristotelian) categories of causation.

I do read the second answer as teaching or affirming in the first part a positional (in distinction from progressive) or definitive sanctification, which is totally "in Christ." He is practically as well as judicially holy, and all that he is belongs to us, but in the order: judicial then practical. So that, considered absolutely in him we can't even add to our own holiness, which is properly his and we his partakers. But considered personally in ourselves, the renovation of our whole nature by steps in virtue of our union with him makes progress; and we live unto him, and more and more unto righteousness as his holy vitality comes to life in our mortal bodies by his Spirit at work in us (causing us to will and to do of his good pleasure).
 
I think you correctly interpret the first answer. Beza seems to want to guard his strong teaching of the monergistic work of God in regeneration from an accusation that the objects of grace are so passive, that when they receive the divine gift they are purely unmoved sufferers (like a nerveless block of wood carved upon). No, but willingness is the happy result of such grace, and is drawn into the exhibition of the gift, a second-cause so to speak of the reality; because without it the gift is "vain." There could also be some reliance on traditional (Aristotelian) categories of causation.

I do read the second answer as teaching or affirming in the first part a positional (in distinction from progressive) or definitive sanctification, which is totally "in Christ." He is practically as well as judicially holy, and all that he is belongs to us, but in the order: judicial then practical. So that, considered absolutely in him we can't even add to our own holiness, which is properly his and we his partakers. But considered personally in ourselves, the renovation of our whole nature by steps in virtue of our union with him makes progress; and we live unto him, and more and more unto righteousness as his holy vitality comes to life in our mortal bodies by his Spirit at work in us (causing us to will and to do of his good pleasure).

Thanks for your response. I wanted to make sure I was interpreting Beza right. This "little book" is packed. There are certainly none or very wasted words in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top