Monergism in John's Gospel

Adding my two cents:

Often people object to monergism with several assumptions in place, and here are a few in summary form. The most common is that of a libertarian like view of human freedom. Certainly, issues surrounding the will are a pet topic of mine, but it is exceedingly helpful to see how great a force this conception of human freedom in discussions.

The second has already been mentioned by JohnBrian, and it is that ought implies ability. This only makes sense because of the assumption mentioned above. If libertarianism is the case, then anything that determines the will one way or another completely eliminates responsibility. Therefore, if one is to be responsible, then he has to have a libertarian ability to do otherwise.

The third is the metaphysical conception of reality that goes right along with libertarian freedom. The default status is that God is sovereign; a crying out is made if someone says that the libertarian does not believe in God’s sovereignty. However, this sovereignty is conformed to the will. God works around, against, and lets go the will to do its thing. He may set boundaries. He may offer grace. But never will God ever move the will one way or another. Such would be a violation of the metaphysical laws stipulated by the will and its freedom.

The fourth is a logical dependence of God’s knowledge upon man’s choice. This is essential for conditional election. The primacy of the will is key here. God’s knowledge is not that of an architect; His knowledge is of secondary importance. He knows because man has willed; He does not know that therefore man may will. This is a “logical” sequence and not a “temporal” sequence. The nature of God has shifted from complete independence to dependence. And the nature of man—with respect to the will—has shifted from dependence to independence. The whole transcendence/imminence discussion becomes very interesting here.

The fifth is a flattening of the love of God. There are no nuances. He loves all equally; He gives grace to all equally, and it is man that operates the machinery of God’s grace. This is a moral conforming of the love of God to the dictates of man’s will, where the “opportunity for decision” is the ultimate moral determiner, with God’s love being the determined.

With regard to the placement of regeneration in an ordo salutis, my personal take is that once libertarianism is evicted, then human independence of ability is evicted as well. God gives the gift of believing: the gift of an action. This means that regeneration could come before belief (logically) as the instrument that God uses to give belief, or it could mean that regeneration could come after (logically) as a result of God’s gifting of believing.

Again, these points are my two cents. This what I often find as the underlying assumptions in many many discussions.

Those five assumptions, mentioned above, are not my view. I also do not believe them to be found in the Bible. Just trying to add clarity.

[Jack Hampton]

[JohnBrian] discounting my answer is not equivalent to my not providing an answer!

I was expecting a “specific” answer to my specific question and I do not believe that I ever got that answer.

How it is possible that a person can be born of God and therefore as a result become a child of God BEFORE he believes despite the fact that John says that it is only those who “believe” who are given the right to become a child of God:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn.1:12-13).

Please address Paul’s specific words when he said: “to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

Thanks!

Adoption always follows conversion. Conversion always follows regeneration. But life must come prior to men being able to receive Him. Jesus Himself said that the reason men don’t believe in Him is because it has not been granted to them by His Father. (John 6:44, 64-65) So men are regenerated, they recieve Christ by faith, they are then given power to become sons of God (adoption), etc, etc. John 20:31 hardly establishes an ordo salutis. This text, variant aside, demonstrates the evangelistic thrust of the literature before us.

John is not concerned with the ordo salutis and to argue that this is his point is eisigesis. John’s purpose for writing the gospel is that men might place their faith in Christ and live rather than reject Christ and face eternal death. To argue that John wrote the text with our argument in mind misses John’s point. This is akin to saying that every who says Jesus has come in the flesh is born of God, literally. Yet John says this very thing in 1 John. However, when you place those words within the context of the error John is dealing with, they carry a very diferent meaning. John wrote his gospel with the hope that men would believe in Christ and find eternal life. The statement is far more general than you are wanting to take it.

Rather than saying there is nothing at John 6:44, 64-65, why not give your explanation of what John is saying here? Either Jesus is explaining why some men don’t believe the gospel or He isn’t. In your system, the answer is that they simply choose not to believe. But Jesus has a very different answer for why men don’t believe: it is because the Father has not chosen them to believe. And because the Father has not chosen them to believe, they cannot. Dead men don’t have the ability to believe the gospel. They are dead.

I do not believe that a person becomes adopted prior to faith. I believe regeneration precedes faith, is unseen by the human eye, is followed by conversion, which is actual placing of faith in Christ and repentance, and then adoption follows. John 1:12 says nothing about faith preceeding regeneration.

Jesus says that the Jews have seen Him and yet do not believe. Why? He then says all the Father gives Me will come to me. If God has not chosen you for salvation, you will not come. Those that God chooses, He gives life to and they believe, resulting in life eternal. Everyone who hears and learns from God, comes to Christ. (6:45) The idea that men get it, understand it, and reject it is unbiblical. 1. All unregenerate men are dead in their sins. (Eph. 2:1) dead men are not able to “make a decision for Christ.” They are spiritually dead to Christ. 2. All unregnerate men love their sin too much to decide to give it up. (Rom. 3:10-18) If they are the kind of person who possesses faith and will “made a decision” to believe once they hear the gospel, I would say that would make them a pretty good person. But there are no good people. Paul says that all unregnerate men pervert the truth of God that they have and exchange it for a lie. How can they do that AND “make a positive decision” for Christ at the same time. Romans 1 describes the unregnerate’s condition as it is. That condition is not amenable to “deciding” for Jesus. That condition is a God-hating, God-perverting, sin-loving, self-worhsipping condition. 3. If the person’s mind is blinded by Satan, how could they possibly see the light or truth of the gospel enough to place any faith in it? (2 Cor. 4:4) What do you think Paul was thinking about when he made that statement to the Corinthians? He was thinking about men who do not believe! The reason they do not believe our gospel is because their minds, unregenerate minds are all universally blinded by Satan so that they cannot see the truth of the gospel and believe. This is why they are what they are.

Jesus asked the Jews, “Why can’t you understand the words I am saying to you? It is because you are not able to understand them. Why? Because you are of your father the devil.” (John 8) Again in John 10 He says that the reason they do not believe is because they are not His sheep. But how do you become a sheep? By being selected by God before the foundation of the world. Salvation is of the Lord my friend.

Every conversation reaches a point where it is clear that further advancement will not be made and the discussion begins producing no fruit. I think we have arrived at that point of inertia in our discussion. God bless you as you continue to search the Scripture for the truth God has revealed therein.

The only reason I say this is that I have had this same old discussion hundreds of times and witnessed the same type of eisegesis ad nausaem. Do not mean to offend at all. I choose not to engage in discussions beyond a certain point. Take care.