This is a direct comment from a reader, left on a previous post here at the The Battle Cry:
“The God of Abraham, which is also Jesus, is a God who draws me to him, who created me so that I would have a chance to know love and serve him, who sent his son to die for my sins so that I could be forgiven, but who also loves me enough to allow me to decide whether I will accept his gift.”
I lifted it out of the earlier post to address the thought that ‘God loves us so much he allows us to decide whether or not to accept His gift of salvation’.
Well, it’s true! God does love us so much that he gives us a choice to accept or reject the precious gift of salvation.
The inescapable question is WHY does one person accept the gift and another reject it?
It is certainly true that any person who receives God’s gift of salvation by faith in Christ, needs to have made a decision to do so. The above comment’s author makes it sound like a person’s salvation ultimately depends on his/her ‘decision’, making the decision the determiner of one’s salvation, and God beholden to mere mortals, if He would have a people for Himself. Salvation is therefore a matter of man cooperating with God, and in essence, saving himself!
This ‘man cooperating with God’ in salvation’ paradigm is also known as ‘synergism’. While ‘synergistic’ salvation is not to be found in scripture, it has been valiantly ‘prooftexted’ for hundreds of years, and is in fact the most loved theory of how God saves men.
The contrasting theory of how men are saved is called ‘monergism’ , meaning that it is God who saves men, from beginning to end. Yes, there is still a decision, but it is not an autonomous human decision, but nevertheless a decision of human will.
The difference is the nature of the human will. In synergism, man has sufficient resources to figure it all out and make an autonomous decision, in and of himself. In monergism, man has been so affected by the sin of Adam that every part of his being has been corrupted, including the human will. It takes a supernatural act of God to so affect the human will, that a person formerly in rebellion against God, unwilling and unable to even seek God, will not only seek God, he/she will find God and eternal salvation will result.
In contrast to synergism, monergism is taught explicitly in scripture and needs no prooftexting. The truth that salvation is of the Lord is taught from Genesis through Revelation!
I would therefore like to modify the comment with which I began this post to say:
“God loved me SO MUCH that, since left to my own devices, I would never accept His gift of salvation, He so changed my depraved human will, that I could and indeed would ‘freely’ choose Christ!”
______________________
NOTE: I intentionally omitted specific scripture references that teach the monergistic view of salvation. After all, the theme that it is God who saves men, without our ‘help’, runs throughout the entire Bible. Should you be reading this and thinking otherwise, it is my sincere prayer that you will not rest until you have examined scripture and discovered the truth of the matter.
May God richly bless you – now and throughout the upcoming new year!
The Battle Cry 
Merry Christmas Dan, and everyone else.
“there is still a decision, but it is not an autonomous human decision, but nevertheless a decision of human will” This is where your logic collapses in on itself. A “decision” means a choice between two possibilities. If there is only one possible choice, then it cannot be called a decision.
I understand that you think the only way to honor God is to give him complete control of everything. And certainly, control is God’s to take or give. But if God chose to give humans some power (any power) when he was creating them, then the existance of that power is NOT a front to God’s soveriegnty, but proof of it. By giving us free will – a true choice – he is not giving us the power to save ourselves – he gives us the power to not let him save us.
And your view of scripture is tainted by this view of salvation. Scripture is, in fact, filled with God telling us we must choose. Remember Jesus saying you should cut off your hand rather than let your hand lead you to Hell? Apparently, Jesus thinks what we do makes a difference.
But the mere existance of Jesus, is the strongest argument that God loves us enough to give us free will. Consider this, “Gazing on the Christ Child lying in the manger, we contemplate the love of a God who humbly asks us to welcome him into our hearts and into our world. By coming among us as a helpless Child, God conquers our hearts not by force, but by love, and thus teaches us the way to authentic freedom, peace and fulfilment. This Christmas, may the Lord grant us simplicity of heart, so that we may recognize his presence and love in the lowly Babe of Bethlehem, and, like the shepherds, return to our homes filled with ineffable joy and gladness.”
Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
Willison,
An honest study, from the pages of Scripture, concerning human nature, would benefit you greatly. Pay particular attention to the effect of Adam’s sin on the rest of humanity, in perpetuity.
Certainly man has ‘free choice’ to do what he pleases. Man however, will only choose according to his nature. Just because we are told to choose does not mean we have the ability to choose rightly.
In human history there are three phases of the nature of man – as originally created, after the Fall, and after regeneration/new birth.
It’s not my opinion, it’s what is taught in the pages of Scripture, for anyone to read for themselves. It might not be easily understood with human logic or wisdom, but the words are plain enough.
LikeLike
Oh, here we go . . .
Fortunately, an honest study from the pages of scripture is exactly where these thoughts come from.
I find it quite charming that you continue to make statements like “the words are plain enough” when less than 1% of Christianity sees it that way. I find it fascinating that you cannot believe there is any other reasonable interpretation of scripture even though people like Mother Teresa and Thomas Aquinas and Augustine all disagree with you. But beyond that, even Luther and Wesley and Billy Graham would say you were wrong. In the end, you refuse to recognize that Calvin, not the scriptures themselves, is actually the source of your theology.
So if you prefer, we could just humor you. Or we could have a worthwhile discussion. Either way, I’m very happy with my choices.
LikeLike
Actually, Calvin had little to do with my theology – John 6:44, followed by a lot of prayerful study of scripture has everything to do with it.
By the way, Augustine was a Calvinist before Calvin, They both, along with Luther (read his ‘Bondage of the Will’) seemed to agree on the nature of human will.
Willison, your in-depth knowledge of why I believe what I believe is amazing! I am also greatly humbled that you seem to now consider me capable of ‘worthwhile’ discussion, whereas previously you considered me totally unworthy!
Why is it that so many seem to shout “Calvin, Calvin!” as if he invented the sovereignty of God? If you can read at all, it quite ‘literally’ screams from the pages of scripture.
LikeLike
Whether you acknowledge Calvin’s influence, or believe you arrived at these concepts on your own, doesn’t really change the fact that your point of view does not literally scream from the pages of scripture – except in the opinion an extreme minority. It’s not that I claim to know WHY you believe anything, but it is clear where those beliefs come from. If it screamed from the page, any person with the ability to “read at all” would agree with you. But they don’t – not even the smart ones. That doesn’t make your position wrong necessarily, but it does make your claim of how obvious it is wrong. Does that make sense?
When you say things like the “more clear” passages should be used to understand the “less clear” passages of scripture, that in itself implies that some verses fit your theology and others don’t. Another person may determine that your “less clear” passages are perfectly clear, and the ones you call “more clear” need explaining.
My point is we can’t have a rational conversation if you keep pretending that no interpretation is necessary. That is why I had given up talking with you before. That may be why I give up again. (Looks like a have a free will moment coming!)
People shout “Calvin, Calvin” because it is rather easy to spot and – frankly – dangerously wrong. It tries to make an infinate God too simplistic – and in the process caters to the worst parts of human nature. Now there are some passionate Christians who are Calvinist. They believe in good faith what they have been taught, but they still are wrong on some important points. It’s not 180 degrees wrong, but even a few degrees carried out to infinity is way off. Augustine was not a Calvinist – he would have eaten Calvin for lunch. Augustine did recognize the sovereignty of God – as we all should. Calvin, and now you, just have the application of that concept off – by a few degrees.
LikeLike
Back to the original question, to which you never actually gave a yes or no answer, but based on your comments it seems you think you saved yourself because of your decision.
I choose to believe that God saved me. Jonah 2:9 says that Salvation is of the Lord. John 1:12 & 13 specifically state that the new birth (salvation) does NOT come by any human agency or decision. That’s good enough for me, even without all the rest of scriptural support.
So I guess your argument is with God,not me.I can spoon feed you scripture all day long, to no avail because you must filter everything through the Pope and the Magesterium, as if they have the full version of the Holy Spirit and the rest of us only have H.S. Lite, which is a lie, because scripture (unfiltered by the Pope) speaks of the Holy Spirit being given to all believers, not a special group of elite persons.
That a minority (not as ‘extreme’ a minority as you let on) of ‘professing’ Christians hold to the sovereignty of God in salvation means absolutely nothing except that a minority of ‘professing’ believers don’t believe what scripture teaches. To say that what a majority believes defines what is truth, rather than what scripture teaches is extremely foolish.
Lest you think I am calling you a fool, I’m not. I only recall that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Look it up, it’s there.
In the end, people believe what they want to believe. Truly regenerate, born again persons WANT to believe what scripture teaches.
So long, Willison, unless you are willing and able to mount a sound argument from scripture, without the Pope. I don’t need Calvin. I already said that, along with John 6:44 having encouraged me to search scripture before I knew much of anything about Calvin.
It’s sad that you still have to use the Calvin card, but very understandable since you are chained to a religious system, rather than a bondslave to Christ (as Paul would put it).
LikeLike