Scripturally speaking

[bradfordl]

I high-lighted part of what you stated in bold, to show where you are indicating that there is something we do, but not before God works upon our heart. And I agree. At the same time I see you referring to acts that we do after God works upon our heart.
In your comments you are referring to the monergistic act of God alone by His Spirit working upon hearts. The key word in your comment is "before" Then you list things we are able to do after, but not before God first does His work on hearts. The things you mention that we are able to do after God works on our heart include 1. Believe 2. Repent 3. participate in the sanctification process, etc.

As GrinningDwarf pointed out, these synergistic actions that follow regeneration are the inevitable products of that regeneration. As I stated above, salvation and sanctification are categorically different. Sanctification will accompany salvation, and as you said earlier, progressively. At different measures for different folks according to the will of God.

You seem to want to include all of the evidences of regeneration (the behavioural changes the follow it) in the word salvation, but the act of salvation is God's work upon us. We don't save ourselves. Sanctification is the fruit we bear of that salvation.

If I plant an apple seed, water it and fertilize it, it will bear fruit. That fruit is a product of my monergistic effort of planting. The apples did not assist me in any way in that. Not a perfect analogy, but it may help.

So basically your referring to both monergism and synergism, in so many words, without actually admitting that both of them have a place and time in the Ordus Salutis. One last remark. If regeneration precedes faith, and we cannot be saved without faith, then it's is not totally correct to state that "regeneration is salvation" since it precedes faith, belief, and repentance.

We cannot be apple trees without apples. Faith, the gift, comes to those He regenerates. So instead of saying we cannot be saved without faith, it is more appropriate to say we will not be saved without faith, or that God will not save us without giving us faith.

Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

And

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

In the ordo salutis, the parts of that order are descriptions of the effects of salvation, generally they are:

1. Effectual Call
2. Regeneration
3. Conversion
4. Justification
5. Adoption
(all above monergistic)
6. Sanctification (synergistic but inevitable and impossible without the above)
7. Glorification (monergistic)

So the only synergistic part of this description of the effects of God's saving us is sanctification, and even that is initiated, enabled, and carried out by Him in us according to His pre-ordained plan by His Holy Spirit in us. That is not a "part" of salvation, it is a product of salvation.

SDG,

Brad

 

[bradfordl]

Can you please give me a Scripture which specifically says that?

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

And:

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

And:

1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

And:

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Can you please give me a Scripture which specifically says that?

JN 10:4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."

JN 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

1JN 2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

1JN 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

The last one there clearly says that those born of God (or regenerated) overcome the world...not might overcome if they choose to do so or allow the Lord to let them.

JN 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

If you are regenerated, you will be raised up on the last day, because if you are regenrated, you will want to believe.

 

[KEK]

synergistic actions that follow regeneration are the inevitable products of that regeneration.

So then you agree with me that faith, belief, and repentance which follow regeneration are synergistic acts?

 

[KEK]

The last one there clearly says that those born of God (or regenerated) overcome the world...not might overcome if they choose to do so or allow the Lord to let them.



If you are regenerated, you will be raised up on the last day, because if you are regenrated, you will want to believe.

The statement that you previously made was:

"Refusal to follow is evidence of non-regeration."

Pardon me, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I don't see that specifically mentioned in a single one of the verses you posted.

 

[bradfordl]

So then you agree with me that faith, belief, and repentance which follow regeneration are synergistic acts?

You have read my position, Why don't you just go ahead and make your point so we can dispense with the baiting.

Brad

 

[KEK]

You have read my position, Why don't you just go ahead and make your point so we can dispense with the baiting.

Brad

I have directly made my point, and have done so without any baiting. The point I was making should be obvious. My point was, both monergism as well as synergism are painted in Scripture. Some people see only monergism. I see both monergism and synergism played out in Scripture, and have given various Scripture as support.

 

[bradfordl]

I have directly made my point, and have done so without any baiting. The point I was making should be obvious. My point was, both monergism as well as synergism are painted in Scripture. Some people see only monergism. I see both monergism and synergism played out in Scripture, and have given various Scripture as support.

I don't disagree. They are both present in scripture. Synergism is not present in regeneration, and only present in the ordo salutis though the enabling of the Holy Spirit in sanctification.

Brad

 

[KEK]

I don't disagree. They are both present in scripture. Synergism is not present in regeneration, and only present in the ordo salutis though the enabling of the Holy Spirit in sanctification.

Brad

First of all, I agree that regeneration is monergistic, and sanctification are synergistic. I have repeatedly stated that. Secondly, I believe we agree that regeneration precedes faith and repentance. What I am trying to establish, is whether or not repentance and belief are synergistic, but everyone seems to keep side-stepping that part of my question without dealing with the Scriptures which show repentance and belief as commands directed to man by God.

So let me begin by asking this:
If you don't see any synergistic relationship to repentance and belief, then do you see repentance and belief as being monergistic?

John Piper, in his exegesis of 1 John 5:1 says this:
"In the New Testament God is clearly active, creating a people for himself by calling them out of darkness and enabling them to believe the gospel"

"We certainly must respond in faith to Christ to be justified, but it is grace itself which enables us to be obedient to the gospel."
"if someone were to ask how one might be saved, the clear answer is "to believe in Christ" with the understanding that the opening of our understanding and desire to believe is itself God's gracious gift." - John Hendryx

If you see repentance and belief as being monergistic, could you please explain for me how that is possible, since both repentance and belief are commands directed toward man from God.

Repentance is a command from God to men - Acts 17:30; Mark 1:15
Belief is a command from God to men - 1 John 3:23; Mark 1:15; Acts 16:31

In my opinion, if repentance and belief were monergistic, then we shouldn't see them given as commands. I don't personally see how any command directed to men by God can be anything but synergistic in nature.

I haven't as yet seen anyone solve this, so I keep pressing, hoping someone will not merely side-step my sincere questions based on Scripture.

 

[heymikey80]

Is salvation entirely monergistic in nature?
or
Is salvation partially monergistic, and partially synergistic in nature?

Please support your answer with Scripture

The question is built on a horrifically mistaken assumption: that salvation is ergistic -- that is, work-oriented -- in its nature.

It isn't based on work. Salvation is relationally oriented in its nature.

Why else would the Scripture point to the Son of God (a completely relational term) when describing salvation?

Why else would the Scripture say so much about our salvation being not of works?

Why would it be at all possible for Christ Jesus to say, "It is finished" when doing what work we see God desired on the Cross, and why would it be that Christ could sit down at the right hand of the Majesty of God in heaven?

I've no qualms about saying Christ Jesus did and worked so much for me. Salvation is through the work of Christ Jesus and no one else. But I don't see salvation as works oriented. So it's not that it's monergistic or synergistic. It's that it's absurd to look at salvation as works oriented: it never adds up our works and His.

It always adds up to our relationship and His.

 

[KEK]

The question is built on a horrifically mistaken assumption: that salvation is ergistic -- that is, work-oriented -- in its nature.

It isn't based on work. Salvation is relationally oriented in its nature.

Why else would the Scripture point to the Son of God (a completely relational term) when describing salvation?

Why else would the Scripture say so much about our salvation being not of works?

Why would it be at all possible for Christ Jesus to say, "It is finished" when doing what work we see God desired on the Cross, and why would it be that Christ could sit down at the right hand of the Majesty of God in heaven?

I've no qualms about saying Christ Jesus did and worked so much for me. Salvation is through the work of Christ Jesus and no one else. But I don't see salvation as works oriented. So it's not that it's monergistic or synergistic. It's that it's absurd to look at salvation as works oriented: it never adds up our works and His.

It always adds up to our relationship and His.

Who in here ever said faith or repentance was a work? Yet we know that unless man both repents and believes he cannot be saved, therefore repentance and faith are not works, because you are correct, we are not saved by works. Eph 2:-8-10

 

[heymikey80]

Who in here ever said faith or repentance was a work?

"What must I do [Gk: "do"=="work"] to be saved?" "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."

"Brothers, what shall we do?" "Repent and be baptized ..."

Yet we know that unless man both repents and believes he cannot be saved, therefore repentance and faith are not works, because you are correct, we are not saved by works. Eph 2:-8-10

Your OP asked if salvation were monergistic or synergistic.

It's neither. Salvation isn't based on works, so it's nonergistic.

 

[bradfordl]

Who in here ever said faith or repentance was a work? Yet we know that unless man both repents and believes he cannot be saved, therefore repentance and faith are not works, because you are correct, we are not saved by works. Eph 2:-8-10

I have agreed that there is a synergistic element to faith and repentance, but I think Mikey is explaining it in a better way. The saved man begins to act in having faith and repenting, but it is more a declarative than an imperatave. It's not, "you better or else", it is "you will". After I paint a barn red, it is red, a state of being. We say it is red, a verb that denotes that state, not an effort on the part of the barn.

So without digging into any systematic theologies, I'll adjust my view to say that the state of a man having faith and repentance are not synergistic, but are the result of God's operation on his heart. The results of that state involve effort on the part of the man, but are fruit and not imperative requirements. To say that a man must have faith and repentance denotes that they are evidence of genuine regeneration, rather than an imperative that he must do them to attain salvation.

Now, unlike the barn, we don't once and for all after regeneration have full faith or complete repentance; we are not fully conformed to the image of Jesus. In the judicial sense we already are, in that His imputed righteousness is ours. So to carry the analogy probably further than it should go, its as if God applies a paint that is dimly pink to our eyes, but slowly darkens to red with exposure to the light, and doesn't become fully red until it meets the light of heaven. The barn's not really acting, its being, and changing in the way that the Painter has determined it should. He makes us able to look redder with time, er, have faith and repent and do the works He has prepared us to do.

Probably lots of faults in that analogy, but the best this layman can come up with right now.

SDG,

Brad

 

[KEK]

The saved man begins to act in having faith and repenting, but it is more a declarative than an imperatave.

1. It is true that the saved man begins acting in faith.
2. It is not true that the mood of the command to repent and believe aren't imperative.

Mark 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved

In the above verses the verbs "repent" and "believe" are both in the imperative mood.
"The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers." - http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5720&tool=grk

 

[KEK]

"What must I do [Gk: "do"=="work"] to be saved?" "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."

"Brothers, what shall we do?" "Repent and be baptized ..."

Your OP asked if salvation were monergistic or synergistic.

It's neither. Salvation isn't based on works, so it's nonergistic.

By saying salvation is "nonergistic" sounds all well and good, but it's incorrect. To agree with you, I would have to say God doesn't perform any work in bringing about our salvation, and we know the He does perform a monergistic work on us.
In order to agree with your "nonergistic" view, I would have to omit the following Scripture as well.

Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Phi 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

 

[bradfordl]

1. It is true that the saved man begins acting in faith.
2. It is not true that the mood of the command to repent and believe aren't imperative.

Mark 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved

In the above verses the verbs "repent" and "believe" are both in the imperative mood.
"The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers." - http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.c...=5720&tool=grk

Yes, imperative mood, meant for those capable of hearing the command, His sheep, those whom He has regenerated, justified, converted, adopted, and now is beginning the work of sanctifying. So an imperative encased in a declarative.

SDG,

Brad

 

[KEK]

Yes, imperative mood, meant for those capable of hearing the command, His sheep, those whom He has regenerated, justified, converted, adopted, and now is beginning the work of sanctifying. So an imperative encased in a declarative.

SDG,

Brad

"an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers." - http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.c...=5720&tool=grk

 

[UMP]

1. It is true that the saved man begins acting in faith.
2. It is not true that the mood of the command to repent and believe aren't imperative.

Mark 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved

In the above verses the verbs "repent" and "believe" are both in the imperative mood.
"The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers." - http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=5720&tool=grk

Which begs the question:

II. How can the sinner be held responsible FOR the doing of what he is UNABLE to do? And how can he be justly condemned for NOT DOING what he COULD NOT do?​

As a creature the natural man is responsible to love, obey, and serve God; as a sinner he is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel. But at the outset we are confronted with the fact that the natural man is unable to love and serve God, and that the sinner, of himself, cannot repent and believe. First, let us prove what we have just said. We begin by quoting and considering John 6:44 "No man can come to Me, except the Father which bath sent Me draw him". The heart of the natural man (every man) is so "desperately wicked" that if he is left to himself he will never ‘come to Christ.’ This statement would not be questioned if the full force of the words "Coming to Christ" were properly apprehended. We shall therefore digress a little at this point to define and consider what is implied and involved in the words "No man can come to Me"—cf. John 5:40, "Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life."
For the sinner to come to Christ that he might have life, is for him to realize the awful danger of his situation; is for him to see that the sword of Divine justice is suspended over his head; is to awaken to the fact that there is but a step betwixt him and death, and that after death is the "judgment; " and in consequence of this discovery, is for him to be in real earnest to escape, and in such earnestness that he shall flee from the wrath to come, cry unto God for mercy, and agonize to enter in at the "strait gate."
To come to Christ for life, is for the sinner to feel and acknowledge that he is utterly destitute of any claim upon God’s favor; is to see himself as "without strength," lost and undone; is to admit that he is deserving of nothing but eternal death, thus taking side with God against himself; it is for him to cast himself into the dust before God, and humbly sue for Divine mercy.
To come to Christ for life, is for the sinner to abandon his own righteousness and be ready to be made the righteousness of God in Christ; it is to disown his own wisdom and be guided by His; it is to repudiate his own will and be ruled by His; it is to unreservedly receive the Lord Jesus as his Saviour and Lord, as his All in all.
Such, in part and in brief, is what is implied and involved in "Coming to Christ." But is the sinner willing to take such an attitude before God? No; for in the first place, he does not realize the danger of his situation, and in consequence is not in real earnest after his escape; instead, men are for the most part at ease, and apart from the operations of the Holy Spirit whenever they are disturbed by the alarms of conscience or the dispensations of providence, they flee to any other refuge but Christ. In the second place, they will not acknowledge that all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags but, like the Pharisee, will thank God they are not as the Publican. And in the third place, they are not ready to receive Christ as their Saviour and Lord, for they are unwilling to part with their idols: they had rather hazard their soul’s eternal welfare than give them up. Hence we say that, left to himself, the natural man is so depraved at heart that he cannot come to Christ.
The words of our Lord quoted above by no means stand alone. Quite a number of Scriptures set forth the moral and spiritual inability of the natural man. In Joshua 24:19 we read, "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord: for He is a holy God." To the Pharisees Christ said, "Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My word" (John 8:43). And again: "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7, 8).
But now the question returns, How can God hold the sinner responsible for failing to do what he is unable to do? This necessitates a careful definition of terms. Just what is meant by "unable" and "cannot"?
Now let it be clearly understood that, when we speak of the sinner’s inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Abijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him", for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8.—"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here it is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse—"O generation of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sign and hates Christ.
We trust we have made it clear that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who was ardently desirous of receiving his sight, and the Pharisees, whose eyes were closed, "lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted" (Matt. 13:15). But should it be said, The natural man could come to Christ if he wished to do so, we answer, Ah! but in that IF lies the hinge of the whole matter. The inability of the sinner consists of the want of moral power to wish and will so as to actually perform.
What we have contended for above is of first importance. Upon the distinction between the sinner’s natural Ability, and his moral and spiritual Inability, rests his Responsibility. The depravity of the human heart does not destroy man s accountability to God; so far from this being the case the very moral inability of the sinner only serves to increase his guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the scriptures cited above. We read that Joseph’s brethren "could not speak peaceably unto him," and why? It was because they "hated" Him. But was this moral inability of theirs any excuse? Surely not: in this very moral inability consisted the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it is said, "They cannot cease from sin" (2Pet. 2:14), and why? Because "their eyes were full of adultery," but that only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them—it only made their sin the greater.
Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born into this world with a depraved heart, and therefore I am not responsible for my moral and spiritual inability which accrue from it, the reply would be, Responsibility and Culpability lie in the indulgence of the depraved propensities, the free indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. Men might pity me, but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave vent to a fiery temper, and then sought to extenuate myself on the ground of having inherited that temper from my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would argue I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed above? "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou wicked servant" surely applies here! What would the reader say to a man who had robbed him, and who later argued in defence, "I cannot help being a thief, that is my nature"? Surely the reply would be, Then the penitentiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall be said to the one who argues that he cannot help following the bent of his sinful heart? Surely, that the Lake of Fire is where such an one must go. Did ever murderer plead that he hated his victim so much that he could not go near him without slaying him. Would not that only magnify the enormity of his crime! Then what of the one who loves sin so much that he is "at enmity against God"!
The fact of man’s responsibility is almost universally acknowledged. It is inherent in man’s moral nature. It is not only taught in Scripture but witnessed to by the natural conscience. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. What is implied by this general term "ability" must now be defined. Perhaps a concrete example will be more easily grasped by the average reader than an abstract argument.
Suppose a man owed me $100 and could find plenty of money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet pleaded that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No; I would reply: the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check, and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest principle. It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability.[2]
Now, in like manner, the sinner while altogether lacking in moral and spiritual ability does, nevertheless, possess natural ability, and this it is which renders him accountable unto God. Men have the same natural faculties to love God with as they have to hate Him with, the same hearts to believe with which they disbelieve, and it is their failure to love and believe which constitutes their guilt. An idiot or an infant is not personally responsible to God, because lacking in natural ability. But the normal man who is endowed with rationality, who is gifted with a conscience that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, who is able to weigh eternal issues is a responsible being, and it is because he does possess these very faculties that he will yet have to "give account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:12).
We say again that the above distinction between the natural ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner is of prime importance. By nature he possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter, does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former. Let me illustrate again. Here are two men guilty of theft: the first is an idiot, the second perfectly sane but the offspring of criminal parents. No just judge would sentence the former; but every right-minded judge would the latter. Even though the second of these thieves possessed a vitiated moral nature inherited from criminal parents, that would not excuse him, providing he was a normal rational being. Here then is the ground of human accountability—the possession of rationality plus the gift of conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these natural faculties that he is a responsible creature; because he does not use his natural powers for God’s glory, constitutes his guilt.

A.W. Pink

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm

 

[Beoga]

Salvation is monergistic. An act of God. Faith and repentance is a gift from God so that God neither believes for man nor does faith and repentance originate in man.
Has this been said already?

 

[heymikey80]

By saying salvation is "nonergistic" sounds all well and good, but it's incorrect. To agree with you, I would have to say God doesn't perform any work in bringing about our salvation, and we know the He does perform a monergistic work on us.
In order to agree with your "nonergistic" view, I would have to omit the following Scripture as well.

Phi 2:12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Phi 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

There's a difference between "x is not based on works" and "x has no work involved." The latter, not the former.

In which case Philippians is not omitted. your salvation "works out" or "acts out"; because you are saved God works in you.