More on the donum superadditum and the unBiblical Roman Doctrine of Grace

There are more than a few areas where Protestants and Roman Catholics differ at a very fundamental level. One of these is over the very meaning of the word "grace." And when we talk about something as fundamental as being "saved by grace," we really end up talking about two different things.

I noted yesterday at the top of my post (which unfortunately was ignored in the comments throughout the day) how 1 Clement (supposably a pope!) misunderstood the New Testament concept of grace. That's one area of study that I hope to follow through with here.

A second area of fundamental difference (closely related) is in the doctrine of man. In Protestant theology, man was very good when God created him. In Roman Catholic doctrine, natural man wasn't quite good enough, and so over time and apparantly upon reflection the Roman church, needed something more.

Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (103 ff.) puts it this way:

Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide.)

The Council of Trent, in opposition to Pelagianism and to modern Rationalism, teaches: If anyone will not confess that when the first man Adam had transgressed the mandate of God in paradice he did not immediately lose the sanctity and justice in which he had been constituted ... [let him be anathema -- Council of Trent, session V (June 17, 1546) Decree on Original Sin, D. 788]

That's what the dogma is. What follows is sort of like the supporting cast, the theological underpinnings of the dogma:

The elevation to the state of grace is indicated by the intimacy between God and the progenitors of the human race in Paradise. A scriptural proof is provided by St. Paul's teaching on the Redemption. The Apostle teaches that Christ, the second Adam, restored what the first Adam had lost, the state of holiness and justice. But if he had lost it, he must previously have received it.

Ott gives the following Scriptural verses in support of this doctrine: Romans 5:12 ff, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 4:23 ff, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15, Romans 5:10 ff (not sure why he didn't list this up with 5:12, except maybe that this is an illustration again of how Roman Catholics treat the Bible: it's not God's Word to us, but a series of "proof-texts" to be mined in support of Catholic dogma, wherever they can find it.), and Romans 8:14 ff.) Continuing with Ott (Latin omitted):

The Fathers find the supernatural endowment with grace indicated in 1:26 (supernatural identity of image and likeness with God); in Genesis 2:7 (supernatural life-principle), and in [the apocryphal] Ecclesiasticus 7:30 ("Only this have I found that God made man right").

St. Augustine declars that our renewal (Eph 4:23) consists in this that: "We have received justice from which man had fallen off through sin" (De Gen. ad Litt. VI 24, 35). St. John Damascene says: "The Creator has communicated His Divine Grace to man and thereby made him a participant in his community" (De fide orth. II 30).

As regards the time of man's elevation to the state of grace, most theologians, including St. Thomas and his school, are of the opinion that the first men were created in the state of sanctifying grace. Petrus Lombardus and the Franciscan school, on the other hand, teach that the first human beings on their creation received only the preternatural gifts of integrity, and were required to prepare themselves with the help of actual grace for the reception of sanctifying grace. The Council of Trent has deliberately left the question undecided.

So this is the doctrine of the donum superadditum. Ryan posted a comment fairly far down the other thread, a selection by Gordon Clark that goes into some detail about the origin of this doctrine, and I thought it would be helpful to reproduce some portion of it:

"The idea that God created man in his own image is so clearly stated in Genesis that the early church fathers could not miss it. It is also such an amazing idea that they could not refrain from discussing it. Some of the first attempts were, naturally, less than intelligible. For example, Gregory of Nyssa expatiates in flowery metaphors conveying awe of the subject, but which lack any explanatory clarity. Well, perhaps there is one clear point: The image has something to do with human intelligence. This is at least better than Justin Martyr’s identification of it with the bodily form. Augustine took the image to be the knowledge of the truth, and he took the likeness to be the love of virtue. In his Summa Theologica (Q. 93, Art. 9) after stating some views to be rejected, Thomas Aquinas in his usual form writes, “On the contrary, Augustine says, ‘Some consider that these two were mentioned not without reason, namely image and likeness, since if they meant the same, one would have sufficed.’ “This attempt to distinguish rather than to identify image and likeness was not one of Augustine’s happiest tentatives. If the Bible were written in the technical language of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, one could well imagine that the two words bore different meanings. But in literary language such as the Bible uses, two such words can be synonymously used for the sake of emphasis. The Psalms are replete with this device: “I cried unto Thee, O Lord, and unto the Lord I made my supplication”; and “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, and whose sin is covered,” where there are two pairs of synonyms; and “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” There are many such.

Even so, it is not fatal to the doctrines of grace if a distinction, without faulty additions, is made between image and likeness. Since the New Testament refers to knowledge and righteousness, we could call the one the image and the other the likeness. Such a speculation, however, is rather fanciful and futile. One must therefore consider what distinction the Roman church imposed on the terms and how it fitted into a distortion of Biblical truth."

"In support of the distinction, Thomas had already (Q. 93,Art. 1) argued that where an image exists, there must be likeness; but a likeness does not necessarily mean an image. Now, the Roman church developed this, which so far is innocuous, into something that contradicts important parts of the Biblical message. Their present view is that the image itself is rationality, created because, when, and as man was created. But after man was created, God gave him an extra gift, a donum superadditum, the likeness, defined as original righteousness. Man therefore was not strictly created righteous. Adam was at first morally neutral. Perhaps he was not even neutral. Bellarmin speaks of the original Adam, composed of body and soul, as disordered and diseased, afflicted with a morbus or languor that needed a remedy. Yet Bellarmin does not quite say that this morbus is sin; it is rather something unfortunate and less than ideal. To remedy this defect God gave the additional gift of righteousness. Adam’s fall then resulted in the loss of original righteousness, but he fell only to the neutral moral level on which he was created. In this state, because of his free will, he is able-at least in some low degree-to please God.

Obviously this view has soteriological implications...One horrendous implication of all this is that although Christ’s death remains necessary to salvation, it is not sufficient. Human merit is indispensable.

However logically implicated this soteriology is, the present study should not stray too far from the image itself. Above, it was said that an assertion of a distinction between image and likeness, by itself, is not fatal. But it is not Biblical either. Scripture makes no distinction between image and likeness. Not only does the New Testament make nothing of such a distinction, even in Genesis the two words are used interchangeably. Genesis 1:27 uses the word image alone, and Genesis 5:1 uses likeness alone, though in each case the whole is intended. The likeness therefore is not an extra gadget attached to man after his creation, not a donum superadditum, like a suit of clothes that he could take off. It is rather the unitary person."

- Gordon Clark, "The Biblical Doctrine of Man" (pgs. 11-14)

My hope is that more of this will follow -- I do want to get into Torrance's study of how the definition of the word "Grace" changed over time -- and how the Roman church, at least, lost its original meaning in favor of later constructions. That will have to come later.

Answering the charge of “rape” against the doctrine of God’s effectual grace (Part 2)

See Part 1,here..

Colin Smith wrote three articles on Islam and the doctrine of Qadr. (قدر Predestination; Sovereign Power; “measure”, “muchness”; and we get the Farsi words for “power” (قدرت) and authority اقتدار and “so much”, “much-ness”, “measure” قدر , almighty/absolute powerful one قادر مطلق , and “able”/powerful one” قادر , from this Arabic word.) Smith points out that in Islam; there is no real basis for Allah to predestine or elect or chose someone for salvation in Islam. Since there is no incarnation or atonement, and all humans are basically good, Islam has no foundation for its Predestination, except the capricious will of Allah. Because Allah just decides to forgive, without justice done against the sin, Islam also denigrates the Holiness and justice of God. In a practical way, it seems that since theoretically, a Muslim receives Allah's acceptance by faith plus good works, then it is based on the faith plus good works of the human; so one could also say it is based on the innate goodness of the person who does Allah’s will; that that is the basis. Yet, in the end, Allah decides, even the person keeps all the rituals, and obeys the Sharia law can be sent to hell. Serious Muslims who take their sin seriously have tortured souls; because there is no assurance; and they can never cleanse their hearts by external rituals.

See:
Part 1:  Predestination in Islam – The Doctrine Stated

Part 2: Predestination in Islam – "Analysis of Norman Geisler's approach"


Part 3 of “Predestination in Islam” – "A Reformed Critique"


Smith writes, “It is not the fact that God is able to decree a man's path and predetermine his final destiny that is the major theological problem with the Islamic view; rather it is the fact that God appears to do this without any reason or motive for so doing.” Predestination in Islam: "A Reformed Critique", www.aomin.org blog, 03/25/2007 - Colin Smith

God’s love demonstrated in the incarnation, and His substitutionary atonement provide the reason and motive for God’s Predestination in Christianity. Islam, by rejecting the incarnation and the atonement on the cross, have gutted the most amazing truths of God! They have no God of real love; and they have denigrated God’s holiness, because in Islam, “Allah just forgives when He wants to”, without any justice/punishment/blood sacrifice for sin. That is capricious and arbitrary because justice is denied and the holiness of God is trampled under foot. Islam does not have a high view of God’s holiness. That is why many men don’t see anything wrong with lusting in their hearts and they blame their lusts on women. Over the years, I have heard many a Muslim man say to me, confessing that they had sex with loose American college girls, “Allah knows I am weak; and I need the woman; Allah is forgiving.” And “Western woman, with her nakedness and showing too much flesh; it is like putting a juicy steak in front of me and saying, “You cannot eat!”

In Islam, Allah is merciful and compassionate, based on His will, not His nature. Allah does loving actions to those who love him first, but Allah is not love by nature. Allah loves those who love him and obey him, but the God of the Bible loves sinners; enemies, ungodly, and the helpless ones. (Romans 5:5-10) Allah in Islam, is not love by nature. Islam does not have a verse like I John 4:8 or John 3:16 or Romans 8:39 or Romans 5:5-10, that God loves sinners and that Christ voluntarily gave his life for them.

John 10:18 is one of the most important verses to know in witnessing to Muslims, because Muslims charge that “it is unjust for you Christians to say that God forced Jesus to pay for the sins of others.” John 10:18 demolishes that argument: “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down on My own initiative, I have authority to lay it down and take it up again.” The Father did not “force” Jesus; rather God the Son voluntarily out of love chose to come and be incarnated and freely gave His life for us on the cross. Beautiful!

Even when a Muslim seeks to obey all of Allah’s laws and will, the fact that there is no guarantee of Allah’s acceptance, produces a guilt and psychological pressure in the serious Muslim’s mind and soul. Allah chooses whoever He wants, but one can never be sure if He is chosen; and in fact, it feeds into pride and Pharisee-ism, because they can boast of their good works and inherent goodness to earn rewards of eternal life.

Because Islam teaches that all people are innocent and sinless at birth, and have no doctrine of inherited sin or total depravity, based on Surah 30:30; Islam gives serious Muslims the idea that they can earn their way to God by faith and good deeds and obedience and that they have the innate power to discipline themselves, leading to paradise; but still with one caveat, . . . Ensh’allah. (“If God wills.”) Many Muslims have said to me over the years, “Even if I keep all of the laws of Allah; He can still send me to the hell-fire if He wants to!”

This “pure and upright nature” is called “fitrah” فطره or فطرت , from Surah 30:30.

Smith points out, “In Islam, since all men are born with a pure fitrah, there appears to be no reason why God couldn't tell the jinn and the devils to leave His creation alone and allow all men to follow the way of truth leading to Heaven. Perhaps this is really why Muslims are not encouraged to think too long and hard over the doctrine of Qadar: the picture it paints of God is not at all flattering. Rather than a loving God who sacrifices His Son to allow some of those justly condemned to go free, the God of Islam is a capricious God who takes a group of innocent people and sends some to rot in Hell, and others to follow Him to Paradise.” (see here)

In Islam, humans are innocent in a sense, because they have innate power within themselves to reform themselves; and yet they are not innocent in another sense. To be fair, Islam does teach that humans sin; and they don’t believe those that go to hell are innocent. Muslims don’t believe that polytheists and “kuffar” - infidels, blasphemers, Christians who say that Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate, atheists, agnostics, adulterers, murderers, thieves, are innocent. At times, Islam seems to affirm an inherent nature of sin in the human race. Muslims do admit that man sins, is unjust (Surah 14:34; 33:72); and is ungrateful (14:34; 100:6), quarrelsome (16:4), and rebellious (96:6). Surah 16:61 even says, “If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature . . . “ But in the end, Islam seems to teach that man can clean himself up by discipline and reform himself by faith in Allah and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and by doing the rituals and obeying Allah’s laws.

However, Islam does not teach that human hearts are by nature sinful and from the root evil and that we need a savior, someone to pay the just penalty (justice/wrath) for our sins. On the issue of the sin nature of man, and his need for a savior, this is where there is a disconnection with reality and a contradiction. Muslims do not see the need for the atonement, because they do not believe in the sinful heart and nature of man.

In Islamic teaching, humans are not “dead in trespasses and sins” and are not “by nature children of wrath”. (Ephesians 2:1-3) Muslims need to read the gospels and the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 and Mark 7:14-23 and Genesis 6:5, that says, “every intention of the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart is only evil continually.” Islam says you can clean up your life by discipline and following the Islamic rituals.

In Islam, the basis for Allah’s predestination is His capricious choice, but in Christianity, the basis of God’s election is His love that He demonstrated in actually saving sinners. (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2:4-9) “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) The basis for God’s judgment or reprobation of others is His justice. (Romans 9:14-24) God’s love is not a sentimental, mushy feeling. It certainly includes emotions, but is much more; it is action oriented and flowed from God’s nature and He expressed it supremely and ultimately in the incarnation and the atonement. The incarnation of Christ (Hebrews 2:14-17), and the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross actually objectively saves people from all nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; see this bottom line of the drama of redemption - Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 49:10; Psalm 2, 67; 96; Isaiah 49:6; Romans 15:20-21; Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:44-49)

Islam has no objective basis for election because it has nothing that objectively demonstrates God’s justice and love at the same time. The cross was where God objectively showed His holy love and His holy justice at the same time, by God Himself, the Son of God, willing to come and voluntarily become flesh and lay down His life for His elect people.

As Charles Wesley wrote in his famous hymn, “Amazing love, how can it be, that Thou my God shouldst die for me!??” It is very interesting that he and his brother John were Arminians theologically, yet the truth of how Biblically sound that Reformed theology is, could not help but be expressed in this song.

The fourth verse of this great song expresses the truth of God’s effectual grace in awakening and regenerating the dead sinner:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

All true Christians (Reformed and non-Reformed)are grateful for this effectual grace that changed our wicked and lustful and prideful and selfish hearts, so that we no longer hate God, but now we love God, because He first loved us. (I John 4:10, 19) “Rape”? No way.

Answering the charge of “rape” against the doctrine of God’s effectual grace -Part 1

The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, criticizes R. C. Sproul and the Bible’s teaching on “God’s Effectual Grace” and calls it “rape”. and "forced love" and says things like "cruel Calvinist Deity".

The very Biblical and Reformed teaching of God’s effectual grace, where He internally calls, draws, and changes the sinner, is anything but rape. God’s effectual calling is sweet love, grace, and joy. Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, “rape” or “spiritual rape”. Every truly born-again person who loves Jesus only loves Jesus because He first loved them, and all true regenerate believers are happy that God saved them and changed their stubborn heart and blind mind and rebellious wills. A rape victim is filled with disgust and shame and bitterness, and many times anger and hatred; but a Christian has a sweet love and gratefulness that God chose to change their hearts and fill them with His love. So the analogy breaks down immediately upon thinking about it a little.

The Grandverbalizer19 does not seem willing to acknowledge that calling God's loving, effectual grace as "rape" is totally wrong and offensive. In Islam, there is also a strong doctrine of Allah’s Sovereignty.
Our Muslim friend should see this, because he writes and prays at the end of many of his posts, "May Allah open the hearts . . . " etc.
Although Muslims deny that Allah does any injustice, it does seem like that Allah in Islam can sin and lie and is at least able to do wrong if he wanted to. There is a tradition where Allah says he has commanded that oppression or injustice is unlawful for himself!

“Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: My servants, I have made oppression unlawful for Me and unlawful for you, so do not commit oppression against one another.” Sahih Al Muslim Book 032, Number 6246

This Sovereignty of Allah, who seems to be able to sin and does deceive, is a much darker kind of Sovereignty than Calvinism. Calvinism is not really dark at all, but it seems that way to people who don’t understand it and refuse to take the time to understand what it actually teaches. Predestination is darker in Islam, because Allah actually does the evil and sins; Allah is deceptive (Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:22) and proud (Al Motakabir – “the proud one” - Surah 59:23) and Al Jabbar (59:23) (“the one who forces”; “a tyrant”, “a dictator”; usually translated “Almighty” or “the irresistible”.)

Muslims have also debated among themselves over Allah’s Sovereignty and human responsibility and the freedom of the will. Islam does not teach that human will is in bondage to sin (as the Bible does – John 8:34; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 8:7, John 8:43); but rather that humans have the moral ability and power to choose good over evil, given the right information and guidance. The different Islamic views of Allah’s sovereignty are seen in the different theologies of the Jabbarites, the Ash’arites, the Qadarites, and the Mu’tazilites, which is too much for this article. Do a google search and see if you can understand the details of these different Islamic views.

In Christianity, God does not have to command Himself to be good or loving or just or forbid Himself from being unjust. He is just and good and loving because it is His nature.

The God of the Bible, the Triune God; His effective grace in drawing and changing the sinner is similar in that sense that just as the Muslim prays for Allah to open hearts; we also pray that the God of the Bible, would open sinful hearts. (Acts 16:14; John 6:44; 65) The human heart is evil and hard until God opens it and changes it and replaces it with a soft, willing, and humble, moldable heart. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) In the Islamic view, the human heart is basically good and can choose to be good (Surah 30:30); in Christianity, the human heart is not able to choose good, until God opens it by changing it. (Acts 16:14; John 6:44, 65; see also Luke 24:45) I am glad God effectually and lovingly changed my stubborn, rebellious will! “to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:24) The atonement at the cross of Christ is foolishness and a stumbling block to the unregenerate. (v. 23)

What is the difference between Allah’s Sovereignty in Islam and God’s Sovereignty in the Bible?

God's grace and love shown in the incarnation and atonement and the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart are the differences in the Christian system so that all the glory goes to Him; whereas in the Islamic system the difference seems to be the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way, so practically, man can boast in the Islamic system. But in the Christian system, man cannot boast. Ephesians 2:1-10; I Corinthians 1:26-31 Another difference is the capricious nature of Allah, “Ensh’allah”, “if Allah wills, even if I do all of the law perfectly, he can still send me to the hellfire.”

But we have the promise of eternal life in the Bible, if we are truly born again, by repentance and faith in Christ. (I John 5:13; John 5:24; Mark 1:15; John 20:30-31; John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31)

However, Muslims are never assured of their salvation (or going to paradise) - it is all "Inshallah", even if one is perfect in following the straight path, only dying in Jihad is the only guarantee of paradise.

Do you see how this belief can cause the Jihadists Muslims to do the things they do, when there are all these commands to obey the law, and yet, there is no assurance of God's love and acceptance? The guilt within them, because deep down they know they are sinners, causes some to go on suicide missions like the 9-11-01 terrorists and other Jihad movements all over the world.

The main point is that you cannot accuse Calvinism of something it does not believe in.

God cannot sin or do anything against His nature; whereas in Islam, the will of Allah is above His nature. In fact, one cannot really speak of Allah as a “He”. Calling Allah, “he”, in a Muslim’s point of view, implies that Allah is male, and that is blasphemy in Islam. In 1994, on a street in Istanbul, I even had a Turkish neighbor tell me one time, “Allah is not “He”, Allah do not have penis; Allah is “it”! (I realize that is street level theology and quite crude, but the guy really said that. It is amazing the concrete and literalistic thinking in the mind of many Muslims.) Many Muslim theologians say that one cannot think about Allah’s nature; just obey His rules. The goal in Islam is not to know God (see John 17:3) or be conformed to holy character on the inside (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Cor. 3:16-18; Romans 12:1-2), but the goal in Islam is just to obey the rules, the law, the Sharia. Islam is “Pelagianism on steroids”; with no internal power or relationship with the Holy Spirit to obey God and be pure. It cannot create a just and holy society because it cannot change hearts.

The Westminister Confession of Faith states:

God's sovereign decrees

1. Do NOT make God the author of sin (because God is holy and pure and without sin always; see Titus 1:2, Romans 9:14; I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; Genesis 18:25; Isaiah 6; I Peter 1:15-16; Heb. 6:18; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; Psalm 85:10; 89:14; 92:15)

2. Do NOT do violence to the will of the creature - that is, there is no force or rape; rather God lovingly changes the will and heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; And God is continuing to change us in progressive sanctification and holiness, conforming us to His image (Romans 8:28-29) and He uses commands and exhortations as means of growing in this grace. Colossians 3:1-17; Romans chapters 6, 7, 8; Galatians 5:13-26) so that a person loves God and embraces Him - a true believer receives Jesus as Lord, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, The doctrine of the Trinitas Unitas, and the doctrines of the cross, the resurrection, etc. "My Sheep hear My voice" John 10:27-30

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1, “Of God’s Eternal 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;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]" (my emphasis)

See:

The Westminster Confession of Faith on God's Decree

See also, The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)


Continued.  Part 2 is here.