Evidence for God from Science

Hey friends,

I have been working on an anology that deals with the faith and the agency of man, specifically in challenging monergism. I'd like you guys to dissect this and try and pick holes in it.

Scenario:
Upon a recent visit to the doctor, you were diagnosed with a terminal disease. The tests are conclusive, and without treatment you have less than a month to live. Despite the bad news, your physician informs you that there is a surgeon who specializes in your condition. He is well credentialed with a myriad of diplomas and certifications in this area of practice. After hearing various testimonies about previous patients who have been helped, your physician recommends you for surgery, which can only be performed by this specialist and without which you will die. He states that he has already reviewed your case with the specialist and that he is willing to perform the surgery, but it must be immediate. Recognizing your own need, as well as the qualifications of the surgeon, you become convinced he can save you, and thus consent to the surgery.

Questions:
Did your trust in the surgeon contribute to the surgery? (in other words, can you take credit for your healing?)
Did your concern for your own condition constitute humility?
Did your decision to entrust your life to the doctor require a form of humility beyond human nature?
Did your faith in his abilities merit the surgeons favor or obligate him to perform the surgery?
Was the recognition of your condition or consent to the surgery virtuous?

I've read it over a few times, and I think it's a pretty good analogy.

I don't see any problems with your analogy, but do you think it will help convince someone who holds to Monergism?

I'm not too familiar with it, but wouldn't 5pt Calvinists hold to Monergism?

Oh yes.

The point is in dealing with monergistic presuppositions about the nature and role of faith in salvation.
Such as, saving faith is virtuous and therefore an unregenerate person is incapable.
Also, that man lacks the humility required to submit to the gospel.
These are specific objections from proponents of monergism.

I'm working on a lengthy paper and the analogy is just a small part.

I'm working on a lengthy paper and the analogy is just a small part.

I'd like to read it as long as it's at my comprehension level. In other words, if you use too many big words, I'm too dumb to understand.

jlay wrote:Did your trust in the surgeon contribute to the surgery? (in other words, can you take credit for your healing?)

I'm imagining a monergist responding that trust, in and of itself, doesn't contribute to the surgery, but that consent to the procedure could be construed to. Pushing the medical model, one of the things we want to see is informed consent, so much so that where there is no such consent, it is actually unethical to perform some procedures. It would seem on that model that the consent contributes to something, even if in no other way than changing the procedure's ethical status

Did your concern for your own condition constitute humility?

I guess it would depend on other factors. I don't see how desire for self-preservation is a violation of humility. It's why, for instance, we eat when we get hungry. Acts become proud (~humble) when they are rooted in an exaltation of the self above others. So perhaps this doctor only has time to do one such surgery a year. If I insist that I should get it because I make more money and am a better contributor to society, that might mark against its humility. But other than such a scenario, while it might be a bit of a stretch to say that self-concern constitutes humility, we shouldn't say that it marks against it. On the contrary, what we might be able to say is that recognition that we can't save ourselves but that we need this doctor is an act of humility, though perhaps not a great one.

Did your decision to entrust your life to the doctor require a form of humility beyond human nature?

Clearly no.

Did your faith in his abilities merit the surgeons favor or obligate him to perform the surgery?

Clearly no.

Was the recognition of your condition or consent to the surgery virtuous?

The recognition? That's hard to see how it could be. The consent? I guess that would (again) depend on a lot of variables. To take just one example, does it require much by way of courage? I think we can defend pretty well the idea that some acts are intrinsically evil, but no acts are intrinsically good; good acts are always contingent, and it often times takes virtue to figure out which acts are good in which cases. But in general, I would still say that, all things being equal, it would seem that consent to the surgery is not particularly virtuous as much as it is just common sense.

Your thoughts on my thoughts?

Upon a recent visit to the doctor, you were diagnosed with a terminal disease...

Hmm. And when a real person recognizes that he is sick (sinner and needs doctor=God). Unless there is a "recent visit to the doctor" then will this person know he needs a doctor?

Jac3510 wrote: I'm imagining a monergist responding that trust, in and of itself, doesn't contribute to the surgery, but that consent to the procedure could be construed to. Pushing the medical model, one of the things we want to see is informed consent, so much so that where there is no such consent, it is actually unethical to perform some procedures. It would seem on that model that the consent contributes to something, even if in no other way than changing the procedure's ethical status

Thanks for the feedback Jac. How would you feel about the statement, "faith is consent to the finished work of Christ."
I know that the monergist would have a problem, based on their other presuppositions about faith, as well as their commitment to regeneration preceding faith."

I guess it would depend on other factors. I don't see how desire for self-preservation is a violation of humility. It's why, for instance, we eat when we get hungry. Acts become proud (~humble) when they are rooted in an exaltation of the self above others. So perhaps this doctor only has time to do one such surgery a year. If I insist that I should get it because I make more money and am a better contributor to society, that might mark against its humility. But other than such a scenario, while it might be a bit of a stretch to say that self-concern constitutes humility, we shouldn't say that it marks against it. On the contrary, what we might be able to say is that recognition that we can't save ourselves but that we need this doctor is an act of humility, though perhaps not a great one.

This question was rooted in a specific statement from Hendryx that says, "man lacks the humility REQUIRED to submit to the gospel."
You probably answered this in the other question, that this type of humility is not beyond natural human capacity.

The recognition? That's hard to see how it could be. The consent? I guess that would (again) depend on a lot of variables. To take just one example, does it require much by way of courage? I think we can defend pretty well the idea that some acts are intrinsically evil, but no acts are intrinsically good; good acts are always contingent, and it often times takes virtue to figure out which acts are good in which cases. But in general, I would still say that, all things being equal, it would seem that consent to the surgery is not particularly virtuous as much as it is just common sense.

The point I'm driving at here is man's ability to recognize his own sinful condition and need of saving. The bible says that when the HS comes he will convict the world of sin. But we also know that a lost person does not yet have the HS. In this case, the monergist has a compelling argument in that the lost person needs the HS before they can even recognize the need of saving.

Or this
-An individual must be convicted a sinner before they can exercise faith in the Gospel.
-A person needs the HS to be rightly convicted of sin.
-Therefore regeneration precedes faith.

Another issue I'm working on. Often we assume that arguing against one position is embracing the opposite.
For example, if you argue against regeneration being the source of faith, it's assumed that you are then espousing faith as the 'source' of regeneration. However, I wouldn't say that faith is the source of regeneration. Make sense?

My ultimate grievances with Monergism are that 1) It makes the Gospel powerless for many if not most people.
2) It makes the Gospel a lie. In other words, if you tell someone that Christ died for their sins and they need to believe, this may or may not be true. If they are reprobate then Christ did not die for their sins and they are in fact incapable of believing.

jlay wrote:Thanks for the feedback Jac. How would you feel about the statement, "faith is consent to the finished work of Christ."
I know that the monergist would have a problem, based on their other presuppositions about faith, as well as their commitment to regeneration preceding faith."

I actually think that's a very good way to look at it, and it gets to where your analogy is particularly powerful. The surgeon can save you, but you have to entrust yourself to his care--you have to give your consent. You are, of course, correct that the monergist would fuss about regeneration preceding faith, but that response would entail a circular argument. The point of your analogy is to demonstrate that regeneration does not have to precede faith; so to argue it is wrong because regeneration precedes faith is clearly fallacious.

This question was rooted in a specific statement from Hendryx that says, "man lacks the humility REQUIRED to submit to the gospel."
You probably answered this in the other question, that this type of humility is not beyond natural human capacity.

Right, and that gets to the bigger issue. I see no reason whatsoever to think that the humility in your case must be supernatural. The argument then becomes whether or not the humility to recognize one is a sinner must be supernatural. If so, your analogy fails. If not, it holds and your point is well illustrated. What the monergist CANNOT say (again), though, is that the analogy fails because regeneration precedes faith. That's just circular. It would be up to them to show that such humility must be supernaturally infused and use that as a basis to show that the analogy fails.

The point I'm driving at here is man's ability to recognize his own sinful condition and need of saving. The bible says that when the HS comes he will convict the world of sin. But we also know that a lost person does not yet have the HS. In this case, the monergist has a compelling argument in that the lost person needs the HS before they can even recognize the need of saving.

Or this
-An individual must be convicted a sinner before they can exercise faith in the Gospel.
-A person needs the HS to be rightly convicted of sin.
-Therefore regeneration precedes faith.

But I think we can challenge the second premise. Yes, the HS convicts the world of sin, but unless we are going to say "the world" refers only to the elect, then it follows that the HS is pictured here as convicting unbelievers of their sin. That is, John is speaking to the HS' ministry to the unregenerate. And if that is the case, then it seems that the HS is working with a natural human capacity (the humility to recognize and give assent to perceived truths) rather than bestowing on us a new one.

Once again, I think, in light of your analogy, the monergist has some serious work to do. They are going to have to offer exegetical support for their claim that the unregenerate are incapable of recognizing their sinful state. In other words, they are going to have to defend the T in their doctrine, and I just have never found their arguments particularly compelling. Your analogy gets rid of one of the big ones (that if the T is not true, then we can say that we are contributing to our own salvation). So what do they have now to prove not merely total depravity, but rather total inability [to believe, confess, etc.].

Another issue I'm working on. Often we assume that arguing against one position is embracing the opposite.
For example, if you argue against regeneration being the source of faith, it's assumed that you are then espousing faith as the 'source' of regeneration. However, I wouldn't say that faith is the source of regeneration. Make sense?

It does, and I think that's a fair point. That could well go to why monergists think that faith, if it comes from us, would contribute to salvation, since on that view our salvation is born out of something we did. But you are correct that that doesn't have to follow. The source of regeneration is still completely and totally the work of God. It is just that, in your language from earlier, God does that work on those who consent to it--those who entrust themselves to His care.

My ultimate grievances with Monergism are that 1) It makes the Gospel powerless for many if not most people.
2) It makes the Gospel a lie. In other words, if you tell someone that Christ died for their sins and they need to believe, this may or may not be true. If they are reprobate then Christ did not die for their sins and they are in fact incapable of believing.

I am in 100% agreement with this, and frankly, I think both of those points are sufficient in and of themselves to disprove monergism.

jlay wrote:Hey friends,

I have been working on an anology that deals with the faith and the agency of man, specifically in challenging monergism. I'd like you guys to dissect this and try and pick holes in it.

Scenario:
Upon a recent visit to the doctor, you were diagnosed with a terminal disease. The tests are conclusive, and without treatment you have less than a month to live. Despite the bad news, your physician informs you that there is a surgeon who specializes in your condition. He is well credentialed with a myriad of diplomas and certifications in this area of practice. After hearing various testimonies about previous patients who have been helped, your physician recommends you for surgery, which can only be performed by this specialist and without which you will die. He states that he has already reviewed your case with the specialist and that he is willing to perform the surgery, but it must be immediate. Recognizing your own need, as well as the qualifications of the surgeon, you become convinced he can save you, and thus consent to the surgery.

Questions:
Did your trust in the surgeon contribute to the surgery? (in other words, can you take credit for your healing?)
Did your concern for your own condition constitute humility?
Did your decision to entrust your life to the doctor require a form of humility beyond human nature?
Did your faith in his abilities merit the surgeons favor or obligate him to perform the surgery?
Was the recognition of your condition or consent to the surgery virtuous?

I have a question. Who/what is doctor in this analogy? Surgeon is God, and the doctor?

Keep in mind, not everything is perfectly analogous.
But here is my best go.

Sickness: sin
Surgeon: Christ
Patient: Lost sinner
Doctor: Preacher/ believer

Is the scalpel the sword of the Spirit?

It does, and I think that's a fair point. That could well go to why monergists think that faith, if it comes from us, would contribute to salvation, since on that view our salvation is born out of something we did. But you are correct that that doesn't have to follow. The source of regeneration is still completely and totally the work of God. It is just that, in your language from earlier, God does that work on those who consent to it--those who entrust themselves to His care.

The ABILITY to have faith, the choice and gift of free will to choose to believe, and God making it all possible through the Cross, and choosing to apply our faith as the key to receiving what He both began and will complete - well, these are ALL God's doing. But He both gave and mandated that we have a part to play in RECEIVING what can only be had if we have what He said we must have: faith in Christ. This IS all God's work, so how having OUR faith applied toward our salvation could be considered a "work" is absurd.

My ultimate grievances with Monergism are that 1) It makes the Gospel powerless for many if not most people. 2) It makes the Gospel a lie. In other words, if you tell someone that Christ died for their sins and they need to believe, this may or may not be true. If they are reprobate then Christ did not die for their sins and they are in fact incapable of believing.

Yes, and if the Five Pointers are correct, then when we look at the parables concerning "WHO is our neighbor; WHO should we love," the "Good Samaritan," and the "Prodigal Son," they would show a God who demands a love of ALL from man (who COULD choose Him), but for Whom He Himself loves arbitrarily and capriciously. He asserts He has no favorites or favoritism when viewing a man, when He clearly would (and does, IF this were true). Such a God would be a nightmare for mankind, as He would require and demand what He (supposedly) has not given most the ability or opportunity to do (believe, have faith) - necessarily insuring and proliferating mass rebellion, perpetual sin, mayhem, hatred - EVERYTHING the Gospel tells us Jesus came to free the world from and that God says He hates. And such a god would have condemned vast billions to hellish lives on earth and eternal punishment later - before any were ever born - not because of what they would, one day, ultimately choose - but because of what He supposedly chose for them before they ever lived. He warns, threatens and shows enormous anger over unrepentance, and yet people were supposedly, purposefully created having no ABILITY to have even the desire to believe or repent - and so His anger would appear to make no sense.

jlay wrote:Keep in mind, not everything is perfectly analogous.
But here is my best go.

Sickness: sin
Surgeon: Christ
Patient: Lost sinner
Doctor: Preacher/ believer

Ok, thanks.
Yeah, one can imagine that person goes to a preacher to hear a sermon. Well, question is who goes there and whether he trust what is said by the preacher is true.

Usually, one hears gospel from someone. One usually does not deliberately go to hear a sermon and trust it.

J, I'd love to read your paper (when you finish it ofcourse), as this is an area I like to study.

Like Jac, I agree with your two objections, monergism necessarily ends on those points.

As for your analogy, Faith is trust, and when you put your trust in the surgeon (God) then unless you yourself help God perform the actual surgery, I don't see how any "work" you did saved you. I do have some points to share so please read the rest.

The argument then becomes whether or not the humility to recognize one is a sinner must be supernatural.

Yes, and I think its what the monergist has to prove (which there is no good argument for) but consider it this since it is more problem for the monergist here, IF God can reach out to the sinner with humility in his state of sin. Then every reprobate is God's choice, irrelevant of sin, and it introduces another problem, the point then that sin is merely God's arbitrary punishing standard and is not intrinsically evil in itself, its is only evil when God wants it to be. Therefore in a way evil co-exists in God's will for creation, as a necessary byproduct of sovereignty.

Take this back to your analogy, is this surgeon open to perform surgeries for all or are you special? And If you are special, then by what merit? What has the surgeon seen in you that he hasn't in others? And if the surgeon himself decides whom to cure, then is such a surgeon ethically and morally correct...to elaborate, if by any chance you accidentally stumble on this surgeon's door then by what merit you qualify for surgery? according to the surgeon is there value in life or only some life? And if he doesn't treat while he is capable to fully treat you - seeing that you are about to die, then is he the guy for the job, is he not a criminal, at least morally evil?

So the monergist only has two choices, 1) he can say God is sovereign (which is a last resort for the monergist) but that he also must agree that God is evil. 2) Or that God (surgeon) will treat whomever comes to him, and form there on he has to give up monergism.

If the monergist takes option 1: then that is a false gospel, and a false God. You can show why evil and God can't coexist.

if he takes option 2: well then, a job well done.

I do think there is a weakness in the analogy, that is what if the monergist argues that it is the surgeon's right to decide whom he treats?

Imo, standing on OM, you then have to show that a surgeon deciding surgery on his own assessment of whether someone "deserves" life, is criminal and immoral. That in my view would strengthen your analogy, at least cover it from this side.

The monergist could certainly argue that God in reality can't murder so he is exempt but you can argue that God can't be immoral in due-cause. For example God is sovereign when he decides to not kill Cain as a punishment for murdering his brother, but God can't be sovereign and just if he does not heed to the blood of Abel which was spilled. So while God may punish someone; he can't, in due-cause, be immoral for the sake of being sovereign. You can also use this to put up the case for the surgeon who must save life, because the nature of his identity, demands it.

Monergism is then, not a false idea of how we are saved, but a false idea of who God is.

Guys, I will come back with questions, as I do not see your conclusions.