Apparently, I'm a Synergist

I recently had a discussion with a fellow named John Hendryx on Facebook—a friend of a friend. I had commented to my friend about how I had rejected Calvinistic theology because I find God's grace to be resistible. Unbeknownst to me, Hendryx (according to Wikipedia) is a "leading Calvinist thinker" and purveyor of the Reformed theology dubbed Monergism. Not surprisingly, Hendryx took issue with my comment, resulting in a short, unfruitful debate on the matter.

I'm not going to describe Monergism in full here; you can read the website for all the gory details. I'll quote from the website's "Our Faith" page to highlight the crux of their beliefs:

Union between Christ and his people was planned already in eternity, in the sovereign pretemporal decision whereby God the Father selected certain sinners as His own...

This pretemporal choice was not based on the fact that God knew which persons would believe of their own free will, for there is no person which fits that description. This decision was based upon God's sovereign good pleasure alone...

All of God's elect will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit during their life, at a time of God's choosing. This regeneration is a spiritual resurrection given to sinners who are spiritually dead. It infallibly results in faith, repentance and obedience. This regeneration is accomplished by the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit (Jn.6:37,44; Eph.2:4-5; Ps.110:3)...

We teach that all those who believe are justified and are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise unto the ultimate day of redemption. Therefore, if a person has been effectually called and drawn to Christ, he will never lose that salvation since it was based wholly on the finished work of Christ and God's election, not on the strength of the believers [sic] commitment or obedience. (Jn.10:27-30;Rom.8:28-30).

To paraphrase in my own words: according to Monergism, you're either saved or not saved by God's choice alone. There are no other factors, including an individual's choice or efforts to influence this divine decision. If you're one of the lucky ones who is elected, you're forced to repent and obey by the irresistible Holy Spirit; if you're not, you are forced to remain disobedient and unrepentant. It is not "Once saved, always saved," but essentially "always saved."

Synergism is what Monergists label the opposing belief that an individual's response to God's grace factors into his or her salvation. Like I mentioned earlier, I've abandoned Calvinism, so by association I disagree with Monergists (whether this makes me a official "Synergist" or not, I'm not sure, but I'm not a Monergist, for sure). But I do agree with Monergists that any theology or belief set needs to have a strong Biblical basis. In fact, Hendryx made this very point in an article he wrote criticizing a Synergist named Thibodaux for not having enough Biblical basis for a theological belief called prevenient grace (which is opposed to the Calvinist belief of irresistible grace):

...I want to point out that Biblical error most often arise when a theology is based on an isolated text rather than looking at it carefully in context and within the whole counsel of Scripture. This is certainly the case when Thibodaux quotes John 6:44 to try and prove prevenient grace by it.

This text appears within the article in bold, red lettering, which must mean Hendryx is emphatic about what he's saying. Almost immediately after stating this, however, Hendryx continues:

When these to [sic] phrases from [John 6] 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.

To summarize, Hendryx scoffs at Thibodaux for attempting to prove a theology by a single verse of Scripture (John 6:44) but then goes on to explain that a contrary theology is clearly proven by exactly two verses of Scripture (John 6:65 and 6:37). Theologians are a funny bunch. Now, I'm sure Hendryx actually has considered the rest of the Bible in the formulation of his theology, but he does seem especially fond of these two particular verses; he brought them up frequently in our Facebook discussion.

Taking the Time to Read Them Together

I want to follow Hendryx's suggestion and take some time to read these two verses together.

'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never turn away.' ... So, he said, 'This is why I told you that on one can come to me unless it has been granted to him by the Father.' (John 6:37,65 REB)

To Hendryx's credit, his pet verses have some good qualities:

• They are the words of Jesus Himself.
• They come from the same chapter of the same book, and they're both part of the same narrative, so there is a contextual relationship.
• They use absolute words like "will" and "no one." Certainly there's no room for debate with words like these spoken by the mouth of God, right?

But despite these admirable qualities, I must admit that I disagree with Hendryx's assertion that "Jesus' intent could not be more clear":

• I have to assume that God "granting" something is equivalent to God "giving" something. They could very well be, but there is room for debate, at least.
• I also have to assume that "coming to Jesus" is equivalent to "believing in Jesus" if I were to agree with Hendryx's analysis. I can buy that, but it's certainly not explicit by this text alone. Without knowing more context, Jesus could very well be speaking literally here about disciples joining him as He goes about His earthly ministry.
• I'd further have to regard "believing in Jesus" as possessing an unalterable salvation. The verses say that Jesus would never turn away those who come to him, but say nothing about the possibility of believers turning themselves away. The notion that believers cannot turn themselves away must originate elsewhere.

Maybe Jesus' intent in this passage is clearer to you than it is to me.

More Than Meets the Eye

I want to apply Hendryx's focus-on-a-few-verses-exclusively Bible interpretation approach but with different verses:

In very truth I tell you, whoever has faith in me will do what I am doing; indeed he will do greater things still because I am going to the Father. Anything you ask in my name I will do so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in my name I will do it. (John 14:12-14, REB)

Note that these verses share the same qualities as John 6:37,65--better qualities, even. There are three verses instead of two; it's also the words of Jesus; the passage originates from the same chapter in the book of John and is part of the same narrative; the verses are contiguous, not disjoint as with Hendryx's two verses; absolute words like "will" and "anything" appear more frequently than in Hendryx's verses; Jesus begins by saying "In very truth I tell you" and ends by repeating Himself, both indications that Jesus is really trying to get a point across.

I find Jesus' intent in these verses to be even clearer than His intent in John 6:65 and 37: Jesus will do anything you ask in His name; it is not might do some things, but will do anything. And from the context provided in the first verse, it's not unreasonable to think that "you" can refer to "whoever has faith in Jesus." (even if the "you" is referring to Jesus' disciples exclusively, then at the very least this Scripture is saying that whoever has faith in Jesus will do greater things than Jesus did, and Jesus did a lot of great things: healing diseases, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, raising the dead...).

But is what Jesus said here true? Can we Christians ask anything of Jesus and He will do it? The Bible seems clear--absolute words like "will" and "anything" cannot leave room for debate or qualification, can they? But our experiences may raise questions. I know I've asked for things in Jesus' name and haven't received them. I'm sure Hendryx could claim having similar experiences. Jesus did not lie, of course, so the only explanation is that we're not seeing the whole picture. In cases like this, we can go to the Bible to get more perspective.

But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord. (James 1:6-8, NASB)

You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 4:2-3, NIV)

Interesting. Jesus plainly said that He will do anything we asked in His name, but these passages indicate that there are, in fact, conditions involved. I know that Monergists dislike the book of James (Martin Luther did not consider it canonical) so I'll throw in a quote from 1 John, a letter written by the very same author of Hendryx's pet verses:

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. (1 John 3:21-22 ESV)

This echoes what Jesus was saying in John 14 but with additional information: to receive whatever we ask we must not be condemned by our heart, we must keep God's commandments and do what pleases Him. Only then can we expect to receive anything we ask for in Jesus' name.

So even though it seemed like we should have been able to take John 14:12-14 at face value, our experiences suggested that there was additional information we were missing. By reading more of the Bible we found that information. For Jesus to do what we ask, we must have unwavering faith, correct motives, a non-condemned heart, and obedience to God's commandments.

The Whole Counsel

This examination of John 14:12-14 shows that even verses that apparently leave no room for further debate, qualification, or explanation can indeed be further debated, qualified, and explained by Scripture. John 6:37 & 65 are no exceptions. I haven't taken the time to provide further qualification or explanation for these verses (and any others Monergists may rely on), but I intend to in future posts. My hope for now is that you would at least agree that we must consider the "whole counsel of Scripture" when attempting to understand the Bible and not just look at a couple of spliced-together verses exclusively.

Joab's Fate

The news reached Joab. Since he had supported Adonijah but not Absalom, Joab fled to the LORD's tabernacle and took hold of the horns of the altar.

It was reported to King Solomon: "Joab has fled to the LORD' s tabernacle and is now beside the altar." Then Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada and told [him], "Go and strike him down!"

So Benaiah went to the tabernacle and said to Joab, "This is what the king says: 'Come out!'"

But Joab said, "No, for I will die here."

So Benaiah took a message back to the king, "This is what Joab said, and this is how he answered me."

The king said to him, "Do just as he says. Strike him down and bury him in order to remove from me and from my father's house the blood that Joab shed without just cause. The LORD will bring back his own blood on his own head because he struck down two men more righteous and better than he, without my father David's knowledge. With his sword, Joab murdered Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel's army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah's army. Their blood will come back on Joab's head and on the head of his descendants forever, but for David, his descendants, his dynasty, and his throne, there will be peace from the LORD forever."

Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up, struck down Joab, and put him to death.

1 Kings 2:28-34

I've always felt that Joab was slighted here. As commander of the army, he was a key figure in Israel's military successes for over three decades. In that respect, Joab's life shouldn't have ended in such a way. But in another respect, Joab was not the most loyal subject of David--he definitely followed his own agenda at times.

• Joab assassinated Abner, the commander of the army under Saul and Ishboseth, even though Abner had allied himself with David. This was the primary reason David felt Joab deserved to die. David never took initiative in the remaining 32 years of his kingship to kill Joab, but commanded Solomon to do so instead.
• Joab secretly killed Absalom even though had David explicitly charged the army not to keep his son alive. Of course, killing Absalom was arguably beneficial to David's kingship, but it wasn't beneficial to David personally, who had already suffered the loss of a son to murder.
• Joab killed the newly appointed commander of the army, Amasa, in order to get that political position back.
• Joab only took a partial count of Israel because he abhorred David's command to take a census. Note, however, that Joab did not find David's command to indirectly murder Uriah the Hittite abhorrent enough to disobey the king.
• Joab supported Adonijah's attempt to ascend his father's throne; David had decided to give the kingship to his other son, Solomon.

Perhaps Joab is analogous to Christians who mostly serve God but deep down they're more interested in serving themselves. Or maybe this is just one of those cases where the morality isn't as clear as the reality:

A king is delighted with a servant who acts wisely, but he is furious with one who acts shamefully.Proverbs 14:35

Guess Who?

Can you identify the person who is spoken of in this passage?

You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory; and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all.

If you guessed Jesus, you're wrong. This was spoken of King Nebuchadnezzar by Daniel when he was recounting and interpreting the king's dream about a statue with a head of gold. The head of gold represented King Nebuchadnezzar; in fact, the very next line of the above passage is "You are the head of gold."

But compare this with Colossians 1:15-20, a quote that is really about Jesus.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

First of all, if you thought that Nebuchadnezzar's description is pretty impressive, how much moreso is Jesus'. Nebuchadnezzar had dominion on earth, but Christ was the creator of that dominion. Nebuchadnezzar may have ruled over all men and beasts, but Christ was before them all and in Him holds all of things together.

What Would You Say?

So I tell you this: every sin and slander can be forgiven, except slander against the Spirit; that will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, for him there will be no forgiveness, either in this age or in the age to come.Matthew 12:31,32 (REB)

I tell you this: every thoughtless word you speak you will have to account for on the day of judgement. For out of your own mouth you will be acquitted; out of your own mouth you will be condemned.Matthew 12:36,37 (REB)

There's a lot of good teaching about the power of your words and quite often it is supported by references to passages in Proverbs and James. But I found these to passages in Matthew to be strikingly supportive of this as well. Just consider: the only way you can commit the unpardonable sin is by your words. Furthermore, we are ultimately acquitted or condemned on the day of judgement by what we say.