Daddy's Funeral Service

The funeral service was recorded on an Olympus WS-110 Digital Voice Recorder that was placed on the pulpit. You may read the documents, or listen to the audio, by left-clicking the links, OR you may download the PDFs or MP3s by right-clicking the links.

Funeral Program: PDF

Page 1 is the front of the program, page 2 is the inside, page 3 is an insert for the graveside service, and page 4 is an insert with the special music lyrics.

We honored Daddy's WWII service in the Canadian army by concluding the graveside service with the Canadian National Anthem.

Welcome and Prayer: Brian McKillop (MP3 - 03:55)

Scripture Reading: Kieron Sharpe (MP3 - 2:50)

Memories:

Tribute to a Beloved Grandpa: Charity Myers PDF - (MP3 - 06:00)

Tribute from the Association of Independent Baptist Churches, Jamaica: Billy McKillop PDF - (MP3 - 02:16)

Tribute to a Co-Laborer: Bob Clubine PDF - (MP3 - 09:21)

Remembrance: Billy McKillop PDF - (MP3 - 12:57)

Message: Mark Hunsburger (MP3 - 14:10)

Benediction: Jerry McKittrick (MP3 - 01:40)

This Tribute was included in an email sent on April 9th to the Baptist Mid Missions (BMM) family. BMM is the agency that Daddy and Mother have served with since going to Jamaica in 1952.

Continue Reading!

Daddy's Obituary

Rev. John Franklin McKillop, 92, passed away on April 1, 2013, in Jupiter, FL. He was born in Dutton, Ontario, on August 7, 1920, to Neil and Josephine (Baxter) McKillop. Jack was raised by Al and Abbie Kennedy. He served with the Canadian Army in Jamaica during WWII. He later graduated from London Bible College in Ontario, Canada.

On August 7, 1943, Jack married Doris McKibbin; they had six children. His chosen occupation was missionary to Jamaica for Baptist Mid-Missions. Jack was preceded in death by his parents, one sister, two brothers, and an infant son, Kenneth Douglas, who is buried in Jamaica.

Jack is survived by his wife; two sons: Rev. Brian McKillop and his wife, Gloria, of Columbia, SC; Rev. Billy McKillop and his wife, Sherry, of Montego Bay, Jamaica; three daughters: Margaret Whitehead of London, Ontario; Barbara and her husband, Rev. Kieron Sharpe, of Jupiter, FL; Marianne and her husband, Dr. Daniel Devasirvatham, of San Diego, CA; 14 grandchildren: Carla (Robert Brown), Tammy (Rosaire Bondy), Angie (Marc Dyke), Katie (Seth Rowe), Rachel, Ariel, Sarah, Charity (Rev. Lee Myers), Raj, Shanthi, Priya, Caleb, Zachary, and Gabrielle; and four great-grandchildren: Daniel, Alysha, Lauren, and Nicole.

A visitation will be held in the Maranatha Room at Evangel Baptist Church, Silva, MO, on Sunday, April 14, 2013, beginning at 2:00 p.m. Funeral services will follow at 3:00 p.m. Burial will be at Twidwell Cemetery in Clubb, MO.

Online condolences can be made at www.rueggfuneralhome.com

Continue Reading!

Daddy's passing

UPDATE

We have setup an email address for those who wish to share memories of our dad or send condolences to our family.

McKillopMemories@gmail.com

My precious daddy in his 93rd year, passed into the arms of Jesus around noon today.

His body will be taken back to MO and our family will gather on Sunday April 14 at 3pm to celebrate his life.

I remember as a child attending many funerals (because my daddy was a preacher) and this song by Fanny Crosby stands out in my memory.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, safe on His gentle breast,
There by His love o’ershaded, sweetly my soul shall rest.
Hark! ’tis the voice of angels, borne in a song to me.
Over the fields of glory, over the jasper sea.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, safe on His gentle breast
There by His love o’ershaded, sweetly my soul shall rest.

Safe in the arms of Jesus, safe from corroding care,
Safe from the world’s temptations, sin cannot harm me there.
Free from the blight of sorrow, free from my doubts and fears;
Only a few more trials, only a few more tears!

Jesus, my heart’s dear Refuge, Jesus has died for me;
Firm on the Rock of Ages, ever my trust shall be.
Here let me wait with patience, wait till the night is over;
Wait till I see the morning break on the golden shore.

Continue Reading!

Daddy's declining health

In August (2012) Daddy celebrated his 92nd birthday and many of us were with him at Missionary Acres to celebrate. His memory has been slowly failing but he still knew his children by name, although he was not able to call his grandchildren by name.

Marianne and her family spent Christmas with Mother & Daddy and noticed a precipitous decline in his health. He was withdrawn and seldom engaged in conversation. As has been their practice for a number of years they traveled to FL early this year, to spend the winter months with Barbara.

His health continued to decline and Hospice began to visit daily to shave and bathe him. The Hospice people have been a tremendous help to Mother and Barbara and a number of them are Jamaican, from towns or villages that Mother is familiar with.

I was able to be with them to celebrate Mother's 91st birthday on Feb 7th and my daughters joined me for a few days. There was only one time in that week when I thought that Daddy actually knew who I was. On the Sunday of that week, there were 17 members of our extended family for dinner, which is not uncommon for our family! Daddy walked into the dining room and when he saw the crowd, he looked at each one and smiled, the most expressive I had seen him that week. When my girls and I were leaving to return to SC, Mother said to Daddy, "this is Brian and these are his beautiful daughters." Daddy looked at them and replied, "yes, they are beautiful!" the most he had spoken that week.

He had been able to get around with his wheeled walker until a week ago, when he was so weak that he collapsed in the bathroom. He has not had the strength to eat and his weight has dropped to the low 100's. Last week Gloria went to FL to be with them and to help Mother and Barbara with his care.

Yesterday morning (Sunday) he was not responsive and Marianne was able to come from CA late last night. This morning his breathing is labored and we expect the Lord to take him home shortly.

In August Mother and Daddy would celebrate their 70th anniversary on his 93rd birthday. A few weeks ago I prayed that the Lord would allow us the privilege of having him with us until then.

On behalf of my siblings, our spouses, and our children, let me express our grateful thanks to God who, for His good pleasure and the glory of His name, saved Daddy and gave him kingdom work to do, and has allowed us to keep him for so many years. We are blessed beyond our worth.

Daddy's life can be summed up in this statement:

He loved the Lord, he loved his wife, he loved his children and grandchildren, and he loved his work.

That is a life that has been well lived!

Continue Reading!

Monergism vs. Synergism – Part 2

Monergism in John's Gospel

In the first article in this series, I defined and illustrated both Monergism and Synergism. In this article, I will look at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the subject. In a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.

In his record of the early church, Luke shows that God demands repentance from all mankind.

Acts 17:30-31

³⁰ Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, ³¹ because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.

While both Monergism and Synergism recognize the necessity of repentance, they differ on the ability of man to obey the command. The monergistic view denies that man in his unregenerate state has the ability to obey, while the synergistic view affirms that man does have that ability.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14

¹³ These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ¹⁴ 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.

In a sermon titled Man's Natural Blindness In Things Of Religion,¹ Jonathan Edwards affirms the monergistic view regarding man's spiritual blindness, while noting an effect of his blindness:

They are vastly deceived about their own righteousness. They think their affections and performances lovely to God, which are indeed hateful to him. They think their tears, reformations, and prayers, sufficient to make atonement for their sins, when indeed if all the angels in heaven should offer themselves in sacrifice to God, it would not be sufficient to atone for one of their sins. They think their prayers and works, and religious doings a sufficient price to purchase God's favor and eternal glory. When, as they perform them, they do nothing but merit hell.

They are greatly deceived about their strength. They think they are able to mend their own hearts, and work some good principles in themselves. When they can do no more towards it, than a dead corpse does towards raising itself to life. They vainly flatter themselves, they are able to come to Christ, when they are not. They are greatly deceived about the stability of their own hearts. They foolishly think their own intentions and resolutions of what good they will do hereafter, to be depended on. When indeed there is no dependence at all to be had on them.

In a sermon titled Human Inability, Charles H. Spurgeon also affirms the monergistic view. He writes that man's inability:

…lies deep in his nature. Through the fall, and through our own sin, the nature of man has become so debased, and depraved, and corrupt, that it is impossible for him to come to Christ without the assistance of God the Holy Spirit.

We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ.

In his booklet titled Hyper-Calvinism: A False Doctrine, John R. Rice affirms the synergistic view:

Now the doctrine that all are sinful, incapable of being saved or doing good without God's help, is true. But it is certainly not true that some never could repent, that God leaves some intentionally without light or calling. Consider these Scriptures:

a. "God… now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) Can anyone accuse God of commanding people to do what He has made it impossible for them to do?

Notice his insistence that the command to repent must necessarily imply ability.

In the fall of 2008, Jerry Vines preached at the John 3:16 Conference. Reporting on his sermon, Baptist Press News wrote:

"In Scripture God commands men to believe," Vines said, asserting that God would not command people to do what they cannot do.

Here again we see the synergistic view insisting that God's commands imply ability on the part of natural man.

The passages in John's Gospel that we will look at briefly can easily be divided into CAUSE and EFFECT. We will note that all of the passages that speak to the CAUSE of believing show that God is that cause, which is what Monergism affirms. All of the passages that show the EFFECT of believing neither affirm nor deny either view, as neither view disputes the notion that all who believe will be saved.

Where the difference between the views appears is that synergism, because of the insistence on natural ability, will see CAUSE in the passages that show EFFECT. Others have written entire books on some of the passages we will consider, so this will not be an exhaustive look at each passage.

John 1:12-13

¹² But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: ¹³ who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John affirms that those who received Christ, whom he also describes as those who believe on the name of Christ, are given the right to become children of God, and that their spiritual birth precedes the receiving and believing. Not only does John affirm that God is the sole cause of spiritual birth, he also denies that the wills of both flesh and man cause that birth.

John 3:3-8

³ Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ⁴ Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" ⁵ Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷ Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' ⁸ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

In this conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus declares in verse 6 that the flesh cannot give birth to the spirit, and uses two illustrations that are compatible with the monergistic view. In verse 3 he uses birth, and in verse 8 he uses wind, illustrating that the cause of each is external to the recipient. The baby does not cause his own birth, nor does the individual who is enjoying the breeze cause the breeze to blow.

John 3:14-18

¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁶ 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. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. ¹⁸ He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is a favorite passage of the Synergistic view because (as was noted earlier) that view insists that unregenerate man has the ability to respond in belief. What the passage actually shows, though, is a contrast between the believer and the unbeliever, with John showing that the believer does not face condemnation, while the unbeliever does not escape condemnation.

John 3:36

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

John affirms the words of Jesus from verse 18 - eternal life is the effect of believing, while condemnation is the effect of not believing.

John 4:13-14

¹³ Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, ¹⁴ but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life."

John explains that only those who drink the water Jesus provides will have their thirst quenched.

John 5:21-25

²¹ For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. ²² For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, ²³ that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. ²⁴ Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. ²⁵ Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

In verse 21, John repeats what he stated in 1:13 - the cause of life is the will of Son. He further shows in verse 24 that the effect of belief is not only escape from condemnation, but the benefit of eternal life.

John 5:40

But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Jesus clearly states that the unregenerate are NOT willing to come to Him.

John 6:35-37

³⁵ And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."

Shortly after explaining that the unregenerate are unwilling to come (in 5:40), Jesus tells the people that if they will come, and will believe, they will have their hunger and thirst satisfied. He then states that all whom the Father gives will come. There is a process: the Father gives to the Son, those who are given come to the Son, the Son in turn receives them, and they will never be cast out by the Son.

John 6:38-40

³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. ⁴⁰ And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus continues to explain that the will of His Father is that none of those given to the Son will be lost, but will be raised up at the last day, and that those given by the Father, will see and believe the Son, with eternal life being the effect of their belief.

The repetition of the "raised up" phrase indicates that the ones given by the Father to the Son in verse 37-39 are the same who see the Son and believe in verse 40. Their believing is caused by the Father's giving of them to the Son.

John 6:44-45

⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁴⁵ 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.

Jesus explains that there are those that have not been given to the Son, by stating, in verse 44, that they cannot come without the Father having drawn them. Jesus repeats his "raised up" phrase, showing that those drawn by the Father are the same that are given to the Son and that believe on the Son. The Father not only gives people to the Son, He also draws them to the Son with the effect that they believe and have eternal life. Verse 45 shows that the hearing and learning from the Father is the cause for the coming to Jesus.

John 6:47-51

⁴⁷ Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. ⁵⁰ This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

In verse 47, we see that the effect of believing in Christ is eternal life. Following that we note that Jesus refers to Himself as the bread of life, and that the effect of eating is eternal life.

John 6:63-66

⁶³ "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. ⁶⁵ And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." ⁶⁶ From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

Jesus, in verse 63, repeats what He said in 3:6, that the flesh cannot produce spiritual life; then in verse 64 He notes that some to whom He is speaking do not believe. In verse 65 He gives the reason they do not come to Him: it has not been granted by the Father. Clearly Jesus is showing that the ability to believe and come to Him is caused by the Father.

John 7:37-38

³⁷ On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. ³⁸ He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Jesus invites those who are thirsty to come to Him and drink; living water will then flow from them. The Synergist view insists that man in his unregenerate state is aware of his hunger and thirst, and is capable of deciding to believe on Christ. Yet in the previous chapter, Jesus has already established that ability to come is granted by the Father and only to those whom the Father wills to grant it.

John 8:12

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

Jesus refers to Himself as light: those who follow Him will not walk blindly.

John 8:21-24

²¹ Then Jesus said to them again, "I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come." ²² So the Jews said, "Will He kill Himself, because He says, 'Where I go you cannot come'?" ²³ And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

Jesus repeats what He stated in chapter 3: the effect of unbelief is death in sin.

John 8:42-43

⁴² Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. ⁴³ Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word."

Jesus shows that love for Him is the effect of being a child of the Father, while also pointing out their lack of ability to listen with understanding.

John 8:47

He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.

Hearing is the effect of being "of God."

John 10:4

And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

In the first 30 verses of chapter 10, Jesus refers to Himself as the good shepherd and shows His care for His sheep. Here we note the effect of being a sheep: they recognize their shepherd's voice and follow.

John 10:9

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Security and provision are effects of entering the fold through Jesus, who declares Himself to be the door.

John 10:16

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

The fold is not limited to just the present hearers; there are others who will also hear the shepherd's voice.

John 10:26-30

²⁶ But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. ²⁸ And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. ³⁰ I and My Father are one."

The reason these do not believe is because they do not belong to the shepherd. The synergistic view insists that belief is the cause of one becoming a sheep, but Jesus here is teaching the opposite, that belief is the effect of one becoming a sheep, with eternal life the result.

John 11
The first 40 verses tell the story of the death and resurrection of Lazarus. In a previous article, titled Regeneration Precedes Faith, I dealt with this story more fully. Suffice it to say that Lazarus did not have the ability to raise himself to life. Had it not been for Jesus commanding him to come out of the tomb, he would have stayed dead. This command of Jesus was the sole cause of his being restored to life. The story perfectly represents the monergistic view, that God alone, without man aiding Him, brings the spiritually dead to spiritual life.

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.

The Synergist approach to this verse presupposes that the word all means "all men without exception," rather than referring to Gentiles as well as Jews. That approach then reads that presupposition back into John 6:44, which also contains the word "draw."

In his booklet Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism, Curtis Hutson, a former editor of the Sword of the Lord newspaper, writes:

Some Calvinists use John 6:44 in an effort to prove total inability. Here the Bible says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him... " But the Bible makes it plain in John 12:32 that Christ will draw all men unto Himself. Here the Bible says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

All men are drawn to Christ, but not all men will trust Christ as Saviour. Every man will make his own decision to trust Christ or to reject Him.

The problem here is that Hutson has left off the end of John 6:44 - "raise him up at the last day." If the all in this passage means "all men without exception," then John in 6:44 teaches universalism - that "all men without exception" will be raised up to eternal life at the last day, an idea that I am sure Hutson would reject.

John 12:39-40

³⁹ Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: ⁴⁰ "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."

John quotes Isaiah 6:10 in observing that the reason for unbelief is because God blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts of the people.

John 12:46-48

⁴⁶ I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. ⁴⁷ And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. ⁴⁸ He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

The effect of believing in Jesus is leaving the darkness for the light, while the effect of rejection of Jesus is judgment.

John 17:1-3

¹ Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, ² as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. ³ And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

In this chapter, we have the prayer of Jesus before his arrest; it is an exclusive prayer for those whom the Father has given to Him. In these verses we observe that God the Father has given to His Son the authority to extend eternal life to all those whom the Father gave to the Son.

John 17:6

I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

Some individuals belonged to God, and those are the ones He gave to the Son.

John 17:9-10

⁹ I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. ¹⁰ And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.

Those belonging to the Father also belong to the Son.

John 17:20

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;

There are others who will believe.

John 17:24

Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Notice the continued reference to those given to Christ by the Father.

John 20:30-31

³⁰ And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

In John's statement of his purpose for writing his Gospel, he affirms that the effect of believing in Christ is life, a theme that runs throughout the Gospel.

In all of the passages I have presented, we have either seen the cause for belief, or the effect of that belief. All of the passages that reference cause affirm the monergistic view of God as the sole cause for belief. All of the passages that reference effect establish eternal life as that effect.

How Sweet And Awesome Is The Place
Isaac Watts / Gioachino Antonio Rossini © Public Domain

How sweet and awesome is this place
With Christ within the doors
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores

Here every bowel of our God
With soft compassion rolls
Here peace and pardon bought with blood
Is food for dying souls

While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast
Each of us cry with thankful tongues
Lord why was I a guest

Why was I made to hear Thy voice
And enter while there's room
When thousands make a wretched choice
And rather starve than come

'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in
Else we had still refused to taste
And perished in our sin

Pity the nations O our God
Constrain the earth to come
Send Thy victorious Word abroad
And bring the strangers home

We long to see Thy churches full
That all the chosen race
May with one voice and heart and soul
Sing Thy redeeming grace

¹ Edwards preached another sermon titled Men Naturally Are God's Enemies, that also shows man's inability.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Continue Reading!

Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 1

UPDATE - November 5, 2010
A PDF of this article may be downloaded FREE
from the 12th post of the discussion at Sharper Iron

Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism

In 1914, B.B. Warfield gave a series of lectures at Princeton. The lectures were later compiled into a book; The Plan of Salvation¹. In the section titled Autosoterism, Warfield states:

There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism.

These two doctrines of salvation are known as Monergism and Synergism. In this article, I will attempt to define and illustrate each view; in a subsequent article, I will look at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In a third article, I will present an edited transcript of a sermon that I preached on the topic; in a fourth article, I will look at each views inherent implications to the Great Commission.

Definitions

Theopedia defines Monergism as "the belief that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects the regeneration of Christians "; and defines Synergism as "essentially the view that God and humanity work together, each contributing their part to accomplish salvation in and for the individual."

Got Questions Ministries (in an article titled Monergism vs. synergism - which view is correct?) provides a similar definition of both terms:

Monergism, which comes from a compound word in Greek that means "to work alone," is the view that God alone effects our salvation.

Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning "to work together," is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation.

John Hendryx (in his article titled Monergism vs. Synergism) writes:

Synergism is the doctrine that the act of being born again is achieved through a combination of human will and divine grace.

Hendryx also notes:

Synergists believe that faith itself, a principle standing independent and autonomous of God's action of grace, is something the natural man must add or contribute toward the price of his salvation.

In contrast, he shows that Monergism teaches:

Salvation is entirely a work of God… man can contribute nothing toward the price of his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith.

J.I. Packer, in his introductory essay to John Owen's Death of Death², gives further explanation of the difference between the two salvation views. He writes:

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself.

One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. [4]

The conflict between these two views is not new. It has existed for close to 1600 years of church history. Let us take a journey to the 5th century and look at the contention between Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and Semi-Pelagianism. Each of these views approached man's participation in salvation differently.

1. Augustinianism - Salvation accomplished by God alone
2. Pelagianism - Salvation accomplished by man alone
3. Semi-Pelagianism - Salvation accomplished by God and man working together

The divergent views are sourced in their presuppositions regarding the effect of the sin of Adam on man's spiritual nature and the condition of his heart. In my understanding it has helped to define the views in their approach to the spiritual deadness of man.

1. Augustinianism - the completely-dead view
2. Pelagianism - the not-dead view
3. Semi-Pelagianism - the mostly-dead view

Augustinianism

The Augustinian view declares that Adam's sin has brought spiritual incapacitation to mankind. Man not only cannot but will not do anything that is pleasing to God. In presenting the completely-dead view, Theopedia shows Augustinianism affirming:

Due to the corruption of human nature in the Fall, one's will is not free, but rather a slave to sin. As such, every person is born sinful and justly under the condemnation of God. In order for a person to be delivered from this dreadful state (i.e. saved), God must intervene.

In his Outlines of Theology, A.A. Hodge, with regard to original sin, notes: "every man brings into the world with him a nature already so corrupt, that it can do nothing but sin."

Philip Schaff, who devotes a fair number of pages in his History of the Christian Church³ to a discussion of the divergent views, writes:

To understand Augustine's doctrine of the fall of man, we must remember, first of all, that he starts with the idea of the organic unity of the human race, and with the profound parallel of Paul between the first and the second Adam; that he views the first man not merely as an individual, but at the same time as the progenitor and representative of the whole race, standing to natural mankind in the same relation as that of Christ to redeemed and regenerate mankind. [824]

Pelagianism

In contrast to Augustinianism, the Pelagian view affirms that Adam's disobedience only affected him, and that individuals are born with the innocence with which Adam was created. Man therefore has the capability to choose whether or not to follow in Adam's disobedience.

In presenting the not-dead view, Theopedia shows Pelagianism teaching:

That man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

Warfield notes:

The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

Schaff contrasts Pelagianism with Augustinianism and notes:

The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine grace. Pelagius starts from the natural man, and works up, by his own exertions, to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the moral sufficiency of man, and derives the new life and all power for good from the creative grace of God. The one system proceeds from the liberty of choice to legalistic piety; the other from the bondage of sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God. [787]

He adds:

The one loves to admire the dignity and strength of man; the other loses itself in adoration of the glory and omnipotence of God. The one flatters natural pride, the other is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners. [788]

R.C. Sproul (in an article titled, Augustine and Pelagius) writes:

Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Dave Noffsinger (in an article titled Calvinism Illustrated) affirms the Pelagian view in the following illustration:

1. I chose from birth to love my younger daughter because I thought it was my right as the father and chose to hate my eldest daughter because of that same right. Neither child had done anything right or wrong but because of my sovereign will I simply chose to hate one and to love the other.
2. Because of this choice, I would send the eldest out into the world and cut her completely from my will and fellowship while lavishing both gifts and love upon the younger daughter. I choose to never to have anything else to do with the eldest while holding the younger in the highest esteem.
3. As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment of the most horrible kind because of this hatred.
4. I tell everyone now that I am really a loving father: both kind and generous.

In his first and third points, he declares the innocence of his children; as a result, he concludes that choosing one of the innocents over the other is "ungodly." My comment on that post which, not surprisingly, has never appeared:

Your illustration fails at this point:

3 As a matter of fact, I even decided to see the eldest (who has done nothing to me) suffer eternal punishment...

The truth is that all men have NOT "done nothing." We have freely and willfully turned our backs on God, rejected Him, and hated Him.

We should be amazed that He has offered mercy and grace to any of His enemies, when He was in no way obligated to do so.

Michael S. Horton (in his article titled Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man) points out that "Pelagianism was condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in history."

Semi-Pelagianism

In an attempt at maintaining the natural ability of man to choose, while at the same time denying his innocence, Semi-Pelagianism insists that spiritual deadness does not incapacitate.

In presenting the mostly-dead view, Theopedia shows Semi-Pelagianism "aimed at a compromise between Pelagianism and Augustinianism." The article notes, with regard to man, that his "nature is neither good nor bad, but injured." Man therefore is in need of God's grace, but retains the ability "to decide whether he wants God's grace."

Got Question Ministries (in an article titled What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?) notes:

Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity.

Schaff observes that Semi-Pelagianism, while attempting to reconcile the above views,

Rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. [858]

In introducing his readers to John Cassian, whom Schaff describes as the "head of the Semi-Pelagian party," Schaff notes that Cassian taught:

That the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. [861]

Shelton Smith, President of Sword Of The Lord Publishers and Editor of their newspaper, in an article titled The Case Against Calvinism⁴, affirms the Semi-Pelagian view when he writes:

Calvin's total-depravity teaching did not properly represent the condition of unsaved men. When the Bible describes the sinful condition of man, there is no question that he is depraved and totally so. Man is not inherently good; he is by nature a sinner.

But man's total depravity must not be defined as total inability. The fact is that God has made arrangements for our salvation, and He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (II Pet. 3:9).

So a man is totally depraved (a sinner), but he can come to Christ if he will do so. He has the ability to come to Christ - he can if he will.

Schaff, in summarizing the 3 views, uses the terms Monergism and Synergism to define each.

The Greek church adhered to her undeveloped synergism, which coordinates the human will and divine grace as factors in the work of conversion; the Latin church, under the influence of Augustine, advanced to the system of a divine monergism, which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result of grace; while Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary. [786]

The View of Scripture

My pastor is quite fond of saying, "What does the text say?" After all, one's theology must be defined by Scripture, and not Scripture defined by one's theology. In Genesis 3:8, we learn that after their sin our first parents "hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." We might well refer to this event as the first game of hide and seek; notice that it was the man who hid and God sought. In Romans, the Apostle Paul establishes that all mankind follow doggedly in their footsteps.

Romans 3:9-18

⁹ What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. ¹⁰ As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; ¹¹ There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. ¹² They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." ¹³ "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; ¹⁴ "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." ¹⁵ "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ¹⁶ Destruction and misery are in their ways; ¹⁷ And the way of peace they have not known." ¹⁸ "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

This passage presents man in his natural state, completely without the ability or even desire to seek God. Paul goes on to show how the person described above becomes reconciled to God.

Romans 5:6-8

⁶ For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷ For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. ⁸ But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Old Ship of Zion

In the synergistic view, the old ship of Zion is sailing along with enough life preservers for all who are floundering in the ocean. God offers to throw a life preserver to each swimmer, but only if they are willing to grab it. They must, with their last ounce of strength, reach for the life preserver so that they may be pulled into the ship. God may not jump into the ocean, as that would violate the sovereignty of the swimmer. In the monergistic view, the ocean is full of rotting corpses, and God does in fact jump into the water, breathe life into the corpse, and give the individual not only the desire but also the strength to climb into the ship.

My brother, commenting on the previous illustration, wrote the following in a recent email:

When I think of what God has to do in regeneration the picture in mind is the one from the movie "Titanic" where the one rescue boat that came back to check for survivors found all the frozen, floating bodies, and no matter how hard he blew his whistle, none of the bodies came to life (only the one person who was still alive responded). Synergism assumes that dead corpses can be moved by appeal. If we shout loud enough or long enough or use the right degree of urgency the dead will come to life of their own free will. But we know that you can only nudge a dead body - if you push it hard enough, it will certainly move, but it cannot come to life and move by itself apart from a miracle of grace. (Eph. 2:1)

Synergism, in whatever form it takes, has man capable of participating with God in his salvation. Strange Baptist Fire (in a post titled Your Election Ballot) shows a tract from some years ago. The tract is in the form of a ballot, with God, Satan, and man each casting a vote on the issue of man's salvation. They write:

Thus salvation is ultimately decided by a work of our own. Also note that God's vote carries no more weight than does Satan's nor man's. This approach, popular among Protestants of many denominations, including ours, is a misrepresentation of God's revealed truth in His word. It elevates fallen, darkened, stone-hearted man, and essentially takes God off of His throne, giving Him no greater sovereignty than the rest of us. We may as well then say with atheist William Henley, "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."

The Monergistic view of salvation most accurately reflects the Scripture. Sadly, as the previous quote shows, most evangelism today presupposes the synergistic view.

My Lord I Did Not Choose You
A. Sullivan / Josiah Conder © Public Domain

My Lord I did not choose You
For that could never be
My heart would still refuse You
Had You not chosen me

You took the sin that stained me
You cleansed me made me new
Of old You have ordained me
That I should live in You

Unless Your grace had called me
And taught my opening mind
The world would have enthralled me
To heavenly glories blind

My heart knows none above You
For Your rich grace I thirst
I know that if I love You
You must have loved me first

¹ Warfield, B.B. The Plan of Salvation. (General Books LLC, 2009).
² John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust).
³ Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), 1996. Vol. 3 of 8.
⁴ Sword of the Lord. 27 September 2010.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission.
All rights reserved.

Disclaimer:
Links in this article are provided solely for information purposes,
and do not in any way imply full and complete endorsement.

Continue Reading!

Comment Moderation

On one hand, I have little respect for those who comment anonymously. If I am unwilling to affix my name to something I have written, then it probably should not be written!

On the other hand, I welcome comments from anyone who is willing to take the time to read my posts and interact with my writing. I don't like having my comments removed by the owners of other blogs, and am unwilling to restrict commenting solely to those who agree with the positions I hold.

So how do I reconcile a dislike for anonymous commenting with a desire to let commenters challenge my writing?

Blogger provides only 4 options with regard to comments:

Anyone - includes Anonymous Users

Registered Users - includes OpenID

Users with Google Accounts

Only members of this blog

Since my blog began I have used the first option, as it is the least restrictive to commenters. Beginning today, I am going to try something new. I will continue to allow anyone to comment, but will begin to moderate comments. Anonymous comments will, most often, be deleted. Exceptions will be based solely on the substance of the comment, and that solely at my discretion.

Continue Reading!