Travel Tweets e-book

This is my first e-book, and contains my favorites of the more than 300 tweets from my Shuttle_Van_Man (SVMan) account. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I enjoyed writing them.

You can download the book by clicking this link and choosing either the:

E-Pub,

Mobi, or

PDF file

Regeneration Precedes Faith Redux

Four years ago I posted an article titled
Regeneration Precedes Faith.
This is a follow-up to that article.

The Calvinist statement that regeneration precedes faith tends to confuse folks, as many view regeneration and salvation as synonymous. Calvinism affirms that regeneration IS a new birth, but IS NOT completed salvation.

One writer shows his confusion by stating:

We must remember here that when [Calvinism] talks about regeneration, it is not talking about anything less than THE new birth. In [Calvinism], "regeneration" is not merely God drawing people to Christ - so that they can believe and then, at that point, be saved. No. In [Calvinism], regeneration is completed salvation. So when [Calvinism] says that regeneration precedes faith, it means salvation precedes faith. It means the new birth precedes faith.

While agreeing with him that regeneration is the new birth, or, more technically, the restoration of spiritual life lost in Adam, Calvinists would disagree that salvation precedes faith.

Here is the difference, as I understand it, between the synergistic and monergistic views:

Synergism posits that faith—sourced in man and exercised in belief—causes salvation. Some insist that repentance is required, while others insist that it is not.

Monergism posits that repentance and faith are gifts given by God—actuating in belief—causing salvation.

In Acts 11, Peter explains to the "apostles and brethren who were in Judea" that "Gentiles had also received the word of God." Their response was to glorify God because he "has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life" (Acts 11:18).

In 2 Thessalonians 3:2, Paul says that "not all have faith."

In 2 Peter 1:1, he addresses his letter to "those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

These verses establish that repentance and faith are gifts, and they are not given to every individual. They are received prior to actuation and thus are given at regeneration. God gives these gifts solely to the elect, at the time of his choosing, and they always actuate in belief.

Looking at the resurrection of Lazarus, we can see parallels in his physical resurrection and spiritual resurrection.

Physical

Life is restored. The word of God is spoken to him—"Lazarus, come forth" (v.43)—and the command not only restores life to him, but also reverses the decomposition and removes the sickness that caused his death.

Spiritual

Romans 10:14-15: the Word must be heard, as it is the means the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate the elect.

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!"

Physical

Lazarus exits the tomb; being restored to life actuates in him leaving the tomb. In one sense, the command was irresistible; Lazarus had no say in his being brought back to life and could not disobey the "come forth" command. He wasn't given life so that he could decide whether or not he wanted to stay in the tomb. In another sense, his strongest desire, once life was restored, was to leave the tomb. There was a perfect coordination of the command and his desire. Notice also that Jesus did not go into the tomb to bring him out; leaving was something Lazarus did on his own, because he was restored to life.

Spiritual

Once regenerated (spiritual life restored) the gifts actuate in belief. Now that the elect has been brought back to spiritual life (lost in Adam), he believes. Regeneration unstops his ears, removes the blindness from his eyes, replaces his stony heart with a fleshly heart, and enables him to believe. Life is not restored so that man can decide whether or not he wants to actuate the gifts. He acts on his strongest desire now that life is restored.

In both cases regeneration necessarily precedes activity. In other words, those dead, whether physically or spiritually, are inactive. They must have life restored prior to any action on their part.

Online Theological Discussion

UPDATE - July 7, 2014
My interlocutor in the following discussion
insists that Calvinists must necessarily affirm
that God is the author of sin.
Here is a post by Colin Maxwell titled
Does Calvinism believe or teach that God is the Author of Man's Sin?
that clearly shows the opposite.

Last year I engaged in a discussion with another member, in the private messaging section of an internet forum. Here is the entirety of that discussion except for the first post from each of us, and selected portions from his subsequent posts. The sole purpose of the redactions is to hide the identity of the other member.

My text will appear non-italicized, while his will appear in blue italics.

– – – –

Thu, July 11: In [a thread on the forum] I refuted your statement about Hyper-Calvinists and prayer. I noticed you dropped the HYPER label in your article. Clearly you refuse to be corrected concerning your error.

– – – –

Fri, July 12: Your primary argument against synergists is a strawman at best. Just because a person asks God to save someone, doesn't mean we are telling God to save them against their will. God can cause circumstances (as He did with Paul) that can (not WILL) make it hard (not impossible) to "kick against the pricks", but I, nor any logical Non Calvinist Baptist pray with the idea of God imposing an irresistible salvation upon the subject of our prayers.

However, if you a monergist, then you don't believe that a person's prayer would lead to anyone's salvation because the elect are already predetermined. Thus that would make you a hypocrite for accusing a synergist of something that you don't believer yourself.

And it is not a "Hyper" Calvinist that believes this. The Westminster Confession clearly states that God from eternity determined all things WHATSOEVER comes to pass. Knowing that this deterministic statement would lead to the obvious result of God being the author of sin, they included a pre-emptive clause "so as that He is not the author of sin". Well, yes, that does make Him the author of sin. Only an honest Calvinist like A.W. Pink was bold enough to admit it, and bold enough to admit that God doesn't love everybody.

Nevertheless, if God determines all things whatsoever comes to pass, then there is no need to pray because it's going to happen whether you pray for something or not. The Calvinist by praying for anything is asking God to alter the course of predetermined events which is in conflict with Calvinist theology.

And no, I will not be "corrected" because I spent far too much time reading and memorizing the Bible then studying man-made creeds, catechisms, confessions, and Calvin the baby sprinkling, amillennial, murdering Augustinian.

– – – –

Fri, July 12: Part 2

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Rom 10:1

What happened to Israel after Paul prayed that? Paul wrote them off in Acts 28, and TItus wiped out Jerusalem, and for 2000 years Israel has been under blindness (Rom 11:25-26).

Now if Paul KNEW that Israel was elected to be saved according the Calvinist view, then why would Paul make this prayer?

– – – –

Fri, July 12: You clearly do not see the difference between the END God has purposed and the MEANS to that end. The Scripture commands believers to make disciples, so Calvinists obey the command as no one can believe without hearing, they cannot hear without a preacher, and they cannot preach unless they are sent (Rom. 10:14-15).

What I notice missing from your writing is any attempt to comprehend that which Calvinists actually affirm. You raise arguments that have been responded to by numerous people over the years, information that is readily available online. It appears that you would rather misrepresent your brothers in Christ than make the attempt to understand the actual views.

– – – –

Fri, July 12:

Psalm 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.

Psalm 11:5 The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

It's not very bold to agree with the text of Scripture that clearly shows that God doesn't love everybody. He in fact hates a few people.

– – – –

Fri, July 12: I was a Calvinist in the Presbyterian church after I left Judaism long before I became a Baptist 20 years ago. I understand Calvinism all the the Confessions quite well.

The typical Calvinist response is "you don't understand Calvinism". As a Jew, I had to memorize Genesis through Deuteronomy by the time I was 13. When I joined the Presbyterian church I memorized the Westminster Confession of 1646, and 1689, the Helvitic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. I've read Augustine's City of God several times, Calvin's Institutes (I have them in 3 volumes), and several books by John Gill, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Martin Lloyd Jones, BB Warfield, JI Packer, Hodges, Mohler, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Carey, et al. My college textbook for Systematic Theology was by a Calvinist (Wayne Grudem) and all of the books for my masters in counseling were Calvinist authors (Jay Adams).

So yeah, I have quite an extensive history in "understanding" Calvinism. The reason that I give the answers that I do is BECAUSE I HAVE studied all of the other sources. I choose to believe the Bible, not how some committee that met at a synod told me I should believe it based on the Augustinian views of election and predestination which is the basis of Calvinist theology. Augustine derived his beliefs from Manicheaism a Gnostic and Buddhist system of beliefs. Not to mention the involvement that the Freemasons had in Calvinism. Study the history of James Anderson and the Apartheid imposed on Afrikans by the Dutch Reformed Church (whose logo was the Queen of Heaven). and how Freemason Calvinist churches were established in Afrika to exploit slaves (Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield were both slave owners).

I am an independent fundamental Baptist and want no part of ANYTHING that smells like Rome.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: So with all your reading you SHOULD know the difference between means and ends. The only option left is that you feel it's ok then to MISREPRESENT your brothers in Christ. With your knowledge you should be able to refute what Calvinist's actually believe and provide exegesis of the relevant passages to show the error. Where is that form of refutation?

I am not as well read as you, but currently am halfway through Pink's Sovereignty of God. I'm sure you will appreciate my unwillingness to accept your statement that Pink "was bold enough to admit it" (the it being that God is the author of sin) without you providing the source. From our interaction here I would not be surprised to find that any such statement (if he in fact made it) was taken out of context by you.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: From Pink's Sovereignty of God. I'm assuming you have read chapter 1.

"God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. Ah! that is a hard saying, who then can receive it? It is written, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven" (John 3:27). When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody;[2] if He did, He would love the Devil. Why does not God love the Devil? Because there is nothing in him to love; because there is nothing in him to attract the heart of God. Nor is there anything to attract God’s love in any of the fallen sons of Adam, for all of them are, by nature, "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). If then there is nothing in any member of the human race to attract God’s love, and if, notwithstanding, He does love some, then it necessarily follows that the cause of His love must be found in Himself, which is only another way of saying that the exercise of God’s love towards the fallen sons of men is according to His own good pleasure."

Chapter 11,

"Can God "love" the one on whom His "wrath" abides? Again; is it not evident that the words "The love of God which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody?"

Like I said, Pink was one of the few honest Calvinists that had the guts to be honest with the implications of his theology.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: So where is the quote from Pink that says "God is the author of sin"?

Feel free to stop using the phrase "few honest Calvinists" implying that most of us are only intent on deceiving people into embracing Calvinism. As a self-professed former Calvinist you know that to be untrue.

– – – –

Sat, July 13: I'll make this really simple. Where does sin come from? Calvinists will admit that it comes from man's will. But Calvinism holds that compatibilist freedom determines the persons nature. Thefore a person can only act out of that nature which he has been programmed with. If man does not have the liberty to choose between decisions that are not determined by any external factors, then they must be internal. If they are internal then God is the author of that persons will (which Calvinism admits). That only delays the issue one more step but the implication is still the same. If man is determined to do sin of which he has no choice, then it is still the programmers fault because ultimately, it is the programmer that determined that he sin which still makes God the author of sin.

If man does not have free libertian will, then sin could not have originated with any choice that man made because he was determined to make that choice.

You can not hold that God determines ALL THINGS whatsoever comes to pass, and at the same time exclude sin from the equation. In Calvinist theology, God is ultimately the author of sin.

– – – –
Sun, July 14:

Well, yes, that does make Him the author of sin. Only an honest Calvinist like A.W. Pink was bold enough to admit it, and bold enough to admit that God doesn't love everybody.

This is the 3rd time now that I have asked you to provide the source in Pink's writing where (according to you) he admitted that God is the author of sin. Apparently you cannot provide that source!

You claim to have been "a Calvinist in the Presbyterian church" and to have widely read Calvinist writers and thus to "have quite an extensive history in "understanding" Calvinism.

In this correspondence you have shown that you have no interest in understanding what your brothers in Christ actually affirm, and are intent on purposeful misrepresentation. You join the vast numbers of men who, because they cannot refute actual Calvinism, are forced to resort to misrepresentation, in an attempt to discredit that view.

– – – –

Sun, August 11: I am close to the end of Pink's Sovereignty of God. In Chapter 8 (page 158 of the edition I am reading) he writes:

Let it be emphatically said that God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any of His creatures, though He does restrain and direct them to the accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence He is neither the Author nor the Approver of sin."[emphasis mine]

A clear refutation of your statement above.

– – – –

Sun, August 11: What you have there is merely a preemptive denial that gives Calvinism plausible deniability in the even that someone accuses Calvinism of holding that God is the author of sin. Just because he denies it's implications, does not mean he can explain why the denial is legitimate. If God determines ALL THINGS, then how is He NOT the author of sin? Is sin not a thing? Does sin have some kind of existence that we do not know about? Why then do we call sin sin if sin is not knowable? If, however, sin IS knowable, and from the Bible definitions of it, it most certainly is, then sin exists. If sin exists, then it must logically be included in all things. Common sense says that if God determines ALL things, then that includes sin.

You can not walk away from the implication just because someone offers a summary denial of it. How many times has a police detective heard "he could not have possibly killed that person, he's just not capable. He's the most generous and kind person I've ever met and not a violent bone in his body", only to later find out that the accused actually IS guilty. Just because someone makes a blanket denial does not change the facts. Simply stating a blanket denial only absolves God of being the author of sin in theory, it doesn't offer any explanation as to how or WHY He is NOT the author of sin if He indeed determines ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER come to pass.

The ONLY explanation that does not ascribe sin to God is that man has libertarian free will and chooses to sin, and that man's choice was not caused by any other influences or compulsion than the man's own decision to sin. Calvinism merely delays that obvious implication by stating that mans will is acted out by the nature that he has been given, and he therefore can not act otherwise, even though he could if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to because it is not in his nature to want to, and thus he does not have the ability to choose good or do good. But that still does not resolve the problem. If man has the total inability to act other than the nature that God gave him, then ultimately man can not be held accountable for his inability to act otherwise, and if he is acting in a way of which he is incapable of acting otherwise, then God is still the author of his sin because He created a will in the 'non elect' that can not act other than how it was programmed to act, and if man is only acting out of that which he was programmed, then man can not be the author of his own sin because he is not sinning because he choose to sin, but because someone gave him a will that prevents him from doing otherwise. Implication: God is the author of sin and evil. There is no way to get around that implication.

– – – –

Mon, August 12: You made a false claim. I have refuted your claim.

Now you insist that Calvinism MUST affirm something which is completely contrary to Scripture - that God is the Author of sin. The Bible is clear that man is responsible for his own sin and every Calvinist will affirm that.

In Peter's sermon recorded in Acts 2:22-24 you have 2 things that are clear: the 'men of Israel' with 'lawless hands" crucified Jesus, who at the same time was "delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God."

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. [NKJV]

Calvinists affirm that man is solely responsible for his sin and thus his condemnation is just, in keeping with the text of Scripture.

In that same chapter of Pink's work he writes:

Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission for God only permits that which He has purposed.

God clearly has a purpose in permitting sin to exist, but such purpose cannot make God the author of sin. If you deny that purpose you end up with sin existing without purpose and God having no control over the world he created.

- - - -

Sun, August 11: Can not you see the contradictory logic of Pink's statement? If God willed sin, then He is the author of it. Pink even admitted that everything that is willed by God is decreed by God, and all things that God decreed are what He created. If God wills what He decrees, and He willed sin, then it necessarily follows that He decreed sin as well, and if He decreed sin then He is the author of it. Thus, you make God dependent on sin to prove His sovereignty which means that God was not wholly God until sin was created, thus a Creator that existed for eternity was not wholly omnipotent until He had an opportunity to demonstrate His sovereignty by decreeing sin in order to triumph over it.

Now just exactly who did God have to prove this too? Before God was sovereign over creation, He was loving someone from eternity, but in Calvinism, God gets more glory by determining that some spend eternity in hell, then He would if He had determined that all would freely worship Him which God COULD HAVE done, but He didn't, and if He didn't, then it means He determined others to hell because He wanted to. If that's the god you serve I feel sorry for you, because that's not the God of the Bible. The Bible is clear that mercy rejoices against judgment (James 2:13), and there are things that God said specifically that He did not decree or desire,

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Jeremiah 32:35.

Furthermore, you are misinterpreting Acts 4. I have written a short explanation of this verse so I won't repost it here. [website redacted]

Calvinism only says in theory that man is still responsible for sin by ignoring the implications of their theology. Calvinism does NOT hold that man has the ability to choose whether or not to sin because that is the entire crux of total inability. If you understand the compatibilist view of freedom, and boil it down to it's core, the implications are illogical and contradictory because Calvinism only says that man is accountable due to God's saying so, but without explaining logically or Biblically how compatibilist freedom does not make God not only the author of sin and evil, but how a loving God could WANT and DESIRE the damnation of anyone by a predetermined arbitrary decree. God does not need the "purpose" of sin to be God, He was God before sin was ever considerable and do claim that sin is necessary to God is to give sin an equally deified status that rivals the sovereignty of God, makes God dependent upon evil which is a form of pantheism.

- - - -
Mon, August 12:

If God willed sin, then He is the author of it.

NO, willed for a purpose, which neither I nor you actually knows.

If that's the god you serve I feel sorry for you, because that's not the God of the Bible.

I don't serve your misinterpretation of the God of the Bible.

Furthermore, you are misinterpreting Acts 4.

I referenced Acts 2, not 4.

Calvinism does NOT hold that man has the ability to choose whether or not to sin because that is the entire crux of total inability.

True! Adam as representative for mankind chose for us. He made the wrong choice with the result that all mankind is spiritually dead. If you are unwilling to accept Adam as our 1st representative you must not be willing to accept Christ as the 2nd representative. Romans 5:12-19

I understand that you intensely dislike Calvinism, and that's OK. In order to refute it though you will need to actually refute what the view affirms, not what you think it should affirm.

- - - -

Thu, August 15: I finished reading Pink this morning.

In Appendix 2: The Case of Adam (pg.249 in my copy) he writes:

Here then is the difficulty: If God has eternally decreed that Adam should eat of the tree, how could he be held responsible not to eat of it? Formidable as the problem appears, nevertheless, it is capable of a solution, a solution, moreover, which can be grasped even by the finite mind. The solution is to be found in the distinction between God's secret will and His revealed will. As stated in Appendix I, human responsibility is measured by our knowledge of God's revealed will; what God has told us, not what He has not told us, is the definer of our duty. So it was with Adam.

That God had decreed sin should enter this world through the disobedience of our first parents was a secret hid in His own breast. Of this Adam knew nothing, and that made all the difference so far as his responsibility was concerned. Adam was quite unacquainted with the Creator's hidden counsels. What concerned him was God's revealed will. And that was plain! God had forbidden him to eat of the tree, and that was enough. But God went further: He even warned Adam of the dire consequences which would follow should he disobey—death would be the penalty. Transgression, then, on the part of Adam was entirely excuseless. Created with no evil nature in him, with a will in perfect equipoise, placed in the fairest environment, given dominion over all the lower creation, allowed full liberty with only a single restriction upon him, plainly warned of what would follow an act of insubordination to God, there was every possible inducement for Adam to preserve his innocence; and, should he fail and fall, then by every principle of righteousness his blood must lie upon his own head, and his guilt be imputed to all in whose behalf he acted.

He continues on pg.251:

To affirm that God decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, and that He foreordained all its fruits and activities, is to say that which, at first may shock the reader; but reflection should show that it is far more shocking to insist that sin has invaded His dominions against His will, and that its exercise is outside His jurisdiction: for in such a case where would be His omnipotency? [emphasis mine]

In your statement above you appear to insist that sin has invaded His dominions against His will!

The ONLY explanation that does not ascribe sin to God is that man has libertarian free will and chooses to sin, and that man's choice was not caused by any other influences or compulsion than the man's own decision to sin.

Pink continues on pg.252:

Thus, though God is not the Author of sin, and though sin is contrary to His holy nature, yet the existence and operations of it are not contrary to His will, but subservient to it. God never tempts man to sin, but He has, by His eternal counsels (which He is now executing), determined its course.

So there you have it. Contrary to your false statement above:

Well, yes, that does make Him the author of sin. Only an honest Calvinist like A.W. Pink was bold enough to admit it, and bold enough to admit that God doesn't love everybody.

I have shown that Pink (along with all the other Calvinists that I know) affirms that the scripture declares that God is not the author of sin. For you to insist that Calvinists must affirm that God in fact is the author of sin, based on some logic of yours, and to then use that logic to prove Calvinism to be false is to misrepresent your brothers in Christ.

I call on you to desist from such misrepresentation!

- - - -

Sun, August 11: All you have shown which is what I have consistently maintained, is that Calvinism offers a mere DECLARATION that God is not the author of sin. But even your quotes from Pink say that God WILLS it, and wills its course. Just because you admit to everything BUT God being the author of sin, does not mean that rejecting the conclusion of your theology eliminates the implications. You, nor any other Calvinist, has proven that Calvinist theology does not make God the author of sin, you have simply denied the implications and frankly, in a very inconsistent and illogical manner.

It's a very simple concept. Sin exists. Sin had an origin. Sin was introduced to the world through Adam. If God determined all of Adam's actions, then Adam did not truly have a choice to NOT sin. Therefore claiming that God is the author of Adam's actions, but not his sin is absurd because you can not separate the 2. If God determined and willed for Adam to sin, then God is ultimately the author of sin.

Notice this example in your own quote from Pink, how that Pink ADMITS the problem, but simply offers a mere preemptive exclusion to the implication:

"To affirm that God decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, and that He foreordained all its fruits and activities, is to say that which, at first may shock the reader; but reflection should show that it is far more shocking to insist that sin has invaded His dominions against His will, and that its exercise is outside His jurisdiction: for in such a case where would be His omnipotency?"

Does begging the question resolve the negative implication? No it doesn't. This is not an explanation, it's a justification for the premise without tackling the implication in a manner consistent with Scripture or Calvinism's own stated premise on the determination of God. So OF COURSE is shocks the reader. What Pink did NOT do here, is PROVE how that sin being the result of mans own choice to sin INVADES God's dominion. He simply stated such as a question rather than proving the assertion. If God's omnipotence requires that He control every event, then you can not rightly say that He is omnipotent because there is nothing to compare His omnipotence to that He Himself does not control. The very fact that actions resulting from free agency exist and that God responds to those actions either in judgment or justification offers a demonstration of God's power against evil and for good. Premises contrary to that are simply offering no better explanation than that God is having a universal chess match with Himself.

- - - -

Thu, September 5: Earlier I referenced Peter's sermon recorded in Acts 2. In Genesis 50:20, we have another similar example of mans wickedness and God's purpose being joined.

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

If we both agree that the text of scripture is accurate, we both must necessarily agree that this passage affirms that God was not the author of the evil done to Joseph by his brothers, yet the evil served the purpose of God.

Where we disagree is your insistence, based on some logic in your own mind, that my affirmation that the evil served a purpose, requires me to affirm that God was the author of their sin. Calvinism agrees with the scripture that God is not the author of sin. Your insistence that Calvinism must affirm that which the scripture denies and your apparent crusade to refute Calvinism on that basis is pure misrepresentation.

Monergism vs. Synergism - Part 3

Download a free PDF of this article

Preaching and Evangelism

In the first article of this series, I defined and illustrated Monergism and Synergism. In the second article, I looked at the Apostle John's affirmation of Monergism in his Gospel. In this article, I will show how each view approaches preaching and evangelism.

As a prelude to the discussion, we must first explain the doctrine of election, as it directly affects our topic.

Theopedia states that election "refers to God's choosing of individuals or peoples to be the objects of his grace or to otherwise fulfill his purposes." In the Old Testament, the nation that descended from Abraham physically was that people. In Deuteronomy 7:6-8 we find the reason God gives for the electing of that nation.

For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

When we come to the New Testament, we note that the elect are a "spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5) and are described by Peter as:

…a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

Both Monergists and Synergists affirm the doctrine of election, but there are differing views as to how God elects. Monergism views God's electing choice as unconditional, while Synergism views it as either conditional or corporate. A discussion of the differences is beyond the scope of this article, but the Theopedia entry (referenced above) explains the dissimilarity between the views.

No matter which position one may take with regard to election, each view must necessarily affirm that the elect (whoever they may be) will not fail to come to faith, and that the non-elect will not come to faith. In light of that, each view must necessarily answer this question: Why preach and evangelize?

The simple answer to the question is that the Scriptures command it. Matthew ends his gospel with the words of Jesus:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20)

Luke, in both his writings, notes:

…repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47)

…you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8)

There can be no question that believers have been given the task of proclaiming the Gospel with the intent of making disciples. But again, in light of God's electing choice, I must ask why. Scripture provides the answer; it is the means God uses to accomplish that which He has purposed to accomplish.

In Romans 10:13-15, Paul shows the process that God uses to bring the elect to faith.

For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!"

Preachers (the people of the beautiful feet) are sent to speak the Gospel; it is heard and believed; the elect call on God and are saved. Luke, in his Gospel, notes that "…there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents…" (Luke 15:7).

Paul continues, in 1 Corinthians 1:21-24, to show that the power of the Gospel is only effective for the elect. To the non-elect it is a stumbling block and foolishness.

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, Paul explains that the preacher is responsible for the planting and watering, and the Holy Spirit is responsible for the harvest.

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

The result, of this planting and watering on the part of the preacher, and the Holy Spirit's use of such to reap a harvest, is given to us in Revelation 5:9:

And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation…

There is not a tribe, tongue, people, or nation that does not have representation in the elect people of God. In a sense it can be said that the entire world will be saved, as no people group is left out. It is exciting to realize that, as we observe the command to go into all the world our success is guaranteed, as God's elect people are drawn from every people group.

Having established that preaching and evangelism have a purpose, our focus now moves to which approach (Synergism or Monergism), in practice, most consistently follows the Scripture. While both views will heartily affirm the purpose, we will see that Monergism most consistently follows the purpose.

Monergism, as we have established in the previous articles of this series, insists that unregenerate man is naturally incapable of obeying the Scripture's command to repent, while Synergism insists that the command implies natural ability. Two American evangelists of the early 19th century represent the divergent views: Charles Finney represents Synergism, while Asahel Nettleton represents Monergism.

William Farley writes about each man in separate articles. On Finney:

One historian sums up Finney's theology: "The whole idea that an unregenerate man was governed by a fallen nature was all wrong. …A decision of the will, not a change of nature, was all that was required to be converted."

On Nettleton he writes:

Convinced that man was dead in sin, he believed that conversion was the work of God, not man. To Nettleton, new birth was a radical change that produced repentance and a life of growing holiness. In his final analysis, this transformation was the ultimate proof of salvation.

The study of a sermon each man preached puts the difference between the two views in stark contrast.

In Finney's sermon, titled Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts he states:

As, therefore, God requires men to make to themselves a new heart, on pain of eternal death, it is the strongest possible evidence that they are able to do it. To say that he has commanded them to do it, without telling them they are able, is consummate trifling. Their ability is implied as strongly as it can be, in the command itself.

In Nettleton's sermon, titled Regeneration he states:

That the Holy Spirit makes use of the word and many other instruments to bring sinners to Christ, I have no doubt. But that men are naturally so inclined, as to approve of and obey the precepts of the gospel, unless some peculiar course of sin or prejudice prevent them, contradicts the whole tenor of the gospel, in which it is a fundamental principle, that by nature we are children of wrath, and that we are at enmity with God and blinded to the light of his truth and dead in trespasses and sins.

Since Synergism affirms that man has the natural ability to choose Christ, preaching and evangelism is tasked with convincing man to do that which he has the ability to do. Synergism is focused on the response, and the success of evangelistic enterprises is determined by the quantity of respondents. As such, synergistic preaching and evangelism tends to manipulate (on a scale from soft to hard) in order to secure decisions. On the soft end of the scale, preaching and evangelism attempt to remove the offense of the Gospel, in order to make it more palatable to the unregenerate. At the hard end of the scale is the "hell-fire and brimstone" style of preaching that uses guilt to coerce decisions. All synergistic preaching and evangelism will fall between these extremes, as it not only seeks to plant and water, but also to produce the increase, which (as we have previously noted) is reserved for God (1 Corinthians 3). At both ends it will be short on exegesis of the biblical text and long on stories and illustrations.

I recently had occasion to listen to the first in a sermon series by a fairly well-known pastor in a large city. The recording was just shy of an hour long, and it wasn't until close to the 45 minute mark that the speaker referenced the text of scripture. He told a story from the Old Testament but provided no information that would identify the book in which the story was recorded. He followed that up in the closing minutes of the sermon by referencing a New Testament passage, informing the listener of the book in which it was found, but not the chapter or verse.

A bi-weekly Christian newspaper recently advertised a conference and included short biographies of the speakers. One of the speakers was shown to have well over 1 million professions of faith in his church over an almost 40 year ministry. It further stated that the average attendance in the church over those same years was slightly above 2,000.

One website reported on a missionary who reported hundreds of decisions on his field of service, while also reporting a baptism rate of less than 5%. Another website reported on a ministry that had a program of beach evangelism. This ministry used a formulaic approach, whereby they asked questions designed to solicit positive responses and then led the respondents in a prayer of decision. Their own follow-up showed that significantly less than 5% of those who made decisions showed any interest in the things of God.

What is clear about the disparity in the above numbers is that the preaching and evangelism in each case was tremendously successful in securing professions but was a colossal failure in carrying out the great commission command to make disciples.

During my college years, the church I attended had regular weekly visitation. We, too, had been trained in a formulaic system designed to secure professions of faith. On one evening's excursion, I was partnered with a very personable young man; in a few hours we visited seven apartments and he lead seven people to profess faith. What was tragically missing from our training was any kind of follow-up discipleship program.

On a recent trip to my hometown with my parents, I met a man who had been in youth group with me. For most of the past 40 years he has lived a life that provides no evidence of new creaturely-ness, yet he believes his profession of faith and subsequent baptism by my father has secured his salvation. Since synergism is very successful in convincing unregenerate men that they have the ability to "change their own hearts" by making a decision, there are countless hundreds, maybe thousands, like this man.

James Adams, in his article titled Decisional Regeneration, says that such doctrine "…sees the new birth as the result of a mechanical process that can be performed by man", and shows that one's view of man's spiritual condition determines the evangelistic approach.

Can a man be born again by answering "yes" to a certain group of questions? Can a man be born from "above" by walking to the front of a building? Can a man become a true Christian by responding to an invitation as a result of being "crept up on" unawares? Your answers to these questions will be determined by your view of man's spiritual condition.

In contrast to Synergism and recognizing man's natural inability, Monergism (in affirmation of 1 Corinthians 1:24), focuses on the clear and passionate presentation of the text of scripture. Success is determined by how accurately the text of scripture is presented; response is left to the Holy Spirit.

In his "Introductory Essay" for John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ¹, J.I. Packer writes:

[Monergism] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. [4]

Packer also notes:

…the message to be delivered is simply this-that Christ Jesus, the sovereign Lord, who died for sinners, now invites sinners freely to Himself. God commands all to repent and believe; Christ promises life and peace to all who do so. [18]

Charles Spurgeon, in a sermon titled Sinners Bound with the Cords of Sin, shows that man will not come to Christ unless he is drawn:

Here, then, stands the riddle, that man is so set against God and His Christ that he never will accept eternal salvation until the Holy Spirit, by a supernatural work, overcomes his will and turns the current of his affections. And why is this? The answer lies in the text-because his own iniquities have taken him, and he is held with the cords of his sin. For this reason he will not come to Christ that he may have life. For this reason he cannot come, except the Father which has sent Christ draw him.

Arthur Custance, in The Sovereignty of Grace², notes:

The message that will in the end bring life is not man's rationalization as exhibited in his theology, nor his intuitive understanding as set forth in his poetry, nor even the persuasive power of the eloquence by which he succeeds in captivating his hearers. The message is the Word of God, the "seed" (Luke 8:11). [281]

Thomas Boston, in his work Human Nature In Its Fourfold State, writes:

…seeing the elect are not to be known and distinguished from others before conversion, as the sun shines on the blind man's face, and the rain falls on the rocks as well as on the fruitful plains, so we preach Christ to all, and shoot the arrow at a venture, which God Himself directs as He sees fit.

As the Gospel is proclaimed, the Holy Spirit opens the heart of the elect (Acts 16:14), replaces their stony heart with a fleshly heart (Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26), gives the gift of repentance (Acts 11:18) and faith (Ephesians 2:8) and enables them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

We noted above that preaching is the means by which God accomplishes His purpose of saving the elect. Prayer for the lost can also be considered as a means. Spurgeon referred to prayer for the lost as "awaken[ing] the Almighty Arm." A synergist, when asked why one person believes the Gospel and another does not, responded by noting that "God… has or will grant sufficient grace to everyone to make such a decision." In the synergistic view, God is not permitted to do more for a single individual, as what He does for one he must do for all. A prayer for any individual though is a specific request for God to do something more for that individual. The monergist, on the other hand cannot know whether or not his prayer will be used by God in the salvation of the one he prays for. Therefore, any prayer for the lost is effectively a monergistic prayer.

Not What My Hands Have Done
George William Martin / Horatius Bonar © Public Domain

Not what my hands have done
Can save my guilty soul
Not what my toiling flesh has borne
Can make my spirit whole
Not what I feel or do
Can give me peace with God
Not all my prayers and sighs
And tears can bear my awful load

Your voice alone, O Lord
Can speak to me of grace
Your pow'r alone, O Son of God
Can all my sin erase
No other work but Yours
No other blood will do
No strength but that which is divine
Can bear me safely thro'

I praise the Christ of God
I rest on love divine
And with unfalt'ring lip and heart
I call this Savior mine
My Lord has saved my life
And freely pardon gives
I love because He first loved me
I live because He lives

¹ John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust).
² Arthur Custance. The Sovereignty of Grace. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1979).

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.

Jamaica Week 2013

This is short, daily summary of our week in Jamaica

Fri, May 3: Left for the Charlotte airport at 4:00 am. Flew to Atlanta, then to Ft Lauderdale. Rode the S Florida Tri-Rail to West Palm Beach, where Barbara was waiting for me. David & Devene, Merle, Miss Daphne, and Dayna joined us for supper.

Sat, May 4: Flew to Montego Bay with Mother. Spirit charged us $50 for Mother's carry-on. While walking from the plane to Immigration & Customs, I saw a small child who was not able to keep up with her Mother/Grandmother/Guardian, so I picked her up and carried her. Had supper with Mother, Billy, and MK 'cousin' Jane at The Pelican Grill.

Sun, May 5: Attended morning service at Faith Baptist Church, pastored by Delroy Campbell, then afternoon 50th Anniversary service at Hillview Baptist Church (Program-PDF). I was privileged to participate in the service by reading the Scripture. All of the former pastors, both missionary and national, were represented and received plaques honoring their service. Stopped in downtown MoBay on the way home for some Devon House I Scream.

Mon, May 6: Day of Rest. Spent a few hours at Doctors Cave Beach.

Tue, May 7: Billy was teaching a class at Regent College of the Caribbean, so Mother and I traveled there with him. Took the A1 east (see Google Maps ) from MoBay to the B5, then south through the mountains. Passed through Albert Town, Christiana, and the Pickapeppa manufacturing plant before turning west on the A2. Stayed overnight with Mrs. Hanson, a long-time and dear friend of our family.

Wed, May 8: Continued west on the A2 down Spur Tree Hill to join the Clubines for breakfast in Whitehouse. They were staying at the Point of View Villa. Traveled further west on the A2, then north on the B8. Stopped at Fairview for a short while to greet many who were there for the 50th Anniversary Bible Conference.

Thu, May 9: Mother and I returned to Fairview for the Bible Conference, while Billy worked on preparing the final exam for his students.

Fri, May 10: Back to Fairview for the dedication of the new library building, with which I was very impressed. Attended a gospel concert in the evening at Hillview Baptist Church. While the sound system was being assembled, I commandeered a mic and told what I thought was a funny story. The audience seemed to agree, so I recorded a short version for YouTube.

Sat, May 11: Fairview Graduation (Program-PDF) at Hillview in the afternoon, followed by a banquet (Program-PDF) at the Holiday Inn SunSpree Resort in the evening.

Sun, May 12 AM: Drove to Cataboo Baptist Church in St Elizabeth, where I was privileged to preach (MP3-46:24). Daddy was involved in the first building project for this church shortly after arriving in Jamaica in 1952. Read more about Cataboo in these posts:

May 7, 2007: Photographic history of Cataboo Baptist Church
July 1, 2007: Cataboo Baptist Church—impact on Ed Morrell's life
August 15, 2007: Mission Trip 2007 Final Report

Sun, May 12 PM: Black River Baptist Church hosted a Memorial Service (Program-PDF) for my daddy. I read a tribute (PDF) for Jim & Edna Green that was written by one of their sons. They were the first co-workers of my folks, and my siblings and I knew them as Uncle Jim & Aunt Edna.

Mon, May 13: Returned to Ft Lauderdale with Mother.

Tue, May 14: Rode the train from West Palm Beach back to Ft Lauderdale. Return flight to Charlotte, NC, through Atlanta, then a ride on the shuttle home.

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.

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