The Monergist View of the Human Will

[Reformed]

Goodnight, all. I will check in tomorrow morning.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Slow your roll, hombre. The Gospel is preached to all, although there are some people on the Monergist side who fall into the error of Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism has no textbook definition, but it is commonly accused of teaching that the Gospel is only to be preached to the Elect. One problem with that view is none of us possess perfect knowledge. Only God knows who is part of the Elect. Ergo, the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all. The real question to ask is whether all can believe the Gospel. The answer to that is a resounding "No!". Only the Elect will believe. But once again, since we do not know who the elect are, we plead with all men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).

The Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians on here go into hyper-Calvinism when they bend, twist. and warp Romans 1:19 to fit their ideology.

 

[Reynolds]

The Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians on here go into hyper-Calvinism when they bend, twist. and warp Romans 1:19 to fit their ideology.

Please elaborate.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Please elaborate.

When asked about those who died never hearing the gospel, they quickly run to Romans 1:19 and use that to say they can know Him savingly via natural revelation.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Please elaborate.

I asked this in the now closed "What is Total Depravity, part deux" thread...

Okay, I agree. I read an article from April, 2018, when Alliance for the unreached said that 3.2 billion ppl have not heard the gospel. How can those who died never hearing it have believed in God?

And this was the reply I got...

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Notice that that response had no exegesis whatsoever. Just a few verses spouted off and that's it.

If they can be saved this way, then missions are a waste of time and $$$. That's hyper-Calvinism coming from a Pelagian.

 

[canadyjd]

Slow your roll, hombre. The Gospel is preached to all, although there are some people on the Monergist side who fall into the error of Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism has no textbook definition, but it is commonly accused of teaching that the Gospel is only to be preached to the Elect. One problem with that view is none of us possess perfect knowledge. Only God knows who is part of the Elect. Ergo, the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all. The real question to ask is whether all can believe the Gospel. The answer to that is a resounding "No!". Only the Elect will believe. But once again, since we do not know who the elect are, we plead with all men to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).

You said the real question is whether all can believe the Gospel. That brings us back to the question human will/free will.

 

[Reformed]

You said the real question is whether all can believe the Gospel. That brings us back to the question human will/free will.

It does, does it not? And since there is no free will (soteriologically speaking), it presents the Synergist with the same problem all over again. Unless, of course, you want to continue the merry-go-round and ask the same questions and receive the same answers. Unless you are persuaded by scripture, and the Mongerist argument, eventually you have to recognize the disagreement for what it is and move on. My answers will always be consistent. There is no free will in salvation (although the Elect willingly believe) and only the Elect will respond to the Gospel call and believe.

 

[Reynolds]

When asked about those who died never hearing the gospel, they quickly run to Romans 1:19 and use that to say they can know Him savingly via natural revelation.

That is also a teaching of many Calvinists. I would not by any means consider D. James Kennedy a Hyper Calvinist and he taught it. This teaching is common among Cals and Non-Cals. I don't think either group is blameless on this point.

 

[Reynolds]

You said the real question is whether all can believe the Gospel. That brings us back to the question human will/free will.

Which is easy. Man's will is only as free as God allows it to be.

 

[canadyjd]

It does, does it not? And since there is no free will (soteriologically speaking), it presents the Synergist with the same problem all over again. Unless, of course, you want to continue the merry-go-round and ask the same questions and receive the same answers. Unless you are persuaded by scripture, and the Mongerist argument, eventually you have to recognize the disagreement for what it is and move on. My answers will always be consistent. There is no free will in salvation (although the Elect willingly believe) and only the Elect will respond to the Gospel call and believe.

Thanks for the conversation. Peace to you

 

[The Archangel]

When will you guys stop taking this passage out of its context?

He is speaking to the Pharisees that are rejecting Him. They were already rejecting the Father, therefore, would not receive the Son. Those who were following Yahweh in Christ's day were being drawn to Christ because they were already the Father's. Please, stop doing violence to the text!

Your argument is seriously flawed. There are no Pharisees mentioned in the context of John 6. In fact the last mention of them before John 6 is John 4:1 and the next mention of them is John 7:32. So, your argument that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in John 6 is simply wrong.

The Archangel

 

[utilyan]

Do folks make people hear the gospel at gunpoint? Or do they make a choice to hear it?

 

[JonShaff]

Your argument is seriously flawed. There are no Pharisees mentioned in the context of John 6. In fact the last mention of them before John 6 is John 4:1 and the next mention of them is John 7:32. So, your argument that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in John 6 is simply wrong.

The Archangel

I'm sure it was a mixed multitude, particularly many unbelieving Jews. That still does not make my point less valid.

 

[Reformed]

Your argument is seriously flawed. There are no Pharisees mentioned in the context of John 6. In fact the last mention of them before John 6 is John 4:1 and the next mention of them is John 7:32. So, your argument that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in John 6 is simply wrong.

The Archangel

I never mentioned that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in John 6. It is obvious from the text that He was speaking to those who came for the loaves (v. 26). These were also those who intended to take Him by force and make Him king (v. 15). That certainly does not describe the Pharisees.

 

[JonShaff]

I never mentioned that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in John 6. It is obvious from the text that He was speaking to those who came for the loaves (v. 26). These were also those who intended to take Him by force and make Him king (v. 15). That certainly does not describe the Pharisees.

It was an assumption on my part. Regardless, Christ was speaking to a mixed multitude, particularly unbelieving Jews.

 

[The Archangel]

I never mentioned that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in John 6. It is obvious from the text that He was speaking to those who came for the loaves (v. 26). These were also those who intended to take Him by force and make Him king (v. 15). That certainly does not describe the Pharisees.

Reformed,

I was addressing JonShaff about the Pharisees, not you. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Blessings in Christ,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

It was an assumption on my part. Regardless, Christ was speaking to a mixed multitude, particularly unbelieving Jews.

But, you originally said this:

When will you guys stop taking this passage out of its context?

He is speaking to the Pharisees that are rejecting Him. They were already rejecting the Father, therefore, would not receive the Son. Those who were following Yahweh in Christ's day were being drawn to Christ because they were already the Father's. Please, stop doing violence to the text!

The entire point you were trying to make in the above post is negated if Jesus isn't talking to the Pharisees specifically. In fact, If Jesus is talking to a mixed group, for Him to say "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" means precisely what @Reformed and the rest of us says it does. It is a statement of election--a statement about God choosing whom He will.

The Archangel

 

[JonShaff]

But, you originally said this:




The entire point you were trying to make in the above post is negated if Jesus isn't talking to the Pharisees specifically. In fact, If Jesus is talking to a mixed group, for Him to say "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" means precisely what @Reformed and the rest of us says it does. It is a statement of election--a statement about God choosing whom He will.

The Archangel

I believe you read into it "election."

 

[Reformed]

Reformed,

I was addressing JonShaff about the Pharisees, not you. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Blessings in Christ,

The Archangel

Sorry. My mistake. I am not able to read certain posts.

Blessings, brother.

 

[The Archangel]

I believe you read into it "election."

How is it not there?! Later Jesus Himself will restate His position: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44 ESV)

Your idea here:

When will you guys stop taking this passage out of its context?

He is speaking to the Pharisees that are rejecting Him. They were already rejecting the Father, therefore, would not receive the Son. Those who were following Yahweh in Christ's day were being drawn to Christ because they were already the Father's. Please, stop doing violence to the text!

Assumes your premise without trying to prove it. There is no discussion that those who follow Yahweh were being drawn to Christ. In fact, since Jesus says later "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" indicates you are creating a false dichotomy. If one was rightly worshiping the Father, he or she would worship the Son. If one didn't receive Christ, it demonstrates that they never knew the Father, for if they did, they would welcome the Son.

So, what Jesus is saying here is that the Father chooses to save and the Son is the means of that salvation.

It is not we who are doing violence to the text.

The Archangel