My Correspondence With a Monergist Theologian, His Third Reply and My Rebuttal
As I mentioned previously, after my reply, I told my new debating friend that he was free to answer me at his leisure, or ignore me entirely. I thought that brought a rather sudden conclusion to our discussion and didn't really expect to hear back from him for some time. As it turns out, I was dealing with a kindred spirit who could not leave a good rebuttal alone (quotes from previous emails are in italics, my comments are in green).
"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,
Your are bringing an alien concept to the Bible when you sayt that man has a free will. Can you show me ANYWHERE in the Scripture where God reveals that man has a free will? You are bringing your philosophical idea into the text, not reading it from the text.
When we say free will we are not saying that man is coerced into doing something, but rather does it of necessity. Man may voluntarily choose what he does but he is bound to what he is by nature until Christ sets Him free. His is in bondage to sin and therefore the lover of Christ is not the deepest animating motive of his heart (nbor his motive at all) and since he loves darkenss he will not come into the light.
Human beings are not Turing (finite-state) machines, just as God is not, for He created us in His image with a will.
Yes he did, but now his will is in bondage to sin. He is hostile by nature to Christ.
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.
Does it? Is God free in this sense? Can God choose to sin and choose good with equal ease? Or what of the glorified saints? We consider them the freest creatures of all, but can they sin? Do they have contrary choice? (a philosophical but not a biblical concept). No the Bible defines freedom as freedom from sin? When you say men are free to do otherwise, what are you saying? Fre from what?
Next, what you belive in his not really synergism but human monergism.
When two persons are given grace prior to salvation, why does not one person make use of that grace but the other did? Did the other prerson have more grace, so he persevered? Or did the other lack the grace necessary to persevere? Or are you saying that one was just more wise, humble and virtuous by nature?
It is grace itself that makes us humble enough to submit to the gospel. Are you saying that a man can do this apart from grace. You say, he cooperates with it? Then why didn't someone else cooperate with it? So He did not have the grace that Man #1 had, or #2. What makes them to differ?
This is a religion of boasting. One could be theological consistent with this view and pray "thank you Lord I am not like other men who do not have faith. Whn youy gave grace to all persons, my neighbor did not make use of it, BUT I DID" This is baosting in self rather than the cross for even the ability and desire to respond. And no one believes in Jesus unless God gracts it (John 6:65). It is the spirit who gives life.
Whenever you say it was synergism, you have to recognize that the other person did not make use of the synergism. WHY? He was naturally hard hearted and the other not? Why? He was proud and not the other? Why wasn't the other proud? Was he better somehow than the other guy??? Was this just some innate ability he was born with or did he merit God's grace somehow?
In Christianity, you cannot merit the grace of God, and that is exactly what your religion is teaching. You believe you are saved not because of grace but because you were more wise than the other guy. Either you give all glory to God or you do not.
There are no robots here. it is more like the following example.
Two parents. Each sees his child run out into the street. a car is coming.
Parent #1 stands at the sidewalk and calls to the child to use his FREE WILL to get out of the way of the car.
Parent #2 sees the child in danger and immediately throws off all caution and runs out to scoop up his child to make certain his child is safe.
Which parent love his child? #2. Your parent is #1 who does nothing except hope they help themself. But true love does for us what we are unable to do for ourselves.
True love gets the job done.
Grace and peace
Interesting response. Of note was that his argument of why one endures and another does not had been succinctly answered with no rebuttal possible, so he instead tried to confuse the issue by raising multiple questions, and then continued to employ it rhetorically. This one was rather easy to answer.
Dear Mr. _______,
In response to your statements,
"Your are bringing an alien concept to the Bible when you sayt that man has a
free will. Can you show me ANYWHERE in the Scripture where God reveals that man
has a free will? You are bringing your philosophical idea into the text, not
reading it from the text."
The fact that there existed a holy ritual known as a 'freewill offering' (n-dabah - free, voluntary) might be a good start (Leviticus 22:18, 23:38, Numbers 15:3, 29:39, Deuteronomy 12:6, 16:10, 23:23, 2 Chronicles 31:14, Ezra 1:4, 7:16), which people did willingly offer (Ezra 3:5, 8:28). Not to mention the fact that David asks God to accept the freewill offerings of his mouth (Psalm 119:108). It also stands to reason that men have some measure of free will if they can go against the desire of God, which is also clearly shown in scripture:
"But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. So I
gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: [and] they walked in their own
counsels. Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, [and] Israel had walked in my
ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their
adversaries." Psalm 81:11-14
which correlates very well with the prophecy of Christ over Jerusalem in Luke 13:34,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are
sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen
[doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!"
The Bible was written to people with the presupposition of free will, and the
usage of words bears it out. If free will is a fallacy, then why would God
promote freewill offerings? The question then is, can you show me anywhere in
the scripture that states that men lack free will of any kind?
"When we say free will we are not saying that man is coerced into doing
something, but rather does it of necessity.
Man may voluntarily choose what he does but he is bound to what he is by nature
until Christ sets Him free."
I agree that he can have no freedom to follow God apart from His grace.
"His is in bondage to sin and therefore the lover of Christ is not the deepest
animating motive of his heart (nbor his motive at all) and since he loves
darkenss he will not come into the light."
Not arguing that point.
"'Human beings are not Turing (finite-state) machines, just as God is not, for
He created us in His image with a will.'
Yes he did, but now his will is in bondage to sin. He is hostile by nature to
Christ."
I believe I stated something to that effect as well.
"Does it? Is God free in this sense? Can God choose to sin and choose good with equal ease? Or what of the glorified saints? We consider them the freest creatures of all, but can they sin? Do they have contrary choice? (a philosophical but not a biblical concept). No the Bible defines freedom as freedom from sin? When you say men are free to do otherwise, what are you saying? Fre from what?"
Free to follow either nature he possesses. God has strictly a holy nature which none can interfere with (for He Himself cannot even be tempted), and therefore cannot be unholy, I would assume the same thing about glorified saints raised in
the image of the glorified Christ. The angels (at least initially) had good natures as well, though not as holy as God's, and some were wilfully subject to a corruption in their natures, a holy God not being the author of their sinful
rebellion. Men in their natural state tend towards only evil, having a measure of free will in some areas, but nothing good ultimately. Those in Christ before final glorification have two natures, the inherent sin nature and the nature of
Christ, and are free to follow either one, as evidenced by the fact that Christians are capable of sinning despite being new creations.
"Next, what you belive in his not really synergism but human monergism."
How can it be human monergism if God's grace is essential?
"When two persons are given grace prior to salvation, why does not one person
make use of that grace but the other did?"
He chose to.
(Here we go)
"Did the other prerson have more grace, so he persevered?"
No.
"Or did the other lack the grace necessary to persevere?"
No.
"Or are you saying that one was just more wise, humble and virtuous by nature?"
No.
"It is grace itself that makes us humble enough to submit to the gospel."
I agree.
"Are you saying that a man can do this apart from grace."
No, I'm saying it is not irresistible.
"You say, he cooperates with it?"
Yes.
"Then why didn't someone else cooperate with it?"
He chose not to.
(...and again...)
"So He did not have the grace that Man #1 had, or #2. What makes them to differ?"
From the rest of the world, God (1 Corinthians 4:7); from each other, the choices they make in the light of God's grace. The same reason why one resists a particular temptation and another does not, for God gave them both a way of
escape.
"This is a religion of boasting."
(classic Calvinist tool of desperation)
In what (since apart from Him we can do nothing)?
"One could be theological consistent with this view and pray 'thank you Lord I am not like other men who do not have faith. Whn youy gave grace to all persons, my neighbor did not make use of it, BUT I DID'"
As the Lord indicated, such is nothing to boast of,
"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
He did not indicate that we do nothing, simply that we have done what God requires.
"This is baosting in self rather than the cross for even the ability and desire to respond."
No, for God gave these to me as well. But ability and desire do not necessitate that I respond.
"And no one believes in Jesus unless God gracts it (John 6:65). It is the spirit who gives life."
Not disputing that. Does not make it irresistible.
"Whenever you say it was synergism, you have to recognize that the other person did not make use of the synergism."
Yep.
"WHY?"
He chose not to.
(*YAWN* and again...)
"He was naturally hard hearted and the other not?"
Both naturally hard-hearted until God calls us, both able to persevere afterwards; apostasy is not for lack of ability.
"Why? He was proud and not the other?"
All are totally depraved apart from God's grace.
"Why wasn't the other proud?"
Because he received the engrafted word (James 1:21).
"Was he better somehow than the other guy???"
Not by nature.
"Was this just some innate ability he was born with or did he merit God's grace somehow?"
An ability cannot be 'innate' if it requires God's grace to perform it. All believers have the ability to persevere in Christ, some simply do not choose to. I have never argued that anyone merits God's grace.
"In Christianity, you cannot merit the grace of God, and that is exactly what your religion is teaching."
No, God's grace is conditional, but this implies nothing of merit. Merit means that you deserve a thing, a condition is what is required. The two terms are not synonyms. But if you wish to press the point, then please explain how I am
meriting (deserving) God's grace, since God was not compelled to give it to anyone.
(Ah yes, selectively playing dumb in pretending that merit and condtition are the same thing)
"You believe you are saved not because of grace but because you were more wise than the other guy."
(Where did that come from?)
Wise? No, I simply believed, which God requires of all men; it is nothing meritorious or glorious, as Luke 17 attests to.
"Either you give all glory to God or you do not."
(More all-or-nothing argumentation, a tactic often employed by those with no case)
Which I do. My following Christ is nothing to brag of, for even the righteous are scarcely saved (1 Peter 4:18); and if you seek to accuse me of boasting then you tread in the dangerous waters of judging another's motives. Boast? I pray
for the strength to stand and persevere, for I know that I can't do such a thing in my own power, hence we pray, "lead us not into temptation..." Let me turn that question around, if sanctification is synergistic (as even many Calvinists
acknowledge), then does that rob God of all the glory?
As to your parent vs car example, you can toss out theoretical examples all
day, a Universalist might argue back that it would be more loving of God to save
every person on earth; such points are moot apart from clear scriptural backing.
Once again John, you beg the question of no free will, assuming that if
someone makes a different choice, then he must have been caused to make that
choice by something. Warnings like those given in Revelation 22 and Romans 11
simply underscore the fact that while God has given His elect all that they need
for abundant life in Him, some may still choose to depart from Him.
In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux
By this point, I had his logic pinpointed and was easily able to effectively counter each argument. Not to be deterred, he shot right back with another email see the fourth 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.
"This is the earth. And this is Pinky. You can tell the difference quite easily. One is a lump of inert matter hurtling blindly through the void. The other... is the earth." - The Brain, Pinky and the Brain