PDA

View Full Version : Free Will and Synergism


Samuel
March 23rd 2005, 09:31 AM
Free Will and Synergism [01-13-05] - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qa_synergism.html

Another good article that cleary shows synergism to be false!

Today I received this unhappy letter from Peter, a synergist. He is responding to my essay on Monergism, in which, he accuses me of misrepresenting the synergist position. The following bold italicized script is the quote from my essay which he dislikes and his (and my) comments follow:

[In other words, 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.]

You begin your argument with an erroneous statement. You evidently, purposely, misrepresent what Synergism means so as to present your argument. You know what this error is called--- “STRAWMAN”. You erect a strawman by misquotation and then argue against this false premise. In other words--- you argue like a cultist. Sounds like you are trying, unsuccessfully, to defend Calvinism.

Synergists, as I understand it, believe in salvation BY grace THRU faith. Scripturally, GRACE and FAITH are synergistic. Faith is based on “free will”, which God built into man. This expression of faith, based on God’s gift of free will, is NON-meritorious (not works). Perhaps you don’t believe in free will either.

Faith is the key that opens the door to salvation in Christ. And “Faith comes by hearing” and the word of God--- the gospel expressed by the Holy Spirit--- is what calls, draws, man to express this faith toward salvation. TOTALLY of God’s grace not man’s work.


PS: Your "comparison chart" continues the error of building a strawman and attacking the strawman. You evidently delight in error and I have no hope of convincing you otherwise. Thus you need not respond.

------------------------------

Brother Peter:

Thank you for your email. Would you take the time to read my response? I am fully willing to hear what you have to say and respond to it. So please hear me out.

I believe it is important that we begin by defining terms like "free will" because it seems that you and I would broadly agree about the condition of man's will. You yourself admitted in your email [above] that the Holy Spirit is a necessary part of coming to faith in Christ, apart from which, no one would come of their natural ability. Simply put, no one naturally submits to the humbling terms of the gospel. So even you yourself admit that apart from a work of the Holy Spirit, man has no free will, that he is bound to sin - that he would always choose to rebel against God. The Holy Spirit is necessary, as you yourself have said. That is all that is meant when I say man has no free will. Man can freely choose to do whatever he wants. God does not coerce anyone to disobey him. Yet if left to himself, apart from any work of the Spirit, you would agree with me that man would never choose Christ. This is because he acts according to his nature. Similarly, God, who is holy, always acts according to His nature. He cannot lie, or be unholy simply because that is who He is. Likewise, man apart from the Holy Spirit has no desire to obey the gospel since His affections lie elsewhere (John 3:19-20).

If you will allow me, I would like also to defend my statement that you call a strawman. Here it is again:

[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]

Here is why I Believe it isn't a strawman. Try to work through this with me.

In the synergistic system, lets say two persons receive an equal amount of grace. In this situation one person ends up believing the gospel and the other rejects it. By your definition in your email "grace" is what calls and draws men to God, right?, and the people themselves under the influence of grace must make the final determination whether they will receive or reject Christ, as some can and will resist this call, am I correct?

This being the case, the crucial question is, why did one man believe the gospel and not the other? In your scheme, it is not grace that makes these two men to differ, but their faith. Now, was one smarter than the other? more humble? Any answer you give simply tells me that one person had an advantage of nature that the other did not. Did one make better use of the grace than the other? You see, the reason one ultimately chooses and not the other in your belief system of synergism, has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but rather something innately superior in one and not the other. One was able to see God's unsurpassed beauty and not the other. Why? Where did this affection for God come from? If not from God then you must believe that it is drawn from self. But does an unregenerate man naturally love God?

When it comes down to it, isn't it GRACE ITSELF that makes us humble and willing? Isn't it God who first makes our heart of stone into a heart of flesh. We cannot believe while our heart is still like a stone, can we? We cannot see until our eyes are opened. We will not come to Christ unless something happens to change us. Otherwise we could boast and say, "thank you God for helping me. For this you get all the glory, but my faith was something I came up with on my own that my neighbor could not, and for this I get the glory." While no one would say this, deep down we think we made a better choice than another because of our own natual capacities and wisdom or whatever, apart from the Spirit.

See these clear passages from john 6.

37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

"Come to me" and "believe" in me are synonyms here. The text says no one can come unless it is granted (universal negative) and then the other verse says "ALL who the Father gives to him will come" (Universal positive). This is an inescapable biblical syllogism that your only route of escape is to submit to Christ and His word, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Unless it is granted, no one will come, but all to whom it is granted WILL COME.

When we preach the gospel, the Holy Spirit must germinate the seed we cast in order for it to grow. The apostle Paul said that one [person] plants and the other waters, but it is God who causes the growth.

Hope this helps illuminate
blessings
John

p.s. if you can show from scripture that I am wrong (not unaided human reason), I will change my position. But it is clear that I have provided you with the Bible's unassailable logic and unless you can clearly show how my interpretation is wrong from Scripture and not just because you don't like it, then I suggest you consider that you may very well be wrong about your understanding.

GoBahnsen
March 23rd 2005, 12:03 PM
I liked your email response to your friend. It had a good tone about it as well. I encourage you to keep that same tone here on Tweb. Not that I have always done so, but I'm learning to.

The argument you make about "who makes us to differ" is one that got a lot of attention here a couple of months ago. Perhaps it will get some more. It is well deserving of such in my opinion. I have always seen it as inescapable as well.

If I recall, the synergists here answered by saying things like "its self determinism...we are self determining creatures and thats why we choose differently". Of course that doesn't answer the question, but they were wanting to say that there is nothing back of our choice for Christ. We just choose or we don't, but they wouldn't talk about what is back of the choice.

They know they cannot, lest they fall into the trap of saying, "yes I was wiser, etc." A couple of them did finally say it. They said they "were wiser" than the unbeliever. But they also argue that THAT doesn't leave grounds for boasting. They just argued, but had no argument.

I have always thought that they lost that debate, but they did not concede.

Ormly
March 23rd 2005, 12:09 PM
Yeah, winning a debate. That's what it's all about.

GoBahnsen
March 23rd 2005, 12:56 PM
Yeah, winning a debate. That's what it's all about.No, it's about the truth. We debate Theology, in order to bring out the truth of Scripture. We hope to win a debate, because we hope to show the truth. Paul argued daily in the house of one (tyrannus? spelling). Not to win a debate so he could thump his chest, but to dis-spell error and promote the truth. Winning a debate need not be rightarianism in and of itself. It can be sinful, in terms of pride, depending on the motive of the one debating. We must all search our own hearts and it would be sinful for you to try to search my heart or accuse me of evil motives.

Judge yourself and leave my heart to God. Would you be so kind as to do that?
Thank you, GB

Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman
March 23rd 2005, 01:02 PM
Hi GoBahnsen
Do you think we should divide over this issue of soteriology as did Topolady, Spurgeon, etc. did in the past as well as some do today?

Regards
A-man

GoBahnsen
March 23rd 2005, 01:15 PM
Hi GoBahnsen
Do you think we should divide over this issue of soteriology as did Topolady, Spurgeon, etc. did in the past as well as some do today?

Regards
A-manNot to the extent that "outside the camp" does. I'm not sure how far the two men took it, that you mention. I myself am still trying to figure out how serious the debate should be regarded. I'm not here debating because I think it's fun, or whatever, but to learn and defend the truth of Scripture.

To me, mode of Baptism, would be along the lines of something I find of little importance. Important still, but I don't have time to argue it. Free will, synergism, are significant errors in my opinion. But just how upset I should be over them, I'm still working on.

But I do not reject a persons faith claim simply because they think they started their salvation. I hope to persuade them otherwise, in order that Ehpesians 1:6 might have it's full force. Being saved to the praise of the glory of God's grace. How about you?

Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman
March 23rd 2005, 01:23 PM
Not to the extent that "outside the camp" does. I'm not sure how far the two men took it, that you mention. I myself am still trying to figure out how serious the debate should be regarded. I'm not here debating because I think it's fun, or whatever, but to learn and defend the truth of Scripture.

To me, mode of Baptism, would be along the lines of something I find of little importance. Important still, but I don't have time to argue it. Free will, synergism, are significant errors in my opinion. But just how upset I should be over them, I'm still working on.

But I do not reject a persons faith claim simply because they think they started their salvation. I hope to persuade them otherwise, in order that Ehpesians 1:6 might have it's full force. Being saved to the praise of the glory of God's grace. How about you?


Thanks for the respectful reply. I do not believe that we should divide over such a thing at all. I firmly believe there are Christians in many denominations. Would something like the Nicene Creed be enough to identify true Christianity? Or, in your opinion, is there more required?

7thangel
March 23rd 2005, 02:03 PM
Yeah, winning a debate. That's what it's all about.

Honestly, that is what it is all about.

There are people that promote that we must "agree" to certain "essentials." Those people, IMHO, are actually promoting themselves, not the truth. They would like to excuse their ignorance on certain truths, and they would like to be accepted with their "errors".

The Bible says that we should be united in One Faith! If what we debate is not about Faith, then what the heck is it?

infide
March 23rd 2005, 03:48 PM
i honestly dont see how anything that is said in that article proves monergism over synergism.

Just because the Holy Spirit is involved in our Salvation, of course He is, doesnt mean monergism correctly describes how the Holy Spirit does so.

samuel, you need to get over your "theological" arrogance. you espouse a theological interpretation, just like everybody else. and from most of your own responses it seems that you havent thought through these issues very much. Nor have you even considered the possibility of other views.

i would call that dogmatism.

GoBahnsen
March 23rd 2005, 10:59 PM
Thanks for the respectful reply. I do not believe that we should divide over such a thing at all. I firmly believe there are Christians in many denominations. Would something like the Nicene Creed be enough to identify true Christianity? Or, in your opinion, is there more required?The difficulty with creeds, is they become like the difficulty we face when interpreting the Bible. That being, what was the intent of the original authors? I'm uncomfortable with an attitude in modern evangelicalism that expresses itself like this: "You love the Lord, I love the Lord...so lets just leave it there."

While that may be true, it may also not be true. In fact, one or the other may be fighting against the Lord they claim to love. Can I or should I look the other way when my God gets called a monster or murderer? Do I say, with regard to the accuser "well...he/she holds to the Nicene Creed, so it's cool." I'm struggling with all this here on Tweb. You're watching a work in progress.

I am realizing that I want to see civil debate, not name calling. Nor do I want to see someone with a caustic attitude. I'm working hard to get away from that, while remaining firm, rather than becoming "jelly-like", and say "peace, peace " when there is no peace.


Much needs to be said along these lines. One generation learns it's lesson, only to watch the next generation repeat the same garbage. We were all teenagers once.:lol:

infide
March 24th 2005, 12:16 AM
GB,

at the same time, it would be an extremely unlikely event that you run into someone who sees things exactly the same as you do on every issue.

i believe there is a wide range of possibilities, on most issues that we should be willing to allow. but there are some views on some issues that are just not acceptable. of course this is a fairly subjective endeavor as to which views and which issues to be rigid on. but thats an endeavor that every Christian takes on.

for me, things like the divinity of Christ (and the Father and Holy Spirit), the orthodox view of God's Nature (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, necessity, eternality, trinity), and the basic gospel message (by grace through faith unto works, in Christ's work [at least ontologically]) are probably the issues where I would not fellowship with dissenters.

i would hope to have more agreement of course. and there might be more issues other than these that i would be strong about. but other than these, i think i could be in brotherhood with people who disagree with me (heck i was good friends with several calvinists, luckily they saw the light) but yeah, you get my point.

GoBahnsen
March 24th 2005, 01:07 AM
GB,

at the same time, it would be an extremely unlikely event that you run into someone who sees things exactly the same as you do on every issue.

I'm not looking for that.



i believe there is a wide range of possibilities, on most issues that we should be willing to allow. but there are some views on some issues that are just not acceptable. of course this is a fairly subjective endeavor as to which views and which issues to be rigid on. but thats an endeavor that every Christian takes on.

for me, things like the divinity of Christ (and the Father and Holy Spirit), the orthodox view of God's Nature (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, necessity, eternality, trinity), and the basic gospel message (by grace through faith unto works, in Christ's work [at least ontologically]) are probably the issues where I would not fellowship with dissenters.
What about the OVT then? You mentioned ominscience. They have a version of God not knowing what you will do next. To me that seriously monkey's with ominscience.



i would hope to have more agreement of course. and there might be more issues other than these that i would be strong about. but other than these, i think i could be in brotherhood with people who disagree with me (heck i was good friends with several calvinists, luckily they saw the light) but yeah, you get my point.
You "were" good friends? Or now they are no longer Calvinists? And how does luck work in a universe where God is running things? Oh well, we're going off topic, so if you want to pursue this one, start a new thread.

Good talking, GB