The Moral Law & Human Conscience

General Faith
21

KP, I deeply value the spirit in which you write, and I share your joy in the real unity we have in Christ. Ephesians 4 is a wonderful anchor for discussions like these, reminding us that our ultimate goal is growing together into the fullness of Him who is the head.

Thank you also for clarifying your position with the Lazarus illustration. That distinction makes perfect sense: you are describing a transformation of the heart in which a newly quickened soul freely and gladly responds to Christ, rather than a scenario of external coercion or forced obedience. Seeing how you frame that effectual work of grace helps clarify where your emphasis lies, and I appreciate you setting the record straight on what you do—and do not—proffer!

I think this touches the exact point of harmony we’re reaching for. I actually believe this is what I’m trying to explain. Perhaps you, I, @TCC and @Johann may agree? Scripture is clear that God always takes the first step, drawing us, awakening us, and softening our hearts. We cannot take a single step toward Him without His prior grace leading the way.

Where I place my emphasis is simply on what happens in that moment of divine initiative: God’s grace enables us, but it doesn’t bypass our responsibility. He opens the door and gives us the capacity to respond, yet choosing Him remains a genuine, free decision of the human will. Grace initiates, enables, and invites, but we must still actively choose to yield and follow.

Prevenient Grace (God Steps First): Humanity is incapable of initiating a relationship with God on its own. God must initiate by enlightening the mind and drawing the heart. God provides the ability to choose.

Enabling Choice vs. Automating Response: God’s grace does not replace human choice; it restores the power to choose. Grace frees the bound human will so that a real decision can be made.

Synergy in Response: While God gets 100% of the credit for providing the grace and enabling the rescue, the human being remains responsible for accepting or resisting that grace.

When God quickens a human heart or addresses us through the Moral Law, how does that divine action interact with the human conscience? Is the conscience a natural faculty that remains intact even in spiritual death, acting as a universal, internal witness to God’s moral standards, or is the conscience itself so affected that it, too, requires a kind of divine quickening before it can truly discern and respond to the Moral Law?

Be blessed, and be a blessing,

Peter

1 Like
22

Pastor Peter…

Few doctrines shape both mind and life like sanctification. As Calvinists study the doctrines of grace, a pressing question arises: Is sanctification monergistic or synergistic? This is no small matter. If we misframe sanctification as synergistic, God does His part, we do ours, we risk smuggling works back into the foundation of our standing before God, blurring justification and inviting either Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, or two-stage justification schemes.
Definitions
Monergism: God’s grace alone acts to save.
Synergism: God’s grace and man’s will cooperate as co-principles toward salvation.
Historically, these terms were first applied to regeneration. The question is whether they should be applied to sanctification.

What the Confessions Say

The Westminster Larger Catechism 35 defines sanctification as “the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”

That phrase, “the work of God’s free grace”-is decisive. Sanctification, like justification, is not earned but given.

What the Classical Theologians Say
Geerhardus Vos: “The gracious work of God whereby the justified believer is renewed by degrees in his whole nature, so that Christ is formed in him and he lives for God in good works” (Reformed Dogmatics, 4:191).

Francis Turretin: Sanctification is “the means by which God delivers the man planted in Christ by faith and justified… more and more from his native depravity and transforms him into his own image” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:689).

Louis Berkhof: “Sanctification is a divine operation in the soul, whereby the holy disposition born in regeneration is strengthened and its holy exercises are increased” (Systematic Theology, 532–34).

Wilhelmus à Brakel: “We repeat, sanctification is an efficacious work of God. God alone is its cause. As little as man can contribute to his regeneration, faith, and justification, so little can he contribute to his sanctification” (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3:4).
Vos again: “We do not sanctify ourselves. It is God who sanctifies” (Reformed Dogmatics, 4:192–94).

Why the Classical Writers Avoided “Synergism” for Sanctification

In the 20th century, some well-meaning theologians began calling sanctification “synergistic” to guard against “cheap grace” and to stress real human effort.
Yet Turretin, Bavinck, Berkhof, and Vos, though fully aware of the term, never described sanctification as synergistic. The word was historically bound to Arminian and Roman Catholic views of grace. Turretin described sanctification as both passive (wrought by God) and active (our Spirit-enabled striving), but he never called it synergistic. The Reformed confessions preferred the clearer language of monergism to guard against misunderstanding.

The Biblical Balance: God Works, We Strive

Philippians 2:12–13 (ESV): “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
The imperative is real: believers are commanded to exert themselves. But the ground is God’s prior, ongoing work. Our striving is genuine, yet it flows directly from the Spirit’s monergistic grace.
John 15:5: “I am the vine; you are the branches.” Branches do not decide to grow. All holiness flows from union with Christ through the Spirit.
Sanctification vs. Good Works

Vos helpfully distinguishes:
Sanctification is God’s work in us; good works are acts of ourselves for Him.
Sanctification is the source; good works are the waters that flow.
Through sanctification something new is brought into us; through good works something already present is expressed outwardly.
Confusing the two reduces sanctification to pietism.

Why This Matters Pastoral
If sanctification depended on my faltering strength, I would never find assurance. Knowing it is God who works in me gives courage when I stumble and hope when progress feels slow.
Sanctification is not our offering to God; it is His gracious gift to us. We strive for holiness not to earn eternal life, but because our Father is holy and we long to reflect Him.
Conclusion
Classical Reformed theology consistently teaches that sanctification is monergistic in its source and power, yet active in us by the Spirit. Our striving is real, but derived from the Spirit’s work. Grace is the beginning, the middle, and the end of salvation.
“Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23, ESV).

https://heidelblog.net/2025/09/monergistic-sanctification-the-reformed-consensus/#:~:text=Monergistic%20Sanctification%3A%20The,ANTHONY%20FAGGIANO

…and…The Greek word group for “working together” (συν-εργία, sun-ergia) does appear in the New Testament, but Scripture distinguishes carefully between the contexts in which believers “work together with” God and the contexts in which God works alone. The Reformed tradition has therefore been precise about what kind of “synergism” the Bible teaches.

Any form of synergism, which says that God does part of the work of salvation while mankind does the rest, is false. If a person must muster faith, be baptized, join a church, continue in good works, etc., then that is synergism and is clearly unbiblical. No human work or merit can be added to God’s grace without destroying grace (Romans 11:6).

J.

23

@TCC

I’m not sure how much more I should add to this thread, but I do feel compelled to share some kind of response to your post #18.

Candidly, I had no idea what “JMac” is, and I had to look it up. Did you attend Grace Community Church? Was that where “the drama” occurred that you now see as providential? I admit, I know nothing about that gathering first hand, so I am not qualified to comment on what you call their “very mature and nuanced demonstration of some orthopraxy”, and “orthopraxy grand theater play out on the national stage”. I ponder those descriptions, and I’m still not sure what you mean.

Are you saying that Grace Community Church practices some strongly-held, extra-biblical traditions and expects congregational compliance to their community standards, compliance to which you were unwilling to yield? Honestly, I’m grasping for your meaning. I am also just as ignorant of “G3 Ministries” and their connection to what you call the “JMac empire”. I also had to look up your statement “Beth Moore Go home”, as I had no idea (or personal interest in) of that controversy from 2019. I know these things happen, and I largely stay out of them. The church is made up of people who are all in process of becoming perfect, yet no one, including you and me, has yet to arrive. We all speak without thinking at times, I’m sure.

I’m not asking for explanation, or even a history lesson on various congregations, I’m just letting you know that when you make these kinds of pejorative references, they are mostly lost on me. I have no basis of reference to understand the trauma, (or drama as you refer to it) that you endured, and how it may have shaped your present walk with Jesus.

I do read, in your explanation, that you left Christianity for four years out of despair with “the church”, but returned to the same fold to uncover what went wrong the first time. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon in my Church experience. While it does happen, it is not according to the divine design. I’m sorry it happened to you.

I read with interest your digression into mankind becoming “more real with each other over time. And more self aware” which you credit, in part, to the advent of the internet. You say:

I really have no response to that, because I’m not sure I understand your assertations. I think I’ll just leave it there and let it speak for itself.

…continued

1 Like
24

Finally, I’d like to comment on your views of the two stories we have been talking about; the raising of Lazarus, and the “Prodigal son”. If you will allow it, I’d like to remind you of some principals of Biblical interpretation that may bring some additional clarity to these two episodes, not just as stories to which we may relate, but intentional teachings from God for the purpose of understanding. I understand that you best relate your own new birth to the story of the prodigal son; “apples to apples” so to speak.

If we are truly yielding to the teaching of the Scriptures, we will find some reliable consistencies that help us understand what is being taught. This is not “scriptural poetic license”, but hearing with the new ears we have been gifted with.

The story of the prodigal son is a parable. As such it is a fictitious story with a double-edged tactical purpose. Jesus was a master of the parable. Scriptures teach us:

All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.” (Matthew 13:34-35)

When His disciples asked him why he spoke to the crowds in parables he said:

“To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’(quoting Isaiah 6:9-10)” (Mark 4:11-12)

Do you see the double edge? The story of the prodigal son was the third parable spoken in succession to specific situation found in Luke 15:1-3; (1) the parable of the lost sheep, (2) the parable of the lost coin, and (3) the parable of the lost son.

“All the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Jesus to hear Him.” Note the audience for the parable.

And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.”

So [ for THIS REASON] He spoke this parable to them…”

These complaining Pharisees were, to Jesus, lost sheep, lost value, lost precious family members. Jesus told this parable to convict the lost of Israel of their lostness, and His coming to reclaim them. This parable is not about salvation. That will come later.

The story of Jesus’ friend Lazarus dying, being buried, and then risen to new life is a real event, and not a parable. We know very little about him except that Jesus loved him, and he was the brother to Martha and Mary, devoted disciples. Jesus explains why he is going to raise him from the dead by saying:

“This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” (John 11:4). Glorifying Jesus is consistent with other places in scripture, such as:

For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:20)

That the church “may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:6)

These (and other) consistencies make the physical and temporal resurrection of Lazarus a clear analogy (not poetic license) to what the apostle was teaching in Romans 6, and Ephesians 2.
“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins…”

I surely understand, given your history, why the prodigal son may resonate with your personal journey, but our unfailing aim is to disallow ourselves to read into scripture what we resonate with personally. Our aim is to yield to it, and encourage our own receptivity to yield to God’s teaching through it.

In your service
KP

1 Like
25

So much as a single idea can attempt to describe salvation, monergism is the only biblically viable option. Salvation is God’s work, pure and simple. “Salvation belongs to the Lord” (Psalm 3:8, ESV; cf. Jonah 2:9; Revelation 7:10). Synergism denies the grace of God and attempts to give mankind some credit.

A strict form of monergism says that faith is entirely the gift of God, part of the grace He bestows on us (see Ephesians 2:8 –9). God chooses us, regenerates us, gives us the faith to believe in Christ, and seals us.

A looser form of monergism suggests that faith depends on the will of man, but man is incapable of exercising faith until he is granted grace from God. Theologians call this “prevenient grace,” which frees the will of a depraved sinner to choose whether (or not) to place his faith in Christ. Because the faith is enabled by God, it is not a meritorious work on man’s part. Faith receives grace, but faith is not causal. Taking this view, some forms of Arminianism can still claim to be monergistic.

But are they, @PeterC? And my sincere apologies for bringing up what I understand to be the Reformed, biblical position, and probably derailing the thread.

We really do need to test everything against Scripture, whether it comes from the Reformers, Arminians, Pelagius, Semi-Pelagians, or doctrines such as Prevenient Grace, Leighton Flowers, and a whole host of other theological positions. Scripture has to be the standard by which we test all of them.

I play guitar, brother, and I love the pentatonic scales. I can usually hear immediately when I’ve played a wrong note. In much the same way, when we know the Scriptures well, we should be able to recognize when something doesn’t quite harmonize with the whole counsel of God.

God bless, not trying to be facetious or combative brother.

Johann.

1 Like
26

John F. MacArthur brother.

J.

27

Pastor @PeterC

This is simply lovely, and much appreciated. In much of what you shared, our hearts are unified, as is our eternal purpose. As we have spoken privately, I think the POV you have shared is commendable, and honorable as the only reasonable response from within the maze. If a man discounts his personal initiative, neglects his personal obligations, and, to some degree, abdicates personal responsibilities to which we have all been instructed to attend, there is great danger of that person slipping into apathy, and indifference; “Oh! What’s the use” mode. A danger to be avoided at all costs, and so it costs us all. There is no argument that we have been taught to give all that we have in diligence, duty, and devotion to the one we know made us whole. That devotion begins the moment our spiritual eyes are opened, and we take our first spiritual breath.

Thanx for your pastoral post.

KP

1 Like
28

One question here KP.

… when you speak of ‘personal initiative,’ do you mean that the spiritually dead sinner has an inherent ability to initiate faith in Christ, or that God first opens his spiritual eyes and enables him to believe, after which he personally responds?

I think there is an important distinction here that may help us. I certainly agree that once our spiritual eyes have been opened, the believer is not called to passivity or indifference. Scripture repeatedly commands the believer to exercise personal diligence, obedience, devotion, and perseverance. In fact, there is a genuine sense in which the believer cooperates with the Holy Spirit in sanctification. Paul says, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” immediately grounding that command in the fact that “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12–13). Likewise, Romans 8:13 says, “if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” The believer genuinely puts sin to death, but does so “by the Spirit.” Galatians 5:16 commands us to “walk by the Spirit,” and Galatians 5:25 says that if we live by the Spirit, we are to “keep in step with the Spirit.”

Interestingly, the New Testament even uses σύν-compounds that communicate participation and union. Romans 8:16 speaks of the Spirit bearing witness “with” our spirit, συμμαρτυρεῖ, while Romans 8:17 speaks of suffering with Christ, συμπάσχομεν, and being glorified with Him, συνδοξασθῶμεν. Romans 6:4 speaks of being buried with Christ, συνετάφημεν, Romans 6:6 of being crucified with Him, συνεσταυρώθη, and Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ,” συνεσταύρωμαι. The believer is therefore not an inactive spectator in the Christian life. Having been united to Christ and indwelt by the Spirit, he is commanded and enabled to actively pursue holiness.

Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 3:9 is also fascinating: “For we are God’s fellow workers,” θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί. And in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul can say, “I worked harder than any of them,” yet immediately adds, “though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” That seems to capture the biblical balance beautifully. Paul genuinely worked, but God’s grace was working in and through Paul. The believer’s activity does not compete with God’s activity. Rather, God’s gracious activity produces and enables the believer’s activity.

Where I think we need to be particularly careful, however, is in carrying this language back into regeneration. The biblical texts describing sanctification are addressed to those who are already spiritually alive. The command to walk by the Spirit, put sin to death, pursue holiness, and work diligently is given to believers who already possess the Spirit. That is quite different from saying that the spiritually dead person cooperates with God in becoming spiritually alive. Philippians 2:12–13, for example, does not say that God and an unregenerate man cooperate to produce regeneration. It says to those who are already Christ’s that they must work out what God is already working in them.

So I am very much with you regarding personal responsibility once God has made us alive. I would simply distinguish between the believer’s cooperation with the Spirit in sanctification and the question of what brings the spiritually dead sinner from death to life. Scripture seems remarkably consistent in placing God’s life-giving work first, and then calling the regenerated believer to active faith, obedience, diligence, and devotion. In other words, I have no problem speaking of a biblical “synergy” in sanctification, provided we don’t use that same category to explain regeneration.

Perhaps the real question for us, then, is not whether the believer has personal initiative and responsibility. Scripture clearly says he does. The question is whether that personal initiative begins before or after God’s life-giving work. That, I think, is where we need to let Scripture itself decide rather than allowing either the Reformers, Arminians, Pelagius, or any other theological system to decide for us.

J.

1 Like
29

I noticed you gave this a “like,” @KPuff. That being said, I do concur with Reformed theology and the Westminster Confession, and that’s simply where I stand.

For me, the Bible becomes an open book, illuminated through the Holy Spirit and something to be lived out and put into daily practice. In other words, this is not merely a matter of “head knowledge,” but something that goes 18 inches deeper, into the lev, the heart. That is what makes all the difference between someone who merely professes to be a believer and a genuine Christian.

Just thought I’d let you know brother.

J.

30

Bro. @Johann

I think you stated it well.

I think you see it as I do, and mostly as Pastor Peter does too. The small distinction I think I perceive is that our friend and brother stands steadfast on the possibility that, once The Spirt of God infuses a soul with His grace to believe, and Jesus says “rise from the dead”, the dead man can still say “no, I’d rather remain dead”, but the newly-born saint must say “yes, hosanna (save me) Jesus” before the processes of new life can begin. I concur with our brother in that the divine directive to make a concerted response to His call is clearly stated in The Bible and cannot be marginalized:

And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.’ (Acts 2:21)

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts 8:37)

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ (Acts 22:16)

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” (Romans 10:8-13)

Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” (the call)

And he who had died came out (the response) bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.” (John 11:43-44)

Both the call and the response are so closely coupled that they cannot be separated. I know we speak of “irresistible grace”, but even those hard-liners will concede, “The doctrine teaches that God does not drag people into heaven kicking and screaming against their conscious desires. Instead, God renews the heart and changes the will, turning what was once despised into something deeply desired so that the sinner comes freely and joyfully.” (Ligonier ministries). I say “When God offers life from the dead, no one says no.”

Aside, there is the greatest possibility that, once the sons of glory are revealed, and we are brought into the full knowledge of who we are, and what Jesus God has done for, and in, us we will all be straightened on this point; we will all sigh a “ooohhh, now I see it. Personally, I doubt the salvation process is rigorously fixed, from Heaven’s perspective, but allows for some variation or divine compensation within the righteousness of God’s gracious purview. It is known, and well accepted, that God still brings some into glory who have either greatly reduced capacity, or no capacity at all to publicly respond in the same way you and I did.

I hope this clarifies my personal POV. I remain, like Habakkuk:
“I will stand my watch And set myself on the rampart, And watch to see what He will say to me, And what I will answer when I am corrected. “

Peace and unity within The Body of Christ for testimony of The Truth
KP

1 Like
31

KP, brother, I think this whole post helps clarify your position considerably, and I find myself agreeing with much of what you have written. I certainly agree that Scripture commands us to believe, call upon the Lord, confess Christ, repent, and respond to the Gospel. I don’t think anyone here wants to marginalize those commands. The question I am trying to isolate is what exactly happens on the other side of that command, when God actually gives life to the spiritually dead.

You wrote that our brother appears to believe that once the Spirit of God “infuses a soul with His grace to believe” and Jesus says, “rise from the dead,” the dead man can still say, “no, I’d rather remain dead.” Then you say, “I say, when God offers life from the dead, no one says no.” If I understand you correctly, that sounds much closer to the position that God’s life-giving call actually produces the response, rather than merely making a response possible. Is that what you mean?

Your Lazarus illustration is particularly interesting. Jesus says, “Lazarus, come forth,” and Lazarus comes forth. You identify the first as the call and the second as the response, which I understand. But Lazarus was not first given a neutral ability to decide whether he wanted to live. Christ’s command itself brought about the life and movement that followed. Lazarus did not cooperate with Christ in making himself alive. He responded because Christ gave him life. I wonder whether this is actually a useful analogy for the distinction we are discussing.

Likewise, I agree completely that Romans 10:8–13 teaches that the one who believes and calls upon the Lord will be saved. The question is not whether the sinner must believe. Scripture plainly says that he must. The question is why one person believes while another does not. Is the decisive difference ultimately found in the human response, or in the grace of God that gives life, opens the heart, and causes the person to come willingly? That seems to me to be the deeper question underneath our discussion.

This is also why I am interested in your statement that you “doubt the salvation process is rigorously fixed, from Heaven’s perspective, but allows for some variation or divine compensation within the righteousness of God’s gracious purview.” I would really appreciate you unpacking that part, because it seems to introduce a separate proposition from everything you have said before.

When you speak of “variation,” do you mean that God can regenerate someone who, because of greatly reduced or nonexistent capacity, cannot make the same outward profession of faith that you and I can? If so, I can understand that you are speaking about a variation in the circumstances and manner in which God’s grace is manifested, rather than a variation in the necessity of God’s saving work.

Or do you mean that God sometimes regenerates a person before faith and sometimes after faith? That would seem to be a much larger claim about the order of salvation, and I would want to see where Scripture teaches that variation.

Or, thirdly, do you mean that God can save someone without faith altogether because that person lacks the capacity to exercise faith? If that is what you mean, then I think we would need to examine that very carefully from Scripture, because that would be a substantially different proposition from saying that God graciously accommodates someone who cannot make a normal public profession.

I also noticed that you say, “God still brings some into glory who have either greatly reduced capacity, or no capacity at all to publicly respond in the same way you and I did.” I think the word “publicly” may be important here. Are you saying that such a person may still receive the same saving grace of God but simply cannot make the same outward response, or are you suggesting that God can save apart from the inward response of faith itself?

I ask because I think there is a significant distinction between saying that faith is unnecessary for salvation and saying that the outward expression of faith may be impossible for some people because of their circumstances or capacity. Those are not the same thing.

Finally, I appreciate your statement that we should stand watch like Habakkuk and be willing to be corrected. I think that is exactly the spirit in which this discussion should continue. I am not trying to force you into Calvinism, Arminianism, synergism, monergism, or any other theological camp. I would simply like us to take the propositions one at a time and ask what Scripture actually says.

And perhaps the most important question is this: when Christ says “Lazarus, come forth,” does the divine command merely make Lazarus’s response possible, or does the command itself give life so that the response necessarily follows? Because if the latter is what you mean by “when God offers life from the dead, no one says no,” then I think we may actually be much closer in our understanding of divine initiative than we initially appeared to be.

Decided to rewrite this @KPuff.

J.

32

@Johann

I’m glad I was too busy to respond immediately, and waited until after your “re-write”. I surely understand your questions, and hopefully I can offer an acceptable response without getting long-winded. I have no gift for concision however. Let’s see.

I don’t think anyone thinks salvation happens without faith, because so much scripture pairs essential faith with salvation. Part of the diversity in opinion seems to stem from people’s ideas of the origin of faith, is it purely a gift from God, or is it man’s wise and dutiful response to God’s call. I personally believe the scriptures teach that faith is an unearned gift from God; a supernatural, God-given awakening that overcomes a man’s rebellious resistance, brings him to acknowledge his need, recognizes God as his Lord and His loving redemption, and infuses a man with a desire to submit to Godly counsel (The Word of God). I believe faith is God’s gift that compells us to take God at His word. This gift is given to a man before he wants it, before he pursues it, and often, if not usually before he has ever entertained the need for God at all. Faith is what Jesus (and His disciples) recognized was brewing in another person that prompted Jesus (and His disciples) to announce what God was doing in them. This same faith that opens a person’s eyes to Gods redemption also opened some people’s eyes to the Godly ability of Jesus to heal their temporal malady. Jesus recognized faith being active in those he healed, and often said so, just as Peter and John recognized it being active in the temple beggar when Peter proclaimed “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." (Acts 3:6). Peter and John did not heal this man, they recognized the man’s faith and Jesus’s intention to heal him as a “sign”. This “sign” of healing pointed those of faith to the reality of Jesus God pouring out His grace to heal men of their sin and give them new life born from above. Peter acknowledged his inability to “heal” when he said “Men of Israel, why do you marvel at this? Or why look so intently at us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? (Acts 3:12). Faith was active in the beggar, and Peter announced what Jesus was doing. OK. That’s “faith” to me.

Now on to the next question – “Why do I believe salvation process may not be rigorously fixed, but allow for some “variation” or “allowances” in the necessity of a human response”. It can be discerned from various passages that God regularly chooses those who the world despises; He chooses the outcasts from the highways and byways, the underprivileged, the poor and the meek, smallest of the clan, the weakest of the tribes, the hated, the least likely, or the least capable, always to demonstrate His magisterial position and so no flesh should ever think they have leverage with, or are on-level with God.

“For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-29).

I suppose God regularly marks some people for salvation who are incapable of responding without assistance. Among them may be the mentally handicap, the medically comatose, or even a thief dying on a cross. The group that often raises the most conversation would be infants, children, and aborted babies. These conditions do not seem to be outside God’s ability to offer them new life simply because the person is incapable of making the required response. I have told you before, my wife and I lost our first daughter six minutes after she was born. She had no gospel preached to her, she had no ability to respond. So, I’m not 100% sure, but I sure do maintain strong hope that I will meet her again in glory. I maintain the strong belief that the Creator God of the Universe always does right, and no matter what he does, I will always agree with Him! When King David’s son died at birth the King said : “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:22-23)

As long as we preach the gospel of Good news, we preach repentance, and an obedient response to the call of God. There are some to whom we can preach, but we cannot expect the same kind of response. There are some to whom we cannot even preach, but must leave their mortal souls in the loving hands of our Righteous God, praying on their behalf for God’s mercy and for His Glory to be revealed through their salvation.

I hpe this conversation is appropriate to this thread: Moral Law and Human Conscience.

KP

1 Like
33

Yes, I’m afraid I was the one who caused us to drift off topic. My apologies.

The Bible speaks matter-of-factly about children who do not know enough “to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isaiah 7:16). One reason people are guilty before God, Romans 1 says, is that they refuse to acknowledge what is “clearly seen” and “understood” concerning God (verse 20). People who, upon seeing and evaluating the evidence of nature, reject God are “without excuse.” This raises some questions: If a child is too young to know right from wrong and possesses no capacity for reasoning about God, then is that child exempted from judgment? Will God hold babies responsible for not responding to the gospel, when they are incapable of understanding the message? We believe that granting saving grace to babies and young children, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, is consistent with God’s love and mercy.

In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind. After the physical healing, the man goes through a process of receiving his spiritual sight. At first, the man is ignorant; he knows Jesus’ name but not where to find Him (John 9:11–12). Later, he arrives at the truth that Jesus is a prophet (verse 17) and that He is from God (verse 33). Then, in speaking to Jesus, the man admits his ignorance and his need for the Savior. Jesus asks him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” and the man replies, “Who is he, sir? . . . Tell me so that I may believe in him” (verses 35–36). Finally, having seen the light spiritually, he says, “Lord, I believe,” and worships Jesus (verse 38).

Following the expression of faith from the man born blind, Jesus encounters some spiritually blind Pharisees: “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.’ Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What? Are we blind too?’ Jesus said, ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains’” (John 9:39–41). In other words, Jesus says, “If you were truly ignorant [blind], you would have no guilt. It’s because you are not ignorant—you are willfully unbelieving—that you stand guilty before God.”

The principle Jesus lays down in John 9 is that God does not condemn people for things they are unable to do. “Sin is measured by the capacities or ability of people, and by their opportunities of knowing the truth. If people had no ability to do the will of God, they could incur no blame. If they have all proper ability, and no disposition, God holds them to be guilty” (Albert Barnes, New Testament Notes: Explanatory and Practical, ed. by Robert Frew, Baker Book House, Vol. 1, “Jn. 9:41,” 1983, p. 285). According to this principle, babies and young children who are unable to accept or reject Christ are not held accountable for unbelief.

Before people mature enough to discern right from wrong (sometimes called reaching “the age of accountability”), it would seem that they are not held responsible by God. Toddlers sin, and they bear Adam’s corrupt nature, but lacking the ability to understand the concept of right and wrong, they are under God’s grace, in our opinion.

Other biblical anecdotes (e.g., David testifying that he would be reunited with his dead child after death in 2 Samuel 12:23) support the reasonable belief that infants go to heaven when they die. The same holds true for those with mental disabilities who cannot comprehend right and wrong.

I believe Got Questions gives a reasonable and biblical response here. Just between us, brother, and then I’ll leave the thread, I’m not a hardcore Calvinist.

Shalom.

J.

34

KP, when you say ‘faith was active in the beggar,’ are you saying that this man already possessed faith as a God-given gift, or that faith is a capacity naturally present in people which God responds to? And do you understand Acts 3:16 as saying that the man’s faith originated from God, or that Peter and John merely recognized faith that was already present in him?

Quote from Barnes…

Through faith in his name - By means of faith in him; that is, by the faith which Peter and John had in Jesus. It does not refer to any faith that the man had himself, for there is no evidence that he believed in him. But it was by means of the faith which the apostles exercised in him that the miracle was performed, and was thus a fulfillment of the declaration in Mat_17:20, “If ye have faith …ye shall to this mountain, remove hence,” etc. This truth Peter repeats two or three times in the verse to impress it more distinctly on the minds of his hearers.

Through faith (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει)
Note the article: the faith which we had; not the cripple’s faith, which was not demanded as a condition of his cure. Through faith (ἐπί) is rather on account of, or on the basis of. Rev., by. Compare Act_2:38; and see on Mat_28:19.

Acts 3:16 attributes the man’s healing to Jesus’ name and speaks of “the faith which is through Him,” but it does not explicitly identify that faith as the beggar’s faith or Peter and John’s faith.

Acts of the Apostles 3:16
16 καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ τοῦτον ὃν θεωρεῖτε καὶ οἴδατε ἐστερέωσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ πίστις ἡ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τὴν ὁλοκληρίαν ταύτην ἀπέναντι πάντων ὑμῶν.

By faith in his name, his name has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which is through him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Here is the Moffat…

Act 3:16 (He it is who has given strength to this man whom you see and know, by faith in His name; it is the faith He inspires which has made the man thus hale and whole before you all.)

Word for Word translation…

“And upon the faith of the name of Him, this one whom you see and know, His name made strong, and the faith which is through Him gave to him this completeness before all of you.”

Notice that Luke does not write “his faith” referring to the beggar. He writes “the faith which is through Him.” That is why I would be very cautious about saying the Greek explicitly teaches that the beggar’s own faith was the instrument that produced the healing.

I’ll leave you with this, you don’t need to answer and it’s very late here.
Apologies for the edits.

J.

35

You keep making a strict semantic and dogmatic distinction: because the source, power, and ultimate cause of sanctification rest entirely in the Holy Spirit’s gracious operation, sanctification must be classified as monergistic in root, lest human effort be treated as a co-equal cause (co-principle) with divine grace.

However, this is not what I have ever said. While God gets 100% of the credit for providing the grace and enabling the rescue, the human being remains responsible for accepting or resisting that grace. This highlights the very reason why I, along with many orthodox Christian theologians (and even a sizable contingent within Reformed and Protestant thought), use the term synergistic or cooperative when describing sanctification.

You keep operating under a strict category protection scheme. Your main concerns seem to be:

Category confusion. Historically, synergism referred to the Melanchthonian/Arminian/Roman Catholic view of initial regeneration. Meaning that the unregenerate human will cooperates with prevenient grace to bring about the new birth. You are guarding against applying that same framework to sanctification, fearing it leads to a “God does 50%, I do 50%” mentality.

You quote Geerhardus Vos: sanctification is God’s internal renewal of the soul (the cause), while good works are the active exercises of the believer (the effect). Because God alone transforms the disposition, you insist the transformation itself is monergistic. If human effort is a co-cause of growth in holiness, then a believer’s assurance fluctuates based on daily performance rather than God’s preserving grace.

Why is " synergistic " frequently used for Sanctification? Your rejection of the word synergism in sanctification is a feature of a specific Reformed scholastic taxonomy, but it is not the universal language of broader Christian dogmatics, nor even of all Reformed theologians (e.g., John Murray, Anthony Hoekema, and J.I. Packer routinely speak of sanctification as cooperative or synergistic in a non-Synergist/non-Arminian sense).

Here is why our dynamic of human activity/responsibility remains central. Active vs. passive duty
In justification and regeneration, the sinner is strictly passive (passiva). God raises a corpse to life (Ephesians 2:5). The dead man does not cooperate in his own resurrection. In sanctification, however, the believer is commanded to be active (activa).

Scripture uses explicit action verbs targeting the renewed human will: “mortify the deeds of the body” (Romans 8:13), “flee sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18), “put off the old self” (Ephesians 4:22), and “run with endurance” (Hebrews 12:1). If sanctification were monergistic in the same sense as regeneration, then holiness would happen automatically without human exertion, vigilance, or struggle.

You note that synergia appears in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 3:9, Paul calls believers “God’s fellow workers” (θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί, theou gar esmen synergoi). In 2 Corinthians 6:1, he calls us those who “working together with him [God], beseech you…” While these passages specifically address ministry and gospel labor, they establish a biblical precedent. That is, God works through activated human agency, not by bypassing human volition.

Philippians 2:12–13 is the locus classicus for this debate.

“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

This text demonstrates an asymmetrical synergy. Human Command: “Work out your own salvation” (Active responsibility).

Divine Ground: “For it is God who works in you” (Enabling grace).

God’s action does not void human action; it causes human action. The human being really wills and really works, but does so because God gives the willing and the working. Calling this “monergism” accurately protects the source (God), but calling it “synergism/cooperation” accurately describes the phenomenon (a real human agent acting responsibly).

I think we can agree, as most would, that God receives 100% of the glory for enabling the work. However, I and many others believe that the believer remains 100% accountable for exercising the grace given. If not, none of it matters. God is God; we are not; therefore He saves who He wishes and condemns those He wishes. That is not the Scripture I know.

Peter

1 Like
36

See, this is a straight-up lie. Or, which I hope is the truth, a gross misunderstanding of my and many others’ position. You are becoming frustrating because you are redefining standard theological terms to make your specific position the only “orthodox” option while accusing everyone else of “denying grace.”

This latest statement contains a massive historical and logical error. Calling Arminian prevenient grace a “looser form of monergism.” No classic Arminian, Lutheran, or Reformed theologian would ever call Arminianism “monergistic.” Arminianism is, by definition, the textbook historical example of synergism in initial salvation. By trying to relabel Arminianism as “loose monergism,” You are shifting the goalposts so that you get to define “synergism” strictly as “heretical self-salvation.”

Here lets talk about what you are doing. You assert that “Synergism denies the grace of God and attempts to give mankind some credit.”

Synergism simply means co-operation. In classical Christian theology (from Eastern Orthodoxy to Wesleyanism to broad Protestantism), synergism in sanctification does not mean human merit earns salvation; it means the Holy Spirit empowers real, active human agency. By defining synergism as inherently boastful and merit-seeking, you set up a strawman where any emphasis on human responsibility automatically “denies grace.”

You are mislabeling Arminianism. You claim that Arminian prevenient grace is a “looser form of monergism.”

Jacobus Arminius and his successors explicitly rejected monergism. Prevenient grace in Arminian theology frees the human will, but the decisive factor in whether someone is saved is the human choice to accept or resist that grace. Because two agents (God providing grace, man exercising an uncoerced choice) must cooperate for salvation to occur, it is historically and definitionally synergistic. Calling it “monergism” confuses the entire historical debate.

The equivocation between regeneration and Sanctification. You keep blurring the line between how a dead sinner is brought to life (Regeneration) and how a living believer grows in holiness (Sanctification).

Regeneration (Monergistic): A spiritual corpse cannot cooperate in its own resurrection (Ephesians 2:1–5). God acts alone to impart spiritual life.

Sanctification (Cooperative / Active): A resurrected person is commanded to walk, run, resist, and obey. God gives the power, but the person must actually do the walking. When Paul says, “Work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you” (Philippians 2:12–13), he is describing an empowered human being acting, not God acting instead of the human.

YES. We cannot seek God, desire to know the Word, or even hear it, without God. However, saying man has no choice violates the very Word of God, when it says we must choose.

Peter

1 Like
37

Amen! Johann said to you:

First, notice the arrogance. “When you speak of ‘personal initiative,’ do you mean that the spiritually dead sinner has an inherent ability to initiate faith in Christ?” This is not how I see it, so anyone who does not agree is wrong. This is not the case. “That God first opens his spiritual eyes and enables him to believe, after which he personally responds?” Which is what I have been saying.

But then he seems to admit he agrees, “I think there is an important distinction here that may help us. I certainly agree that once our spiritual eyes have been opened, the believer is not called to passivity or indifference. Scripture repeatedly commands the believer to exercise personal diligence, obedience, devotion, and perseverance. In fact, there is a genuine sense in which the believer cooperates with the Holy Spirit in sanctification.”

But here is the problem. This is not possible in the view that God is the only one who chooses who is saved and who is not, and we have no free will. We would not be able to “Work out our salvation,” nor be able to "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

It would not be possible. God said, it is so. Does not matter what we do, how we do it. God marks some for salvation and some for destruction. We are simply pawns, and we have no say. You really cannot have it both ways.

@Johann I know you are reading this and perhaps getting angry. Sorry. That is not my intent. But I seriously do not believe you fully understand what you are trying to say. Not an attack, rather clarification. We can, without a doubt, come together in unity on everything else in the Word.

To both of you, be blessed and be a blessing.

Peter

2 Likes
38

Have a great day in Christ Jesus,

J.

1 Like
39

Have a great day in Messiah Yeshua.

J.

1 Like
40

The Moral Law & Human Conscience - #29 by Johann.

Where I agree with KP.

J.