Why Did God Give People Free Will?

Theology
21

Synergism is not Pelagianism. Confusing the two is a very common mistake, particularly in Calvinist/Reformed circles where any system that involves human cooperation is sometimes loosely labeled “Pelagian” or “Semi-Pelagian”.

However, historically and dogmatically, they represent fundamentally different views on grace and human nature.

Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy precisely because it denied the absolute necessity of divine grace. What Pelagianism actually taught: Named after the 5th-century monk Pelagius, Pelagianism claimed: No Original Sin: Adam’s sin only hurt Adam. Humans are born morally neutral, in the same state Adam was before the Fall. It falsely claims that there is no need for internal Grace: Humans possess the innate, natural moral ability to keep God’s commandments and achieve salvation entirely on their own. We already know that is biblically incorrect.

Pelagius argued that “grace” merely meant God giving us free will, the Law, and Jesus’ good example to follow. Because Pelagianism taught that man can save himself through his own natural willpower without God’s internal transformation, it was condemned at the Council of Carthage (418) and the Council of Ephesus (431).

Then you have Semi-Pelagianism. A later variation, Semi-Pelagianism, acknowledged that humans are corrupted by sin and need divine grace. However, it argued: Man must take the first step toward God on his own (initium fidei). Once man reaches out to God, God steps in with grace to complete the process. Semi-Pelagianism was also condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Orange (529) because it taught that the initial desire for God originates in man rather than God. Again, we know this to be false. John 6:44, John 12:32, etc.

How Synergism differs, and why it is not Pelagian: Orthodox Synergism (held by Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Methodism/Arminianism, and Anglicanism) rejects both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism: Pelagianism says: “Man doesn’t need grace; he can choose God by his own strength.”

Semi-Pelagianism says: “Man must choose God first, and then God supplies the grace.”

Synergism says: “Man is completely helpless until God’s grace reaches out first. That grace frees man’s will so he can either accept or reject God.”

Therefore, holding to Synergism does not make someone a Pelagian. Synergism asserts that salvation is 100% initiated by God’s grace, but requires a real, unforced human response enabled by that very grace.

Be blessed, be a blessing.

Peter

22

Just to be clear, I wasn’t claiming Synergists are Pelagian; but rather was arguing that a view which holds that man can, by his own ability, attain righteousness before God by his own efforts is Pelagianism. For the reasons you outlined above concerning Pelagius’ doctrine.

The doctrine of prevenient grace isn’t Pelagian. Though I do disagree with it. Rather, the point I was aiming for was that I don’t think any [orthodox] Christian believes in total libertine free will. There is always an understanding that there is some level of inability within man to attain salvation by his own merits. As such “free will” is always nuanced in some way. Synergism teaches the will is sufficiently free, on account of a universal grace, to respond positively to God; not that the will is absolutely, totally, and perfectly free; otherwise we’d run into the problem of Pelagianism.

I disagree with Synergism, not because it’s Pelagian. But because it shifts the locus of salvation from the full and finished work of God in Christ and God’s gracious work alone to include my own ability, effort, and work. An act, no matter how small, still remains an act. The smallest effort is still an effort. The tiniest work is still a work.

If we were to speak of salvation by picturing it as how a man who has fallen into a pit gets out of the pit, then I think there are effectively three views:

  1. Christ stands at the top of the pit and invites the man to climb out. I would say this is Pelagianism.

  2. Christ lowers Himself into the pit, reaches out His hand, and invites the man to take hold of His hand, and Christ lifts the man out of the pit. This is Synergism.

  3. Christ descends fully into the pit, picks up the man into His arms, and carries the man out solely by His strength alone. This is Monergism.

I believe the third: Christ has fully descended to take us into His arms, for we were at the bottom of the pit, lifeless, dying, every bone fractured. Entirely unable to move, to call out for help on our own, not even to lift a finger–but Christ takes us fully into His arms, and lifts us out of the pit, mends our broken bodies. He has rescued us by Himself, and He fixes us, mends us.

There is, of course, a decision to follow Jesus to be made. But it’s the decision we must make every day. Every day, and all the moments throughout the day, constitute the choice, “Who will you serve?” with Jesus saying “Come, and follow Me”–and so the walk of discipleship happens not at the beginning with a moment of salvation flowing from a choice we make; but happens as Jesus calls out to us to follow Him, and having been given faith by the Holy Spirit, we are now invited, called, and commanded to be obedient.

The decision, the choice, is the penitent life of a disciple being sanctified; justification happens freely because Christ died once, and is risen; and the Gospel comes and the Holy Spirit works to breathe life into these dead bones–to make living faith in a dead corpse of a heart. I did not choose to “get saved”, Christ saved me. And Christ now says, every morning when I awake, “Come, take up your cross, follow Me.”

Do I succeed? Am I a faithful servant? Without question I am a worthless servant who continually falls backward on my own behind, for the passions of my flesh are a fire that burns–and I am the foolish moth drawn to the flame. Christ save me.

23

Well said, this is exactly where Luther and the Reformers would stand. Salvation is monergistic through and through, the aorist captures it perfectly, a completed act of God, not a cooperative effort. Man responds because God has first quickened, he never contributes to the quickening itself.

It’s telling to see the sheer variety of answers this question produces in one thread alone.

And the three pointers were excellent. Love it, @TheologyNerd.

J.

24

@TheologyNerd I attended an “independent” Baptist church (briefly), where the pastor and the members believed that every person who died before the Easter that followed the original Good Friday were currently in hell.

They were a little murky on the prophets who actually wrote books of the Bible, but thoroughly convinced that Adam, Eve, Noah - the list goes on, were excluded from Gods grace.

It seemed that unless you had walked the aisle at Stoney Branch Mountain Independent Baptist Church of the Bible (KJV), and had brother LeRoy pray and lay hands on you, your salvation was necessarily a bit sketchy.

Which brings me to my question (this is the easy one - the hard one comes next). How do you see God’s process being applied before the advent of Christ?

25

Lutherans, myself included, hold to Universal Atonement. Christ died for everyone. This isn’t universal salvation, it’s that Christ died for all human beings–without exception. And salvation has always been in Christ, the Old Testament saints were saved by grace, through faith, on account of Christ who would come, suffer, die, and rise again; and we, today, are saved by grace, through faith, on account of Christ who came, suffered, died, and rose again.

Christ’s once and perfect work is for all time and all people; all who would ever live. And, by the grace of God, through faith, sinners are justified for His sake. That is why it is written, “Abraham had faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and we–by faith–are the children of Abraham, whether Jew or Greek.

The real difficult questions are the impossible to answer ones. Such as, “What of those who never heard, of those who were unable to hear the word of the Gospel?” To which we can only trust in the mercy and perfect judgment of God, who St. Paul reminds us in his letter to his protégé’ Timothy, “is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.”

Other similarly hard, even impossible to answer questions, include what Lutherans call the Crux Theologorum, which is the question: Cur alii, alii non? Why some, not others?

From the Lutheran perspective both the Reformed and Arminian positions put a limit on the Atonement. The Reformed will say Christ only died for the elect. The Arminians will say Christ only died for those who would believe. The Lutheran says Christ died for everyone, even those who reject Christ and reject God’s mercy to the point of their own self-made damnation.

Because for Lutherans, damnation is not God choosing to send people to hell. Damnation is the result of human will. It is the will of man to damn himself, so man by his deliberate rejection of God condemns himself to hell. As Christ our Lord said, the Son did not come to condemn, but to save; and the condemnation is already–not because God, through His Son, condemns; but because men are sinful, in darkness, loving the works of darkness we do. We despise the light and prefer the darkness, so when the light comes into the world, we despise the light. For our deeds are evil.

1 Like
26

You see, we are so close. Just like Johann and me. You say three. OK, I can see your point. However, I believe two is true. If I decide to stay in the hole, Jesus will simply leave me there. Did He see me, love me, come to me? Yes. Did He offer me a way out? Yes. I would not be able to accept it if He did not. However, if I choose to reject Him, I stay in the pit and die.

When Jesus sent out the Disciples, did He say some will hear and be saved, some will not, so don’t bother? No, He said preach to all; however,

“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.” Matthew 10:14

Why would Jesus waste their time, and risk their lives, for a people that were already condemned? Then you have this in Revelation 22:17

“The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.”

Come, the invitation. Let those who are willing, the able, come free of charge because the price has been paid. Those who choose not to? Well, they do not. It is God’s desire that all are saved. John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4.

By saying He chooses who is saved and who is not, does He then fail? If it is solely up to him who is in the pit or not, why waste the time? If He does descend fully into the pit, pick up the man into His arms, and carry the man out solely by His strength alone, then the man is forced out of the pit, whether he wanted to be or not. Do you see the difference?

Yes. I’m in the pit. Yes, I may not even know this. No, I cannot get out on my own. Jesus repels and explains that I’m in a pit, and extends to me to the way out. If I say, “Yes, SAVE ME,” Then, Jesus will pick me up into His arms and carry me out solely by His strength alone. I did nothing myself; He did it all, but He does not force anyone anything.

Be blessed,

Peter

27

God wanted us as His friends and fellow workers.:+1::clap::smiling_face_with_sunglasses::innocent::united_kingdom:

1 Like
28

Yes - I think we have scriptural support for God’s principal of commensurate expectations.

We don’t judge a kid for failing second grade, if he actually tried to put in the work.

I think God expects much from those who have been given much. Others, not so much.

We wonder about Job’s history (or his friends for that matter) that formed his theology.

We know that conscience is a natural property. And I believe that humans are born with a primordial kernel of faith that responds to the Spirit, both by acknowledgement to and by rebellion against the Spirit as He brings conviction.

Since the days of Enosh, men and women have called on God. He knows our hearts. I mentioned the words of Jesus from the cross in a different thread - “forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”

Dispensationalism claims variability of relationship currency according to historical eras. I’m more of an “individual dispensationalist”. With the caveat that it’s ever and always the blood of Christ that saves. No other way, no other law, no other peace with God. Jesus alone.

1 Like