While browsing around on a site called monergism.com to find a quote I was directed to, I stumbled on an "open challenge" to synergists. I've opted to take up the challenge here: not only because I like answering challenges, but it would also be worthwhile to cover the concept of synergism a bit.
The article I'm responding to is called "A Prayer That a Synergist Won't Pray" by John Hendryx. Hendryx presents us with a prayer, he supposes, "...no synergist would dare pray, but is what a synergist would pray if he were consistent in his theology..." The challenge is, since the most common response is that it is a strawman, to demonstrate that it is indeed a misrepresentation of synergistic theology. Of course we should ask, which synergistic theology does he have in mind? Arminianism, after all, is but one of many which are prevalent or otherwise exist in the Christian church today. For obvious reasons, though, I'll only defend my own view.
The article begins with definitions of monergism and synergism. "Monergism is the biblical doctrine that regeneration (the new birth) both precedes and elicits faith in Christ in those whom the Holy Spirit sovereignly determines to dispense His grace upon (John 1:13; 6:63-65; Acts 16:14b; 1 John 5:1)."1 2 This is a common tactic I've observed among Calvinists: they will assert that something is Biblical, then in quick passing reference a passage or a few which they think support the assertion; it is as though they expect you to come to the same interpretation they do. I'll grant Hendryx the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he may have exegeted those passages elsewhere on the site. But as a matter of fact, all four passage miss the mark: John 6:63-65 and Acts 16:14 could just as easily support Prevenient Grace, as a good Arminian will admit that apart from God's work in a person's heart, one won't come to faith; 1Jn. 5:1 tells us nothing about the relationship between faith and being born again other than the fact that they are related; John 1:13 is the best bet here, but even then it is significant that John said "of God" rather than "of the will of God." That the born again Christian is "born of God" is beyond dispute; the background language indicates that "the will of the flesh" and "the will of man" refer to the will to procreate, not an individual's will to be saved.3
The article goes on,
"Synergism (or synergistic regeneration) is the erroneous doctrine which believes that faith precedes and gives rise to regeneration. Man cooperates with God in regeneration. Faith is produced by our unregenerated human nature. The fallen sinner has the ability and potential inclination to believe even prior to the new birth. While synergism believes grace plays a role in salvation yet he does not believe salvation is by grace alone - instead it is grace plus our response which makes us to be born again."There are so many problems with this presentation, I'm not sure quite where to start. First off, Hendryx attempts to poison the well, by leading both definitions with the qualifiers, "biblical doctrine," "erroneous doctrine." Perhaps in doing so, he hopes to convince those who blindly agree with him, read through too quickly, or aren't familiar enough which such tactics. However, those willing and able to discern such childish games know better.
More importantly, the definition itself is flawed (or at least relative to my position: their may be synergists who believe as he presented the idea, but I know none). It is indeed true that synergists hold that faith precedes regeneration; however, to say that faith "gives rise" to regeneration is ambiguous. What the heck does that mean? Hendryx is a bit loose here in his language (considering that he does it in a definition, tsk tsk: he should know better), as I'm not sure if by it he means our faith contributes something tangible to regeneration or if it is just initiatory. The former is a foul error, while the latter is probably accurate.
To make the distinction clear, consider this analogy: I ask my friend to make me a table out of his own scrap wood, and he does it. Now, did I contribute something substantial to his building of the table? No... the wood is all his, as is the blood, sweat, and tears that went into the construction of the table. This is fairly representative of my position on the relationship between faith and regeneration: faith initiates the process (essentially asks God to save us), but doesn't contribute any effort to that actual regeneration process. That, in fact, belongs to God. Hence, there is a true sense that I hold that regeneration is monergistic, although faith is synergistic.
And when I say synergistic, I mean it! Hendryx asserts that according to synergism faith is something "produced by our unregenerated human nature." This is simply incorrect. First, faith would not occur without God's grace affecting the sinner first (remember Prevenient Grace?). Hence, Hendryx confuses synergism (that man and God are both causal factors) with Pelagian monergism (that it is all man, and God just helps after the fact). In other words, he isn't just burning a strawman, John Hendryx is burning a stawdemon at the stake! Second, no "synergist," even of the Pelagian variety, will say faith is produced by our sinful human nature. What Hendryx is doing is projecting his own Compatibilism onto Synergistic theologies-- most synergists are not Compatibilists but hold to Freedom of Choice, or else a position on freewill similar to my own. Hence, synergists who are worth their weight in chocolate are going to hold that faith is actually "produced" by the will, or decision making processes, which itself is affected by God's prevenient grace. The unregenerate, sinful nature is certainly also a factor which influenced the will, but it is not determinative.
Hendryx does make one true point, albeit a moot one: "While synergism believes grace plays a role in salvation yet he does not believe salvation is by grace alone - instead it is grace plus our response which makes us to be born again" (emph. stripped). Indeed, salvation is not by grace alone: salvation is by grace though faith. This is orthodoxy, ladies and gentleman, and those who doubt this will be referred to Eph. 2:8. Sola Gracia, and Sola Fide. Of course, we can dispute how faith comes about, but either way it is irrelevant to the doctrine of salvation by grace.
(deleted text)
... if Hendryx's purpose was to imply that synergists are heretical.
In the next section, there isn't much that I won't be responding to later anyways, so I'll only highlight a few details. Despite that some synergists believe that God gives "equal amount of 'grace'" to everyone, believe it or not it is not necessary that He does, nor is it demonstrably biblical. It can be argued from Scripture that everyone will be drawn to the cross, that doesn't mean that prevenient grace is granted to everyone in an equal amount. If indeed it is scaled, one could suppose from Scripture that God responds in a fair proportion to what how faithful the person responds to that grace (cf. Matt. 25:15-30). Hendryx stays, "Synergists often tell me that while grace plays a role in salvation, yet the Holy Spirit and grace have nothing to do with their ability to come to faith in Christ, since the gospel is only an offer that carries no power in itself." But of course, if people did say such, they are misguided, since grace is not just critical in the salvation process, but even in the "faith process." He also takes issue with the fact that the people who did respond were humble and obedient, as though that was meritous. In fact, it is a critical point in Biblical humility to admit that one cannot merit one's own salvation. It is indeed true that God saves us because of His mercy alone, though the synergist would qualify that, noting that in God's mercy, He sovereignly chose to bestow His mercy on those who made decisive conversions to Christ's cause.
Hendryx presents us his caricature of a prayer a synergist should be praying. At this point, it has too many presumptions which were skewered above to be worth commenting on, but if you want a chuckle, you can follow the link and read it for yourself. Now, we get to the actual challenge, though it is hardly challenging. Hendryx presents us several questions, which he thinks supports his caricature...
"Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another?"
In short, because some choose to. God has granted each individual freedom of choice, and has or will grant sufficient grace to everyone to make such a decision. It is not by chance since choices aren't "random", not is it meritous, since biblically, it is works that would have merited salvation if they were a factor: Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Romans 3:27-28. Paul, here, makes it clear that any means to boast are excluded because one is not saved by works, but by faith. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:4-5. If salvation was by works, it wouldn't ba favor (literally a "grace"), but what is due to him; but it is by faith, and thus it is credited as though we were righteous.
"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?"
Nope: both have the means and the capability. One chose to come to faith, and the other didn't.
"If they both made use of the same grace, did one make better use of it than the other?"
Again, because one decided to put faith in Jesus and the other decided not to. Hendryx continues to question beg Compatibilism.
"If prevenient grace places us in a neutral state, then what motivates one man to believe and not another?"
In fact, there is no such thing as a "neutral state," except perhaps in peoples who lack the capacity (e.g. infants). This however isn't quite a strawman, since I have observed this kind of thinking among synergists. But the fact is, prevenient grace need not suspend or neutralize one's depravity; rather, I hold that grace becomes another motivator, placing a person in tension between his old ways and God's Way. It is evident that this is so, as even in a regenerated Christian there is still a tendency to sin. We may have become slaves to righteousness, but the old flesh lingers on, as Calvinists themselves admit..
"What principle in him made him choose what he did?"
Once again, we see Compatibilism being question begged. But of course, don't expect any cogent arguments for Compatibilism. (I have seen few, but none have yet to overcome the logical problems emerging from Compatibilism's inherent foundation in Determinism.)
In fact, if any "principle" "made" one choose as one did, it was the principle that God created man with the capacity to make free choices, and granted it for him to do so. However, the question expects a determinative answer, and none will be given here.
"If all men are neutral in prevenient grace was it by chance that one believed and not another?"
Nope. To suppose that choice is by "chance" grossly oversimplifies the irreducible complexity of the decision making process. Granted, some choices we make may seem to be random (perhaps in some cases, they are, I won't assert that I know), but one need not appeal to chance to escape determinism. One merely has to note that not all causes are strictly material (i.e. physical and purposeless) in nature. There is also causality which involves intent or purpose. "I chose to go to the park because it is sunny out," doesn't mean that the sun caused me to go to the park; rather, I made an intentional choice based on the fact that the sun is indeed shining. It is entirely possible that it is sunny out, yet I chose not to go to the park, and as long as that is so, one not need to suppose that choice is a crap shoot or a roulette wheel.
Keep these points in mind, as Hendryx is about to find some challenges presented back at himself...
"Is it the grace of God that makes you differ from unbelievers or is it your faith?"
What differs is that both I am saved by grace through faith, and I have been born again. Well, that was relatively painless, shall I see if I can make Hendryx's mind hurt a bit? ...
An Open Challenge to Monergists (actually, three).
If monergists are indeed as big and bad as they make themselves out to be, perhaps they won't mind answering some questions:
A.
1. Based on what does God choose to save some people, but not others?
2. If you say His good pleasure / will / sovereign plan, what is His good pleasure / will / sovereign plan?
3. If you say it is a mystery, are you not aware that in Eph. 1 (a passage commonly used to support Unconditional Election), it says, He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him. Ephesians 1:9.
4. Since the mystery has been revealed in Jesus, where do you think (in the Bible) we can find it?
B.
1. Is it true that you believe that a person will always act in accordance to his greatest desire?
2. What things do you hypothesis cause a person to desire a certain way?
3. What do you suppose causes the causes of those desires? Etc...
4. If you follow the causes back, will the not all inevitably lead to God?
5. Wouldn't this lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, and that all responsibility for evil rests on Him?
C.
1. What causes God to make the choices He makes?
2. Is there anything external or prior to Him which determine His choices and actions?
3. If God determines His own choices, isn't it at least possible for Him to make creatures capable of making self-determined choices?
4. Recall Deut. 30 where God commands the Israelites to choose between His way or death and curses. God makes it quite clear that it was entirely possible for the Israelites to choose life in submission to Him (Deut. 30:11-14). Yet, the logical conclusion of Compatibilism and Determinism is that it was actually impossible that they serve and worship God (since the could have, really, only make one choice and that choice was to reject Him). Explain why your philosophy contradicts Scripture.
Published: Array
1. Hendryx, John. "A Prayer That a Synergist Won't Pray." Monergism.com. June 23, 2004. <http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/prayer_synergist.html>
2. In all quotes, the emphasis is from the original document.
3. Note that the Greek term for man used in John 1:13 isn't the generic term often used (anthropos, Strong's G444), but refers specifically to an adult male, as distinguished from a woman, and could even mean husband (aner, G435). (Information on Greek Terms taken from: Zodhiates, Spiros, et. al. The Complete WordStudy Dictionary. Software edition (E-Sword). AMG Publishing. 2004.) Unless the Calvinist is going to argue that women and children aren't saved, let me propose an alternative interpretation. John is contrasting being born naturally with being born spiritually, and thus "...the will of the flesh..." and "...the will of man..." both refer to the will of a potential parent (the latter being specifically a potential father) to rear young. This fits more closely with the prior phrase, "of blood." Of course, being born of God means to be born again spiritually or regenerated. Hence, the faith of an individual isn't even in John's picture, here.
|
|
|
|