My Correspondence With a Monergist Theologian, Part 2

  This is the reply he sent to my rebuttal (quotes of previous posts are in italics, my post-discussion comments are in green).

Hi again...

As far as Revelation is concerned, this is not a description of God's change of mind. All Christians including you (if you have trusted Christ) believe that God has exhaustive knowledge of past, present and future. This means that even before He created us, He knows with certainty, who will be redeeemed. So the passage in Revealtion is an anthropomorphism ... given as a warning to those who would change Scripture and thus distort God. It is not showing God frustrated, changing his mind and changing something he already knows. The book of life is not something God is ignorant of from the creation of the world. Or would you argue there are some things God does not know?. This brings another point. If God already knows who will be saved even before He creates them (in your scheme) then the future is fixed and cannot be otherwise. In this case, how can you say God is trying to save every man? If God has exhaustive foreknowledge then either it is because He ordained all that comes to pass (Eph 1:11) or he Himself is subject to fate, for He was unable to intervene and stop evil from entering the universe. If evil is something that "took God by surprise" then it is an acknowledgement that there is something greater than God... something even he was unable to stop. So in other words, your position is simply untenable biblically and logically.

Finally, an attempt to answer my initial question. He goes a bit off into left field, but I'll address that shortly...

you said...>>>>Not in the flesh, for if I believed I could maintain my justification before God in the power of my flesh then I would be a Monergist...the other kind. By definition, Synergism means that it is with the power of God in us. With men it is impossible, but With God, all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).

So two persons both have the same grace, in your view... one believes and the other does not? Why? one perseveres and the other does not. why?

Btw, Matthew 19::26 is speaking of faith and repentance. The rich young ruler rejects Christ and the apostles rightly ask "who then can be saved" Jesus answers with men this is impossible but with God all things are possible. In other words, men, apart from the work of God changing their unrgenerate hearts will not be saved, will not use their will to believe. If a man does not have the Holy Spirit he cannot understand spiritual things. It is an impossible supporition. God first turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh. A stony heart remains stony unless God acts.

The law was given not to show our ability but to reveal our inability. Rom 3:20. Through the law ewe become conscious of sin. God commands all persons to obey the ten Commandments. Do they? No, God does not lower his standard because of our inability. The problem is not with His law but with us. We owe a debt we cannot repay. To believe that an unregenerate heart can see the truth, beauty and excellency of Christ is simply unscriptural.

IN any case,I thank you for the conversation, but I get 100s of emails a week and cannot spend more time debating with you. With all respect, perhaps you could go to a message board for this sort of thing.

But I do believe that your synergism is basically boasting in your own abilities to persevere since your neighbor ( who was also saved) did not have such an ability or virtue to persevere. You are trusting in your own resources for salvation, not Christ. How do I know this? Because if two persons have the same grace and one makes use of it and not the other, then it is NOT GRACE that makes the difference, but something other then Jesus. You say, synergism is trusting Christ. But you are not trusting Him to presevere you, but rather trusting and drawing from your own resources, which your neighbor, who lost his salvation did not do. How is it that you made use of grace and not him? The difference is not grace because both had grace.

Jesus said, You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep"

You should look again at the texts I gave you. You did not squarely deal with these texts...

Some specifics might have helped

Happy hunting.

Shalom

I figured if he wanted to stop there, that would be fine; nonetheless, I still hoped to say my piece to clear up his misconceptions.

Dear ____,

I understand how busy one can get, so please, take your time in answering anything that I send, or just feel free to ignore me entirely; nonetheless, I feel your words merit a response.


"As far as Revelation is concerned, this is not a description of God's change of mind."

God does change how he deals with people based on how they act.

"Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed [that] thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed."
1 Samuel 2:30


"All Christians including you (if you have trusted Christ) believe that God has exhaustive knowledge of past, present and future. This means that before He created us, He knows with certainty, who will be redeeemed. So the passage in Revealtion is an anthropomorphism ... given as a warning to those who would change Scripture and thus distort God. It is not showing God frustrated, changing his mind and changing something he already knows. The book of life is not something God is ignorant of from the creation of the world."

A leap of logic, as God is perfectly capable of knowing who would receive Him, as well as who would fall away; and is quite free to let a one's name remain in the book of life until He sovereignly chooses to remove it.


"Or would you argue there are some things God does not know?"

No.


"This brings another point. If God already knows who will be saved even before He creates them (in your scheme) then the future is fixed and cannot be otherwise. In this case, how can you say God is trying to save every man?"

I didn't say that. I believe in individual election based on God's foreknowledge. While God does not want any to perish, He already knows that some will not receive (Acts 16:6), and that some will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1).


"If God has exhaustive foreknowledge then either it is because He ordained all that comes to pass (Eph 1:11) or he Himself is subject to fate, for He was unable to intervene and stop evil from entering the universe."

Why can God not know all things even if He does not ordain all things? The Bible makes it clear that some things happen that God did not engineer.

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which [is] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded [them] not, neither came it into my heart."
Jeremiah 7:31

Yet Isaiah 46:10 indicates that He still exhaustively knows everything that will happen.


"If evil is something that "took God by surprise" then it is an acknowledgement that there is something greater than God...something even he was unable to stop. So in other words, your position is simply untenable biblically and logically."


Or would be, were it my position.

(Never assume you know everything about an opponent's position, they may surprise you)

The fact that God knows everything from eternity past does not mean that He acts on absolutely everything in eternity past; the names of those allowed in the New Jerusalem being no exception. It follows then that there is no logical reason to conclude that Revelation 22:19 is simply a uselessly redundant anthropomorphism (if "take his part from the tree of life and the holy city" is speaking only of those with no part in them at all, then what exactly is the consequence this passage is speaking of?), but exactly what it says: One of the most dire warnings in scripture with the harshest of consequences addressed specifically to those who have a share of the things to come.


"So two persons both have the same grace, in your view... one believes and the other does not? Why? one perseveres and the other does not. why?"

Let's see, free will made so by God's grace to all three questions. The natural man can do nothing for himself, but in the light of God's grace, for He works it in our hearts to serve Him through Christ (Philippians 2:13, Hebrews 13:20). This does not mean that we are forced or irresistably moved to obey, for it is written,

"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls."
James 1:21

Human beings are not Turing (finite-state) machines, just as God is not, for He created us in His image with a will. If one Christian falls into sin and another does not, despite the fact that God provides them both a way of escape from every temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), then what makes the difference? It is a matter of the will that has been freed by the grace of God through Christ. The power of sin's bondage being lifted, man is then freed to follow the grace of God in Christ; but freedom also implies the power to go contrary as well.

"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God [is] a consuming fire."
Hebrews 12:28-29

"Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled..."
Hebrews 12:15

If we always chose what coincided with our strongest desire, then no Christian would be able to sin at all because of the presence of God's grace, which is stronger than the power of sin. Because we have two natures that war with each other (Galatians 5:17), we are then faced with a choice as to which to walk in.


"Btw, Matthew 19::26 is speaking of faith and repentance. The rich young ruler rejects Christ and the apostles rightly ask "who then can be saved" Jesus answers with men this is impossible but with God all things are possible. In other words, men, apart from the work of God changing their unrgenerate hearts will not be saved, will not use their will to believe."

I agree, I think that's what I was stating. I do not believe that the change of God's grace can Biblically be called 'regeneration,' which is receiving life through faith in Christ. I think even the likes of Spurgeon and A.W. Pink would agree with me on that one.


"If a man does not have the Holy Spirit he cannot understand spiritual things. It is an impossible supporition. God first turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh. A stony heart remains stony unless God acts."


Actually, repentance precedes God changing our heart totally (giving us a heart of flesh).

"Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?"
Ezekiel 18:31


"The law was given not to show our ability but to reveal our inability. Rom 3:20. Through the law ewe become conscious of sin. God commands all persons to obey the ten Commandments. Do they? No, God does not lower his standard because of our inability. The problem is not with His law but with us. We owe a debt we cannot repay."

Agreed.

(Not sure what he was trying to prove with that one)

"To believe that an unregenerate heart can see the truth, beauty and excellency of Christ is simply unscriptural."

An unregenerate heart that the Lord has revealed Himself to can. I am not arguing against the idea that men need God before there can be any good in them, I am arguing that it is possible to resist Him.


"But I do believe that your synergism is basically boasting in your own abilities to persevere since your neighbor ( who was also saved) did not have such an ability or virtue to persevere."

One who perseveres and one who goes on to apostatasy both have the ability to persevere. One simply chooses life that he may live (Deuteronomy 30:19). That is the underlying error in your logic: You argue assuming that men do not have any form of free will. You conclude that if one does not persevere, then he must have not had the ability to pesevere, but it is not for lack of ability, it is because he chose not to. Boasting? How could I boast since I can do nothing apart from God? "The vine supplied me, but I did the growing!" That's ridiculous. Having faith in Christ is what God expects of us, it is totally non-meritorious and gives no room for boasting. Jesus said,

"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
Luke 17:10

Indicating that there is nothing laudable about doing what God requires, which leaves no room for boasting, for it is God who gives us even the desire and ability to do so.


"You are trusting in your own resources for salvation, not Christ. How do I know this? Because if two persons have the same grace and one makes use of it and not the other, then it is NOT GRACE that makes the difference, but something other then Jesus."

How would they be my resources if it is God who is my strength (Psalm 18:2), and has changed me from a sinner into a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)? The second question is addressed above.

(Additionally, it is absurd to say that my trusting in my own resources for salvation, since I affirm that one perseveres unto salvation only by trusting in Christ)

"You say, synergism is trusting Christ. But you are not trusting Him to presevere you, but rather trusting and drawing from your own resources, which your neighbor, who lost his salvation did not do."

Same.

(He's apparently used this argument with a fair deal of success in the past and relies on it heavily; I don't think he expected someone to be able to counter it so easily)

"How is it that you made use of grace and not him? The difference is not grace because both had grace."

Because God gives us the choice: His grace is not irresistible, and there is no passage of scripture that indicates such.


"Jesus said, You do not believe BECAUSE you are not my sheep"

Yes, I believe God elects some and hardens others.


"You should look again at the texts I gave you. You did not squarely deal with these texts..."

I didn't see anything I disagreed with, but feel free to point out any logical inconsistencies I might have.


Again ____, if perseverance of the saints is such a vital point of Christian doctrine, then why are the consequence to the warning in Revelation worded as to contradict it? It correlates perfectly with the admonition of Romans 11:22:

"Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

Which, even as John Calvin admitted in his commentary on Romans, was in fact speaking of one's personal salvation. Though he contended that God would never, despite such a warning, actually do such a thing; I ask then, why is it such a deep error to believe God's warning if His purpose was that I take heed lest I fall? While there is evidence from the scripture that God works to preserve us, there is also scripture that indicates that we can willingly depart from Him (Hebrews 3:12), as well as examples of the same occuring (Hebrews 6, 1 Timothy 1:19, 5:14, Galatians 5).

In Christ,
[J.C.] Thibodaux

Two major obstacles that he presented were overcome: 1. The idea that I believe I persevered in my own strength (untrue, as any power we have to believe or endure comes from God), and 2. His question as to why one perseveres and another does not. His faulty logic lay in utterly discounting any type of free will (which if true, would necessitate that all men react exactly the same under the same conditions). The case was easily reversed with the question of why one resists temptation while the other does not, when in fact, God has provided us both with a way of escape. The fact that one does not endure or resist temptation does not necessarily imply that he had no ability, but could simply mean that he chose not to. Having replied, and inviting him to ignore me altogether or answer me at his leisure, I didn't expect to hear from him for quite a while. Such is not often the case with me, as I have trouble backing down from a good debate/discussion. But as I would shortly see, we have more in common than I suspected. Third letter and reply

Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission. "Augh! I'm blind! My prayers have finally been answered. ...Oh wait, my hands are just glued to my face. Oh well, I'll take that." - Strong Sad, Homestar Runner