Decimating the Distortions
Reply to John Hendryx of Monergism.com
J.C. Thibodaux
This is in response to a post by John Hendryx at,
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/syngergistchallenge.html
Introduction - Clearing up misconceptions about free will
To start with, Hendryx puts up some really strange ideas about what free will is or implies. To clarify my views on the subject, I'll reference an article I wrote at Arminian Perspectives.
Free will is:
It is, through God's grace, the ability to heed and obey the gospel, or in the resistance of grace, to disbelieve it.
It is the power to act under the grace of God to do righteously in faith, or to reject the influence of grace and follow after the old nature.
Free will is not:
It is not the power to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without any kind of restriction or influence. Some confuse the term 'Libertarian' to mean 'completely unrestrained and uninfluenced,' a better name for that kind of mythical human freedom would be 'Anarchist free will' (or perhaps just 'volitional chaos'). The term Libertarian simply denotes that the creature is actually free to make its own choices between influences, as opposed to Compatibilist free will, which maintains that all 'free' choices are actually pre-determined or caused.
It is not man's complete sovereignty over himself. While God does delegate men power and freedom of the will to an extent, He still ultimately retains control of body, soul, and spirit.
Is depravity the same thing as determinism?
One of the misconceptions that Hendryx pushes is that total depravity constitutes some sort of deterministic scheme.
Is Thibodaux here acknowledging that that the natural man cannot choose otherwise? It sounds like he believes that, at least in this instance, our moral nature does infallibly determine our choice. Is this not determinism?
I state in the article above,
And it is for this reason that we espouse libertarian free will, for while man does inherently have a sinful nature bent only on evil, the presence and power of God's grace which has appeared throughout the world gives us a different path and possibility to follow -- a contrary choice to make between the goodness of God and the sinful ways of the world. Thus it must be noted that the exercise of the will towards good does not and cannot exist apart from the grace of God, for without grace there would be nought to pick but our own choice between devilish poisons.
One who is unregenerate can choose otherwise by the grace of God. If not for grace, then our fallen nature would of course seal our eternal state no matter what viable options we picked, and all men would inevitably spiral into hell; but since God does impart grace, I don't see how he construes the fallen nature as constituting determinism.
Freedom to have nothing happen to you!!
Hendryx:
The second is the matter of prevenient grace itself. With all Thibodaux's talk of God giving man libertarian free will, does not the belief that God imposes prevenient grace on natural men itself go against his will and desire?
If that's the kind of thing they consider to be a tenable objection, Reformed theology is doomed. Libertarian free will is the ability to choose within a range of viable choices, I never stated anything about it being freedom from experiencing anything you don't desire or don't explicitly ask for. Such nonsense is good for comedic value and nothing else. Hey Hendryx, I got a better one for you:
"If someone slashes your jugular veins, shouldn't libertarian free will give you the power to not bleed to death if you don't want to?"
Though admittedly, it's only slightly more reasonable than what Hendryx proposes. The argument he tenders is rendered further absurd by the fact that grace itself is what allows a fallen man freedom to believe (or as they say at the SEA, we are 'freed by grace'). His objection is akin to arguing that 'freedom must give one freedom from being given a way to freedom.'
Freedom to do what freedom doesn't allow!!
Hendryx:
The third instance that Thibodaux contradicts himself with regard to determinism is that he defines true freedom as the ability to choose otherwise. But is this how the Bible defines freedom? You would expect, if freedom to choose otherwise were the greatest freedom, that God Himself would have this characteristic more than any, followed by those saints in heaven whom God has sealed in glory and cannot sin. Do either of these have the ability to choose otherwise? Can God or the glorified saints 'freely' choose good and evil?
We can choose among real-world possibilities, as noted above. Sin/evil is not a viable possibility for a completely holy God, nor the fully glorified saints. Belief through grace or refusal to believe are both options for one still in the mortal coil.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34)
Contrary choice where God is concerned for instance, does not require that He be able to sin (which His immutably holy nature will not allow), but He does have power to choose within a range of possibilities, for He has power to grant salvation to anyone He chooses on any basis He chooses. I note in the above article what free will is not:
It is not the power to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without any kind of restriction or influence. Some confuse the term 'Libertarian' to mean 'completely unrestrained and uninfluenced,' a better name for that kind of mythical human freedom would be 'Anarchist free will' (or perhaps just 'volitional chaos'). The term Libertarian simply denotes that the creature is actually free to make its own choices between influences, as opposed to Compatibilist free will, which maintains that all 'free' choices are actually pre-determined or caused.
Steve "you can't prove you didn't!" Hays once tried this same nonsense, arguing that if libertarian free will can instantiate differing possibilities, then it of course must logically be able to instantiate any possibility (which would presumably include the abilities to leap tall buildings in a single bound and understand OSHA guidelines with ease). Hays called it a 'reductio ad absurdum,' I wonder if he ever figured out that the purpose of a reductio is show the other guy's argument to be absurd rather than his own.
It's clear from such trifling attempts at forming a coherent argument that Hendryx hasn't the foggiest about what he's arguing against. That established, we move on to his other arguments.
Part I - Hendryx fires back with deadly force; his foot may never recover
There's only 10 kinds of people in this world: Those who can read binary....
Central to Hendryx's case is an indefensible either/or fallacy, presenting people as being of only two types: regenerate and unregenerate, spiritual and carnal.
The Bible describes only two types of persons: spiritual and natural. There is never any indication of a third condition in-between except in the extra-biblical logic that Thibodaux's system necessitates.
There is no middle place where we can choose to be humble or not. Only a person with a new heart can even have the humility to believe the gospel. Humility is foreign to the nature of the unregenerate.
Also the four bullet points Thibodaux produces are tremendously problematic. The Scriptures teach very clearly that there are only two types of persons in the world: regenerate and unregenerate. This is basic Christianity.
There is no such thing as a neutral heart in God's world. A heart is either good or bad. There is no Scriptural evidence to suggest otherwise.
Were this naive, completely black-and-white view of reality tenable, his case might hold water. The scriptures really lend no support to Hendryx's view however. They may address people in a dichomatic manner at points for emphasis (e.g. the blessings and cursings on the Mountains of Ebal and Gerizim in Deuteronomy 27, the marked contrasts between believing and non-believing in 1 John), though it's also clear from scripture that one may seek God through grace prior to regeneration. A primary scriptural example is of course Cornelius, of whom scripture says,
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius!" And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, "What is it, lord?" So he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do." And when the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier from among those who waited on him continually. (Acts 10:1-7)
Cornelius was a man who sought God by grace, yet was still a sinner who needed to believe in Christ to be saved, as confirmed in the next chapter.
"And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, 'Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.'" ...When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." (Acts 11:14-15, 18)
So how was Cornelius able to be devout or obedient to the command of God apart from faith in Christ? Could he have been regenerated some time before coming to faith in Christ? Hendryx couldn't agree with that assessment.
But an unbelieving regenerate person is not only unsound, but a contradiction.
So Cornelius sought God before he believed, ergo prior to being regenerated. Yet according to Hendryx's benighted oversimplification, an unregenerate heart cannot have any right motive, seek, understand, or desire anything of God; yet the infallible scriptures plainly testify to that very thing concerning Cornelius. Such is a perfect example of how God can lead a person by His grace to faith in His only begotten Son. Hendryx asks,
Ask yourself, can this virtue (humility) be found in an unrenewed heart?
Certainly, Cornelius displayed much by way of humility and fear of God. This was not by his own faculties, but afforded by grace.
No, it is the grace of God itself that makes us humble; neither innate ability, prevenient grace propping up the old nature, or chance will do it.
God doesn't 'prop up' the old nature, which is corrupt beyond repair, but it's rather by His grace that one can learn from His word and believe from the heart despite the old nature. He also objects,
Moral principles must exist in the soul prior to moral action.
All acts of choice, to be holy, must proceed from a holy motive, all Christians should agree.
Failing to recognize that grace produces the motive and principles needed to believe, as well as allowing one to embrace them....
...this also means that Thibodaux implicitly acknowledges that believing in Christ is a moral decision. If we are hindered by an immoral heart, then we can only believe if it is replaced by a good heart.
...as well as not factoring in that through prevenient grace, one may not be hindered so in believing.
Believing and rejecting Christ is not neutral but a moral choice comes from a heart that is good or a heart that is evil. Yet Thibodaux fails to see the inherent contradiction of his system as he makes it clear in his response that we choose Christ because we choose him.
And again he's discounting the power of prevenient grace, which can open even a heart tainted by wickedness to the truth of the gospel. Nothing new here, just more of Monergism's strawmen.
Nature Boy
Continuing in that grain, another big error that many Monergists push is a faulty understanding of inability due to the fallen nature, emphasizing it to the point where they deny that prevenient grace can reveal spiritual truth to fallen men.
The Bible, therefore, teaches that all gracious and spiritual affections presuppose and arise from spiritual (not natural) views of divine truth (read 1 Cor chapter 2) .
Our fallen nature is spoken of in the Bible as the "natural man". But the text of Scripture teaches that only spiritual people can understand spiritual truths.
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Hendryx also cites Romans 8:7 to make this case,
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
Upon closer examination however, the context 1 Corinthians 2 and the greater context of scripture produces monumental problems for the Monergist view:
But as it is written:
"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:9-16) [emphasis mine]
Notice that the way we can know and understand the deep things of God are by the Spirit that we've received from God, the Holy Spirit. But how and when does one receive the Spirit? Do we receive the Holy Spirit so we can come to faith, or do we receive Him through faith?
This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? ...Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?-- (Galatians 3:2, 5)
The promise is obtained by believing, not just the hearing of faith,
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree", that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:13-14)
The promise of the Spirit is received by faith, not logically prior to faith; and to those who receive Him and hear His voice, He reveals the deep things of God. These passages aren't indicating that the Spirit can't reveal the simple truth of the gospel of Christ to the unregenerate, but rather that a deep understanding of 'spiritual meat' and steadfast obedience to the word of God are impossible for one who has not received the Spirit or has his mind set on worldly things. Hence, the Monergist attempts to hammer passages comparing the unspiritual to spiritual into all-out prohibitions on the unregenerate coming to faith are fallacious in their entirety.
He makes another push for the 'nature' argument from John 8,
Jesus here again continually points to nature, desires and heart motives as the determining factor for believing and rejecting the gospel: they are "determined to kill me", "their heart is far from me", they "want to carry out their father’s desire" and they reject Jesus because they "do not belong to God." The devil lies because that is who he is by nature, Jesus says, likening them to the devil's offspring. That’s an argument from nature folks!!! Need we provide more evidence?
For starters, the devil chose to be a liar, he wasn't created as one. Secondly, in context, Jesus is speaking to the Jews who are hypocritical and not in a right relationship with God. He's not trying to establish that their inability to hear is rooted in some inherent or irresistibly imparted nature, the situation was the same as their fathers before them had played out:
"Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: 'Behold, I will bring on this city and on all her towns all the doom that I have pronounced against it, because they have stiffened their necks that they might not hear My words.'" (Jeremiah 19:15)
"But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts." (Zechariah 7:11-12)
Having stopped their ears to the law and prophets, they certainly would not receive the revelation of the Messiah, for they were not taught of God (as we'll touch on more below).
"'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:31)
He then tries to underscore his claims with an appeal to Ezekiel,
Further the prophet Ezekiel said the result of giving the new heart is that is causes his people to walk in His ways. In other words, there is no heat without a fire, there is no sight without an eye; there is no hearing without an ear; and there is no believing without a new heart. Belief is what is required in the New Covenant and belief is what characterizes those who have been born again (1 John 5:1).
However, the new heart spoken of in Ezekiel doesn't mesh very well with the Monergist view of regeneration.
"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways," says the Lord GOD. "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 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? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord God. "Therefore turn and live!" (Ezekiel 18:30-32)
If getting a new heart were speaking of an instantaneous and unconditional conversion upon men who up to that point have no real opportunity to seek God, then it makes very little sense to tell them "get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit."
Hendryx also makes a rather bizarre set of appeals,
If our moral nature is what determines our choices some times then it is not a stretch to believe it is what determines our choices at all times.
But as noted, the Scriptures teach that we always make choices for a holy or unholy reason, so that the will is not independent of the person.
If who we are (the nature of our heart) prior to grace makes certain the result of our choice then who we are after grace also determines it. The will cannot be separated from the person.
That makes no sense whatsoever. 'Our nature determines our choices apart from grace, therefore it must determine it under grace as well?' Complete non-sequitur. To clarify, libertarian free will (as we've pointed out above) still exists whether there is grace or not; 'confined within a specific range of choices' does not mean 'exhaustively predetermined.' He insists that 'the will can't be separated from the person,' by which he is (from what I can tell) implying that one's nature must determine one's will entirely, which would amount to stating,
"You must and will always choose according to your nature",
which again would obviously be begging the question of determinism. Of course choices aren't made apart from the person, it doesn't follow that a person's nature ultimately and exhaustively determine his decisions, especially when other factors, such as prevenient grace, intervene. It's therefore completely absurd to say that because someone apart from grace cannot believe because of his nature, that one who believes in Christ through the grace of God must likewise do so because of his nature.
Hendryx:
Faith in Christ is a moral decision which means we exercise faith based on who we are, not apart from who we are.
Again committing the 'can't be made apart from X, therefore must be entirely based upon X' fallacy....
Therefore, if our choice depends on some other source as Thibodaux suggests (e.g. the power of contrary choice, as an arbitrary ability to will, either with or against emotions/nature), it is unacceptable;
Oh this should be good.
...if two persons are given the same nature/condition, through prevenient grace, and one chooses Christ while another does not, then the choice to choose Christ in his view is determined by something other than the nature of his heart (who he is) and it is clear that cannot separate the will from the person. So, this kind of choosing that synergists speak of, a choosing which is ultimately determined by something other than a good heart, is unacceptable to God.
Faith proceeds from a heart under conviction by the Spirit of God through His grace; it does not require a heart that's been perfected to believe, merely a heart that yields to the amazing grace of the Almighty. Why (in Hendryx's view) God's own work within an unregenerate man producing faith in Him would be unacceptable to Him is anyone's guess. His assertion is nothing more than a contrived and artificial standard that he and/or some other theologian cooked up, and being only half-baked, is unfit for human consumption.
If Hendryx is so tied to this 'nature must determine our decisions, not contrary choice' business, out of curiousity, I wonder, where does he think Adam's sinful choice came from? If it's impossible to choose contrary to our natures then how did Adam and Eve, who were created upright and in the image of God, fall into evil?
Counting Sheep (though reading Hendryx and I argue is FAR more effective)
Hendryx:
Jesus said.. " You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:26, 27). Jesus could not more plainly assert that who we are (His sheep) determines what we believe, hear and follow.He does not say that you are not part of my flock because you don't believe but Jesus carefully says they do not believe because they are not his flock or sheep. He therefore, declares the reason for their unbelief is inextricably tied to their moral nature. They do not believe BECAUSE they are not his sheep.
Which only works for him if one assumes that the sheep Christ refers to are only those who have been regenerated. If His sheep are the ones taught of God,
"It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." (John 6:45)
or as it's also written,
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)
then his interpretation fits narrowly in fanciful Monergist conjecture. The question then would be as to whether being taught by God is irresistible or not:
See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven.... (Hebrews 12:25)
I believe the scriptural evidence points to men being able to resist Him who speaks. The fact that those who are not His sheep won't believe fits quite well in this paradigm, since one who refuses to heed the words of the Father, thus stopping his ears to the word of God (as cited above in Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 7), will not believe in Christ.
The Usual Pruftexts
Continuing with John 6, Hendryx makes an appeal to a 'syllogism,'
See there is that phrase "come to me" again. It means "believe". So Jesus is saying no one can believe in me unless it is granted from the Father. Likewise verse 37 we see the phrase again: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." When these to phrases from verses 65 and 37 are placed side-by side Jesus can be seen to be forming a syllogism which means the conclusion follows of necessity from the premise. So what is the syllogism?
Together these two verse verses (37 and 65) make clear whether Jesus is speaking of an effectual grace or one which simply puts man in a position to choose. Take the time to read them together. Jesus says: no one can believe in me unless God grants it and all to whom God grants in Me will believe in me. Jesus' intent could not be more clear and leaves no room for Thibodaux's synergistic interpretation of verse 44.
We can only conclude that all those that God the father draws, come. All those that He draws, believe.
I already answered this briefly. To point out the inherent problems in Hendryx's case though, his rather strained interpretation of John 6 requires collapsing the requisite conditions of coming to Christ (being drawn to Christ, being given to Christ), i.e. interpreting God actively drawing one to Christ to be the same thing as Him giving that one to Christ, which again doesn't follow. Two or more conditions being prerequisites to the same event does not make them the same condition; so if one were called and drawn by God, yet refused, then he would not be given to Christ. Hendryx thus subscribes to a very forced and foregone conclusion, taking a passage that does indeed emphasize the work of God in salvation, but employing equivocation in an attempt to artificially mold it into evidence for irresistible grace.
Spontaneous Volition?
Hendryx also tenders some rather groan-inducing and silly arguments. He's apparently under the impression that in the libertarian view, free will decisions just spring up unannounced apart from any accompanying motive or desire.
Nothing, not even our desires, he believes, cause the choice.
To a libertarian, he can choose Christ even if he does not desire Him. While the affections may influence the choice, in their view, still the will can chose what it doesn't want ultimately, which, of course, destroys the unity of the person.
Now that's flapping off into left field. I don't suppose he realizes that men can, to an extent, set their desire upon different things.
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. (Colossians 3:2)
Do not be envious of evil men, nor desire to be with them.... (Proverbs 24:1)
Prevenient grace being enough to produce both desire and motive to believe in Christ to one who receives it, simply (you guessed it) not irresistibly.
God's grace not only opens the way for us to accept Christ, but it also opens our eyes to the state of our soul and the curse and bondage of sin, from which point one may follow the desire of sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness.
Hendryx:
We can make an indifferent choice for Christ as far as he is concerned. Again, if the motive is indifferent, so is the act. Have you ever heard of something so convoluted?
Indeed I haven't, which leads me to wonder, a.) where he dug it up, and, b.) why he'd employ such an obvious strawman when I stated nothing of the sort.
Thibodaux's answers raise this question I must ask: During the granting of prevenient grace, is one regenerate or unregenerate?
Unregenerate.
But if on the other hand, Thibodaux believes those with prevenient grace are still unregenerate (not born again) then is Thibodaux claiming that an unregenerate person can have saving faith? That faith is possible for a person who is still unregenerate?
Yes, through grace.
The Scripture contradicts this as it clearly defines the unregenerate or natural man as those who cannot understand Spiritual truth and are hostile to it (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7).
Of their own capacities, yes; which is why grace is necessary to be saved. As noted above, the passages he references have nothing to do with the unregenerate being unable to believe, but the fact that those who have not receieved the Spirit through faith cannot understand the deeper things of God.
For example, in John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because they love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not because he hated him, or on the other hand, did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know in the entire revelation of Scripture.
Wow, what overly simplistic and sophomoric silliness. Of course belief in Christ is rooted in loving Him, which is why the scriptures command us,
'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. (Mark 12:30)
To put in perspective the relationship between choice and loving, doesn't God choose whom He loves? Hendryx's argument amounts to nothing more than taking the end decisions, and assuming that no lower-level decisions led up to it, thus constructing a distorted caricature of free will yet again.
Speaking of John 3:19, I'm not sure how Hendryx thinks this passage is supposed to support his view of how one comes to faith,
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God." (John 3:17-20)
One who practices or lives by the truth hardly denotes one who has been utterly corrupt and is only just now experiencing an instantaneous and irresistible moment of regeneration, but does conform very well to the idea that those taught by God through the hearing of His word will also believe in Christ.
Sola Gratia
Hendryx:
I fully understand and acknowledge that Arminians believe in the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. That apart from Him no one would come to faith in Jesus Christ. But the very fact that Christ's work is not itself sufficient to save means that synergistic faith does not believe salvation is ALL OF JESUS AND ALL OF GRACE.
Christ's work must be applied by God to a sinner for him to be saved; if God conditions its benefits upon faith (a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness), then its sufficiency within its scope is not an issue as Hendryx so ineptly attempts to frame it. 'All of grace' refers to salvation being by grace apart from any merit (as opposed to Monergism's distorted and unscriptural version of 'all of grace'), which is exactly in line with what we believe, since our faith does not merit salvation.
Hendryx:
Thus, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the libertarian, is never sufficient in itself.
Sufficient to what? Save sinners that reject it? That's not the purpose of grace. This is simply assuming that grace must operate irresistibly in saving someone (begging the question of the 'I' in TULIP), then calling it 'insufficient' if anyone suggests otherwise.
To grace we must add the choice of the unregenerate will.
Again falsely framing it as the choice of the fallen man by himself. Any power that an unregenerated man has to believe is through grace. Through grace the will of a sinner may surrender to the will of God, and from the heart he may believe in Christ in spite of his fallen nature.
Duhlemma
Hendryx:
Asked why one with prevenient grace believes and not another, the libertarian answers, 'one believed and the other did not'. But I did not ask him what he did, because we all know what he did already from my question, but I asked 'why' he believed.
Because freedom to receive or reject the gospel facilitated by grace allows for both of their choices, but does not impel either.
'One believed' is no answer at all.
When the question relates to a libertarian agent with freedom to do either, it's the only reasonable answer.
It is merely saying the same thing in other words. Our libertarian friend never really answer the question as I asked it...
Nor should I, since it's a loaded question (a commonly used tool of people who can't debate their case rationally, e.g. "Are you still fighting the truth by disagreeing with me? Just answer 'yes' or 'no.'"). Implicit in Hendryx's question of 'why' one makes a libertarian choice is his unfounded assumption that there must have been something that irresistibly caused the libertarian choice to be made (a contradiction in his logic). This is evidenced when he rephrases the question,
What principle in him made him choose what he did?
Which if something 'made' him choose what he did other than his free will, his choice by definition would be non-libertarian. A contrary choice cannot be broken down more atomically with repeated 'whys,' since there is nothing that irresistibly causes the will to make its decision.
Droning the infinitely recursive 'why' like a preschooler is about as logically sound as asking "Why is 1 greater than 0?" At that point it cannot be dissected with further inquiries as to why, since it's been broken down to the fundamental properties of numeric values; the fundamental and defining property for a freewill decision made by a libertarian agent being that there isn't a principle that made him choose one way or the other, but that he or she makes an uncoerced choice. To assume that something must have irresistibly caused it to be one way or another is to assume that libertarianism is false, which is merely begging the question.
Hendryx:
This dilemma is really fatal to libertarian free will and none of them including Thibodaux have been able to come close to answering these basic questions. The answer 'just because' is simply ludicrous.
One will note that I never answered 'just because,' but rather,
This is of course simply begging the question of Determinism, since if we have power of contrary choice, then nothing made us choose.
Contrary choice is by definition not predetermined, and therefore answers the question quite eloquently. I invite John to demonstrate exactly how it's absurd -- without begging the question of determinism. Thus far his logic appears to be along the lines of,
Determinism must be true -> therefore something must cause the choice -> therefore it's illogical to say that one simply made a choice of his own free will that wasn't caused -> therefore Determinism must be true -> therefore something must cause the choice -> ...
He also failed to even address the counter-example I pointed out, which we'll touch on more at the conclusion.
PART II - "...for amber waves of straw-men!"
Same fallacies, different day...
Apparently, Hendryx still can't get past the fallacies that we already shot down from his initial challenge.
The will is never expressed in the Bible as being sovereign and separate from our desire. In fact just the opposite is true. The Text says we "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13) God is sovereign in regeneration, not man.
He clearly did not read my first reply very carefully. When he catches up this might be a more interesting conversation.
But it seems wildly odd that Thibodaux makes one exception to this rule--- the first holy choice which constitutes regeneration....
He definitely didn't read very carefully. I never said anything about a choice constituting regeneration. Hendryx is apparently so strapped for arguments that he's now resorting to making things up to attribute to me in direct contradiction to what I've written! Where does he get the term 'holy choice' from anyway? Would that mean that he believes we are made holy so that God will then justify and forgive us? Sanctified so we can become justified?
'...to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' (Acts 26:18)
Hendryx:
But the libertarian is unwilling to say regeneration was only by God's grace in Christ because he then would admit to God's sovereign choice.
Egad, Citizen Kane is going to beat out the Tick at this rate. God graciously chooses to regenerate those who believe, which is perfectly in line with His sovereignty and the concept of grace alone.
Hendryx:
Nor will he provide an answer that reveals a moral virtue in one person who believed (humility) or the other (who was proud). This would expose his belief in salvation by merit. But these two answers are the only possible conclusions his system leaves us with.
Who said anything about us believing that humility or even faith 'merit' salvation?
...but he did answer it according to his libertarian philosophy which he imports into the Scripture, since he believes that it was not the nature of his heart (or anything else) that caused him to choose one way or the other. The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view,
I have to hand it to them: Monergists/Calvinists are the only people I know who can ponder a system of beliefs in which,
* God creates man
* God chooses to grant man intelligence and free will
* God patiently allows man to exercise stewardship over himself and make free choices
* God is still capable of overriding man's will if He chooses to
* God provides a way for men to not only follow their evil nature, but a way to escape it by His grace
* God holds man's life in His hands
* God, after seeing it fit that a man's life end, holds him accountable for his choices
And conclude that it must be man who is sovereign.
"Innate moral ability"
Hendryx:
If you take a closer look at what was said, I believe it can be demonstrated with finality that prevenient grace merely begs the question and that under such influences the final decision to believe the gospel still does come from a persons' "natural capacity" and innate "moral ability".
Which is exactly what we will show him to be erring on...again.
Here's why:
We understand and have not misrepresented the fact that when a person receives prevenient grace, the Arminian believes the bondage to sin is removed so that he can make a free choice. But we must remind the Arminian that since faith is a moral choice (implicitly acknowledged by him) then a heart that is neither regenerate or unregenerate chooses nothing.
Hendryx imports a looney set of assumptions about what I believe into his argument: I never said anything about a man being 'neither regenerate or unregenerate,' but that unregenerate men may believe through grace. Batting absolute zero thus far, he continues with yet another strikeout:
Sin, we agree, is what determined the natural man's rejection of Christ. With this in mind consider the following scenario:
Two persons are listening to a sermon during which the Holy Spirit gives both persons prevenient grace. The result is that one believes the gospel and not the other. The question still remains, what makes the two to differ in their decision to follow Christ?
One hears and receives, the other refuses. The contrary choice afforded by grace allows for both possibilities in both cases.
It obviously was not prevenient grace, since both already had this. So the only other possibility is that something other than grace in their nature made them to differ ... something in their innate moral capacity.
Thanks Hendryx, we knew you wouldn't let us down. The capacity to believe does not exist in fallen man apart from grace, therefore to call it 'innate moral capacity' is slanderously absurd on his part.
Again, what made them to differ? Jesus Christ or something else? The only possibility left to the Arminian synergist is that some form of natural wisdom, understanding or sensitivity to spiritual things is what ultimately made the two persons who both had prevenient grace, to differ.
I see where this is going. Is it possible that he still hasn't gotten the clue that the capacity (not compulsion) to 'make use of grace' is a gift of grace itself?
This reveals that, to the Arminian, salvation is not all of grace but only partly of grace. He can say one made use of grace, but why? How did the one know this was the right choice? Not grace since both had grace.
Next question.
Something else ... something other than Jesus Christ was the determining factor.
That's IT? That's his big clincher -- the rebuttal that shows that he's 'not misrepresented' us?? The same recycled garbage we disposed of with only nominal effort last time?!?
From the first reply to his challenge:
Again, Hendryx pulls the worst kind of misrepresentation. If the fallen will is unable to receive the gospel apart from God's grace, then he cannot have naturally had the capacity to receive Christ. How he gets it so completely wrong is beyond me. Furthermore, because we acknowledge that it's only by the aid of God's grace that fallen man can be saved, it's beyond ridiculous to assert that we do so by our 'unaided natural self.' That is quite obviously pure distortion.
Capacity granted by grace is by definition not 'innate capacity.' And since it is 'capacity,' and not 'compulsion,' then one with such capacity may freely heed the gospel call or reject it. The one who rejects the grace of God doesn't do so for lack of capacity, but because he willfully rejects it. Hendryx's logic apparently works along these lines:
* Two men hear the gospel and have prevenient grace
* One receives it, since he receives it, then he must have had the capacity to
* One rejects it; since he rejects it he must not have the capacity to receive it
* Therefore what separates the two must be an innate capacity
Such an argument requires assuming that,
'capacity = inevitable fulfillment,'
and that assumption's logical corollary,
'lack of fulfillment = lack of capacity.'
But since capacity does not amount to inevitable fulfillment in non-determinist views, Hendryx is again simply begging the question of determinism.
Oh, of course! When he charged us with believing heresy, what he actually meant was that he wanted to argue about prevenient grace! ...Wait, what?
Hendryx:
The first problem with the response is that he did not read the challenge very carefully. The synergist challenge was actually posted by me with prevenient grace in mind. That is why the prayer I posted itself said that one "made use" of [prevenient] grace and the other did not. ...
Well good, if he's through expositing on his 'secret will,' here's what his 'revealed will' actually decided to write:
If you feel I have set up a straw man in my portrayal of your theology you should be able to answer a few easy questions on what it takes to receive Christ. If you can answer these questions and show that you still believe in salvation by grace alone, apart from any merit (or sheer chance) then I shall admit defeat. ("I don't know" doesn't count) Here are the questions:
* Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another?
* Was he able to generate a right thought, produce a right affection, create right belief, while at the same time man #2 did not have the natural wherewithal to come up with the faith to be saved?
* If they both made use of the same grace, did one make better use
of it than the other?
* If prevenient grace places us in a neutral state, then what motivates one man to believe and not another?
* What principle in him made him choose what he did?
* If all men are neutral in prevenient grace was it by chance that one believed and not another?
* Is it the grace of God that makes you differ from unbelievers or is it your faith?
If he'll bother to read his own challenge again, it's not challenging us about how logical he thinks our views on prevenient grace are, but if our beliefs could be reconciled with salvation being by grace alone apart from any merit (or being by 'chance'), which we've already done. Additionally, the reviling prayer at the outset falsely suggests that Synergists believe heretical concepts such as paying the price of our own redemption --much weightier matters than how either of us believes grace operates, which is why I shot back to him,
Getting back to the subject, your challenge wasn't over prevenient grace in particular: You put up a mocking prayer that suggests that Synergists believe that we produce faith of our own power apart from the work of God, and that thereby we believe that we pay part of the price for our own redemption, then state, I quote:
"I believe that it accurately reflects this erroneous belief system. So below I am offering a challenge to anyone, therefore, to show me where I am off target."
Hendryx adds to the current reply,
... So it is incorrect to assume that the challenge targeted only semi-pelagian ideas.
In case Hendryx has forgotten, his challenge is to all Synergists, and he believes (at least according to what he wrote) that such a slanderous 'prayer' accurately reflects consistent Synergist theology that embraces prevenient grace, not Semipelagianism, as stated in his challenge:
While prayer recited above is indeed a caricature that no synergist would dare pray, but is what a synergist would pray if he were consistent in his theology.
Nowhere does he list the heretical concepts of paying the price for our own redemption as strictly Semipelagian; read over it, Pelagianism and Semipelagianism are nowhere even mentioned in his challenge. He is plainly attributing such heretical beliefs to Synergists who believe in prevenient grace (the necessity of which both Pelagians and Semipelagians reject).
Groanergism
Hendryx:
So if there is not of necessity any moral reason or motive that ultimately compels one to believe or not then how could God blame someone for rejecting Him?
The question Hendryx asks is rather funny considering his views: since (from what I gather) he believes that we have no libertarian free will in the formation or our motives, nor contrary choice as far as which desires we act upon, and that such desires ultimately determine our choices, wouldn't that essentially be asking, "If nothing irresistibly compels you to do what you do, then how could God hold you accountable?"
Hendryx:
But if faith is a moral choice then how did one person get a good moral disposition but not the other? One remained proud and the other became humble.
Contrary choice allowed by grace (here we go again).
Was this humility by nature or by grace?
Grace, albeit not irresistible.
If by prevenient grace then why don't all men have it?
Framing the question to indicate that if humility is by grace, then those who aren't humble must not have grace. But if grace can be resisted, then it follows that one may have grace, yet despise it and not humble himself.
Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled.... (Hebrews 12:15)
Hendryx:
But which parent loves his child more?
Oh give me a break, not this silliness again....
The one who sees the car coming and calls out to the child from the curb hoping the child will get out of the way, or the parent who, at the risk of his own life, runs into the street and scoops up the child to make certain they are safe?
If he wants to make such a completely inadequate comparison, I find the prospect of a parent who calls all his children to come to safety, yet does not force them, to be vastly superior and preferable to one who unconditionally snags a few and leaves the majority to perish in traffic, with what amounts to effectively no effort to save them.
Thibodaux would have us believe that Gods love is like the weak-willed, ineffectual love of the first parent that saves no one in particular, rather than the kind of love that gets the job done
Applying yet another shallow and artificial standard, assuming that the 'job' in this case is to unconditionally/irresistibly save specific individuals (which requires assuming Calvinism's second and/or fourth points to be true); but if the 'job' is in fact to make a way of salvation for the whole world and save all who believe,
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
then God's love and grace performs that perfectly in the Synergist view.
Hendryx:
Again. it seems rather that this prevenient state that Thibodaux promotes is derived purely from the logic of his system and not driven by the text of Scripture.
It's clear from scripture that God's grace is imparted to us before we believe;
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.... (Titus 2:11-12)
Contra Hendryx's assertions, that which must occur prior to faith is never referred to as 'regeneration' or 'the new birth.' And as the case of Cornelius plainly demonstrates, men may be moved by the grace of God to seek Him chronologically prior to their coming to faith (and therefore prior to regeneration).
Hendryx:
He is kicking against the goads of Scripture and mockingly portraying God's clear revelation in this matter.
Yessss!! Thibodaux's First Law in effect!! 'Mockingly??' The guy who insists that a prayer stating, '[I] contributed to the price of my redemption' accurately reflects my theology thinks I'm a mocker? Okaaaay.... In case he hasn't noticed, most of what I've written has been defense against his mischaracterizations of orthodox Synergist beliefs, largely the distortions he publishes about things like free will, which as Hendryx is about to prove, can only facilitate contrary choice within limits...
...I want to declare my purpose here is not so much to persuade Thibodaux because in my experience those who have grown this emotionally attached to their position are rarely converted in their understanding.
But if someone holds so tightly to their own tradition then it really doesn't matter what evidence you produce, they simply will not believe.
...I couldn't muster the willpower to resist laughing at those statements if I tried. And finally, Hendryx ends up flatly contradicting himself with the statements,
I fully understand and acknowledge that Arminians believe in the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. That apart from Him no one would come to faith in Jesus Christ.
and,
The will itself is sovereign, in the libertarian view, and has an ability of its own which can ultimately choose apart from any gracious affections of the heart. [emphasis mine]
How exactly would the will have this ability 'on its own' if he acknowledges that we believe in the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit before we can believe?
Weightier Matters
Additionally, Hendryx fails to adequately address several of the serious issues with his challenge brought to light in my reply:
* He doesn't substantiate his claims about how the Synergistic view of faith somehow gives us glory or 'merits' salvation for us, the latter of which was central to his challenge.
* No address at all to his patently false insinuation that Synergistic soteriology amounts to believers helping purchase their own salvation.
* His justification for his charge that we must believe we have some 'innate moral capacity' apart from grace answers nothing from our defense, since any ability to embrace the gospel of grace is itself of grace.
* He insists we haven't answered his dilemma of 'why did one choose and not another' in the libertarian view, when in fact the capability to choose between both viable options without being made to choose either way is a fundamental property of a libertarian decision; for if there was a 'principle in him made him choose what he did' as Hendryx asks for, it would then by definition no longer be libertarian. Such glaring fallacies demonstrate the backwards and puerile reasoning that Hendryx is employing, namely, using his assumption that there's no such thing as libertarian free will as evidence that it doesn't exist.
He also fails to address the crushing counter-example we've shown that reduces his frivolous dilemma to so much irrelevant polemical dust,
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)
From Hendryx's reasoning, this raises the question, 'Why does one believer resist temptation and another fall into it if they're both given a way of escape by God?'
If God gives us means to escape temptation and grace to endure it, the fact that some do not endure and fall into temptation anyway establishes that ability being given does not necessitate action being performed ('can' does not mean 'will'), therefore people do to some extent have contrary choice. Hendryx's dilemma does nothing more than assume that something must have irresistibly caused the choice and then ask what it was that did so.
If something 'made' one yield to temptation, then he would indeed be tempted beyond what he is able to endure, for he could not do otherwise. But if he's not tempted beyond what he can endure, yet falls anyway, then that's clear evidence that he freely chooses to do so; nothing has to 'make' him sin for it to occur. But if Hendryx thinks it unreasonable when other people destroy his quaint dilemmas with logic he can't refute, call him on his loaded questions, or counter-question him rather than 'answer the question as [he] asked it,' I recommend he take a look at Matthew 21:23-27.
He furthermore states,
But it seems wildly odd that Thibodaux makes one exception to this rule--- the first holy choice which constitutes regeneration....
Accusing me of believing that my choice is the same thing as regeneration, when I plainly wrote,
Regeneration is a work done by God to the sinner when he or she has come to faith in Jesus. Hendryx inaccurately frames the sentence so that it makes Synergistic regeneration through faith out to be man doing some of the work in regenerating himself, which is complete nonsense.
He also asserts,
Jesus requires right motives when we obey him. Thibodaux would have us believe this is true all the time except when we obey the gospel.
When I stated nothing of the sort.
If he thinks that his case is convincing if argued fairly and honestly, then why does he suddenly feel the need to try and incriminate me over things that I don't even believe? Sadly, it seems such distortion tactics are a staple in Hendryx's attempts to promote Monergism.
Conclusion
Hendryx's case against orthodox Synergism relies heavily and primarily upon misrepresenting it (e.g. the 'salvation by innate ability' arguments), his logic is often preposterous ('nature determines choices apart from grace, therefore it must also determine choices under grace'), he repeatedly employs loaded questions premised upon the very thing he's trying to prove with them (as he effectively asks 'what irresistibly causes libertarian choices?'), and he tries to shift the topic to why he thinks prevenient grace is absurd rather than what his challenge stated: answering his questions while showing that the Synergistic view of salvation is by grace alone apart from any merit or 'sheer chance.' In other words, his rebuttal is an unintelligible string of strawmen, non-sequiturs, and begged questions wrapped in one gigantic red-herring.
- J.C. "Synergist saved by grace" Thibodaux
Copyright © 2005-2008, 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.