The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 6

 In The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 5, we finished up our discussion of synergism and monergism.  In part 4, we defined and talked about synergism and how that manifests itself within the church.  In part 5, we reviewed what synergism was then embarked on a definition and discussion of monergism.  We also talked about how that manifests itself within the church.  As we move on, it will be beneficial to note that what we are getting ready to talk about is the same topic of discussion we had in the last two "history lesson" posts under a different name.  The reason why I wanted to discuss the topic of synergism and monergism is because I knew that we would be coming to where we are now.  The battle of a synergistic view of salvation versus a monergistic view still rages today.  I use the word battle on purpose because that is exactly what it is...it is a battle of viewpoints.  I hope you will be able to see what I am talking about by the time we finish this post.  To review, very basically...synergism is a combined, cooperational effort between God and man.  God does His part, man does his.  Monergism is God working alone to bring about salvation.  God, and God alone, does it.  

We launched into our discussion of synergism and monergism by talking about, for lack of better terminology, the "disagreement" between Erasmus and Luther.  Erasmus was a synergistic Catholic apologist.  Luther came out of the Catholic Church after having come to a monergistic understanding of salvation.  Luther challenged the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church, launching the Protestant Reformation.  At this time, the arguments and doctrinal disagreements were between the Catholic Church and those who were "protesting" the teachings of the Catholic Church and leaving.  As time wore on, however, the next attack did not come from without the Protestant movement but from within.

Born in 1560 in the Netherlands, James Arminius was exceptionally bright.  Having lost his father at a very young age, a compassionate clergyman took responsibility for the raising of the child and saw to his education.  An intelligent young man with the ability to communicate well, Arminius was given thorough theological training in various schools.  He was licensed to preach in 1587 and became the pastor of an Amsterdam congregation in that same year.  He later became a professor at the University of Leiden in 1603 and stayed in that position until his death in 1609.  Over the span of his life, Arminius came to dismiss and flat out deny many of the teachings of the Reformation and went back to the semi-Pelagian thinking of Rome.  In 1610, a year after his death, several of those who had been influenced by his teaching drew up five articles of faith that were based upon his teachings.  These five points, eventually coming to be known as the five points of Arminianism, stood in direct opposition to what the church of Holland had been teaching since the Reformation.  These five points, also known as the Remonstrance or "protests", were taken before and presented to the Reformed church in Holland.  Those who presented these five articles insisted that the churches' statements of faith, the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism be changed and adapted to conform to the five points of Arminianism that they had drafted.

In November of 1618, there was convened a national "synod", or council, in the city of Dort.  The express purpose of this synod was to examine the views of the Arminians in light of the Scriptures.  This synod was actually an international meeting of some of the best theological minds in Europe.  There were close to 90 representatives from Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland.  Over the course of 6 months or so, until May of 1619, the Synod of Dort held over 150 sessions discussing the five points of the Arminians.  The result of the Synod was a resounding rejection of the five points of Arminianism.

The Synod concluded that merely repudiating what the Arminians said was not enough.  So, in response to the five points that the Arminians raised, the Synod drafted a response, point by point.  These five responses are commonly referred to as TULIP or what has become known as the five points of Calvinism.  They reaffirmed what the Reformed churches already confessed, as stated in the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism.  But not only that, they refuted the errors raised by the Arminians.  These positive affirmations and refutations of error are known as the Canons of Dort and they are just as important today as they were 400 years ago.

J.I. Packer wrote an introductory essay to John Owen's book "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ".  He included a summary of what the five points of Arminianism teach:

1.  Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor...

2.  Is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.

3.  God's election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.  (In other words, God elects those who first elect Him...my added commentary)

4.  Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

5.  It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost.  Thus, Arminianism made man's salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man's own work and, because his own, not God's in him.

Introductory Essay to "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen

Chapter 8 from "A Quest for Godliness:  The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life" 

by J.I. Packer

1958 Reprint of John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"

Banner of Truth:  London

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html

Basically, what we have encapsulated here in these five points is a return to the synergistic position of semi-Pelagianism and Roman Catholicism.  At the risk of being redundant, this is synergism...a combined effort between God, who takes the initiative and man, who must respond to God...with man's response being the ultimate determining factor in his salvation.  God has provided salvation for EVERYONE.....He has done all He can do by sending His Son to die.....but His death only becomes effective for those, who of their own free will and intelligence, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His grace.  In other words, man's eternal destiny turns on his own will.  It is the catalyst, the key ingredient, the straw that stirs the drink if you will.  So, therefore, it is man's good work of choosing, and not God, who is the determining agent in who receives the gift of grace.  This is synergism.

We talked briefly about the Synod's response to these five points earlier when we referred to TULIP.  Here is what the TULIP means and the corresponding point it is refuting in the five points of the Arminians:

T...otal Depravity.  A better term for this is radical corruption or absolute inability.  This is in response to the Arminian view of free will.

U...nconditional Election.  This is in response to the Arminian view of conditional election.

L...imited Atonement.  I think a better term for this is Particular Redemption.  This is in response to the Arminian view of general, or universal, redemption.

I...rresistible Grace.  Again, a better term for this is effectual grace.  This is in response to the Arminian view of resistible grace.

P...erseverance or preservation of the Saints.  This is in response to the Arminian view that a person, once saved by grace, can become unsaved.

In drafting these five responses, the leaders at Dort were merely reaffirming the teachings of Luther, Calvin and Augustine...that salvation is a work of the Triune God of the universe alone.  The Father chooses, or elects, people to be saved, the Son redeems them through His sacrifice on the cross and the Spirit applies this redemption to the chosen or elect by bringing them to repentance and faith.  The Spirit does this by regenerating the heart, causing the sinner to see himself for what he really is...a wicked creature deserving nothing but just condemnation.  When the sinner is regenerated, or born again, he willingly accepts the gospel message and the grace provided for him by Christ...it is irresistible, or effectual, to him because the Spirit is behind it, causing them to accept it.  The entire operation is a working of God.  It is by and through grace alone.  Therefore, it is the grace of God, and not the good work of man for being smart enough to choose, that determines who will be saved.  This is monergism.

Today, the evangelical landscape is littered with people who lack understanding in two important areas...who God is and who man is.  That is because they, in their corrupted mind, think it is not fair for God to pick and choose and have absolute sovereign control over His creation, doing with it as He pleases.  They also think that man really isn't that bad.  Down deep, most everybody is really pretty good.  When it comes to salvation, the majority of churches hold to an Arminian understanding.  It is all about you and making your choice.  That is what the Arminian believes.  Jesus died for every single person and it is up to them to improve, or accept, the grace that He gives them by exercising their free will.  There is just one problem with "free will":

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.  (John 8:34)

Our will is enslaved to sin...in a spiritual sense.  We are dead in sins and trespasses says Paul in Ephesians 2.  We have free will in one sense and one sense only.  We can choose what we want to eat tonight for supper.  We can choose what pair of pants to put on our body.  We can choose where we work.  That is as far as our will is "free".  Spiritually, our will is enslaved to sin.....dead.  We can choose nothing that is spiritually good:

"There is no one who does good, there is not even one".  (Romans 3:12)

  

"There is no righteous person, not even one; there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks out God".  (Romans 3:10-11)

That is our plight.  That is who we are.  That is where we stand.  Unless we are born again, our wills stay enslaved to sin and we:

"cannot see the kingdom of God".  (John 3:3)

We started this journey back in January with the post "The Gospel...An Introduction".  Two posts followed that...Laying the Foundation and Completing the Foundation.  Then we embarked on a discussion of the TULIP with a couple of posts on Total Depravity.  It then dawned on me that a look at some history in the church would be beneficial, both for me and you.  Thus began "The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 1".  Here we are at #6.  The reasoning behind the history was to show where these competing ideas came from.  It is important to understand that to some extent.  

I am going to repost those first two posts I did on Total Depravity..."The Gospel...Man's Sinfulness Part 1" and "The Gospel...Man's Sinfulness Part 2"...along side this last history lesson post.  Seems to me like they would make more sense after all of the history and this is where the history lesson ends. 

To demonstrate the error of this way of thinking on free will, I am going to end this post with the Prince of Preachers, C.H. Spurgeon.  He had his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek when he preached this many years ago.  But he hit the nail on the head when it comes to making the point he wanted to make....listen to his words:

Lord, I thank thee that I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists.  Lord, I was born with a glorious free will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace.  If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved...Thou gives grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do.  There are many who will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am.  It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - this is the difference between me and them.

C.H. Spurgeon

Volume One, New Park Street Pulpit 1855

Sermon 52 "Free Will - A Slave"