My Correspondence With a Monergist Theologian, His Fourth Reply and My Rebuttal
The debate continued, though I think by this point I was starting to frustrate him a bit. Quotes from previous letters are in italics, my comments are, you guessed it, still in green.
JCT
HUHHHH --- free will offerings which God commands his covenant people who he already redeemed from bondage has nothing to do with our discussion. This is not even the same subject. Try again. Show me anywhere in Scripture that presupposes free will of the natural man?
You ask, where in Scripture does it say that man is not free?. On almost evey page. One example... when Jesus tells the Jews that only the Son can set them free, he is telling them that they are slaves to sin (read John 8). They can choose only to sin unless God does something. That is not freedom. When God tells man he is a sinner, it means he cannot simply will himself to be without sin and holy.
If the natural man is in bondage to sin, which you agreed with, then you ALREADY are agree that he is not free. If a man is in bondage, by definition, he is not free, until Christ sets him free (Rom 6). If a person does not have the Holy Spirit he cannot think spiritual thoughts nor have affection for Christ or Spiritual things. It is because of the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ that we have the mind of Christ and ONLY THEN understand the things free given to us in Christ. (read 1 Cor 2)
you said >>>>I agree that he can have no freedom to follow God apart from His grace.
The you already agree that he has no free will if left to himself. What are you arguing about then? So you and I have already determined, then, that unregenerate man has no free will ... this you must admit given your comment. The question therefore is not free will, because you already admit he has none apart from grace ... but whether God's grace actually saves or simply gives the opportunity to save. You believe the unrgenerate man (w/o) Holy Spirit can produce thoughts of hope in Christ, while I believe the Scriptures teach that faith is not the product of our unrgenerated human nature.
you said of God >>>>Free to follow either nature he possesses. God has strictly a holy nature which none can interfere with
Exactly my point. We are free only to choose according to the natures we have. Someone who does not have the Holy Spirit are by nature hostile to God. An unregenerate persons fails to see the truth, beauty and excellency of Christ. Your position is that someone who is still UNREGENERATE can see beauty and truth and goodness in Christ. This utterly contradicts the Scripture at every point. The unregenerte suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
>>>> Men in their natural state tend towards only evil, having a measure of free will in some areas, but nothing good ultimately.
Utter unbiblical nonsense. A man in the natural state does not have the Holy Spirit so he hates Christ and has no spiritual thoughts, according to Scripture. The Love of God cannot be his motive in doing what he does. He is in bondage (i.e. not free).
>>>>"It is grace itself that makes us humble enough to submit to the gospel."
you said .... I agree.
The eveyone who received this grace would believe.
"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
Jesus' words, "Apart from me you can do nothing" includes assent to the gospel.
in your view, the one who believes cannot thank God for his faith. He can only thank himself for the humility to have faith. For if his faith were a gift of God then he would believe. No one can believe unless God grants it and all to whom God grants it will believe. (John 6:37, 65)
>>>In what (since apart from Him we can do nothing)?
Because even the very desire to believe is not a gift from God in your view.
Again, show me any place in Scripture which presupposes the free will of the natural man.
Shalom
____
So this is what the case for Monergism had boiled down to: Pretty much just an angry tirade that missed the point entirely. Easy enough to clear up.
Dear ____,
I think you are misunderstanding me entirely, I was not arguing against the
bondage of the will for the natural man, what I defined free will as was,
"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."
I believe that sums it up fairly well, all getting to the point that one who is a believer can wilfully depart from the Lord.
"So you and I have already determined, then, that unregenerate man has no free will ... this you must admit given your comment. The question therefore is not free will, because you already admit he has none apart from grace ... but
whether God's grace actually saves or simply gives the opportunity to save. You believe the unrgenerate man (w/o) Holy Spirit can produce thoughts of hope in Christ, while I believe the Scriptures teach that faith is not the product of
our unrgenerated human nature."
I never said anything about the unregenerate doing anything without the Holy Spirit. I stated in the above comment that they can do nothing good ultimately of themselves.
(which should have been clear from my first reply)
"you said of God >>>>Free to follow either nature he possesses. God has strictly a holy nature which none can interfere with
Exactly my point. We are free only to choose according to the natures we have. Someone who does not have the Holy Spirit are by nature hostile to God. An unregenerate persons fails to see the truth, beauty and excellency of Christ.
Your position is that someone who is still UNREGENERATE can see beauty and truth and goodness in Christ. This utterly contradicts the Scripture at every point. The unregenerte suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
Exactly why God's grace is needed, for without it we could not receive the gospel. This is God's grace, not regeneration. Spiritual life comes by hearing and believing in Christ. As I previously quoted from John,
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." John 5:25
We receive grace to hear (for it is God who opens our hearts), but are not made alive till we hear.
"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life
is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son
of God hath not life." 1 John 5:11-12
One does not 'have the Son' without faith in Him.
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John 1:9
Even Spurgeon wrote,
"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be
saved when he is saved already, being regenerate" Spurgeon (Warrant of Faith, #531, page 532)
He believed, as I do, that while the ability to receive the gospel is a work of God's grace by the Spirit (though we would take issue as to its resistability), that the new birth is through faith, not before it.
(Error on my part, I later read further that Spurgeon believed that faith was a product of regeneration, but believed that faith followed immediately; meaning that our positions might be at odds as far as to whether faith precedes regeneration, but agreed on the idea that there are no 'regenerated' unbelievers walking around -- quite the absurdity.)
">>>> Men in their natural state tend towards only evil, having a measure of free will in some areas, but nothing good ultimately.
Utter unbiblical nonsense. A man in the natural state does not have the Holy Spirit so he hates Christ and has no spiritual thoughts, according to Scripture. The Love of God cannot be his motive in doing what he does. He is in bondage (i.e. not free)."
I wasn't arguing whether he was in bondage, I don't think you even read the sentence very carefully. Men have some free will as far as non-heavenly things are concerned (some areas
e.g. God didn't necessarily ordain that I wear shoes instead of sandals this morning
), but ultimately tend towards evil. For instance, our sins are not by the divine decree of God (a blasphemous thought), but by our depraved will.
">>>>"It is grace itself that makes us humble enough to submit to the gospel."
you said .... I agree.
The eveyone who received this grace would believe."
(there goes that Turing machine again...)
That is only assuming that God's grace is irresistible.
"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)"
I agree that obedience and humility are by the grace of God as well. This does not make God's grace irresistible, for a gift can be rejected. Many reject obedience to God.
"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."
Luke 7:30
"CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
(A similarity between Catholicism and Calvinism: The weight of authority they believe that certain church councils carry. I try to never argue by church council decrees unless my opponent does so first...oh well, he asked for it...)
Jesus' words, "Apart from me you can do nothing" includes assent to the gospel."
I never claimed that one could receive the gospel apart from God, and therefore am unsure of what you are arguing against here. But since you want to argue from the Council of Orange as an authority, regarding perseverance (synergistic or monergistic), in its conclusion states,
"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and
cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul."
"Aid and cooperation"? Sound monergistic to you?
(Most Calvinists are under the mistaken impression that the Council of Orange was a church-wide proclamation of Monergism...not really, it was the death-blow to Semi-Pelagianism, but its canons lend support to Synergism)
"in your view, the one who believes cannot thank God for his faith. He can only thank himself for the humility to have faith."
Not really. Humility as well as faith are gifts from God; one must accept God's
gift to receive it, but it would defy logic beyond the point of ridiculous to
thank oneself for accepting a gift.
"For if his faith were a gift of God then he would believe."
Not necessarily, for we receive faith by hearing God's word (Romans 10:17); some refuse to hear Him.
"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house." Ezekiel 12:2
"But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear." Zechariah 7:11
It is the door of faith (Acts 14:27) which a man may enter, but is not forced to.
"No one can believe unless God grants it and all to whom God grants it will believe. (John 6:37, 65)"
But God grants it only to those who receive His word (John 1:12).
(This was my response to telling me that my religion was one of boasting)
">>>In what (since apart from Him we can do nothing)?
Because even the very desire to believe is not a gift from God in your view."
Let's see, you wrote previously,
"This is baosting in self rather than the cross for even the ability and desire to respond."
to which I responded,
"No, for God gave these to me as well. But ability and desire do not necessitate that I respond."
"Again, show me any place in Scripture which presupposes the free will of the natural man."
I wasn't attempting to [I assume you mean free will to believe without the aid of God], nor would I since I don't believe that natural man can come to God of his own ability. I simply said that natural man has free will in the sense that his sinful actions are not ordained by God, but performed of his own voliation. I thought that would have been very clear by now.
If you think yourself objective, then let me say this, please don't stoop to trying to misrepresent the other side's position. I have never indicated that a man could come to God without God's grace, and have not argued that the natural
man has the innate ability to do good (for he is manifestly corrupted); the points I am arguing are:
1. While any good we have is a work of God's grace, His grace is not irresistible. Which if it were, there would be no need for any exhortation to continue in it (Acts 13:43), no way to come short of it (Hebrews 12:15), and certainly no possibility of falling from it (Galatians 5:4).
2. Natural man has a free will in the sense that it is not totally directed by God (not normally anyway, for God can override the will of man if He chooses), which is evidenced by his ability to do things that God did not ordain (e.g.
sin), for God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Looking at the conclusion of the Council of Orange again,
"We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of
God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to
believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."
It is NOT free in regards to its bondage to sin, and therefore a man cannot come
to Christ apart from His grace (John 6:44).
3. That the new birth and spiritual life comes by believing in Christ (John 20:31), not so we can believe in Christ.
4. That one who is born again may turn away from God and therefore fall into
apostasy and be eternally damned, which warnings such as Revelation 22:19 and
Romans 11:22 warn against. The same warnings were echoed through the early
church, as Irenaeus wrote,
"Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death
shall no more have dominion over Him...we should beware, lest somehow, after we
have attained the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we
will obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but rather be shut out from His
kingdom."
("Against Heresies", bk. 4, chap. 27, sec. 2)
which later, even Martin Luther (himself affirming bondage of the will) recognized,
"Verse 4, "Ye are fallen from grace." That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it. ... The words, "Ye are fallen from grace," must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation."
(Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 5:4)
In Christ,
[J.C.]
I'd pretty soundly defeated all of his assertions by this point. His arguments concerning man having no free will were easily rendered moot as I believe that man can have no freedom from sin apart from the grace of God. Much of his letter was spent arguing against positions that he only assumed I must have held. After that much exchange and to the extent that he accused me of believing in the ability of 'the natural man,' I could only conclude that he was simply trying to convince me that I hold a position that I had clearly indicated I do not, and was wilfully misrepresenting my case in order to discredit it (falsely discrediting my own case to myself would be some feat). He fired one last barrage before calling it off, see his fifth 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.
"He is pure of heart - but so are fools." - Seijuro Hiko, Rurouni Kenshin